Back to news

January 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace

How Top Military Contractors Raytheon And BAE Systems Are Drawing Non-Traditional Suppliers Into Defense

During the long years that U.S. forces were fighting Islamic extremists in Southwest Asia, Russia and China were investing in new warfighting technologies.

Russia's hybrid military campaign against Ukraine in 2014 was a wake-up call for Washington to start paying more attention to “near-peer” threats. China's steadily increasing investment in long-range anti-ship missiles, anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare reinforced awareness that America's military might be falling behind in the capabilities needed for winning high-end fights.

These trends led the Trump Administration to produce a new national defense strategy in 2018 focused mainly on countering the military challenges posed by Moscow and Beijing. Most of that strategy's content is secret, but one element is clear enough: the Pentagon wants novel solutions to emerging near-peer threats, and it wants them fast.

Policymakers in both the Obama and Trump administrations have repeatedly stated non-traditional military suppliers are a vital part of the Pentagon's effort to get ahead of overseas rivals and stay there. “Non-traditional” has a specific legal definition in defense acquisition policy that potentially allows suppliers to bypass burdensome regulations when offering commercial products from outside traditional military channels.

In more common-sense usage, non-traditional simply means any company capable of offering the military a better mousetrap that doesn't usually do business with the five-sided building. That includes a majority of tech companies in places like Austin, Boston and Silicon Valley, especially startups with cutting-edge ideas. It may also include larger industrial companies like General Motors that are re-entering the military market after a long absence.

The challenge facing policymakers is how to leverage the skills and intellectual property of these non-traditional players without suffocating them under a blanket of bureaucratic requirements that contribute little to finding novel solutions. One way to tap the dynamism of commercial enterprises is to partner them with longtime military contractors who can assume most of the burden for negotiating the bureaucratic landscape.

Here is how two companies, Raytheon and BAE Systems, have stepped up to the challenge.

Raytheon. Massachusetts-based Raytheon has been a major military contractor since it pioneered radar during World War Two. It is in the process of merging with United Technologies, an aerospace conglomerate that has long managed to operate successfully in military and commercial markets (both companies contribute to my think tank).

Raytheon executives say the pace of change and the expectations of military customers have changed radically in recent years. It is not uncommon for military customers to seek new ways of sensing, processing or communicating that must be delivered within months rather than years. This emerging dynamic has led the company to rethink who it partners with in producing such solutions, and how to interact with them.

Raytheon has a cultural affinity for diversity, which may help it to think outside the box about who its partners should be. Although not all of the non-traditional suppliers with whom it teams are Silicon Valley startups, a majority have not previously offered defense products as part of their portfolios.

The role the company has fashioned for itself in partnering with such enterprises is to act as a translator between the fluid world of commercial innovation and the rule-based environment of military acquisition. Raytheon has always been driven by its engineering culture, so the company knows how to identify promising technologies that can be assimilated into cutting-edge combat systems. But it also knows the ins and outs of a baroque acquisition system that outsiders frequently find impenetrable.

Raytheon seeks to leverage the energy of non-traditional sources while remaining in compliance with relevant government standards. For instance, there needs to be effective communication between the company and commercial sources, but the ability of the partner to observe the intricacies of sensitive projects must be tightly constrained. The tension of being a valued supplier but not accustomed to working in a classified environment must be managed.

Non-traditional partners provide Raytheon with base technologies that potentially enable unique military capabilities, and they often can generate novel solutions to technical challenges quickly, thanks to their entrepreneurial cultures. Raytheon configures and integrates these inputs for military customers while translating the needs of those customers into terms the non-traditional supplier can understand.

BAE Systems. The military electronics unit of another major defense contractor, BAE Systems, Inc., is headquartered across the border from Raytheon's home state in Nashua, New Hampshire. BAE concentrates on many of the same technologies Raytheon does such as sensors, signal processing and secure communications—which isn't surprising, since the core of its electronics operation was founded after World War Two by former Raytheon employees. BAE is a consulting client, which has given me some insight into how the company views non-traditional suppliers.

In addition to pursuing partnering initiatives such as those at Raytheon, BAE Systems has fashioned an internal mechanism for leveraging the technology of entrepreneurial startups by helping them to finance their businesses. That mechanism is called FAST Labs, and as the name implies it was conceived to help generate novel solutions to military challenges quickly.

Beyond determining whether the company should manufacture key technology inputs internally or go outside, FAST Labs continuously scouts for promising innovations that are emerging from U.S. startups. When it finds ideas with high potential, it seeks to build trusted partnerships with the enterprises, venture capital investors, universities and government agencies aimed at speeding the pace of innovation. For example, BAE has sponsored technology accelerators at places like MIT.

Most of the startups FAST Labs assists are commercial companies with “dual-use” technologies potentially applicable to military purposes. Although the company has a significant commercial electronics business, the focus of FAST Labs is mainly on meeting the demands of military customers. It takes its cues as to what might be most worthy of support from agencies like the Air Force Research Lab and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

FAST Labs seems to be a unique business model within the U.S. defense sector. Because the electronics technologies on which the Nashua operation concentrates are fungible across diverse markets, BAE Systems has benchmarked FAST Labs against renowned commercial R&D centers such as the old Bell Labs. It is an unusual approach to military innovation, but like executives at Raytheon, BAE execs say the usual approach to developing warfighting systems just doesn't cut it anymore with their Pentagon customer.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/24/how-top-military-contractors-raytheon-and-bae-systems-are-drawing-non-traditional-suppliers-into-defense/amp/

On the same subject

  • Opinion: Defense Is Unscathed By COVID-19? Think Again.

    May 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Opinion: Defense Is Unscathed By COVID-19? Think Again.

    John Dowdy May 22, 2020 The rapid onset of the novel coronavirus has wreaked havoc on markets around the world, hitting commercial aviation especially hard as load factors plummet, flights are canceled and suppliers cut production rates and furlough workers. Amid all this disruption, defense manufacturers appear to have been relatively unscathed. But defense has always been a long-cycle business, driven more by annual budgets than daily load factors. And as the bill for rebuilding the global economy mounts, defense budgets are sure to come under pressure. COVID-19 is first and foremost a human tragedy, and its continued spread is still a major concern. But we must solve for both the virus and the economy; the dual imperative of our time is the desire to preserve lives and livelihoods. Both will require substantial resources for public health and for economic rejuvenation. Countries around the world are making massive investments to rebuild battered economies, putting out more than $11 trillion in the last 2.5 months, with more sure to follow. In the U.S., Congress passed the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act at the end of March, bringing the total stimulus thus far to $3 trillion, which could push the fiscal 2020 budget deficit to a record $3.8 trillion, an eye-watering 18.7% of the country's GDP. Other countries have passed similar aid packages, leading to soaring debt levels around the world. And more may well be necessary: The House has passed proposals for another $3 trillion in aid, although the bill's fate in the Senate is unclear. Government debt levels are already high, swelling as the global financial crisis of 2008 caused a drop in tax revenues and a rise in social-safety-net payments. And the wave of deleveraging many expected as the recession eased never materialized: From 2008 to mid-2017, global government debt more than doubled, reaching $60 trillion. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), this year's increase in public-sector debt has reached 122.4% of gross domestic product (GDP) on average in developed countries. Increased deficits worldwide are likely to put pressure on all discretionary spend, including defense. In the U.S., military spending accounts for 15% of all federal and roughly half of discretionary spending, so defense may come under real pressure. Rep. Ken Calvert of California, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, says defense budgets were strained even before this year's unplanned burst of deficit spending. “There's no question that budgetary pressure will only increase now for all segments of our federal budget, including defense,” Calvert said. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has said he is preparing for future defense budget cuts and that legacy systems may need to be scrapped to pay for more modern forces. South Korea shows early signs of this trend, with leaders recently announcing a shift in resources to disaster relief in response to the pandemic. Money came from education, agriculture, and environmental protection but mostly from defense. This example is particularly significant, given that South Korea is still technically at war, frozen in conflict with its immediate neighbor to the north. Furthermore, South Korea has been more effective than its peers in addressing the pandemic with a swift medical response and widespread testing that allowed the country to reopen its economy faster than other advanced countries. If South Korea is altering its budgetary priorities, others could follow. The coronavirus has already had a massive human cost, resulting in approximately 300,000 deaths, including more than 90,000 Americans, more than were killed in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan combined. But the financial cost has been even greater. The cost in the US has already exceeded that of all the wars the U.S. has fought over the last 50 years. And if an additional $3 trillion is approved by Congress, the cost will surpass that of World War II. At this point, it is too early to predict how much the defense budget will draw down how quickly. Indeed, the shift might not occur immediately. Broadly speaking, two factors have historically had the most influence on defense spending: threats and affordability. Governments will all calibrate the relative importance of the threats they face against their new economic realities. In keeping with past patterns, countries may give most weight to threats, real or perceived, over the near term. If there are anticipated or ongoing conflicts, their defense budgets will probably increase. Over the longer term, however, economic factors tend to prevail, and governments may set defense budgets in line with their diminished resources. Either way, we face some tough decisions ahead. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/opinion-defense-unscathed-covid-19-think-again

  • The Air Force's helmets of the future | MilTech

    August 18, 2022 | International, Aerospace

    The Air Force's helmets of the future | MilTech

    Modern air crews need a lot of data for missions. How does the Air Force plan to protect and inform them in real time? Todd South explains.

  • Taxonomie : l’industrie de la défense redoute d’être stigmatisée

    February 3, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Taxonomie : l’industrie de la défense redoute d’être stigmatisée

    DÉFENSE Taxonomie : l'industrie de la défense redoute d'être stigmatisée Avec un chiffre d'affaires s'élevant à près de 27 Md€, la filière française de la défense s'inquiète de la possibilité de ne pas être intégrée dans la taxonomie verte. Et les travaux préparatoires à la mise en place d'une seconde taxonomie dite « sociale » n'intègrent pas non plus cette industrie. « Nous nous interrogeons sur la façon dont les acteurs financiers interpréteront ces taxonomies et à son impact, avec des risques d'assèchement des financements vers la filière et des difficultés pour recruter », s'inquiète Guillaume Muesser, Directeur des Affaires Economiques et de Défense du GIFAS. Un risque qui est déjà une réalité. « Depuis deux ans (...), nos adhérents, issus de 17 pays européens nous alertent sur un mouvement en cours au sein des établissements financiers, de plus en plus nombreux à exclure la défense de la liste de leurs investissements », précise Jan Pie, secrétaire général de l'Association des industries européennes aérospatiales et défense (ASD). Sous pression d'ONG et de l'opinion publique, la Deutsche Bank a ainsi décidé d'exclure l'industrie de défense de ses investissements. « Nous sommes inquiets d'une exclusion qui se ferait sur des critères philosophiques, culturels voire idéologiques », affirme Pascal Bouchiat, directeur général finance de Thales. L'inquiétude grandit car le risque d'affaiblissement d'une des industries où l'Europe est encore au meilleur niveau mondial est réel. La filière européenne emploie plus de 462 000 salariés très qualifiés et réalise quelque 120 Md€ de ventes. « Sans défense, il n'y a pas de sécurité ni de souveraineté et donc pas de durabilité », résume Éric Béranger, président du comité défense au sein du Conseil des Industries de Défense Françaises (CIDEF) et patron du missilier MBDA. Le Figaro du 3 février

All news