Back to news

September 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace

How’s Military Aftermarket Sector Faring Amid COVID-19 Crisis?

Michael Tint

The COVID-19 crisis has hit the commercial MRO industry hard. How is the military aftermarket sector faring?

Michael Tint, head of defense analytics at Aviation Week, responds:

COVID-19 has not caused military aviation anything like the degree of disruption it has for civil aviation. Defense budgets for 2020 were largely allocated before its onset, and there have been only minor reductions in military operations as a result of the pandemic. Procurement has been similarly steady, with only small production delays so far. However, the nature of military budgeting in most countries means that major cuts in spending will not be felt for at least a year or two. Meanwhile, rising global tensions are likely to ensure that defense spending remains a priority—even if the longer-term economic consequences of the pandemic prove severe.

Growing Military Engine Repair, 2020-29

(U.S. $ billions)

Image

Jet engines powering Western-designed fighters and training aircraft will generate $50.5 billion in maintenance, repair and overhaul demand over the next decade—rising from $4.5 billion in 2020 to $5.6 billion in 2029, for a compound annual growth rate of 2.05%. Most of the growth will come from Pratt & Whitney's F135, the engine on Lockheed Martin's F-35.

As military flying continues, so too must military engine maintenance, repair and overhaul. Aviation Week forecasts that $85.4 billion dollars will be spent on depot-level engine maintenance for Western-designed military aircraft over the next decade. Of this total, $50.5 billion will be spent on the engines powering fighters and jet-powered trainers. Demand for these engines will rise from $4.5 billion in 2020 to $5.6 billion in 2029, a compound annual growth rate of 2.05%. General Electric F404/F414s in Boeing's F/A-18 and T-7, Saab's Gripen, and KAI's KF-X and T-50 will produce the largest share of this demand (22.4%), but most of the growth will come from Pratt & Whitney F135s powering Lockheed Martin F-35s. Demand for this engine will rise from $424 million in 2020 to $1.4 billion in 2029, a rate of 14.19% per year

https://aviationweek.com/mro/hows-military-aftermarket-sector-faring-amid-covid-19-crisis

On the same subject

  • British next-generation fighter program taps new suppliers

    July 21, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    British next-generation fighter program taps new suppliers

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON – A raft of top systems suppliers have been recruited to join the team leading Britain's development of the Tempest next-generation fighter aircraft. Bombardier in Northern Ireland, GKN, Martin Baker and Qinetiq, alongside the UK arms of Collins Aerospace, GE Aviation and Thales, have signed up to collaborate with the BAE Systems-led team working on the future air combat system, it was announced July 20 on what should have been the opening day of the Farnborough air show before Covid-19 caused the event's cancellation. At the same time as the announcement, Sweden's Saab revealed it was setting up a UK hub to potentially participate in future combat air systems work between the two nations. It's been almost two years to the day when the wraps were taken off a plastic mock-up of a Tempest fighter at the Farnborough show. The British revealed a BAE-led partnership, also involving Leonardo, MBDA, Rolls-Royce, that would begin investigating the technologies required for a future combat air system. Some $2.5 billion has so far been committed to the program. Now, just months before an outline business case to develop the program further is due to be delivered to the UK government, Team Tempest, as the industrial team is known, has signed up its first seven systems suppliers. With the first phase of the new partnerships signed, the companies will seek opportunities to join forces on established projects and developments with the core Team Tempest partners. More than 60 technology demonstration activities are currently underway on future combat air systems in the UK employing 1800 people – a number expected to grow to 2500 by the end of the year. In a statement, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said he was “delighted seven more companies have joined this mission to work in collaboration with the MoD, under the Team Tempest banner. They will bring the ambition, invention and expertise that will deliver the breakthroughs we will depend on for decades to come.” The rising employment levels and increasing industrial support comes at a crucial time for a program which will pretty much dictate Britain's future position in the defense industrial world, given the air sector's importance to jobs, skills and exports here. An integrated defense, security and foreign policy review is underway led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his advisors, who are said to be skeptical of local industry's ability to deliver major programs on time and on budget and would rather buy defense equipment off the shelf. With Covid-19 pretty much emptying government coffers, launching a multibillion-dollar program like Tempest is likely to be an issue unless the British can sign up some major international partners to share the cost. Last year Italy and Sweden both signed up to investigate partnering with the UK on a future combat air system, and those studies are ongoing with neither country yet committing to the program. Sweden may not have yet committed to a partnership with the British and others, but its biggest defense company, Saab, announced July 20 it was to invest an initial $63 million setting up a new future combat air center with other initiatives in the UK. Saab leads Sweden's future combat air system industrial participation in cooperation with the defense ministry. Details of where and when the company will invest in the UK are sparse, but Micael Johansson, the president and CEO of Saab, said the move demonstrated the company's commitment to combat air development and the UK. “Saab took the decision to create a new future combat air system center so that we can further develop the close working relationship with the other FCAS industrial partners and the UK MoD. This emphasizes the importance of both FCAS and the United Kingdom to Saab's future,” said Johansson. The British have cast their net beyond Europe in the search for partners, with India and Japan also having held discussions about a potential tie-up on a future combat air system. Across the English channel France and Germany are together developing a new combat jet to a similar time frame. Attempts to merge the two European programs have so far failed, but that's not to say that post Covid-19 financial reality may not cause a potential tie-up to be revisited. Howard Wheeldon, of consultants Wheeldon Strategic Advisory, said that the British government knew was at stake in the development of a future combat air system. “Team Tempest is a very significant program for the UK. ... A partnership between government, military, industry and international partners all of whom are determined to succeed,” he said. “Industry, along with the RAF Rapid Capabilities Office, have already achieved a vast amount in a very short period of time. I, for one, am in no doubt that the government fully understands the importance of what ‘Team Tempest' means to the UK, not only to jobs and maintaining necessary skills, but in the potential that the development has in terms of future prosperity,” said Wheeldon. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/07/20/british-next-generation-fighter-program-taps-new-suppliers

  • Can Army Futures Command Overcome Decades Of Dysfunction?

    August 28, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Land

    Can Army Futures Command Overcome Decades Of Dysfunction?

    By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. ARMY S&T CONFERENCE: How broken is the procurement system the new Army Futures Command was created to fix? It's not just the billions wasted on cancelled weapons programs. It's also the months wasted because, until now, there has not been one commander who can crack feuding bureaucrats' heads together and make them stop bickering over, literally, inches. “I have not always been an Army Futures Command fan,” retired Lt. Gen. Tom Spoehr told the National Defense Industrial Association conference here. But as he thought about his own decades in Army acquisition, he's come around. How bad could things get? When he was working in the Army resourcing office (staff section G-8), Spoehr recalled, the Army signals school at Fort Gordon wanted a new radio test kit that could fit in a six-inch cargo pocket. The radio procurement programmanager, part of an entirely separate organization, reported back there was nothing on the market under eight inches. The requirements office insisted on sixinches, the acquisition office insisted they had no money to develop something smaller than the existing eight-inchers, and memos shot back and forth for months. At last, Spoehr warned both sides that if they didn't come to some agreement, he'd kill the funding. Suddenly Fort Gordon rewrote the requirement from “fit in a cargo pocket” to “cargo pouch” and the procurement people could go buy an eight-inch kit. That kind of disconnected dithering is what Army Futures Command is intended to prevent. “I had the money, but nobody really had control of all of this,” Spoehr said. As a result, he said, “we probably spent six months trading memos back and forth on the size of the radio frequency test kit.” Multiplying that by thousands of requirements over hundreds of systems, and the wasted time and money gets pretty bad. But what's often worse is when the requirements are unrealistic and no one pushes back. Most notoriously ,Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki demanded easily airlifted Future Combat Systems vehicles that weighed less than 20 tons but had the combat power of a 60-ton M1 Abrams tank. The designs eventually grew to 26 tons, and the performance requirements came down, but by then FCS had lost the confidence of both Congress and Defense Secretary Bob Gates, who canceled it in 2009. It was another casualty of overly ambitious requirements drawn up by staff officers in isolation from the people who'd actually have to build them. Army Futures Command is structured to force those two groups to talk to each other from the start. Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/can-army-futures-command-overcome-decades-of-dysfunction

  • Exclusive: Boeing mulls shedding Airbus work in potential Spirit Aero deal
All news