L’Armée de l’Air et de l’Espace (AAE), le Centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) et le Groupe ADP coopèrent dans la lutte anti-drones

On the same subject

• 

  January 28, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Opinion: Are Flat Pentagon Budgets The New Up Or The New Down?

  Byron Callan January 26, 2021 The Biden administration probably will not unveil an outyear spending plan for the Defense Department until the late spring of 2021 at the earliest, and more likely it will come out with the fiscal 2023 budget submission in February 2022. The administration should, however, be commenting on some of the bigger changes as different reviews and assessments are completed before that budget plan is released. Consensus now is that Pentagon spending will be flat at least in the first term of the Biden administration, though analysts are not clear on what this means. Will the Pentagon's budget be unchanged from the level that was appropriated for fiscal 2021? Will it be flat in inflation-adjusted terms, which means it would rise at 2% annually in current dollars? Or will the budget be flat in current dollars, which would entail a roughly 2% annual decline in Pentagon purchasing power, assuming inflation is 2%? Each would have different outcomes for the spending that would flow to contractors. Defense optimists could argue that flat budgets historically have not lasted too long. There were periods in which budgets were flat over 2-4 years annually in the late 1950s, early 1960s and mid-1990s. Flat periods, however, were succeeded by growth—usually because of a crisis or a new military contingency. No one has a working crystal ball that will show what is ahead for the 2020s. There are reasons to believe, however, that the 2020s are different. Although interest rates are at historic lows, the ratio of U.S. debt to GDP is at levels seen during World War II. There is pent-up demand for non-defense discretionary spending—notably for infrastructure, and an aging U.S. population will likely demand more health care and other “social” spending. “Endless wars” in the Middle East may temper Americans' willingness to engage in new overseas missions, unless a major provocation occurs that is akin to the 9/11 attacks. The flat budget period could last longer than the post-World War II era suggests. Is “flat” good for contractors? That depends. Markets started to digest that U.S. defense spending was flattening in 2020. The largest U.S. defense contractors underperformed the S&P 500 in 2020 and are doing so again in the first days of 2021. The initial market verdict is that flat is not good. The assessment might be true, but it is going to depend on two factors: how the Pentagon reallocates resources in a flat budget environment and how contractors change their strategies and portfolios. A flat top-line defense budget could be positive if the Pentagon can successfully cut military personnel and operations and maintenance (O&M) spending. Both are tall tasks. Winding down operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East is not going to free up significant troop numbers, and in any event, both are apt to exert gravitational pulls from which the U.S. cannot easily break free. Global security risks are not going to allow the sort of force structure cuts that occurred at the end of the Cold War and the Korean and Vietnam wars. Readiness and training also will remain a priority in this environment. Spending on military personnel and O&M that keeps pace with inflation may place even more pressure on investment. If those accounts grow at 1-2% annually, in a flat top-line period, that will put even more pressure on investment. Still, while there has been no indication so far, it is conceivable that the Biden administration will propose reductions in force structure and will attack O&M costs with more vigor. It will take 1-2 years at least to realize those savings, but they could be applied to modernize a smaller military. For a number of years, the Pentagon attempted to retire older “legacy” weapon systems in order to fund new investment, but Congress has stymied efforts to muster out older Navy cruisers, aircraft carrier refueling systems and aircraft such as the A-10. The Defense Department could renew this line of attack, but it may be reminded of the old adage that repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. The Pentagon will have to change its approach here by offering more incentives to states and districts that could be affected by the elimination of squadrons or units, and it has to be more forceful in confronting contractors whose net interests are harmed by such moves. A final thought is how contractors' strategies might change. In 2020 and so far in 2021, outperformance was evidenced by small-to-midsize contractors that appeared better aligned with Pentagon investment priorities in artificial intelligence, autonomy, supply chain resilience and low-cost weapons. The largest contractors may be able to unlock value in a flat top-line environment if they can spin off segments that are stagnant or declining. Sprawling program portfolios are apt to perform more in line with market growth rates, and that is not a recipe for superior performance. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/opinion-are-flat-pentagon-budgets-new-or-new-down

• 

  December 14, 2023 | International, Aerospace

  Thale’s new Ground Master 400A reinforcing air surveillance and protection for the Royal Malaysian Air Force

  Leveraging on years of successful field experience, GaN technology and surveillance capabilities, the GM400α detects simultaneously targets from fast jets and missiles

• 

  November 22, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Opinion: How The 2020 Election Is Likely To Affect Defense

  By Byron Callan Unlike in the U.S. health care or energy sectors, it is so far hard to discern much of a stock market reaction for the defense sector in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. election. There has not been the equivalent of issues such as Medicare for all or fracking that has grabbed the attention of defense investors. That might be because defense and security issues have been absent from the debates so far, and Democratic candidates have put forth few detailed defense and foreign policy plans and proposals. It is way too soon to act with conviction on the potential outcomes of the 2020 election and their implications for defense. Polls can and will change. The likely Democratic presidential candidate may not be known until April, when most of the primaries are completed, or July 2020, when the party holds its convention. And it remains to be seen how that candidate will fare against President Donald Trump, presuming he is not removed from office. Still, leaders at defense companies and analysts have to assess potential outcomes and what they may entail for 2021 and beyond. The current consensus is that there likely will be split-party control of Congress and the White House in 2021-22. The House probably will remain in Democratic control, but the Republicans may retain a slim majority in the Senate, given the number of “safe” seats they will defend. Democrats might sweep in, but they are very unlikely to gain a 60-seat majority, and it is arguable that if they do not, the chamber will vote to do away with cloture, which gives the minority party in the Senate power to shape and channel legislation. This alone should temper expectations that there will be radical changes for defense. Moreover, the day after the 2020 election, both parties will have their eyes on the 2022 election, when 12 Democratic and 22 Republican seats will be contested. If Trump is reelected, the simplest path forward will be to conclude that current defense policies will remain in place. Congress has not been willing to approve the deep nondefense discretionary cuts the administration has proposed for 2017-19, and it is not clear what would change this posture in 2021-22. Barring a major change in the global security outlook, U.S. defense spending may thus remain hemmed in by debt/deficit concerns and demands for parity in increases of nondefense spending. Trump is likely to continue to browbeat allies in Europe and Asia to spend more on defense. The Pentagon will push ahead with its current major modernization and technology priorities, including artificial intelligence, directed energy and hypersonics, and there should be some continuity with civilian leadership at the Pentagon. However, the global security outlook may be the biggest variable for the sector to assess. Iran has not shown any readiness to bow to U.S. “maximum pressure,” and North Korea has not denuclearized. How Russia and China respond to the prospects of another four years of Trump also has to be weighed. NATO and other alliances also may be under more stress. And inevitably, there are likely to be new security issues in the early 2020s that are not top of mind or even conceivable today. There are a range of defense views and perspectives among the leading Democratic candidates. The views of the two most progressive candidates—Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—could be viewed as potentially the most disruptive for defense. Warren, in particular, has emphasized her view of “agency capture” by major U.S. contractors, and her health care plan is to be paid for in part by a $798 billion cut to defense spending over 10 years, though the baseline of those cuts has not been stipulated. If a progressive candidate appears to do well in the Democratic nomination process and in polling against Trump, however, it will be useful to recall the congressional dynamic noted above. Congress could act as a firewall against steeper cuts and sweeping change. Equally, it is useful to recall that what candidates promise is not always what they do once they are in office. A more moderate, centrist Democratic candidate such as former Vice President Joe Biden or South Bend, Illinois, Mayor Pete Buttigieg may appear benign for defense and will very likely face the same geopolitical security challenges that Trump could face. If there is a shift back toward a U.S. promotion of democracy and human rights, that could affect recent international defense export patterns and raise tensions with China, Russia and other autocratic regimes. Probably, there will be a bigger debate over nuclear strategic forces modernization, the role of technology in defense and whether it can deliver credible military capability and deterrence at lower cost. Even if U.S. defense spending evidences little real growth in the early 2020s, these factors could be the most important for contractors to navigate. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-how-2020-election-likely-affect-defense