January 31, 2024 | International, Land
The Dutch Government steps up support with €87m for artillery shells, €25m for equipment, and €10m for cyber defences.
May 25, 2023 | International, Aerospace
This contract follows the selection of the solution offered by Leonardo announced last October, and includes the supply of two ATR Special Mission aircraft in Maritime Patrol configuration plus the...
June 3, 2019 | International, Land
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is freeing up another $10 billion to apply to its top priorities in its next five-year budget plan, according to the service's undersecretary. “We are about to slap the table on the [program objective memorandum] here by no later than the middle of June,” Ryan McCarthy told a group of reporters during a May 29 media roundtable in his office. As part of a rigorous review of programs and spending, the Army set out to find $10 billion within the budget that could be reallocated toward priorities in its fiscal 2021-2025 program objective memorandum. The money shook out through another round of what the Army informally calls “night court,” a review process that freed up $30 billion in the last budget cycle to get ambitious modernization programs off the ground. The night court process was inspired by similar reviews conducted under Robert Gates when he was defense secretary. Rather than make $182 billion worth of decisions in a few hours, the process is meant to establish a deliberate route to applying funds against priorities, McCarthy said. For example, if a program didn't contribute to a more lethal battlefield or to one of the Army's six modernization priorities, it was canceled or downsized. The Army set up a new four-star command — Army Futures Command — last year to tackle the service's top six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires, the next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, the network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality. The review was conducted with the Army chief, vice chief, secretary and undersecretary at the head of the table last summer. But this year, to establish a more sustainable model, leadership fell to the major four-star commands and civilian heads in charge of major offices like acquisition and manpower. “Every dollar counts in this environment,” McCarthy said. “And so what we've done is we've realized that it's not a sustainable model to have the entire Army leadership hunkered down every summer, but should delegate to the appropriate echelon of authority.” Only the most difficult decisions will be brought to the top four Army leaders, he added. When it comes to finding another $10 billion across the five-year planning period to apply to priorities, McCarthy said, “we are in very good shape there.” The Army is also working to shift spending so that 50 percent is applied to new programs and 50 percent to legacy systems in the FY24-FY25 time frame. In FY17, the Army was applying 80 percent to legacy programs and 20 percent to bringing on new capabilities. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/05/31/army-freeing-up-another-10-billion-for-priorities/
August 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Byron Callan As usual, the annual Defense News Top 100 rankings shed light on changes in the defense sector, while raising additional questions for all interested parties. The rankings among U.S. firms have been relatively stable, with the primary catalyst for several years worth of change being acquisitions or divestitures. The U.S. order will again change in next year's edition, when Raytheon Technologies appears as a single entity for the first time. Defense News added Chinese enterprises in 2019, and so it's good to see this extended in 2020, as China has the second largest defense budget in the world after the U.S. This year's list raises six points worth highlighting, while observing how relative rankings have changed over time. First: These lists are difficult to compile, as they depend in large part on the willingness of contractors to provide sales data. There are some omissions, which hopefully could show up in future rankings — notably, BWX Technologies, SpaceX, General Atomics, Mantech, Parsons and Kratos for the U.S.; more Japanese firms including Kawasaki Heavy Industries; Navantia of Spain and other European naval shipyards; United Aircraft in Russia; ASC Pty in Australia; and PGZ in Poland. There are other Indian firms as well that would likely qualify. Second: It is intriguing to note how long either Lockheed or its successor Lockheed Martin has been the No. 1 U.S. contractor. It's been at the top of the Defense News list since 2003, and data from annual reports show it has been the top U.S. contractor, by sales, since 1980. Size may matter in perpetuating a No. 1 position, so it is notable that the ratio of Lockheed's defense sales to the second-largest contractor has also increased over the years. For this year's list, Lockheed's defense dollars are 165 percent of Boeing's defense sales; in 1988, they were 130 percent higher than the next largest defense contractor, McDonnell Douglas. Third: As much as it's easy to categorize contractors by their home country, it bears repeating that this a global, multinational business with international sales not just from exports. A look at the Australian defense industry highlights the “multi-domestic” nature of contractors in that country. BAE Systems is listed as a U.K. company, but it derives higher annual sales from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia than from London. And in 2019, Israeli firm Elbit had more of its total sales from North America (28 percent of total) than Israel (24 percent of total). Fourth: While the rankings don't capture the changes in the composition of some of the largest contractors, this may have a bearing on competition in the 2020s. CACI and Leidos still are predominantly services contractors, but some of their recent acquisitions, most significantly the Leidos acquisition of Dynetics, are more product-centric. Fifth: Obviously the rankings only capture the top level of the global defense sector, and in assessing supply chains, resiliency, the pace of innovation and technology ingestion, a far wider net has be cast. A July 2020 report by Israel's INSS observed that Israel's defense industry, which has seen consolidation in recent years, is comprised of “about 600 companies” and employs over 45,000 workers. Much as the rankings of the top contractors are of interest, a more critical assessment of the health and agility of contractors may rest on what's happening with smaller firms. Finally: The question of state, private or public ownership is a sixth factor to weigh. State ownership of Chinese firms and partial government stakes in some of the largest European enterprises has entailed different incentives and goals — it's hard to conclude, given the nature of China's rise, that government ownership of contractors has stymied the development and production of competitive weapons systems, though there's little transparency on efficiency. In the 2020s, it remains to be seen how different and competing ownership shapes future rankings. Byron Callan is a policy research expert at Capital Alpha Partners. He specializes in the defense and aerospace industries. https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/six-considerations-from-the-defense-news-top-100-list/