Back to news

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

On the same subject

  • Leonardo: Europe Should Have Role In Future Vertical Lift

    October 4, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Leonardo: Europe Should Have Role In Future Vertical Lift

    Tony Osborne The managing director of Leonardo's helicopter business says he would like to see a role for European industry in the programs that emerge from the U.S. Army's Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Gian Piero Cutillo told Aerospace DAILY on the sidelines of the 1,000th AW139 helicopter delivery in September that the European helicopter industry had generated the competencies to make it a useful partner in such a program, and said the company was in continuous talks with different partners but “there is nothing concrete.” European industry points to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, which while securing significant sales in Europe has had an impact on the sales of European-built combat aircraft. There is a fear that with the volume of FVL platforms likely to be purchased by the U.S., their price could make FVL an attractive proposition for export customers. Sikorsky's Black Hawk has secured an increased customer base, particularly in Eastern Europe in recent years. The U.S. Army's work on a Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) is beginning to attract attention from European nations, with the U.S. Army planning to begin sharing information with allies shortly. The UK already has personnel embedded into the FVL program and is working on an operational analysis of its future helicopter fleets, with a focus on what high-speed rotorcraft can offer UK land forces. “From my heart, I would like to see European industry become one of the main actors. I strongly believe we have all the capabilities,” Cutillo said. “We are talking about what will be a global program, with more than one technology and room for the traditional technology as well.” Any FVL partnership should not be like that of previous programs, Cutillo said. European industry has already begun the development of high-speed rotorcraft, such as Leonardo's AW609 tiltrotor, Airbus' X3 compound helicopter and a future development of the latter, the Rapid And Cost-Efficient Rotorcraft (RACER). But so far they are targeted to the commercial market. An Airbus proposal for FARA, believed to use the X3 technology, was rejected earlier this year, with only U.S.-based companies awarded contracts. The Italian military is said to be interested in purchasing the Leonardo tiltrotor. But contractual limitations imposed by Bell, which was previously a partner on the AW609, stipulate that the aircraft cannot be offered with armaments. It is unclear whether these limitations extend to future tiltrotor models. Leonardo is investigating future tiltrotor technologies through the European Union Clean Sky 2 program, with a technology demonstrator, the Next Generation Civil Tilt Rotor, due to fly in 2023. https://aviationweek.com/vertical-flight/leonardo-europe-should-have-role-future-vertical-lift

  • Lockheed predicts Aerojet acquisition will close next quarter

    October 29, 2021 | International, Aerospace

    Lockheed predicts Aerojet acquisition will close next quarter

    Lockheed Martin's $4.4 billion acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne is expected to close in the first quarter of 2022, one quarter later than expected.

  • What To Watch For As A&D Companies Plan Future With COVID-19

    April 24, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    What To Watch For As A&D Companies Plan Future With COVID-19

    Michael Bruno Companies have good quarters and bad quarters, but rarely does a whole industry sound like it just got sucker-punched. That's what the next few weeks will be like in the aerospace and defense sector, and for sure there will be headlines describing industrial carnage as the industry gasps for air and works to recover after COVID-19. The truth is the aerospace and defense (A&D) supply chain suddenly is far too large for what is needed, maybe by a quarter or a third of excess capacity. As a result, quick or methodical cutbacks in manufacturing and services are expected throughout the syndicates that make airliners, business jets and other aircraft. As public companies report their latest quarterly financial results in late April and May, they will have to address the year ahead and offer insight into their response plans. Unfortunately, business as usual prior to COVID-19 is not expected until 2022 or later, according to numerous analysts and advisors. And that is just too long to carry extra financial costs, which means all levels will feel pain. “The COVID-19 decline is a serious risk for commercial OEM plays—Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems, Allegheny Technologies, Hexcel, Howmet Aerospace, Triumph Group and Carpenter Technology,” Cowen analysts say. “Aftermarket ‘relative safe havens' Honeywell International, Heico and TransDigm Group also face stiff near-term headwinds, with more serious risks at General Electric.” If OEMs and their Tier 1 and 2 suppliers are already cutting their workforces, slashing executive salaries and suspending shareholder returns—as dozens have announced since the novel coronavirus began sweeping through the U.S. in March—then it is easy to imagine that much lower tiers with their even thinner margins could face existential reckonings. “People who didn't plan for it were unreasonably naive,” asserts Avitas consultant Adam Pilarski, a longtime expert who espoused a bearish view on commercial aviation long before the Boeing 737 MAX crisis started gumming up business models. “There is no magic potion here. You will have less production.” While Pilarski's comment may come across as harsh, it accurately describes the depth of the coming paradigm shift for commercial aviation. Yes, perhaps it was too much to have asked OEMs and suppliers to model for a 95% collapse in passenger air traffic and two-thirds of large commercial aircraft fleets getting parked—including brand-new deliveries. But practically no one seemed to imagine simultaneous cuts to new orders, standing backlogs and aftermarket revenue streams. Indeed, Pilarski was one of the few who envisioned an environment with much less than the traditional 5% annual growth in air traffic. That is now changing: Airbus has revealed narrowbody and widebody production rate cuts of about a third, and Boeing is expected to follow suit any day. According to Credit Suisse analysts, such sudden rate changes will have a materially negative impact on the supply chain because the effect is exponential. “[The supply chain] will need to cut production by much more as Airbus consumes its inventories—for instance, potentially going to rate 20 on the A320 for some months and ramping up again to 40,” the Credit Suisse analysts say. Boeing's inventory—including roughly 800 MAXs that are backed up with its customers and supplier Spirit AeroSystems and are waiting to join its own fleets—is worse. Still, it is not that simple to look at customers such as Airbus and Boeing and draw a direct line to suppliers to guess their fate. While the vast majority of publicly traded A&D companies have shelved the 2020 forecasts they offered just weeks before, almost no one has outlined new plans. For one thing, few suppliers had even received change orders as of early April, Ken Herbert of Canaccord Genuity says. Here are three factors to watch for in earnings reports to discern how the supply chains will change. First, how much U.S. government aid will companies receive? This is a significant variable, and as of mid-April, we still did not know how much even sector leader Boeing will receive (presuming it does). “Most suppliers we have spoken with are still waiting for more clarity on the exact terms available under the CARES Act,” says Herbert, who has deep ties in the A&D supply chain. Meanwhile, many public companies have been able to tap short-term financing or debt markets to boost liquidity—a testament to their prior investment grades. Second, the supply chain has experienced robust vetting and stress-testing over the past decade. Did it work? Record growth, record mergers and acquisitions, and record private equity involvement have dramatically consolidated industry (for better or worse). Yes, it meant elimination of countless companies, and some smaller survivors remain stressed by technology investments and meager working capital accounts. But top-tier companies have been working to eliminate chokepoints and shore up weak links in their supply chains for the last few years, ironically as they sought to raise rates. Finally, many companies became less susceptible one way or another, especially through revenue diversification (see chart). Take the new Raytheon Technologies, the first supplier to rival its OEM customers in annual sales. Manufacturers elbowed into the aftermarket; commercial providers and defense suppliers tapped into each other's markets; and venture capitalists and billionaire competitors entered into and prodded new technology advances that legacy industry had resisted funding, among other trends. Will this lead to resilience? Some think so. “In many ways, the supply chain is now more mature, diversified and well-positioned to handle this economic downturn versus in 2001 and 2008,” says Alex Krutz, managing director at Patriot Industrial Partners, an advisory firm focused on operations and supply chain. “A large number of suppliers over this last decade have taken significant steps to ensure their long-term success.” There are sure to be industrial casualties as A&D faces its greatest business falloff in history. We should mourn the loss of skilled workers and devoted people who are forced to exit the sector, but there are still new aircraft to build. And there will be supply chains to do it. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/what-watch-ad-companies-plan-future-covid-19

All news