Back to news

April 29, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

Scrutiny over Pentagon official’s Boeing ties highlights defense industry consolidation

By

The year was 1989. The Pentagon was under the command of President George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. And aviation giant McDonnell Douglas Corp. was riding high as the top federal contractor, grabbing 4.6%, or $9.15 billion, of all federal contracting dollars. The next two largest contractors, General Dynamics Corp. and General Electric Co., raked in about 4% and 3.4%, respectively.

Thirty years and many acquisitions later, Pentagon spending has grown far more top-heavy.

Today, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing — which bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997 — together reaped almost 15% of total U.S. government contracting dollars in fiscal year 2017, according to the most recent federal numbers. The two aerospace giants are the only makers of fast combat jets in the U.S. and are the dominant players for military transport aircraft.

The concentrated power of big defense companies became an issue two years ago when longtime Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan was confirmed as deputy secretary of Defense. Then in December, President Trump named him to serve as acting Defense secretary.

After a monthlong ethics investigation into allegations that Shanahan promoted Boeing while slamming rival Lockheed Martin, particularly in discussions about its F-35 fighter jet contract, the Pentagon's office of inspector general concluded Thursday that Shanahan “did not promote Boeing or disparage its competitors.”

“We did not substantiate any of the allegations,” the report said. “We determined that Mr. Shanahan fully complied with his ethics agreements and his ethical obligations regarding Boeing and its competitors.”

Shanahan is considered a leading candidate for permanent Defense secretary.

The question of possible favoritism toward Boeing had also been raised by some when the U.S. Air Force, in its 2020 budget, made a surprise request to purchase F-15X fighter jets, an update of that company's fourth-generation jet. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have all made major commitments to the F-35, Lockheed Martin's more advanced and pricier fifth-generation fighter.

The inspector general report said the Pentagon's mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft was a decision made by former Defense Secretary James N. Mattis before Shanahan's confirmation to the department. A Defense official told trade publication Defense News that the decision was bolstered by concerns about keeping “multiple providers in the tactical aircraft portfolio.”

But there was no contract competition based on a set of defined requirements — the way business typically works in the industry, said Richard Aboulafia, aviation analyst at market analysis firm Teal Group.

“It's a duopoly structure business with a lot at stake,” he said of fast combat jet manufacturing. “It's amazing that no one considered the optics here.”

In some cases, the military has encouraged monopolies. In 2006, Lockheed Martin and Boeing got government approval to form United Launch Alliance, a joint venture set up specifically to launch national security satellites. The venture was proposed after the companies argued there were not enough launches to sustain two competitors.

“The market is more concentrated,” said Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog group. “You see the government making decisions thinking about how it will impact industry probably more than they should be.”

Still, when President Reagan was in office, there were a number of major manufacturers of tactical military jets — Northrop Corp., Grumman Corp., Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics, to name a few, Aboulafia said.

But as the Cold War ended in the 1990s, defense funding dried up, leading to major aerospace mergers, such as Lockheed and Martin Marietta, and Boeing's acquisition of Rockwell International's aerospace business and McDonnell Douglas.

A push for commonality among the Pentagon's planes also led to the fewer numbers of tactical military jets. The idea was that using similar aircraft would lead to savings in development and production costs, Andrew Hunter, director of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said in an email.

As a result, the share of federal defense contracts awarded to the top largest private companies increased to 31.3% in 2000 from 21.7% in 1990, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper on the effect of 1990s-era defense industry consolidation. In 2017, the share of the top five reached 35%, according to federal data analyzed for that paper by Stanford University researchers.

The paper concluded that those mergers resulted in a less competitive procurement process. But it did not find evidence of a significant increase in acquisition costs for large weapon systems, said Mark Duggan, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and co-author of the paper.

As the industry gets more concentrated, it can lead to concern that “there's only one or two potential contractors for a certain product, and then you may not get the kind of competitive outcome you want,” he said.

The consolidation process hasn't slowed, driven by the perceived need to compete for more and bigger contracts. Last year, Northrop Grumman Corp. acquired spacecraft and rocket motor manufacturer Orbital ATK Inc. Months later, military communications firms L3 Technologies Inc. and Harris Corp. announced their intent to merge.

Although acquisitions and mergers can lead to greater efficiency, they can also have a detrimental effect on product innovation, said Aboulafia of Teal Group. For example, he said, as aircraft manufacturers consolidate, clean-sheet designs may be more of a rarity in the future as there are fewer design teams in the industry from different companies.

For Boeing, “in terms of designing a clean-sheet fighter jet, it's been many, many, many years,” he said.

In 2017, Lockheed Martin won more than $50 billion in total federal contracting dollars, making the Bethesda, Md., company No. 1 on a list of the top 100 federal contractors, according to federal procurement data. Boeing was a distant second with more than $23 billion.

When narrowed to weapon acquisition contract dollars in fiscal year 2017, Lockheed Martin's individual piece of the pie totaled about 17%, with Boeing further behind at about 7.5%, according to federal data analyzed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

News of the Defense Department ethics investigation came after watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the acting Defense Department inspector general, asking him to investigate allegations that Shanahan had boosted Boeing while working in the Pentagon.

The letter includes a description from a Politico story published in January, in which Shanahan allegedly criticized Lockheed Martin's work on the F-35 joint strike fighter program, saying it “would be done much better” if Boeing had won the contract.

In that article, an unnamed former Pentagon official told the news organization that Shanahan said during a high-level meeting that Lockheed “doesn't know how to run a program.”

The inspector general's report said none of the witnesses interviewed said they heard Shanahan praise Boeing in meetings or discussions or make disparaging remarks about Lockheed Martin. Shanahan told the inspector general's team that he had never praised a Boeing military product and that he had said “program management on the F-35 is inadequate.”

Shanahan's Boeing career spanned more than 30 years, during which he led its missile defense systems and military helicopter units. He also served as senior vice president of the company's commercial airplane division and is known for his work on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner program, which was behind schedule when he first took the helm.

Boeing declined to comment this month on the initiation of the ethics investigation. The company referred to a statement it made in January, saying Boeing officials had not spoken to Shanahan about its programs during “his entire Pentagon tenure” and that the company “adheres to and respects Acting Secretary Shanahan's decision to recuse himself from company matters.”

Shanahan isn't the first industry executive to lead the Defense Department. Under President Eisenhower, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson joined the Pentagon after serving as chief executive of General Motors, which made military vehicles at the time. Other defense industry brass have also joined the Pentagon over the years, though in lower roles.

Analysts say the Pentagon could benefit from having a leader who understands how industry works, and who has been on the other side of the negotiating table and can avoid being tricked. And the Defense secretary typically works less with industry representatives than deputies do.

“Secretaries aren't making a lot of decisions on individual contracts,” Smithberger said. “They're setting the priorities for the department.”

But the potential conflicts may be “hard to escape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank, which receives funding from both Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

“Boeing is so big that almost every discussion of strategy, budgets or programs bears upon its interests,” he said.

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-lockheed-shanahan-20190426-story.html

On the same subject

  • French Navy bets on electronic warfare to counter anti-ship threats

    October 5, 2022 | International, Naval

    French Navy bets on electronic warfare to counter anti-ship threats

    Industry is responding with technology meant to cover the entire spectrum of electronic-based ship protection, including measures of last resort.

  • German air defence frigate leaves port to join EU Red Sea mission

    February 8, 2024 | International, Aerospace

    German air defence frigate leaves port to join EU Red Sea mission

  • Produire local, passage obligé des entreprises partant à l'international

    November 29, 2019 | International, Other Defence

    Produire local, passage obligé des entreprises partant à l'international

    Grandes et petites entreprises doivent se plier aux exigences croissantes des États de produire sur place une partie de leurs gros contrats. Y compris Dassault Aviation pour vendre son Rafale en Inde. Enquête. Difficile d'y échapper. Les exigences de compensations industrielles, ou offsets, occupent une place croissante dans la négociation des grands contrats. Elles sont presque autant l'apanage de pays émergents, qui cherchent à accélérer la montée en gamme de leur industrie domestique, que de pays développés. Dans le seul secteur de la défense, le montant global des offsets a progressé de 25 % entre 2012 et 2016, pour représenter près de 2,5 % des dépenses militaires. Pour décrocher le contrat de 36 avions Rafale en Inde, Dassault a dû s'engager à réinvestir 50 % de sa valeur dans le pays, sous forme de fabrication locale et d'approvisionnement auprès de sous-traitants indiens. Il a ouvert un site pour produire ses avions d'affaires Falcon et le Rafale avec l'indien Reliance. DCNS a consenti à transférer une partie de sa production et de ses compétences en Australie, dans le cadre du "contrat du siècle" de 12 sous-marins. Politique du "make in India" en Inde, "Buy american act" aux États-Unis, droits de douane exorbitants sur les importations de véhicules pour forcer les constructeurs à réaliser l'assemblage sur place... Au-delà de la défense et de l'aéronautique, le parapétrolier, le ferroviaire et la filière nucléaire font aussi face à des contraintes similaires, plus ou moins structurées. "La plupart des nouveaux contrats en Afrique prennent en compte la volonté de transférer des équipes et de produire localement ", remarque Pedro Novo, le directeur de l'international de Bpifrance. Accompagner les PME et les ETI "Les compensations industrielles étaient auparavant supportées par les seuls intégrateurs. Mais à mesure qu'elles augmentent et que les grands groupes externalisent davantage, elles descendent de plus en plus dans la supply chain", pointe Philippe Advani, un ancien d'Airbus, qui préside le comité sur les offsets des conseillers du commerce extérieur. Avec le groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales (Gifas), il a publié en juillet un guide pour aider ETI et PME à naviguer dans les contraintes de transfert de savoir-faire ou de production – souvent complexes – fixées par les gouvernements. Pour les sous-traitants, l'opération n'est pas sans risque. En Inde, le spécialiste de l'ingénierie aéronautique Ametra, qui emploie 700 salariés, a sauté le pas l'an passé en créant une coentreprise avec un partenaire indien à Hyderabad, dans le sud du pays. "Cela demande du cash, et un pillage de propriété intellectuelle peut être plus dramatique pour une petite entreprise", reconnaît Philippe Advani. "Devenir indien en Inde, par exemple, implique d'accélérer la structuration de sa société, de revoir la logistique et la gestion des flux de données, d'impliquer le conseil d'administration. Il faut un accompagnement pour mettre ces contraintes à la portée des PME", énumère Pedro Novo, qui a lancé il y a un an le fonds Build-up International afin de co-investir dans des filiales à l'étranger d'ETI françaises et étudie une vingtaine de dossiers. Certains ont fait de ces contraintes un nouvel axe de leur stratégie. Depuis deux ans, le fabricant de c'ble marnais Axon'Cable surveille les obligations de compensations industrielles des grands contrats militaires pour implanter ses nouvelles usines. "Il est plus facile de vendre à nos grands clients car ils ne trouvent pas leurs fournisseurs habituels et nous en profitons pour démarcher des industriels locaux", pointe son président, Joseph Puzo, qui a ouvert en 2016 une filiale au Brésil et prépare un bureau en Australie pour 2020. L'ETI, qui possède déjà une usine low cost en Inde, a créé en début d'année une deuxième coentreprise, Dhruv, avec un partenaire local, afin d'obtenir le statut d'"offset indien partner", qui permet de répondre aux demandes de compensation industrielle. Produire localement ne supprime pas pour autant tous les échanges. Seul l'assemblage final est réalisé à proximité du client. Les composants les plus sensibles restent exportés depuis la France. Le meilleur moyen de protéger ses innovations. Latécoère suit Thales et Dassault en Inde S'implanter en Inde ne faisait pas partie des plans initiaux de Latécoère. "Je savais que l'Inde était un pays compliqué et bureaucratique. Nous serions certainement allés dans un autre pays d'Asie s'il n'y avait pas eu les contreparties du contrat Rafale", reconnaît volontiers Yannick Assouad, la PDG de l'équipementier aéronautique. Son usine de c'blage de Belagavi, dans l'État du Karnataka, a démarré sa production en septembre. Pour vendre ses 36 avions de combat, Dassault a dû s'engager à des compensations industrielles, dont l'ouverture d'un site à Nagpur, dans l'État du Maharashtra, pour produire des pièces pour le Rafale et le Falcon. En 2017, Latécoère a décroché auprès de Dassault la fourniture de harnais électriques pour le Falcon 2000 en s'engageant à suivre l'avionneur en Inde. "Se localiser dans un pays d'offset n'était pas suffisant pour remporter le contrat car il faut avant tout être compétitif. Mais c'était la cerise sur le g'teau", reconnaît Yannick Assouad. Dans la foulée, sa nouvelle usine indienne a permis à l'ETI de décrocher un deuxième contrat auprès de Thales, lui aussi tenu à des offsets, pour son système de divertissement à bord. De quoi atteindre plus vite que prévu le seuil de rentabilité de l'usine de 300 salariés. En attendant que Dassault implante sa chaîne d'assemblage du Falcon en Inde, Latécoère exporte toute sa production indienne vers la France et les États-Unis pour Thales et se fournit en France. "Nous allons progressivement démarcher des clients locaux et essayer d'évaluer la supply chain", précise la PDG. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/editorial/produire-local-passage-oblige-des-entreprises-partant-a-l-international.N907464

All news