Back to news

May 12, 2020 | International, C4ISR

US Risks Losing 5G Standard Setting Battle To China, Experts Say

"We need some coherency around what we're actually doing on the public policy front, and we need some more technical coordination ... so we could at least be at the stage where we're still on the field, versus sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out how to catch up," said Brookings fellow Nicol Turner Lee.

By on May 11, 2020 at 3:46 PM

WASHINGTON: The United States needs to take a stronger role in setting international standards for 5G networks or risk losing the international market to China and undercutting US national security.

Washington is faltering due to a lack of coherent policy on a wide swathe of foundational issues such as spectrum management for 5G usage, network supply chain security, infrastructure development and data sharing, experts say.

As Breaking D readers know, the question of spectrum access is at the heart of DoD's fierce battle to overturn the FCC's approval last month of a plan by Ligado to convert L-band spectrum for satellites to build a terrestrial 5G mobile communications network that DoD and many other US agencies say will jam GPS receivers.

“The US-China competition is essentially about who will control the global information technology infrastructure and standards,” said Frank Rose, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution and former assistant secretary of State for arms control, during a Brooking's webinar on Friday. “I think an argument can be made that in the 21st century, whoever controls the information infrastructure will dominate the world.”

The webinar, called “Global China: Assessing China's technological reach in the world,” was based on a new series of Brookings' papers on topics ranging from Chinese plans for 5G, its progress in developing artificial intelligence (AI) weapons systems to biotechnology.

The panel discussion echoed the concerns raised by a group of powerful Republican senators in an April 14 letter to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Inhofe, the senators worried that the Trump administration's moves to blacklist Chinese 5G behemoth Huawei (about which Sydney has written extensively) are in effect pushing the US into international irrelevance as Washington struggles to set a unique domestic path for network development.

Commerce put Huawei on its so-called entity list last May citing national security concerns, and in August expanded its list of related entities subject to restricted US sales. Despite President Donald Trump's wild swings on whether to keep or lift the ban, those restrictions still stand.

“Since Huawei's designation on the Department's Entity List in May 2019, U.S. technology leaders have been constrained from full participation in 5G standards-setting bodies because of uncertainty over whether such participation is prohibited by the Commerce Department's export control regulations. We are deeply concerned about the risks to the U.S. global leadership position in 5G wireless technology as a result of this reduced participation, and the economic and national security implications of any diminished U.S. role in 5G,” the senators wrote.

Such standards bodies include the influential private-sector Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the widely-recognized International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the UN's International Telecommunication Union (ITU) that sets global standards for spectrum usage. China's Houlin Zhao currently holds the ITU Secretary-General post, and China has been extremely active in ITU work to establish standards for 5G — an issue that the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission raised in its 2018 report to Congress.

To remedy this, the senators called on the White House “to issue regulations as soon as possible confirming that U.S. participation in 5G standards-setting is not restricted by export control regulations.” And according to a May 6 article by Reuters, the Commerce Department is currently figuring out how exactly to do just that. Commerce, however, did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Nicol Turner Lee, a Brookings fellow specializing in Internet governance issues, told the panel while it was Europe that set the standards for 3G communications technologies, the US learned from losing that battle and so “stepped up” to lead the world in developing the technologies and standards for 4G LTE communication. US leadership on 4G in turn allowed it dominate the information revolution that underpins today's “digital sharing economy,” enabling tech giants Google and disruptive firms such as Uber.

But the US now risks losing the 5G race to China, she argued, which will be at the heart of the next technological revolution. Mobile 5G cellular networks will provide the high speed and low latency (the time between data being broadcast and received by a user) communications capabilities required by the Internet of Things (IoT) and AI, both technologies hotly pursued by the US the Chinese militaries alike.

In her paper, “Navigating the U.S.-China 5G Competition,” Turner Lee explained:

“The United States and China are in a race to deploy fifth-generation, or 5G, wireless networks, and the country that dominates will lead in standard-setting, patents, and the global supply chain. While some analysts suggest that the Chinese government appears to be on a sprint to achieve nationwide 5G, U.S. government leaders and the private sector have been slowed by local and federal bureaucracies, restrictive and outdated regulations, and scarcity of available commercial spectrum.”

The “current national security concerns of Huawei and ZTE, which are integral to the global supply chain for 5G equipment and software” not only are hindering the ability of US tech firms to play a leading role in international standard setting bodies, she said, but also cramping their ability to cooperate with firms in allied nations — leading to US market isolation.

“To date, only five other partners have followed the U.S. lead in banning Huawei equipment in their communications infrastructures: Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Australia and New Zealand.25 Other U.S. allies, including France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the U.K., are moving forward with their deployments with some restrictions,” Turner Lee wrote.

Key to China's success in development of 5G networks has been the use of low- and mid-band radio frequency (RF) spectrum, according to experts, that for reasons of domestic regulation the US has been unable to match.

Meanwhile, the US has been “spectrum stuck” — unable to move rapidly to figure out how different RF user communities — including military and commercial satellite operators and US military radar systems — can share the limited resources.

Low-band spectrum, which includes the 600 megahertz (MHz), 800 MHz, and 900 MHZ bands, can cover longer distances and penetrate through walls of buildings. Mid-band spectrum is in the 2.0 gighertz (GHz) 6 GHz range, works at a higher speed and in some instances provides higher fidelity.

Indeed, the mid-band includes portions of the L-band spectrum, in the 1 GHz to 2 GHz range, at the heart of DoD's battle with the Federal Communications Commission over Ligado. L-band signals, used by GPS, are less likely to be degraded by clouds, fog and rain and can pass through heavy foliage.

DoD, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation — and a wide range of private sector companies ranging from satellite operators to truckers — are convinced that Ligado's planned network will jam GPS receivers.They are supported by a number of powerful members of Congress, including Inhofe and SASC Ranking Member Sen. Jack Reed, as well as the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member Mac Thornberry, together with 20 other members representing both political parties, weighed in last Thursday in a letter to the FCC Commissioners questioning the Ligado decision and expressing concern:

“Section 1698 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 prevents the commission from approving commercial terrestrial operations in these bands until 90 days after the commission resolves concerns of widespread harmful interference by such operations to covered GPS devices. We are concerned that your approval of any mitigation efforts not rigorously tested and approved by national security technical experts may be inconsistent with the legislative direction to resolve concerns prior to permitting commercial terrestrial operations. We urge the commission to reconsider and impose additional mitigation steps to address the concerns of these users.”

HASC intends to hold a classified hearing to focus on the issue, including both DoD and the FCC.

However, the Trump administration is divided on the worthiness of Ligado's plan — with the spat pitting Esper and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao against Pompeo, National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow, and Attorney General William Barr.

Kudlow, Pompeo and Barr, who all are close Trump political allies, have praised the FCC's decision to approve Ligado's network — along with many in the terrestrial wireless industry — as a move towards helping the US gain primary over China in the 5G race. And the need for the US to move out quickly to establish 5G networks figures prominently in Ligado's various FCC filings.

In a marathon SASC hearing last Wednesday, DoD CIO Dana Deasy and Research and Engineering head Mike Griffin strongly pushed back against that assessment.

Griffin told the SASC that “5G is about capacity, latency, and scale. The Ligado proposal has absolutely nothing to do with latency and scale, and its capacity is on the order of three-and-a-half percent of the total spectrum capacity. Ligado's existence, plus or minus, makes absolutely no difference to the involvement of the US in the so-called 5G race,” he said bluntly.

Deasy chimed in to back up Griffin, telling the SASC that “Ligado does not provide a 5G solution.” He explained that “the band in which Ligado operates is not even part of the FCC's 5G FAST Plan, which is the commission's blueprint for advancing US interest in 5G. The non-continuous bands that Ligado could bring the market are both fragmented and impaired.”

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai last April approved the FAST Plan — for “Facilitate America's Superiority in 5G Technology — to free up some designated low-band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum now assigned to other uses use by 5G networks, as well as some spectrum currently unlicensed. That effort, however, has been complicated by squabbling among various operator communities.

Deasy stressed that DoD “clearly recognizes the huge value of 5G not only for commercial use, but across the US military as well.” And for that reason, he said, DoD not only has a plethora of 5G projects underway, but also has launched a pilot project on how best to share mid-band spectrum being used by DoD radar systems with commercial 5G networks. DoD is partnering on the pilot with the National Spectrum Consortium, he said, which involves government, industry and academia.

“The geopolitical battle is standard setting,” Turner Lee summed up during the Brookings' webinar. “We need some coherency around what we're actually doing on the public policy front, and we need some more technical coordination ... so we could at least be at the stage where we're still on the field, versus sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out how to catch up.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/us-risks-losing-5g-standard-setting-battle-to-china-experts-say

On the same subject

  • Head of Saudi Arabia’s defense industry umbrella org talks Vision 2030

    August 28, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

    Head of Saudi Arabia’s defense industry umbrella org talks Vision 2030

    By: Jill Aitoro LONDON — In spring 2016, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman unveiled a plan to reduce the country's dependence on oil and to diversify the economy. The goal of Saudi Vision 2030, as that plan is known, is to make Saudi Arabia “the heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds, the investment powerhouse, and the hub connecting three continents.” Among the sectors central to that vision is military. Taking cues from other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia stood up a single umbrella organization to lead its efforts in defense development and expertise: the Saudi Arabian Military Industries. Defense News spoke to CEO Andreas Schwer in an exclusive interview about the goals of SAMI, and what it could mean for global defense partnership and cooperation. You lead the Saudi Arabian Military Industries. I would love for you to talk a bit about how SAMI, as it's known, was stood up and the goals of that organization. When the Vision 2030 program was established and defined by his royal highness, it became apparent right from the beginning that the defense industry would play a major role to achieve these global targets. So the defense industry, set up, is one of the major tasks of the Vision 2030 program. They established a team to define how this kind of defense industry should be set up. They were looking to comparable countries who are undergoing this kind of process — countries like Turkey, South Korea, South Africa or some Western countries. They have tried to learn the lessons out of that process. It was obvious that there are two choices: either to go for a [new company], or to use existing assets and to build up on those assets. They decided to go [new] in order to enhance the opportunity to implement best Western practices from the beginning. That was the key decision to go ahead, and they decided to build a nucleus which is covering any kind of [military] activities, starting from space, ground or naval activities under one big umbrella company to set up a kind of sustainable business instead of having different companies of smaller size. Are they operating relatively independently, or is it really one management structure? SAMI itself is acting as a kind of active holding company. We will operate through four business divisions. Each of the business divisions will be composed of a set of business units. A business unit is a joint venture with a foreign partner, but it would also integrate the existing assets in the kingdom into this umbrella environment; assets which are already joint ventures today but also nationally owned assets, which will be allocated to the various business divisions. I know you have an extensive career with defense companies. You were with Rheinmetall, and you spent time at Airbus. What interested you about this opportunity? It's quite unique overall in the world that to set up a new company which covers, again, all the product portfolio you can imagine. Space, aviation, land systems, hydraulic simulation, ammunition, shipbuilding, everything. I don't think there's any job in the world which offers you this kind of broad portfolio of activities. So it's unique. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance. And the second argument is it's fantastic to set up a company. You can apply all your ideas, all the activity to form and shape something which otherwise you will never be able to do, versus ending up in an organization where almost all elements are predefined and it's hard to implement any kind of significant change. You have said that the goal for SAMI is to become one of the largest 25 defense companies in the world by 2030. How do you intend to make that happen? Saudi Arabia has the third-biggest defense budget in the world. It's around $70 billion throughout the year. On top of that, we have to look to all the budgets for the other customers on the domestic scene. It's the National Guard, the Royal Guard, Ministry of Interior, homeland security. There are lots of national customers [for] security-related equipment. Most of that will end up at SAMI's desk. So just by the volume and the size of the procurement, it's achievable, [also with] export potential of 30 percent. With that, you can easily achieve the target to become among the top 25 companies in the world. The Pentagon started working with Saudi Arabia on some very sizable foreign military sales from the United States, with the Trump administration very vocal about supporting that. How does that fit into the picture? There are lots of partnership opportunities. Those [foreign military sales] will be subject to our new scenario. We will apply for each and any of those contracts with the 50 percent localization rule, to be in line with Vision 2030. And whether it's a foreign military sale or whether it's a direct commercial sale, those sorts of buys will offer in all the local industries great opportunities for growth. So it's a good opportunity? You would say it's a positive? It's possible. But we have to make the target. We have to grow the local content from the 2 percent to more than 50 percent of the total span, new procurement, and [maintenance, repair and overhaul]. That's the target: 50 percent localization. That brings up an interesting point. Saudi Arabia has long voiced, like many countries in the Middle East, a desire for more indigenous capabilities. You mentioned the 50 percent localization in terms of contract opportunities, but how else can SAMI promote those aspirations? In the past, we've had the classic vendor-buyer relationship. Saudi Arabia was the classic buyer with very, very little local content. There were offset obligations, but most of the times they were never being fulfilled for different reasons. In the new scheme, we change from this kind of supplier-vendor relationship to a partnership model, a partnership model to the extent that we expect the foreign partner — under the terms of their exclusivity access to Saudi Arabia — to bring all their technologies, all the skills and knowledge into the kingdom. That typically is established through a joint venture so we can build up local competence not only by getting licenses for production, but in the engineering and R&D field to be able to develop the next generation of weapons systems, within the joint venture, within the kingdom. And you established a joint venture with Boeing. Can use that as an example? Saudi Arabia has a very long-lasting, strategic relationship with Boeing. It started many years ago, and we already have an established joint venture in the kingdom, where we conduct substantial aircraft MRO activities. Our future collaboration is obviously centered around this activity and will be expanded along the portfolio of Boeing products. Boeing is a showcase. Boeing is one of our most important partners. What does Saudi Arabia bring to the table both in terms of location, and technological capabilities? What is ripe for expansion within the country to support the military industry? As I mentioned before, we're the third-largest defense budget in the world. If you compare this budget with smaller budgets in other countries and if you compare what they have achieved in terms of localization — we have all the ingredients which we need to have in order to make this a success story. We will invest not only in the defense industry, but we also do a big push in the education system in universities, in any kind of area which needs support in order to get this industry up and running, to support the creation of jobs, to fulfill the Vision 2030. SAMI's obligation is to create more than 40,000 direct jobs, more than 100,000 indirect jobs, to achieve the target as defined. Are there things that the United States and other allies can do to better support Saudi Arabia with this military expansion? If there was a wish, we would love to get more access to top-class technologies from all the U.S. partners. There are obviously limitations, which we are suffering from. That's the one element. So be a little bit more open. And second, export in arms and weapons was driven by FMS programs. In our new set up in Saudi Arabia, we will do more and more in direct commercial sales. Why? Because this office has more flexibility, more opportunity for follow-up in the organization in a more time-effective manner. And yes, companies have to be trained, in that they have to change the mindsets and mentality in order to do this kind of normal type of commercial sales activity and to become a commercial partner on an industrial level rather than on a political or governmental level. They'll need to convince the Pentagon to allow them, too, because there's a lot of cases where the Pentagon tends to put in restrictions and wants to be in control of that relationship. You are absolutely right. This is a burden on the U.S. companies, and I wish them all the best in order to overcome the hurdle [so we] will be equally treated as many other companies who are not restricted by their governments. Some western European countries, for example, are offering much more support in that respect. Offering more opportunities for the companies to transfer their ideas, their technologies into the kingdom. Saudi Arabia had a bit of a shakeup in terms of its own military leadership. Where does that stand, if you don't mind my asking, and how does that influence the formation and growth of SAMI? The Vision 2030 program has many elements. So it's a transformation program, not only for society but also for the governmental administration. And as [the armed forces] are part of this administration body, they also have to undergo this transformation process. This is an ongoing process. The first steps have been done. One of the outcomes is the creation and foundation of the new regulatory body, which is the twin to SAMI, to host a centralized procurement agency, which they regulate and control and manage any kind of military and defense-related or security-related procurement action. This will ensure critical mass, synergy effects, volume effects, and allow us to build up a kind of sustainable business. With this kind of transformation, obviously, the roles and the responsibilities of administrative bodies, as well as leaders in the forces, have to change. And in line with that, some people have to be replaced, to be in full support with this new vision and to be completely in line with our targets, and I can tell you we have relationships with all the national stakeholders, and we consider ourselves with them as partners. They are no longer a client, we are no longer vendor to them; we are partners. You mentioned R&D. What areas do you see the greatest potential in terms of investment for development and product development? We will put our focus on software technologies, electronics, microwave, space-based technologies, robotics, laser weapons systems on the midterm and long term, but in in the short term we have to give the short-term needs, which are conventional in nature. So, in the beginning, as all the other companies are doing, are on the classical systems. How do you meld what Saudi Arabia as a nation needs for its own military with the potential for global export? Upmost importance and top priority is the security of the country. That means, yes, our top priority is to serve the needs of our armed forces, and we try in parallel to satisfy also the needs of our strategic partners. In most of the cases those are quite complementary. You see a lot of efforts in the United Arab Emirates to bolster defense. Is there a collaboration between the military organizations that are stood up in a country like UAE and what you're trying to establish in Saudi Arabia? Top leadership of UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently agreed on a strong collaboration on defense, and defense industries, so we are highly encouraged to align our thoughts and to align our strategies with our counterparts in the UAE. This process is ongoing, but we've had very fruitful collaborative talks, and soon we'll hopefully be in a position to announce some great, common achievements. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/08/27/head-of-saudi-arabias-defense-industry-umbrella-org-talks-vision-2030

  • New US Army radios show anti-jam progress at network experiment

    September 22, 2020 | International, Land, C4ISR

    New US Army radios show anti-jam progress at network experiment

    Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is seeing improvements in anti-jam capabilities in new radios crucial to securing manned-unmanned communications at its annual Network Modernization Experiment. At NetModX '20, which runs from late July to early October at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey, the Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command's C5ISR Center — or Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Center — is testing the resiliency of the new radios. The effort will help the service observe how they would perform in the field as the Army looks to partner humans and machines. Initial data from the event suggests the two companies involved — Silvus and Persistent Systems — have improved their radio capabilities from last year, specifically in regard to anti-jam, according to Daniel Duvak, chief of the C5ISR Center's Radio Frequency Communications division. But one major challenge is making the radios less detectable as the Army's tactical network team starts to focus on command post survivability — or reducing the electromagnetic signature of command post communications — while not sacrificing latency and throughput. “If you want to make it less detectable, you know oftentimes you have to trade off the throughput or the range or one of those other products,” Duvak said. “So that's the piece and the real technical challenge that they're continuing to work on over the next few months. We've seen progress that they've made in those areas, but that's the piece that they're still working on.” Robert Stevens, an electronics engineer at the Radio Frequency Communications division, told C4ISRNET that the radios are an important piece of the next-generation combat vehicle. And Duvak said the Army's tactical network modernization team — made up of the Network Cross-Functional Team and Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical — wants to use the radios as a mid-tier radio solution. The development and fielding of new science and technology projects can take more than five years; however, the Army wants to speed that up as it seeks to modernize systems in preparation for future conflicts with near-peer adversaries. At last year's Network Modernization Experiment, the C5ISR Center tested several vendors' radios to see where commercial technology stood. Alternative contracting options, like broad agency announcements as well as cooperative research and development agreements, have proved critical to quickening radio development. Under the contracting mechanisms, vendors and the Army have more flexibility to experiment with radios and make iterative modifications as requirements change. Duvak said this is different from how the Army did business years ago, when it would award yearslong contracts but eventually receive radios that no longer met current requirements. “What we were able to do at this program was, in just about a year and a half of development time, take a couple of those products that we saw that were very promising and we were able to add and actually fund vendors to enhance those radios with those resiliency features that we were just talking about for the contested environment,” Duvak said. “Things like making them anti-jam, or more difficult for the adversary to jam, making them more difficult for the adversary to detect or intercept our communications.” Duvak said the Army wants the new radio capabilities for Capability Set '23, a collection of new tactical network tools to be fielded to soldiers in fiscal 2023. The resiliency of communications is critical as the tactical network modernization team pivots to reduce the electronic signature of the service's command post under Capability Set '23. The team is looking to increase bandwidth and reduce latency as part of that set of tools. Preliminary design review for Capability Set '23 is scheduled for April next year. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2020/09/21/new-us-army-radios-show-anti-jam-progress-at-network-experiment/

  • Raytheon Technologies CEO On Riding Out The COVID-19 Crisis

    July 13, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

    Raytheon Technologies CEO On Riding Out The COVID-19 Crisis

    Joe Anselmo Michael Bruno July 10, 2020 When he was United Technologies Corp. chairman and CEO, Greg Hayes took a lot of heat for merging his company with Raytheon to create aerospace powerhouse Raytheon Technologies. But the critics have been silenced as defense has cushioned the company from the battering the commercial downturn has inflicted on its Collins Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney operations. Hayes spoke via videoconference with AW&ST Editor-in-Chief Joe Anselmo and Senior Business Editor Michael Bruno. AW&ST: How long will it take the commercial aviation industry to recover from the COVID-19 crisis? Initially, we thought this was going to be like the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2002-03. We thought it was going to be relatively short-lived, where air traffic would go down for a little while but then gradually recover. I don't think any of us envisioned the morbidity or the scope of this pandemic and its impact on travel. I would say we're looking now at getting back to 2019 in 2023, maybe 2024. It is going to be a slow recovery. Raytheon chief looks ahead Commercial aviation recovery will take years Investing in hypersonics Game-changing technologies for a next-generation narrowbody The good news is we've got plenty of liquidity. We'll see our way through this, but it is going to be a tough road. We are hunkering down for a protracted recession on the commercial aero side. Our aftermarket orders are down 50%-plus at both Collins Aerospace and Pratt & Whitney. That's where a lot of the profits come from. The reason we can spend $2.5 billion a year on R&D for the commercial businesses is because we have this spares business that generates strong cash. When that goes away, it's tough. And as a result, we're going to cut R&D this year by $500 million on the commercial side. Unfortunately, the airlines are not in a position to weather this storm for probably more than another 12 months without government assistance. That's really going to be the key. Do governments in the U.S., Europe, South America and across Asia step up to support what is a critical industry in aerospace? Is the industry underplaying the severity of the COVID-19 downturn? A vaccine is the key, and it has to be widely available. The World Health Organization is working on that, but we're going to have hotspots with this pandemic for the next year or two. So even if the U.S. and Europe are completely vaccinated, what does that mean for travel to Africa, Asia, to the fast-growing markets? I'd almost bifurcate the aerospace industry between a narrowbody recovery and widebody recovery. The narrowbody is primarily domestic, whether it's Europe, the U.S. or even China. That will recover more quickly as people become confident-—there's either a vaccine or they've found new treatment options. But on the international side, we can't fly today into Europe, and we don't want the Europeans to fly to the U.S. We can't go to South America or China. Those routes are going to take much, much longer to recover. The fact is there are so many excess aircraft out there right now that we believe you're going to see more parting out of existing fleets before we see a resurgence. And that's why even when passenger traffic starts to come back, there's probably a full 6-12 months before we're going to see a return to normalcy in our aftermarket organization. Pratt supplies the PW1000G engine option for the Airbus A320neo. How much downside risk is there for -deliveries? We're planning for about a 40% reduction in A320 deliveries this year and next year compared with February 2020 production rates. Airbus would love to build more, but it's not clear to us that customers are going to be around to take more than that. The good news is our market share went from about 42% [of A320neo engines] to north of 50% in the last year. Customers are starting to believe in the geared turbofan because of the fuel efficiency. Do you see the market share between Airbus and Boeing shifting? The order book for the A320 is much stronger today, with all the cancellations that we've seen on the 737 MAX because of delays. We still think the 737 will get back in the air this year, and we continue to work with Boeing on software updates. We firmly believe it's a great aircraft. Keep in mind we have about $2.5 million of content per shipset on the 737. It's going to be a tough couple of years, but we ultimately have faith in the airframe and the certification process. Where are you focusing your future efforts with Boeing and Airbus? We were optimistically cautious about the [proposed Boeing] new mid-market airplane (NMA), but there is a lot of excess capacity now, and it's not clear another evolutionary design is going to be the answer. So our focus right now is the next-generation single--aisle. And we think that's probably been pushed out a couple of years, to maybe 2033 or 2035. They're talking about a 30% efficiency gain from the current single-aisle. Two-thirds of that gain has to come from engine design. At the Paris Air Show last year, we talked about a hybrid electric design [Project 804]. We're going to continue on that path. We're trying to figure out how you can have enough power at takeoff while having a much lower fuel consumption at cruise. And that's where hybrid electric comes in. It's going to take us at least a decade to prove that out. I don't know if hybrid electric is the answer. There are other things that we're working on. But obviously it's got to be something completely different than what we've been building in the past. Governments around the world are taking on huge debt to alleviate the coronavirus crisis. Are you worried that will put pressure on military spending over the long term? You would have to have your head in the sand to not understand what's going to happen to defense budgets over time. When [Raytheon CEO] Tom Kennedy and I first talked about this merger, it was, “What can we do together that we can't do separately?” And it really was bringing the technologies of the two companies together to solve customer problems in new and innovative ways. Defense budgets will go down, but I think the real question is where Defense Department spending is going. I remember talking two years ago with [then-Defense Secretary] Gen. [James] Mattis, and he said, “Bring us innovative solutions, not to fight the last war but to fight the next war.” And the next war, he said, is going to be fought in cyberspace and outer space. The capabilities of the legacy Raytheon business are second to none in space and are outstanding on the cyber side. You marry that up with the manufacturing and material science that Pratt & Whitney brings, with the communication systems that Rockwell Collins brings, and this is going to be a great play. The U.S. Air Force wants more software-driven capabilities, delivered in weeks or even days. How does that square with your businesses, which often involve long-term hardware evolutions? It's making sure that we're continuing to evolve our products. The missiles we're delivering today, such as the SM-3 [interceptor] or the SM-6 [anti-air/anti-surface/-ballistic missile defense] are state of the art, and we continue to find new uses for them. A lot of things will change over time in terms of how the weapons are deployed. Think about the Storm-Breaker missile that we just demonstrated, which has the tri-mode seeker. It can do things the last generation of missiles could never do in terms of going through smoke, fog, dust and sand. The LRSO [Long-Range Standoff nuclear cruise missile] is another example. And the Tomahawk is an established product that we will evolve as the needs of the battlefield change to meet new requirements. That's really what we want to focus on: How do we continue software-driven solutions but also find ways to redeploy and reinvigorate the product line and bring new capabilities to the warfighter? Are you making long-term investments in hypersonics? Hypersonics are a destabilizing technology. There's only so much we can talk about, but we know we're behind the Chinese and probably behind the Russians. I think in 3-5 years we'll be on a level playing field. Our focus has been on defensive systems, using space-based assets to track hypersonics. It's nothing that a ground radar could ever do because they move too fast. And then countermeasures that we could use to defend against hypersonics is the bigger market. We're obviously investing. We've got a program, the HAWC [Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept], which is an air-breathing hypersonic missile that we're working on. I think we'll flight-test that later this year. Also think about the materials science that Pratt brings. The key to hypersonics is how to keep the electronics from getting fried when you're operating at something like 5,000F. We're investing in cooling materials—that will be one of the big bets that we're going to have to make. Tom Kennedy saw the need to make these investments, and we're going to do that. The other piece is on the space side. There's not a lot that we can say, other than that we think space will be the frontier that will differentiate us—that is, the defense of space assets, as well as using space assets to detect, track and target hypersonic weapons. When the merger of United Technologies and Raytheon was announced, there was a lot of criticism from investors. Now they're happy about how well-positioned the combined company is to weather the COVID-19 storm. There was a lot of pushback from investors, especially from the hedge fund guys. They saw us taking a lower-margin business, and they didn't like the fact that the technology takes 5-10 years to pay off. I was roundly criticized. All I can say is I was an idiot a year ago and now I'm a genius, through no fault of my own. We did this for the long term, and it was completely fortuitous that the merger happened when it did. The commercial businesses won't make any money this year, and they are going to struggle for the next couple of years, but now we've got a rock-solid balance sheet and a lot of cash. And that defense business is going to grow 5-8% this year. We've got a good backlog. I'd like to say it was genius, but it really was just doing what's right for the long term. My goal is to leave this company better than I found it. You have reshaped this company, starting with selling Sikorsky to Lockheed Martin in 2015. Then you acquired Rockwell Collins and moved to break up the UTC conglomerate, and it looked like UTC was going to be a commercial aerospace company. Now comes Raytheon. Are you done, or is there more to come? I'm never done until I'm gone, but we don't need to do anything else big. The driving force [behind the Raytheon merger] was putting two big technology companies together with cyclical balance [between commercial and defense]. Tom Kennedy always felt he was at a disadvantage against the Lockheeds of the world because of the scale of Lockheed versus Raytheon. This gives us the scale to invest and compete head on with the Lockheed Martins and Northrop Grummans, as well as being the largest supplier to both Boeing and Airbus. We have some clout in the marketplace. We've got 700,000 different things that we deliver to customers: missiles, APUs, engines, communications gear. Some we really love; others don't have the returns that we want or require too much investment for a limited market. We hope to have a portfolio review done by the end of the year. And you'll probably see some divestitures, but not big pieces. We also continue to look for technology bolt-ons as we think about what's next in defense and the space and cyber spectrums. Longer term, the big question in my mind is what happens to Rolls-Royce, a great technology company that is facing challenging financial circumstances. We loved the partnership Pratt had with Rolls on International Aero Engines. Could we recreate that someday? Perhaps, but not now. Ian Davis, who's the chairman over there, is a good guy. We always say, “Look, we need to find ways to collaborate so we can take on GE Aviation.” Despite the fact that GE may be on its heels today, they've got over 30,000 engines out there. Their aftermarket will recover, they will get better, and they will be the formidable competitor for both Rolls and Raytheon Technologies for the foreseeable future. We're hearing from Wall Street that you're expected to sell off the Forcepoint business. Forcepoint is a commercial cyber business Tom Kennedy created when he brought a couple of companies together about five years ago. It has some great technology, but it clearly doesn't fit in the portfolio. We'll figure that out in the next six months. How is the integration going? Nothing went according to plan except the merger itself. We sent everybody home the week of March 12 [because of COVID-19], and we were still three weeks away from the merger. So we had to complete the merger and all of the integration remotely. And we had to spin off Carrier and Otis. All of that came to fruition on time and exactly as we had planned while working from home. The resilience and the ingenuity of our folks to figure all this out has probably been the most pleasing. There was some concern that the cultures at Raytheon and the commercial guys at Pratt and Collins would never come together. That is the last thing I worry about. Everything we laid out has gotten done. We're on track for synergies in cost, technology and revenue. The difference is I have yet to have a staff meeting in person. I've got 17 people who work for me, and we do everything on Zoom. Each one of our three board meetings since the merger has been done on Zoom. If you had told me 3-4 months ago that we would be working from home for a good deal of time, I'd have really panicked. But we figured it out. https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/ad-week-video-interviews/raytheon-technologies-ceo-riding-out-covid-19-crisis

All news