17 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Arms trade momentum: Globalization and US defense spending drive defense industry growth

By:

5:00 AM

WASHINGTON ― Defense revenues of the top 100 defense companies in the world climbed for a fourth straight year, pushed upward by U.S. defense spending growth combined with strong foreign military sales.

Fiscal 2019 defense revenues recorded in Defense News' Top 100 list totaled $524 billion, up about 7 percent from $488 billion in fiscal 2018, according to numbers compiled by Defense News as part of the annual Top 100 list.

“The single most striking thing about these data is the year-over-year growth, the median of which is 7 percent,” said Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Steven Grundman. “For an industry generally regarded as mature, revenue growth that runs at two times global GDP is downright sporty.”

The defense industry remained top heavy, as the top 10 firms accounted for 50 percent of total defense revenue on this year's list, and the top 25 companies accounted for about 75 percent of the total.

Geographically, U.S. firms made up seven of the top 10, and 10 of the top 25. The combined defense revenue of the 41 U.S. firms in the Top 100 list comprised more than half of the total defense revenue.

China this year had five firms in the top 15 companies versus six last year. Eight Chinese firms made the Top 100 list this year, with a combined $95 billion in defense revenue for FY19 ― which is $11.7 billion shy of the list's total for Europe and Turkey.

The Aviation Industry Corporation of China, which appeared with other Chinese firms for the first time last year, fell from No. 5 to No. 6, though its defense revenue grew by a percentage point over last year. China South Industries Group Corporation fell from No. 11 to No. 18, as its revenue declined 26 percent, from about $12 billion to around $9 billion.

China is unquestionably a defense giant in the Asia-Pacific region, dwarfing its nine neighbors (excluding Russia) on the list. Their 2019 defense revenues totaled $21 billion.

The combined revenues of the Chinese firms marks the country as the rising superpower it's billed to be in political and strategic circles, said Daniel Gouré, a senior vice president with the Lexington Institute.

“For all the discussions we have been having over the last weeks and months about China as a potential threat and challenges, they are building all kinds of blue-water ship classes that mirror the U.S. Navy,” he said. “For a country that was once thought of as a continental or near-shore power, it's amazing the stuff they're building, and its reflected in these companies.”

From Europe and Turkey, a NATO ally, there were 35 firms across the list. The combined defense revenue there comprised roughly 20 percent of the Top 100 total. Seven Turkish firms made the list, with FNSS Savunma Sistemleri A.S., and Havelsan A.S. joining the list at No. 98 and No. 99 respectively.

For Russia, some past participants declined to provide data this year for unknown reasons. The two that participated made it into the list: Almaz-Antey placed 17th, with $9.2 billion in defense revenue for 2019, and Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC placed 35th, with $3.5 billion in defense revenue.

The annual Defense News Top 100 list relies for the most part on self-reporting from companies, many of whom provide estimates rather than definitive data for their defense percentages. That means that while the list is the industry standard, the numbers come with some variance.

Heritage firms dominate

Lockheed Martin was a lock for No. 1, for the 21st year in a row, with defense revenue that represents nearly 11 percent of the total. Its defense revenue jumped 12 percent between FY18 and FY19, from $51 billion to $57 billion ― with Boeing trailing at No. 2 at $34 billion in defense revenue for FY19.

Within the top five, General Dynamics climbed back from No. 6 last year, passing both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

Northrop fell from No. 3 to No. 4, likely based on a full-year accounting of its acquisition of Orbital ATK in 2017, said analyst Roman Schweizer, managing director of Cowen and Company.

GD led Northrop by $912 million in defense revenue, with Raytheon (5th place) trailing Northrop by $1.2 billion in defense revenue.

Ten companies increased their defense revenue by $1 billion or more, and Lockheed Martin led the pack with a $6 billion boost.

The merger between L3 Technologies (18th place last year) and Harris Corp. (26th place last year) saw a new entry, L3Harris Technologies, take the No. 9 spot, with $13.9 billion in defense revenue ― just ahead of United Technologies Corp., which acquired Rockwell Collins in 2018 and whose merger with Raytheon should be reflected in next year's list.

At the same time, the data doesn't support the argument that the defense industry is growing progressively more concentrated, according to Grundman.

“The top-quartile of firms account for exactly three-quarters of the revenue both in 2018 and 2019,” he said. “Looking back at the data for 2013, the top quartile took 73 percent of the revenue, but that's not appreciably less than last year.”

Still, despite the Pentagon's push to work with nontraditional suppliers, the top of this year's list, and the list overall, is almost like the automotive sector, it's so dominated by familiar names, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners.

“The interesting thing is just the relative stability of this,” Callan said. “For all of DoD's emphasis to get new entrants into the sector, and reach out to innovative suppliers, you just don't see it. When you compare it to the technology sector, we're all using things made by companies that weren't even household names 10 years ago. ... Where is the Tesla [of the defense sector]?”

It's not out of the question that the list changes over the next five years, if the U.S. Department of Defense and foreign militaries make good on their promises to boost innovation, Callan said.

For all the DoD's discussion of the growing role of software, artificial intelligence and machine learning, there's no company known for those things on the list, Gouré observed.

Beyond General Dynamics, which completed its acquisition of IT services giant CSRA in 2018, “AI, software, IT aren't there because they're still subcontractors,” Gouré said. “Microsoft and Amazon Web Services, they aren't anywhere on the list.”

That's not to say there isn't massive spending on all of the above, but it remains a subcomponent within companies, and therefore not captured on the list, Gouré said.

“If we keep saying it's the kill chain, the network matters and the country with the best AI will win, are we not investing enough, are we doing the right thing?” Gouré wondered. “There are more questions than answers.”

(Booz Allen Hamilton, No. 26 this year, did win an $800 million Pentagon artificial intelligence contract. But as that occurred in May 2020, it will likely impact future lists.)

For now, the large, multiplatform firms dominate and should continue to do so, even if government defense spending declines, Gouré said. “These guys are showing it's good to have a finger in many pies.”

Furthermore, the data tend to contradict the conventional wisdom that defense is an industry of mostly large-scale, pure-play firms, according to Grundman.

“In fact, the median [defense] revenue of the top 100 is only $2 billion. And on average, only slightly more than half each firm's revenue ... derives from defense sales,” he said.

Flat-budget future?

The consensus among analysts is that government defense spending will level off amid the coronavirus pandemic, and its effects as well as the result of the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November will be reflected in future lists.

“Successful years of investment spending growth appears to be ending, but outlays are still growing due to the surge in spending over the last three years. But they are starting to taper significantly after this year,” Schweizer said.

Schweizer sees foreign spending softening, at least in the short term due to COVID-19, but he predicts defense budgets, backlogs, outlays and foreign military sales will hold together for at least 12-18 months to help defense firms weather the unprecedented damage visiting the commercial aerospace sector.

The biggest risk is the U.S. budget trajectory, which is likely to be flat, at best, or decline in mid-single digits, at worst, over the next five years, Schweitzer added. He anticipates a drop of 3-5 percent, but with the Pentagon's eye on Russia and China, the department will likely make trade-offs to protect core modernization areas.

As global growth rates slow, future lists may see some familiar companies grow leaner.

“These companies are going to figure out what their growth businesses are so they can shrink to grow,” Callan said. “They all say they're well positioned [for slower defense spending], but what the hell does that mean? They can't all be right.”

Other notable moves included Reston, Virginia-based engineering and construction company Bechtel, which fell to No. 47 from No. 31 last year; the firm's defense revenue declined 39 percent, from $3.7 billion to $2.3 billion.

In France, Safran's defense revenue jumped from $1.6 billion in FY18 to $4.4 billion in FY19, bumping it from No. 56 to No. 28. However, the company told Defense News that it attributes the large rise to a difference in calculation for this year's list. Since 2015, the data from Safran were made up of Safran Electronics & Defense activities. This year, the firm changed its approach by adding the military activities of the group's other subsidiaries.

Also in France, Dassault nearly doubled its revenue from $2.9 billion in FY18 to $5.7 billion in FY19 ― jumping from No. 38 to No. 22.

Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries vaulted back onto the list to No. 21, with $6.6 billion in defense revenue. However, it's worth noting that defense revenue numbers reflect awards made by the Japanese Ministry of Defense, which leads to more year-over-year volatility among Japanese firms.

The three Israeli companies on this year's list — Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems — moved up in the ranking. The sole South American company on the lsit, Embraer, also moved up, from No. 84 to No. 79.

Meanwhile, the only non-U.S. North American company on this year's list — Canada's CAE — dropped four spots to No. 74, but its defense revenue grew by a percentage point.

https://www.defensenews.com/top-100/2020/08/17/arms-trade-momentum-globalization-and-us-defense-spending-drive-defense-industry-growth

Sur le même sujet

  • Athletic trainers and greener kitchens on the way as Corps caters to ‘combat athletes’

    15 août 2018 | International, Terrestre

    Athletic trainers and greener kitchens on the way as Corps caters to ‘combat athletes’

    By: Shawn Snow The Corps plans to hire a slew of athletic trainers, and come October Marines will likely notice a new healthier food menu and layout at their respective chow halls. It's all part of an effort by the Corps to reduce injuries across the force and cater to combat athletes in similar fashion to division one collegiate players. The new chow facilities or “athletic kitchens” will boast healthier options with fresh fruit and vegetables up front. There will be a cold bar option with yogurt, granola and fresh fruit in the morning and a salad bar for lunch and dinner. “As you go through the line it's going to be the green stuff,” Col. Stephen Armes, the director of the Force Fitness Division told Marine Corps Times in an interview. “All the healthy stuff is going to be up front.” The new chow halls are going to resemble college athletic dining facilities with fresh greens and an assortment of healthy proteins, according to Armes. But unhealthy food is not disappearing, the Corps just plans to make it harder for you to choose that option. “Sometimes you just need a cheeseburger, there's nothing wrong with that,” Armes said. But, a Marine is “going to have to fight to get down to that cheeseburger.” The Corps is also on the verge of hiring new athletic trainers separate from the nearly 600 Force Fitness Instructors already fielded across the Marines. Full Article: https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/08/14/athletic-trainers-and-greener-kitchens-on-the-way-as-corps-caters-to-combat-athletes/

  • Ilias Solutions signs deal with Lockheed Martin for sustainment and fleet management of the Slovak Air Force F-16 Fighter jets

    31 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Ilias Solutions signs deal with Lockheed Martin for sustainment and fleet management of the Slovak Air Force F-16 Fighter jets

    Brussels, 31 July 2020 – ILIAS Solutions is proud to announce Lockheed Martin have, once again, chosen them and their defense logistics software to support the implementation and sustainment of the new F-16 Block 70 fleet of the Slovak Republic. ILIAS Solutions will work with the Slovak Air Force to implement its defense logistics software into the Sliač Air Base IT platform. Prior to the fleet's arrival, the staff will be fully trained to manage and sustain the new fleet of F-16 Block 70 fighter jets with the ILIAS Defense Platform. Jean-Pierre Wildschut, Managing Director ILIAS Solutions says, “I'm excited to extend our cooperation with Lockheed Martin and start working with the Slovak Air Force; providing the capability to manage their F-16 fleet at Sliač Air Base. The ILIAS Defense Platform will minimize the logistics footprint of their F-16 fleet while assuring mission readiness at all times.” The ILIAS Solutions-Lockheed Martin collaboration already lead to significantly improved sustainment performance of multiple F-16 fleets and other weapon systems. By bringing together decades of expertise, ILIAS Solutions and Lockheed Martin merge military sustainment know-how via the ILIAS commercially available off-the-shelf software into a long-term capability for the customer. The combined expertise of ILIAS Solutions and Lockheed Martin will provide Sliač Air Base a proven solution to assure mission readiness for their F-16 fleet. Danya Trent, vice president of Lockheed Martin's F-16 program added, “ILIAS Solutions will be instrumental in providing the Slovak Republic first class capabilities for the sustainment and fleet management of these advanced F-16 Block 70 fighter jets. I'm confident in their capabilities, and welcome them on board the Lockheed Martin team that is already working closely with the Slovak Air Force preparing for the arrival and deployment of the F-16 at Sliač Air Base.” The ILIAS software platform will provide the Slovak Air Force with total asset visibility. This will allow them to asses mission readiness and plan deployments of the F-16 for military missions or training. If you would like to know more about the new F-16 Block and the ILIAS implementation, do not hesitate to contact us. View source version on ILIAS Solutions: https://www.ilias-solutions.com/news/ilias-solutions-signs-deal-lockheed-martin-sustainment-and-fleet-management-slovak-air-force-f

  • Budget watchdog warns this fighter could cost three times that of the F-35

    17 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    Budget watchdog warns this fighter could cost three times that of the F-35

    By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — A next-generation air superiority jet for the U.S. Air Force, known by the service as Penetrating Counter Air, could cost about $300 million in 2018 dollars per plane, the Congressional Budget Office states in a new study. At that price, PCA would be more than three times that of the average F-35A jet, which is set at about $94 million to capture both the expense of early production lots and the decline in cost as the production rate increases, according the report, which predicts the cost of replacing the Air Force's aircraft inventory from now until 2050. This sum, while not an official cost estimate from the Pentagon, represents the first time a government entity has weighed in on the potential price tag for PCA. The CBO estimates the Air Force will need 414 PCA aircraft to replace existing F-15C/Ds and F-22s, the Air Force's current fighters geared toward air-to-air combat. It also surmises that the first aircraft will enter service in 2030, based on the service's stated desire to begin fielding PCA around that time frame. The reason for the whopping price tag? Part of it comes down to the cost of new technology. “The PCA aircraft would probably have a greater range and payload, as well as improved stealth and sensor capabilities, than today's F-22; those characteristics would help it operate in the presence of the high-end air defenses that DoD believes China, Russia, and other potential adversaries may have in the future,” the CBO states. The other reason comes down to history. The Air Force doesn't have a great track record when it comes to producing stealth aircraft at the low costs initially envisioned by leadership. Both the B-2 and F-22 programs were truncated in part due to the high price per plane — which in turn contributed to the production rate never accelerating to the point where unit costs begin to decrease. The early years of the F-35 program were also marred by a series of cost overruns that eventually prompted the Pentagon to restructure it. “Containing costs for the PCA aircraft may be similarly difficult,” the report states. The Air Force has said little about PCA since the release of the Air Superiority 2030 flight plan in 2016, which stated a need for a new fighter jet that would be networked into a family of systems of other air, space, cyber and electronic warfare technologies. “The replacement may not be a single platform,” Gen. Dave Goldfein, the Air Force's chief of staff, told Defense News earlier this year. “It may be two or three different kinds of capabilities and systems. And so as we look at air superiority in the future, ensuring that we're advancing to stay ahead of the adversary, we're looking at all those options.” Although Air Force leadership won't say exactly what it's doing to develop PCA or when a new jet may be coming online, it's clearly making investments. In the fiscal 2019 budget, the service requested $504 million for “next-generation air dominance,” its portfolio of future fighter technologies and weapons. The Air Force expects to ramp up funding to $1.4 billion in FY20, hitting a high in FY22 with a projected $3.1 billion in spending. According to the CBO's analysis, Air Force procurement of new aircraft could peak at about $26 billion in 2033, as the service buys both the F-35 and PCA. Those two fighters, together with the B-21 bomber, are set to be the largest drivers of cost as procurement reaches its height in the mid-2030s. “Although the Air Force could probably modify both retirement plans and replacement schedules to smooth out the 2033 peak, the average annual costs of procuring new aircraft would still be higher than in the recent past: $15 billion in the 2020s, $23 billion in the 2030s, and $15 billion in the 2040s,” the report states. Dealing with an upcoming bow wave CBO's estimates included 35 platforms that will be replacing legacy systems, with six programs making up more than 85 percent of the projected procurement costs cited throughout the report: the F-35, PCA, the KC-46A, the B-21, the C-130J cargo plane as well as the yet-unannounced C-17 replacement. The report envisions a future where the Air Force is allowed to retire all of its legacy fighter and attack aircraft — the A-10, the F-15, the F-16 and even the F-22 — in favor of three aircraft: the F-35, PCA and a light attack aircraft configured to take on low-threat missions. The Air Force has yet to decide whether to buy a light-attack aircraft or how extensive its purchase may be, although the service is expected to put out a request for proposals by the end of the month. “Funding for new fighter aircraft makes up about half of the total projected costs of procuring new aircraft,” the CBO states, with the F-35 set to be the most expensive program through the 2020s until PCA takes its place in the early 2030s. The Air Force could decrease costs in a couple of ways, although all of them come with significant drawbacks. For one, it could extend the lives of its legacy fighter and attack aircraft, and delay programs like PCA. However, the CBO notes that “obtaining replacement parts can be both difficult and expensive, and a refurbished fleet may not provide as many available and mission-capable aircraft as a new fleet.” If the service wants to increase the availability of its inventory without paying the high price associated with developing a new stealth fighter, it could retire its legacy F-15s and F-16s and buy new ones. That option is probably more expensive, but would result in aircraft that are more reliable. The Air Force could also defer the PCA program while allowing some of its legacy aircraft to be retired, the CBO posits. However, Air Force leadership contend that the service is already too small, with Secretary Heather Wilson arguing that the number of operational squadrons needs to increase from 312 to 386 — a goal that necessitates buying more aircraft. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/14/budget-watchdogs-warn-of-expensive-price-tag-for-next-air-force-fighter/

Toutes les nouvelles