Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - February 13, 2019

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 mars 2020 | International, C4ISR

  EXCLUSIF Défense : le leader français de la vision nocturne va passer sous bannière américaine

  La société d'électronique californienne Teledyne est entrée en négociations exclusives pour reprendre Photonis pour près de 500 millions d'euros, de sources concordantes. Le dossier divise au plus haut niveau au sein de l'Etat. Par Anne Drif Publié le 3 mars 2020 à 6h14 Le leader mondial de la vision nocturne est sur le point de perdre son pavillon français. Donné favori, l'Américain Teledyne est bien entré en négociations exclusives pour racheter Photonis au fonds Ardian pour une valeur d'un peu moins de 500 millions d'euros, de sources concordantes. Ce dossier, qui divise au plus haut niveau au sein de l'Etat, serait déjà en procédure d'examen par la direction générale du Trésor. C'est à Bercy que revient l'arbitrage ultime en faveur de la cession au titre du contrôle des investissements étrangers, a réagi en janvier le Premier ministre sous le feu des critiques de 17 députés de tous bords . Les parlementaires, mais aussi un pan du ministère des Armées, lié aux technologies d'application militaire et des services de renseignement, s'opposent au passage sous bannière étrangère de cet actif jugé « critique » pour les opérations de terrain souvent nocturnes. « Après le rachat du fabricant des appareils de mesure des rayonnements nucléaires Canberra et Premium Analyse, spécialiste français de la détection du gaz tritium, par l'Américain Mirion, nous sommes en passe de créer de nouvelles dépendances technologiques vis-à-vis d'acteurs étrangers très proches du ministère américain de la Défense », critique un proche du dossier. Le groupe américain a réalisé plus de 60 acquisitions ces dernières années pour un total de 3,6 milliards de dollars avec l'objectif de se développer dans l'imagerie, les infrarouges, les rayons X, les instruments de contrôle pour la marine ou encore l'électronique pour la défense et le spatial. Il cherche désormais à se déployer hors de ses bases américaines pour réduire sa dépendance aux opérations extérieures menées par les Etats-Unis. Bercy plutôt ouvert Un opposant du projet pointe la mise en cause de Teledyne par le bras armé du Trésor américain en matière de sanction (OFAC) pour des exportations au Soudan. A ce stade, cependant, le ministre de l'Economie Bruno Le Maire s'est montré plutôt ouvert. « Aucune décision n'a encore été prise, a-t-il déclaré sur Sud Radio mi-février. Nous regardons toutes les options, pour intégrer Photonis dans une chaîne de valeur industrielle, qui permette le développement de l'emploi et la protection de cette technologie, et nous serons très attentifs au respect de nos intérêts de souveraineté. » Ancrage en France Un partisan du projet souligne l'ancrage de Teledyne en France au travers de deux filiales, e2v vers Grenoble dans les semi-conducteurs et Oldham Simtronics dans la détection de gaz vers Arras. « Qu'est ce qui doit primer ? La poursuite de l'approvisionnement technologique aux armées françaises ou risquer de rendre l'entreprise moins viable faute de repreneur et créer un incident politique en cas de rejet officiel ? Ces logiques doivent aussi être prises en compte », nuance-t-on au sein du ministère des Armées. Sur le plan industriel, l'absence de vente imposerait simplement au fonds actionnaire de garder l'entreprise plus longtemps, réagit un opposant. Le temps de trouver une alternative française ? Interrogé par les sénateurs, le directeur général de l'armement, Joël Barre, a affirmé avoirdemandé à Safran et Thales de se pencher sur le dossier. Sans succès à ce stade. https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/exclusif-defense-le-leader-francais-de-la-vision-nocturne-va-passer-sous-banniere-americaine-1181289

• 

  7 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Army’s Shift To FVL Poses Big Risks For Small Suppliers

  After decades of building traditional helicopters in traditional ways, contractors must get ready for the Army's new high-speed Future Vertical Lift aircraft. Small makers of key parts need help. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on May 06, 2020 at 2:14 PM WASHINGTON: What worries the Army's aviation acquisition chief as he helps industry get ready to build a revolutionary new generation of aircraft in the midst of a global pandemic? “It's the mom and pop shops,” Patrick Mason said today. “It's the Tier 3 suppliers, typically on the hardware side.” “Those are the ones we remain focused on, because those are those are the ones that can end up in a single point failure,” the program executive officer for Army aviation continued. “That's what we're doing right now through COVID and we're going to continue to do that as we look ...to Future Vertical Lift.” While the big Tier 1 prime contractors should be fine, they depend on smaller Tier 2 suppliers for key components, and they depend on yet smaller Tier 3 suppliers. As you trace the provenance of a crucial component down that supply chain, you all too often find a single point of failure. That's some tiny, easily overlooked company that happens to have the only people who know how to build a particular part, like an actuator or a valve, or the only one who can apply a particular heat treatment or protective coating to someone else's part so it can survive the stresses of flight. It would be easier if the Army was just winding down production of one kind of traditional helicopter and ramping up another. Then industry could build any new parts required in the old way. But Future Vertical Lift is about building new kinds of aircraft in new ways. Even the most traditional-looking competitor, Bell's proposal for the FARA scout helicopter, is being designed, built, and tested using new digital tools. Those tools allow much greater precision and efficiency than traditional blueprints, but only for facilities that have the necessary technology installed. Bell and its rivals, Sikorsky and Boeing, are also all eager to use 3D printing and other advanced manufacturing techniques to improve the performance and reliability of key parts while reducing their cost. That's another set of new technologies that small firms can't easily afford. Will increasing sales of drones help make up the revenue? In addition to the optionally manned FARA scout and FLRAA transport, which will have human crews aboard for most missions, FVL is also building a whole family of completely unmanned aircraft. The major companies can get in on much of that business, Mason said, but some of their smaller suppliers can't. If you build electronics or write flight control software, then. you can work on either manned or unmanned aircraft. But, Mason said, if you specialize in building a particular kind of hardware for manned aircraft, most drones are so much smaller that they use entirely different systems, such electric actuators instead of hydraulics. So for small manufacturing shops, he said, “there's less synergy.” Mason's concerns were well supported by a study of the FVL industrial base by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, released today. “The primes are all in,” said Andrew Hunter, director of defense industrial studies at CSIS, who hosted yesterday's call, “[but] it's a big challenge for those Tier 3 and lower suppliers to make this transition.” During months of workshops with industry, “the concern that we heard expressed repeatedly was lower down the supply chain, [with] Tier 3 and lower suppliers,” Hunter said. “It's an expensive investment that they may be challenged to raise the capital to do, [and] it certainly will involve retraining their workforce to use these new manufacturing techniques.” “Industry has to see they're going to get a return on that investment,” he said. “Even optimistic management who are true believers and think they are definitely going to get a return on this investment because they're going to win [FVL contracts], they've still got to justify it to the banks. They've still got to justify it to their corporate boards.” Changing The Rules What complicates the business case for contractors is that the Army wants a new approach, not just to building the new aircraft, but also to how it keeps them flying. Over an aircraft's decades in service, the long tail of operations, maintenance, and upgrades dwarfs the up-front cost of research, development, and acquisition. While the CSIS study calculated that the Army could afford to build the Future Vertical Lift if budgets remain near historical averages – not guaranteed in the wake of the pandemic – the bigger risk is whether or not the service can control those Operations & Sustainment costs in the long term. Army Futures Command's director for aviation modernization, Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen, said he was confident that extensive physical prototyping and digital modeling would help the service get a handle on those costs. “Our requirements... are still in draft form, so if we need to trade one away to maintain our budgets, we will do that,” he said. “We are going to understand to the greatest degree possible what our O&S costs are and make sure that it's within our budget.” For helicopters, Hunter said, O&S is typically 65 percent of the total cost over the lifetime of a program. Now, not all that money goes to aerospace contractors, since sizable chunk goes to pay military maintenance personnel, buy fuel, and so on. But contracts to sustain existing aircraft are a more important revenue stream for most contractors than actually building new ones. While projected spending on R&D (blue) and procurement (red) rise and fall, remaining under $2.5 billion a year, Operations & Sustainment costs (green) remain largely constant at over $7.5 billion — a crucial source of cash for industry. (CSIS graphic) So any Army effort to economize on operations & sustainment hits contractors where they live. What's more, the Army isn't just trying to squeeze savings out of the existing process; it's changing the rules of the game. Historically, companies could bid low to build a new weapons system because, once they got the contract, they had a de facto monopoly on maintaining and upgrading that system for decades. Now the Defense Department is pushing hard to break this “vendor lock” in two main ways: It's increasingly requiring companies to hand over their intellectual property and technical data. The government can then give that data to potential competitors trying to build cheaper alternatives, as on the Army-run Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program. Second, it's requiring companies to make their products compatible with government standards for how different components fit together physically and connect electronically, with the aim of creating Modular Open System Architectures where you can swap out one company's component and replace it with another vendor's. Developing a common MOSA for all manned and unmanned aircraft is a top priority for the Army's Future Vertical Lift initiative. “Part of what we're doing [over] the next year, year and a half, is the strategy associated with the operational availability, that we want out of these platforms, the intellectual property we want to obtain,” Mason said. “What's the valuation of the IP, the intellectual property? Because intellectual property drives their ability to control the aftermarket, and the aftermarket is where you see the year over year cash flow [that's] critical to most of their business models.” “As you look at Modular Open System Architecture...the business case and the business model associated with it is something that we're working through with industry right now,” Mason said. “It is critical that we have the right incentive structure, it is critical that we provide the right framework so that industry continues to invest and they continue to see a return on that invested capital.” To prevail in future conflicts, “we can't afford not to do Future Vertical Lift,” Brig. Gen. Rugen said. “What this report talks to is national interest we have in preserving the rotorcraft industrial base as we go forward.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/armys-shift-to-fvl-poses-big-risks-for-small-suppliers/

• 

  23 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Editorial: Why Coronavirus Cannot Kill Aviation

  Not long ago, the biggest concern facing commercial aviation was whether Airbus and Boeing could produce enough aircraft to keep up with demand. Industry leaders fretted about how quickly they could ramp up production and whether the supply chain could keep pace. Some airlines were equally bullish, with American Airlines CEO Doug Parker proclaiming: “I don't think we're ever going to lose money again.” After a run of unparalleled and seemingly unstoppable prosperity, aviation and aerospace have flown into a perfect storm. The temporary shutdown of Boeing's 737 MAX production line has waylaid aerospace suppliers. But that pales in comparison to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which first crippled a crucial growth engine, China, and is now decimating air transport markets around the world. Each day brings a new round of fleet groundings, layoffs and order deferrals or cancellations, which in the coming months will rip through the manufacturing industry like a tornado. A new forecast from Europe projects Airbus will be forced to cut planned production nearly in half in 2021 and may not fully recover before 2027. Boeing is calling on the U.S. government to provide at least $60 billion in aid to aerospace manufacturers, U.S. airlines want another $58 billion, airports $10 billion and the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry $11 billion. It would not be hyperbole to call this the greatest crisis civil aviation has faced since the dawn of the commercial jet age more than six decades ago. But amid such panic, we need to take a deep breath and remember that this industry has survived many big challenges: oil price spikes; the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; and the 2008-09 global financial meltdown. Each time commercial aviation has recovered and grown stronger, resuming its long-held trend of outpacing global economic growth. In one way, the disruption to our lives and businesses caused by the travel restrictions imposed to control the spread of COVID-19 illustrates the degree to which the world has come to rely on air transportation, from enabling commerce to connecting families. This is a crisis on an unprecedented scale for aviation, and there are airlines and businesses that certainly will not survive. But the extent of the disruption gives hope that demand for air transportation will return unabated once the restrictions are lifted. It is vital for governments, lawmakers and industry leaders to recognize that aviation will need help getting through such destructive upheaval. But in some cases, the optics will invite legitimate criticism. For example, Boeing has returned nearly $50 billion to its shareholders over the past five years while investing far less. Now it wants taxpayers to cough up tens of billions for a bailout? U.S. airlines are no better: They have sent 96% of free cash flow to shareholders over the last five years. And what about those airlines in Europe that should have been allowed to die long ago? Will they use this crisis as leverage for yet another government rescue? Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from the crisis, and a return to business as usual will not suffice. But in the near term, this is not about partisan politics or competitive advantage. It is about helping a vital industry survive this calamity. Commercial aviation is a connective tissue that underpins global commerce, drives prosperity and supports many millions of jobs. Allowing it to wither is not a realistic option. The coming days will be dark, but rest assured the industry will recover and once again prosper. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/editorial-why-coronavirus-cannot-kill-aviation