Counter-drone tech at Dubai Airshow reflects UAE's interest in the capability

Sur le même sujet

• 

  21 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  CEO Q&A: L3’s Chris Kubasik and Harris’s Bill Brown

  BY MARCUS WEISGERBER Soon after the companies announced plans to form the world's 7th-largest defense firm, the CEOs rang up for a joint interview. On Sunday, just after L3 Technologies and Harris Corp. announced their planned merger next year, I chatted with CEOs Chris Kubasik and Bill Brown about their plans to form L3 Harris Technologies, which would be the world's 7th-largest defense firm. Here are some excerpts. Q. How did this come together? Brown: Chris and I have known each other for a number of years here, and a lot of it started more socially, not from a business perspective. We work in the same space as complimentary businesses, complementary portfolios. Same [main] customer. You know we realized, given where we stack up in the defence hierarchy, this would be a great potential combination. We've been discussing it through the balance of this calendar year. [It] really picked up steam in the summer and were able to bring it forward here towards middle October. Q. Why a merger rather than an acquisition by one partner? Kubasik: Both companies are quite strong, and we're both on an upswing, and we looked at all the different stakeholders from the customers, the shareholders and the employees. And in our relative size and market value, a merger vehicle seems to be the absolute right way to go here. True partnership, as you've probably seen. 50/50 board. Bill and I have our leadership laid out clearly. It's absolutely the right way to do this. We're quite proud that we're able to pull it off. And I think it's the best way to serve all the stakeholders. Q. Bill is going to be CEO until a transition to Chris in a couple of years. How will that work? And what happens to L3's New York office if the headquarters moves to Florida? Brown: The combination in bringing these two great companies together is going to take a lot of work. So Chris and I will partner on this, in leading the company [and] clearly doing a lot of the integration. We're going to chair the integration committee together. I'll have responsibility for the enterprise functions, and Chris will keep an eye on the ball in what we do operationally in the business segments making sure that through to the integration we don't miss a beat in our growth agenda, meeting expectations of customers, delivering on programs. It's going to be a shared partnership in bringing the companies together. Kubasik: On a combined basis, we have several thousand employees in the state of New York, a lot in Rochester, of course Long Island and the surrounding areas. We got to do to what we believe is best for the business. When you look at the Space Coast of Florida, the 7,000 or so employees and infrastructure in the Melbourne area, it's an easy decision. We'll be transitioning from the headquarters from New York and taking the best of the best and moving to Florida. At some point the Manhattan office will either be significantly scaled down or ultimately closed. Q. Will the combined company divest or combine overlapping sectors? Bill Brown: Very high and complimentary portfolios. So we see very, very, very little overlap. Q. L3 has been on an acquisition spree in recent years. Should we expect more, perhaps in the maritime sphere? Kubasik: Job one is going to be the integration for the first couple years, so there will be very, very few, if any, acquisitions the first couple of years. They would have to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We're going to focus first and foremost on integrating this company. Once we get this integrated, which is a three-year program, we'll update and modify the strategy as appropriate. Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the proposed merged company's rank by revenue among global defense firms. This Q&A is part of the weekly Global Business Brief newsletter by Marcus Weisgerber. Find the rest of this week's issue here,and subscribe to get it in your inbox, here. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2018/10/q-ceos-chris-kubasik-and-bill-brown-l3-technologies-and-harris-corps/152135

• 

  22 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Boeing could be out of the Air Force’s competition for next-gen ICBMs for good

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing's risk reduction contract for the Air Force's Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program is functionally cancelled, the company announced Oct. 21. “Boeing is disappointed in the Air Force's decision to not allot additional funding for the GBSD Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction (TMRR) contract,” said Boeing spokesman Todd Blecher. “The Boeing team has delivered substantial value under the contract, achieved all contract milestones on time and received strong performance feedback from the Air Force.” “Continuing Boeing's TMRR contract would advance the Air Force's objectives of maturing the missile system's design and reducing the risk for this critical national priority capability,” he added. GBSD is the Air Force's program to replace its existing Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles, a major priority for the service as well as for U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees the operations of America's nuclear arsenal. Earlier on Monday evening, Politico reported that the Air Force had sent a letter to Boeing last week declaring its intent to stop funding the TMRR contract. Without additional money from the Air Force to continue work, Boeing expected its funding stream for the GBSD contract to be exhausted on Oct. 18, the company stated in an Oct. 16 letter to the GBSD program office at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. “The Air Force's decision not to allocate any further funding to the TMRR contract requires immediate and irrevocable actions by Boeing to wind down contract performance within the allotted funds. These measures include the reassignment of approximately 300 Boeing employees and the flow-down of a Stop Work notice to all suppliers working on the TMRR contract,” states the letter, which was obtained by Defense News. Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Cara Bousie told Defense News that the service had not cancelled Boeing's TMRR contract. However, she declined to comment on whether the Air Force had sent Boeing a letter stating its intention to curtail funding for the contract. Regardless of the semantics, a decision to cut short the TMRR contract would effectively hand the GBSD award to Northrop Grumman, the sole company competing against Boeing to produce the weapon system. Both Boeing and Northrop were awarded risk reduction contracts worth up to $359 million in 2017, beating out Lockheed Martin for the chance to bring their designs into the production stage. But Boeing withdrew from the GBSD competition in July, claiming that Northrop Grumman's purchase of one of the only two U.S. solid rocket motor manufacturers — Orbital ATK, now known as Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems — gave the company an unfair advantage in terms of being able to offer the lowest-cost system. In a July 23 letter, Leanne Caret, who leads Boeing's defense business, wrote that the current acquisition approach gives Northrop “inherently unfair cost, resource and integration advantages.” “We lack confidence in the fairness of any procurement that does not correct this basic imbalance between competitors,” she stated. Caret added that a joint bid between the two companies was unrealistic, as Northrop would have no incentive to partner with Boeing when it can put forward a solo bid. However, Boeing switched tactics about a month later, with Frank McCall, its director of strategic deterrence systems, telling reporters in September that the company hoped to persuade the Air Force to force Northrop to partner with it. “We think clearly it's time for the Air Force or other governmental entities to engage and direct the right solution. Northrop has elected not to do that,” McCall said during the Air Force Association's annual conference. “So, we're looking for government intervention to drive us to the best solution.” The Air Force did not take Boeing up on that suggestion. Nor did Northrop, which pointedly released its list of suppliers days before the AFA conference. The list — which featured Aerojet Rocketdyne, Collins Aerospace, Lockheed Martin and other major defense contractors — did not include Boeing. Boeing, in its letter to the program office, stated that the dissolution of the risk reduction contract could disadvantage the Air Force as it moves forward with the GBSD program, even if it ultimately opts to sole-source from Northrop. “The Government's decision also prevents Boeing from completing the work left to be performed under the TMRR contract, including the major milestones of a successful Software System Review and Preliminary Design Review,” it said. "We believe this work would provide substantial value to the Government, irrespective of the fact that Boeing will not participate as a prime offeror under the current EMD [engineering, manufacturing and development] solicitation structure for the next phase of the GBSD program. In September, McCall pointed to Boeing's ongoing risk reduction work on GBSD as a positive sign that the service may not be ready to sole-source the program to Northrop. “The service is maintaining our work," he said. “They continue to accept our deliverables, continue to fund our contract. So, I think we're in good shape with the service.” But with the TMRR contract revoked, Boeing's last hope may be an appeal to Congress. Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama as someone who has already raised shown support for Boeing's position, McCall said in September. McCall declined to name others, but should this turn into a legislative fight, it could come down to Boeing's supporters – with strongholds in Alabama, Washington and Missouri – versus those of Northrop Grumman. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nuclear-arsenal/2019/10/22/boeing-could-be-out-of-the-air-forces-competition-for-next-gen-icbms-for-good

• 

  11 octobre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  Industry, nations hope to cash in on unmanned ground vehicle growth

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — With the presence of drones ubiquitous in the skies, industry and international partners are turning their eyes closer to earth in an attempt to cash in on a growing sector: unmanned ground vehicles. “UGV market growth has historically been slow and steady, mostly S&T and niche procurements. What we're seeing now is an inflection point,” said Joshua Pavluk, a principal with Avascent. “There's a lot of activity happening and several DoD new starts happening nearly all at once.” That inflection point is partly the result of improved autonomy and navigation opening up opportunities, Pavluk said. But there is also a desire to see how these systems can transition from sole-mission capabilities, such as explosive ordnance disposal, to multi-mission systems capable of doing ISR, EW and communications. According to a report from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, total spending for ground drones in FY19 was set at $429 million, of which only $86 million is for procurement — DoD planned to buy 134 new systems during the fiscal year — and the rest for research and development. That pales in comparison to the $6.05 billion the Pentagon planned to spend on UAVs, and half the expected $982 million in naval drones. But that number shows steady growth, doubling in just two years from $212 million in FY17 and $310 million in FY18. And while explosive ordnance disposal systems still represent the biggest spending from the Army in this arena, it will likely be overtaken by programs such as the Army Common Robotic Systems and Robotic Ground System Advanced Technology Development. “The market won't match overall UAS spending levels anytime soon, but it's fast growing, and there's opportunity for the taking,” Pavluk said. However, Michael Blades, an analyst with Frost and Sullivan, is more subdued in his predictions. “It's a significant market and it is growing, but not at the levels of sea or air systems, or even counter-drone capabilities,” Blades said. “We will see some unmanned-unmanned teaming between UAS and UGV, but the land market for unmanned will be orders of magnitude smaller than the markets for air and maritime.” From a competition standpoint, Blades sees “the usual suspects” who are already in the market continuing to dominate in the coming years. And internationally, there are only a few players, with the market largely dominated by Israel. Could that change in the future? The international market generally lags behind the U.S. on such capabilities, Pavluk said, but he noted that “other countries will get in on the act, and it doesn't have to be large ones” to try and participate. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/09/industry-nations-hope-to-cash-in-on-unmanned-ground-vehicle-growth