22 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

COVID closed Mexican factories that supply US defense industry. The Pentagon wants them opened.

By: Joe Gould 

WASHINGTON ― Factory closures in Mexico due to the coronavirus pandemic are hurting U.S. defense firms, and the Pentagon is urging America’s neighbor to the south to reopen vital suppliers.

Because Mexico has not designated its aerospace and defense sector as essential, it’s disrupting the supply chain for the American defense industrial base, particularly aircraft manufacturers. Though little known, Mexico’s defense exports to the U.S. and beyond grew mightily over the last 15 years as defense firms large and small opened production facilities there.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon on Monday, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord said she discussed the problem with U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Christopher Landau. She was planning a letter to Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister Marcelo Ebrard, she said, to ask that he, “help reopen international suppliers there.

“These companies are especially important for our U.S. airframe production.”

The pandemic has raised broader questions about America’s dependence on global supply chains, particularly its reliance on China for key medicines and supplies. A Pentagon task force set up to monitor COVID-19′s impact on military suppliers found “several pockets of closure” linked to “international dependencies,” Lord said.

“Mexico right now is somewhat problematical for us but we’re working through our embassy, and then there are pockets in India as well,” Lord said.

More broadly, only small fractions of the Pentagon’s suppliers in the U.S. have closed due to the new coronavirus and distancing measures imposed to fights its spread, but the aviation, shipbuilding and small space launch subsectors have been hardest hit by disruptions from the virus, Lord said.

The Pentagon is using $250 million from last month’s emergency stimulus funding to bolster defense firms, and it will funnel another $750 million to medical resources.

The Defense Department is also working with the White House budget office to request “billions and billions” of dollars in future fiscal packages to cover schedule delays, accelerated progress payments and other costs, Lord said.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to provide details about the products and companies impacted by the Mexican factory closures, and said Lord’s letter to Ebrard was not being shared publicly because it contained sensitive information.

A 2013 United States International Trade Commission report noted that General Electric, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin and Eurocopter were among more than a dozen U.S. firms of various sizes that opened Mexican subsidiaries ― all part of a Mexican aerospace export boom.

Mexico’s growth was fueled by its lower manufacturing costs, duty-free access to markets through the North American Free Trade Agreement, a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement with the U.S., and by Mexican government subsidies and workforce development efforts.

According to the Mexican Federation of Aerospace Industries, or FEMIA, Mexico’s aerospace exports rocketed from $1.3 billion in 2004 to $9.6 billion last year. Lizcano said Mexico manufactures everything from avionics, to landing gear and fuselages, and it’s in the top ten overseas suppliers to the U.S. aerospace and defense sector.

But coronavirus is blunting Mexico aerospace growth, and it is reverberating across its economy. Mexico’s Labor Department said this month that the country had lost 346,748 jobs since mid-March due to the economic impact of the new coronavirus.

FEMIA is arguing publicly that its government should designate Mexico’s aerospace and defense sector as “essential,” to synchronize with the U.S. and Canada, its general manager, Luis Lizcano, told Defense News. It’s also coordinating with its trade association counterparts in the U.S. and Canada.

“What we’re asking is that we standardize in this sector because we’re going to break with supply chains with OEMs for commercial and defense aircraft,” Lizcano said.

The U.S.-based Aerospace Industries Association had a similar argument:

“Maintaining the free flow of goods and services between the United States, Canada, and Mexico is vital to our nation’s economy and to our industry," AIA President and CEO Eric Fanning said in a statement. He hailed the recent United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as aid to that goal.

“However, this certainty is currently threatened by disruptions in America’s common aerospace and defense supply chain affecting companies of all shapes and sizes. To restore certainty and keep goods and services moving, all levels of government within the U.S., Canada, and Mexico must work together to provide clear, coordinated, and direct guidance about how best to protect our workers, while ensuring aerospace and defense is declared an ‘essential’ function in all three countries.

"A unified North American approach helps ensure critical operations will continue under some of the strictest health and safety standards in the world and offer much-needed stability during this crisis.”

On Monday, the CEO of the National Defense Industrial Association, retired Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, said the increasingly global nature of some American defense supply chains cannot and should not be reversed. The U.S. ought to keep its suppliers diversified, he said, to avoid choke points overseas.

“What you don’t want are single points of failure where if something happened in that country, it couldn’t produce,” Carlisle said. “You have [to have] multiple, avenues to supply that capability. Some may be internal, and you can have more than one nation external.”



Sur le même sujet

  • La version militaire de l’Airbus A330 remplacera les CC-150 Polaris de l’Aviation royale canadienne

    6 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    La version militaire de l’Airbus A330 remplacera les CC-150 Polaris de l’Aviation royale canadienne

    Temps de lecture estimé : 2 minutes Alors que le gouvernement canadien était à la recherche d’avions pour remplacer les cinq avions de ravitaillement vieillissants de sa Force aérienne, le Canada, qui avait reçu une réponse à sa demande de Boeing, qui avait offert le KC-46, la version militaire du 767, a finalement choisi Airbus comme le seul fournisseur qualifié pour sa nouvelle flotte d’avions de ravitaillement en vol et d’avions VIP, rapportent les médias spécialisés.

  • Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 9, 2018

    10 octobre 2018 | International, Naval

    Contract Awards by US Department of Defense - October 9, 2018

    NAVY NAVMAR Applied Sciences Corp.,* Warminster, Pennsylvania, is awarded $7,707,370 for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order N6833519F0432 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N68335-15-G-0013).  This delivery order provides for the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase III work that derives from, extends, or completes an effort performed under SBIR Topics N08-008 entitled “Commandable Mobile Anti-Submarine Warfare Sensor,” N08-023 titled “Precision High Altitude Sonobuoy Emplacement,” and N101-042 titled “Environmental Wideband Acoustic Receiver and Source.”  The tasks include performance modeling and simulation, fabrication, component integration, test, training, and prototype procurement activities in support of the Extended Life Sonobuoy/Automated Extended Life Sonobuoy program.  Work will be performed in Warminster, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed in October 2022.  Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $1,690,000 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year.  The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity.  *Small Business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1657693/

  • OMFV: Army Wants Smaller Crew, More Automation

    20 juillet 2020 | International, Terrestre

    OMFV: Army Wants Smaller Crew, More Automation

    The draft RFP for the Bradley replacement, out today, also opens the possibility for a government design team to compete with private industry. By   SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 17, 2020 at 1:51 PM WASHINGTON: The Army is giving industry a lot of freedom in their designs for its future armored troop transport, letting them pick the gun, weight, number of passengers and more. But there’s one big exception. While the current M2 Bradley has three crew members – commander, gunner, and driver – a draft Request For Proposals released today says that its future replacement, the OMFV, must be able to fight with two. Fewer humans means more automation. It’s an ambitious goal, especially for a program the Army already had to reboot and start over once. The other fascinating wrinkle in the RFP is that the Army reserves the right to form its own design team and let it compete against the private-sector contractors. This government design team would be independent of any Army command to avoid conflicts of interest. If the Army does submit its own design, that would be a major departure from longstanding Pentagon practice. But the Army has invested heavily in technologies from 50mm cannon to automated targeting algorithms to engines, so it’s not impossible for a government team to put all that government intellectual property together into a complete design. The Army has embraced automation from the beginning of the Bradley replacement program, and that’s been consistent before and after January’s decision to reboot. OMFV’s very name, Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, refers to the service’s desire to have the option to operate the vehicle, in some situations, by remote control – eventually. But an unmanned mode remains an aspiration for future upgrades, not a hard-and-fast requirement for the initial version of the vehicle scheduled to enter service in 2028. By contrast, the two-person crew is one of the few hard-and-fast requirements in the draft RFP released this morning. It’s all the more remarkable because there few such requirements in the RFP or its extensive technical annexes (which are not public). Instead, in most cases, the Army lays out the broad performance characteristics it desires and gives industry a lot of leeway in how to achieve them. That’s a deliberate departure from traditional weapons programs, which lay out a long and detailed list of technical requirements. But the Army tried that prescriptive approach on OMFV and it didn’t work. Last year, in its first attempt to build the OMFV, the Army insisted that industry build – at its own expense – a prototype light enough that you could fit two on an Air Force C-17 transport, yet it had to be tough enough to survive a fight with Russian mechanized units in Eastern Europe. Only one company, General Dynamics, even tried to deliver a vehicle built to that specification and the Army decided they didn’t succeed. So the Army started over. It decided heavy armor was more important than air transportability, so it dropped the requirement to fit two OMFVs on a single C-17; now it’ll be satisfied if a C-17 can carry one. In fact, it decided rigid technical requirements were a bad idea in general because it limited industry’s opportunity to offer ingenious new solutions to the Army’s problems, so the service replaced them wherever it could with broadly defined goals called characteristics. And yet the new draft RFP does include a strict and technologically ambitious requirement: the two-person crew. Now, since the OMFV is a transport, it’ll have more people aboard much of the time, and when an infantry squad is embarked, one of them will have access to the vehicle’s sensors and be able to assist the crew. But when the passengers get out to fight on foot, there’ll just be two people left to operate the vehicle. A two-person crew isn’t just a departure from the Bradley. This is a departure from best practice in armored vehicle design dating back to World War II. In 1940, when Germany invaded France, the French actually had more tanks, including some much better armed and armored than most German machines. But a lot of the French tanks had two-man crews. There was a driver, seated in the hull, and a single harried soldier in the turret who had to spot the enemy, aim the gun, and load the ammunition. By contrast, most German tanks split those tasks among three men – a commander, a gunner, and a loader – which meant they consistently outmaneuvered and outfought the overburdened French tankers. A lot of modern vehicles don’t need a loader, because a mechanical feed reloads automatically. But in everything from the Bradley to Soviet tanks, the minimum crew is three: driver, gunner, and commander. That way the driver can focus on the terrain ahead, the gunner can focus on the target currently in his sights, and the commander can watch for danger in all directions. A two-person crew can’t split tasks that way, risking cognitive overload – which means a greater risk that no one spots a threat until it’s too late. So how do fighter jets and combat helicopters survive, since most of them have one or two crew at most? The answer is extensive training and expensive technology. If the Army wants a two-person crew in its OMFV, the crew compartment may have to look less like a Bradley and more like an Apache gunship, with weapons automatically pointing wherever the operator looks. The Army’s even developing a robotic targeting assistant called ATLAS, which spots potential targets on its sensors, decides the biggest threat and automatically brings the gun to bear – but only fires if a human operator gives the order. Now, industry does not have to solve these problems right away. The current document is a draft Request For Proposals, meaning that the Army is seeking feedback from interested companies. If enough potential competitors say the two-man crew is too hard, the Army might drop that requirement. The current schedule gives the Army about nine months, until April 2021, to come out with the final RFP, and only then do companies have to submit their preliminary concepts for the vehicle. The Army will pick several companies to develop “initial digital designs” – detailed computer models of the proposed vehicle – and then refine those designs. Physical prototypes won’t enter testing until 2025, with the winning design entering production in 2027 for delivery to combat units the next year. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/omfv-army-wants-smaller-crew-more-automation/

Toutes les nouvelles