Estonia’s new law opens door for weapons export, defense industry growth

Sur le même sujet

• 

  29 novembre 2019 | International, Autre défense

  Produire local, passage obligé des entreprises partant à l'international

  Grandes et petites entreprises doivent se plier aux exigences croissantes des États de produire sur place une partie de leurs gros contrats. Y compris Dassault Aviation pour vendre son Rafale en Inde. Enquête. Difficile d'y échapper. Les exigences de compensations industrielles, ou offsets, occupent une place croissante dans la négociation des grands contrats. Elles sont presque autant l'apanage de pays émergents, qui cherchent à accélérer la montée en gamme de leur industrie domestique, que de pays développés. Dans le seul secteur de la défense, le montant global des offsets a progressé de 25 % entre 2012 et 2016, pour représenter près de 2,5 % des dépenses militaires. Pour décrocher le contrat de 36 avions Rafale en Inde, Dassault a dû s'engager à réinvestir 50 % de sa valeur dans le pays, sous forme de fabrication locale et d'approvisionnement auprès de sous-traitants indiens. Il a ouvert un site pour produire ses avions d'affaires Falcon et le Rafale avec l'indien Reliance. DCNS a consenti à transférer une partie de sa production et de ses compétences en Australie, dans le cadre du "contrat du siècle" de 12 sous-marins. Politique du "make in India" en Inde, "Buy american act" aux États-Unis, droits de douane exorbitants sur les importations de véhicules pour forcer les constructeurs à réaliser l'assemblage sur place... Au-delà de la défense et de l'aéronautique, le parapétrolier, le ferroviaire et la filière nucléaire font aussi face à des contraintes similaires, plus ou moins structurées. "La plupart des nouveaux contrats en Afrique prennent en compte la volonté de transférer des équipes et de produire localement ", remarque Pedro Novo, le directeur de l'international de Bpifrance. Accompagner les PME et les ETI "Les compensations industrielles étaient auparavant supportées par les seuls intégrateurs. Mais à mesure qu'elles augmentent et que les grands groupes externalisent davantage, elles descendent de plus en plus dans la supply chain", pointe Philippe Advani, un ancien d'Airbus, qui préside le comité sur les offsets des conseillers du commerce extérieur. Avec le groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales (Gifas), il a publié en juillet un guide pour aider ETI et PME à naviguer dans les contraintes de transfert de savoir-faire ou de production – souvent complexes – fixées par les gouvernements. Pour les sous-traitants, l'opération n'est pas sans risque. En Inde, le spécialiste de l'ingénierie aéronautique Ametra, qui emploie 700 salariés, a sauté le pas l'an passé en créant une coentreprise avec un partenaire indien à Hyderabad, dans le sud du pays. "Cela demande du cash, et un pillage de propriété intellectuelle peut être plus dramatique pour une petite entreprise", reconnaît Philippe Advani. "Devenir indien en Inde, par exemple, implique d'accélérer la structuration de sa société, de revoir la logistique et la gestion des flux de données, d'impliquer le conseil d'administration. Il faut un accompagnement pour mettre ces contraintes à la portée des PME", énumère Pedro Novo, qui a lancé il y a un an le fonds Build-up International afin de co-investir dans des filiales à l'étranger d'ETI françaises et étudie une vingtaine de dossiers. Certains ont fait de ces contraintes un nouvel axe de leur stratégie. Depuis deux ans, le fabricant de c'ble marnais Axon'Cable surveille les obligations de compensations industrielles des grands contrats militaires pour implanter ses nouvelles usines. "Il est plus facile de vendre à nos grands clients car ils ne trouvent pas leurs fournisseurs habituels et nous en profitons pour démarcher des industriels locaux", pointe son président, Joseph Puzo, qui a ouvert en 2016 une filiale au Brésil et prépare un bureau en Australie pour 2020. L'ETI, qui possède déjà une usine low cost en Inde, a créé en début d'année une deuxième coentreprise, Dhruv, avec un partenaire local, afin d'obtenir le statut d'"offset indien partner", qui permet de répondre aux demandes de compensation industrielle. Produire localement ne supprime pas pour autant tous les échanges. Seul l'assemblage final est réalisé à proximité du client. Les composants les plus sensibles restent exportés depuis la France. Le meilleur moyen de protéger ses innovations. Latécoère suit Thales et Dassault en Inde S'implanter en Inde ne faisait pas partie des plans initiaux de Latécoère. "Je savais que l'Inde était un pays compliqué et bureaucratique. Nous serions certainement allés dans un autre pays d'Asie s'il n'y avait pas eu les contreparties du contrat Rafale", reconnaît volontiers Yannick Assouad, la PDG de l'équipementier aéronautique. Son usine de c'blage de Belagavi, dans l'État du Karnataka, a démarré sa production en septembre. Pour vendre ses 36 avions de combat, Dassault a dû s'engager à des compensations industrielles, dont l'ouverture d'un site à Nagpur, dans l'État du Maharashtra, pour produire des pièces pour le Rafale et le Falcon. En 2017, Latécoère a décroché auprès de Dassault la fourniture de harnais électriques pour le Falcon 2000 en s'engageant à suivre l'avionneur en Inde. "Se localiser dans un pays d'offset n'était pas suffisant pour remporter le contrat car il faut avant tout être compétitif. Mais c'était la cerise sur le g'teau", reconnaît Yannick Assouad. Dans la foulée, sa nouvelle usine indienne a permis à l'ETI de décrocher un deuxième contrat auprès de Thales, lui aussi tenu à des offsets, pour son système de divertissement à bord. De quoi atteindre plus vite que prévu le seuil de rentabilité de l'usine de 300 salariés. En attendant que Dassault implante sa chaîne d'assemblage du Falcon en Inde, Latécoère exporte toute sa production indienne vers la France et les États-Unis pour Thales et se fournit en France. "Nous allons progressivement démarcher des clients locaux et essayer d'évaluer la supply chain", précise la PDG. https://www.usinenouvelle.com/editorial/produire-local-passage-oblige-des-entreprises-partant-a-l-international.N907464

• 

  11 février 2020 | International, Naval

  Esper backs a bigger Navy fleet, but moves to cut shipbuilding by 20 percent

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper is calling for a 355-ship fleet by 2030, but for fiscal 2021, shipbuilding took a big hit in the Defense Department's budget request. The Navy's FY21 budget request asked for $19.9 billion for shipbuilding; that's $4.1 billion less than enacted levels for 2020. The ask also seeks in total four fewer ships than the service requested in its 2020 budget. The hefty slice out of shipbuilding comes in the first year the Navy requested full funding for the first Columbia-class submarine, which Navy leaders have warned for years would take up an enormous portion of the shipbuilding account. The Department of the Navy's total budget request (including both base funding and overseas contingency operations funding) is $207.1 billion, approximately split $161 billion for the Navy and $46 billion for the Marine Corps. News of the cuts come a day after Defense News held an exclusive interview with Esper during which he backed a larger, 355-ship fleet, but said the Navy must refocus around smaller, lighter ships to fit within budget constraints. In total, the Navy requested two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, one Columbia-class submarine, one Virginia-class submarine, one FFG(X) future frigate, one LPD-17 amphibious transport dock, and two towing and salvage ships. The budget reflected a cut to the Virginia-class sub and FFG(X) programs, each of which were supposed to be two ships in 2021, according to last year's 30-year shipbuilding plan. Both cuts were forecast in a memo from the White House's Office of Management and Budget obtained by Defense News in December. The memo also called for cutting an Arleigh Burke destroyer, but it appears to have been restored in trade-offs. Another controversial move in the budget is the decommissioning of the first four littoral combat ships, likewise a move forecast in the OMB memo, as well as the early decommissioning of a dock landing ship. The budget also requests a $2.5 billion cut to aircraft procurement over 2020's enacted levels, requesting $17.2 billion. The budget calls for 24 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets fighter jets, 21 F-35C jets (between the Navy and Marine Corps), and four E-2D Hawkeye aircraft. The budget also funds $160 million in shipyard upgrades, as well as research into the Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform to the tune of $17 million. There is also $208 million in research and development for the DDG-1000 class, as well as $216 million for the Ford class. It also funds the procurement of two new large unmanned surface vessels. Columbia cuts? For years the Navy has warned that once the service starts buying the Columbia class, it's going to have a significant impact on everything else the Navy wants to buy. In a 2013 hearing before the House Armed Service Committee's sea power subpanel, then-Navy Director of Undersea Warfare Rear Adm. Richard Breckenridge testified that failure to realign the Department of Defense's budget by even 1 percent would have a devastating impact on the Navy's shipbuilding program. "The Navy recognizes that without a supplement this is going to have a devastating impact on our other general-purpose ships and is working with the [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and with Congress to identify the funds necessary, which I mentioned earlier represent less than 1 percent of the DoD budget for a 15-year period, to provide relief and fund this separately above and beyond our traditional norms for our shipbuilding budget,” Breckenridge said. But with the rubber meeting the road, the Navy's budget instead went down by almost 20 percent. In an interview with Defense News, Esper rejected the idea of moving Columbia out of the Navy's shipbuilding account, even as he called for a much larger fleet in the future. The Navy must tighten its belt to reduce the impact on the budget, Esper said, adding that the Air Force is in a similar financial bind. “Clearly the Columbia is a big bill, but it's a big bill we have to pay,” Esper said. “That's the Navy's bill. The Air Force has a bill called bombers and ground-based strategic deterrent, so that's a bill they have to pay. “We all recognize that. Acting Secretary [of the Navy Thomas] Modly and I have spoken about this. He believes, and I think he's absolutely correct, that there are more and more efficiencies to be found within the department, the Navy and the Marine Corps, that they can free up money to invest into ships, into platforms.” It is unclear, however, where the Navy will be able to find that money. Despite years of record defense budgets under the Trump administration, the Navy — at its current size of 294 ships — is struggling to field sufficient manpower. It has also struggled with the capacity of its private shipyards and is scouring the country for new places to fix its ships. Furthermore, there are questions about whether the Navy is adequately funding its surge forces, given that the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group was stranded on a Middle East deployment for more than 10 months because the carrier relieving it had a casualty. The Navy declined to use its surge forces and instead extended Abraham Lincoln's deployment, according to Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday. Esper said the Navy must look to smaller ships to grow, even though the current budget also defunds a second FFG(X) planned for this year. The FFG(X) was developed to field significant capabilities for about half the price of an Arleigh Burke so they could be bought in greater number. “We need to move away from large platforms,” Esper said. “We need to move to smaller and more ships. We need to move to optionally manned.” The idea of moving to a more lightly manned fleet with an unmanned option is currently en vogue with the Navy, and it's partly driven by the fact that 35-40 percent of the shipbuilding budget is eaten up by the Columbia class for the foreseeable future. That's something that all parties are coming around to, Esper said. “[Acting Secretary Modly] agrees, so there's no doubt he's on board," Epser said. “I know the chairman and I have had the same conversations. I've heard from members of Congress. If you go look at the think tank literature that's out there, they will tell you generally the same thing. We need to move forward in that direction.” Optionally manned vs. optionally unmanned Experts disagree over the degree to which the Navy should pursue a more lightly manned construct, and the difference appears to be philosophical: The Navy is developing an “optionally manned” ship; a recent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments study led by analyst Bryan Clark is proposing an “optionally unmanned” ship. It may seem like a small difference, but building a ship designed from the ground up to support humans is a major difference from a boat that can accommodate a few humans if the operators want to. The Navy is currently pursuing a large unmanned surface vessel, or LUSV, which is based on a commercial offshore support vessel, as part of an effort that started in the aegis of the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Special Capabilities Office and is now run by the Navy. The service describes its planned LUSV as an external missile magazine that can significantly boost the number of missile tubes fielded for significantly less money than buying Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which cost nearly $2 billion per hull. The Navy has discussed equipping the LUSV with the ability to house sailors, but the vessel would be largely designed as an unmanned platform, which would save money because there likely won't be a need for structure that supports human habitation. Sailors supporting an LUSV might use a port-a-potty and eat MREs rather than building an at-sea septic system and galley, for example. But therein lies the problem with the LUSV, according to the study by CSBA: What would the Navy do with those vessels, which it intends to buy in mass, when it's not trading missiles with China? Before the Navy gets too far down the road of fielding an optionally manned LUSV, the Navy should pony up for a more expensive but more useful corvette that, in the event of war, could be unmanned and used as the envisioned external missile magazine, the study said. “The Navy's planned LUSV would also be an approximately 2,000-ton ship based on an [offshore support vessel] design,” the study read. “In contrast to the optionally manned LUSV, the DDC [corvette] would be an optionally unmanned vessel that would normally operate with a crew. By having small crews, DDCs could contribute to peacetime training, engagement, maritime security, and deterrence.” In other words, for every scenario short of war, there would be a small warship that can execute normal naval missions — missions that ideally deter conflict from occurring in the first place. The study described a vessel that would be crewed with as many as 24 sailors, but would retain the ability to be unmanned in a crisis. “Instead of procuring an optionally manned LUSV that may be difficult to employ throughout the spectrum of competition and conflict, CSBA's plan introduces a similarly designed DDC that is designed to be, conversely, optionally unmanned and would normally operate with small crews of around 15–24 personnel,” the report read. “DDCs primarily armed with offensive weapons would serve as offboard magazines for force packages.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/02/10/355-as-secdef-backs-a-bigger-fleet-dod-moves-to-cut-shipbuilding-by-20-percent/

• 

  18 octobre 2023 | International, Aérospatial

  Goodbye, dials: Digital avionics coming to aging US Air Force C-130s

  The C-130H's avionics modernization will replace its old analog gauges with digital displays, as well as an array of other navigation and flight upgrades.