5 mai 2020 | International, Naval

Fincantieri CEO on winning the US Navy’s frigate competition

By: Tom Kington

ROME — As CEO of Italy's state-controlled Fincantieri since 2002, Giuseppe Bono, has built cruise, merchant and naval vessels, including the FREMM frigate, for the Italian navy. Last week the type was picked by the U.S. sea service for its newest frigate, the FFG(X), in a deal worth $5.58 billion if options for nine vessels are exercised after the first ship. The FFG(X) will be produced at Wisconsin's Marinette Marine shipyard, which Fincantieri bought in 2008 and where it already builds Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy and Saudi Arabia with Lockheed Martin.

In an interview with Defense News, Bono explained why FREMM beat off the competition, why shipyards should always be prime contractors, and why building cruise ships makes you punctual.

What are the reasons you won this competition?

In the U.S., more than elsewhere, the quality-price ratio was crucial. And our vessel fit the requirement. The U.S. wanted a ship with anti-submarine capability and this ship is unique in its class because it has that capability. The other competitors offered ships derived from other designs. The customer also wanted a ship which was already at sea. In a way we were lucky. On paper, the other offerings might have been great, but we are operational. Our proposal was also more complete because the design is extremely flexible thanks to the possibility of fitting different defense systems. We had also studied an AEGIS version of the FREMM with Lockheed Martin and knew it would not need large, structural work.

What was your reaction when you heard you had won?

My colleagues were more emotional about than me. I pursue objectives and strategy.

You teamed with Lockheed Martin on the LCS program but here you went alone.

We never considered a U.S. partner. This bid was different to the past, with a new approach. In this case the shipbuilders were candidates to be prime contractors. And with a track record with 16 LCS orders for the U.S. and four for Saudi Arabia we are an American shipyard, this time with an Italian design. We have worked very well with Lockheed Martin, but as prime contractor on the Littoral Combat Ship it was the point of contact with the customer, meaning the yard was a step back and that sometimes led to a short circuit. When the shipyard is speaking to the customer as prime, it facilitates the relationships and leads to a better product and lower prices because certain decisions can be made faster.

You will, however, work with U.S. firm Gibbs and Cox on the FFG(X).

Gibbs and Cox frequently works with the U.S. Navy and knows its needs perfectly. We have a long and positive experience working with them on the LCS and we teamed with them to adapt the FREMM for the U.S. Navy.

As work gets underway at Marinette will you need to hire new workers and make further infrastructure improvements?

A lot of the work we needed to do at Marinette has already been done. When we first took over, in a springtime, we were shocked to find that the forecourts were muddy due to snowmelt. Now we have paved them over and increased efficiencies in terms of the yard's layout. We will need to find extra space because the FFG(X) will overlap with LCS construction, but we have shown we can build two FFG(X) vessels simultaneously as well as LCS vessels at Marinette. That said, depending on future programs, if the opportunity arose to buy a new yard, we will consider it. We would not be against the possibility, but it is not an issue now.

There have been some legislative provisions requiring Buy American for certain FFG(X) components. How will this affect you going forward on this ship?

On the LCS there are a number of Italian components, albeit a very limited number. The vessel also has Rolls Royce gas turbines, not GE, showing that price and quality always win out. On the LCS, the four diesel sets for power generation were built by our subsidiary Isotta Fraschini Motori. They are also on the Italian FREMMS. Now we will see if they can be used on the U.S. vessels.

The Freedom LCS class experienced delays at the outset. How are you going to try and avoid that for FFG(X), understanding that there are always challenges with a first-of-class ship?

There is a difference between a ship and other platforms like an aircraft or an helicopter. A ship does not have a prototype, only the first in class. The prototype of a ship becomes operational. This means the first vessel needs more time than the successive ships. On the LCS program the construction time sped up and prices fell as it accelerated.

Is this the biggest ever win for an Italian firm in the U.S. defense market?

Yes, I think so. It the result of working well and showing you are serious, of delivering on time and on budget. All these aspects are strongly taken into account by the customer and they give you an advantage. This is fundamental and one of our characteristics, derived in part from our work on cruise ships, which are built on a turnkey basis. The discipline there is unique. You need to deliver on a specific day which is established years earlier, otherwise the penalties never stop. Being punctual is in our DNA. Add to that we are always prime contractor, and a cruise ship is no less complex than a naval ship. In the military sector, delivering on time happens rarely. There are many examples of delays in some countries which can be almost infinite.

Turning to Europe, there is ongoing consolidation in the German shipbuilding sector. How does that affect your plans to launch a type of European naval Airbus with French yard Naval Group?

With Germany we have a consolidated and long-standing partnership related to the submarine sector. Consolidation must happen in Europe if it wants to count for something in the world, for this reason our goal must be a common defence. There are four of five major yards in the U.S. We cannot think of having more than that in Europe. We must consolidate.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/04/interview-fincantieri-ceo-bono-on-winning-the-us-navys-frigate-competition/

Sur le même sujet

  • Lockheed Martin to Acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne for $4.4 Billion

    21 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Lockheed Martin to Acquire Aerojet Rocketdyne for $4.4 Billion

    By Will Wade and Max Zimmerman Lockheed Martin Corp. agreed to acquire the defense industry supplier Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. in a deal valued at $4.4 billion. As part of the transaction, Aerojet declared a $5 per share special dividend, to be paid on March 24, to holders of record as of March 10. The payment of that special dividend will adjust the $56 per share consideration to be paid by Lockheed Martin, according to a statement Sunday. The shares surged in pre-market New York trading on Monday. At $51, Lockheed will be buying Aerojet at a 21% premium from the closing price on Friday. Chief Executive Officer Jim Taiclet, who stepped into the top job this year, has said he was keen to expand the world's largest defense contractor through acquisitions. With Aerojet, he's picking up a key U.S. supplier of propulsion systems for missiles, rockets and other space and defense applications. “Acquiring Aerojet Rocketdyne will preserve and strengthen an essential component of the domestic defense industrial base,” Taiclet said in the statement. Lockheed has been scouting for deals. In January, the company said it was flush with cash and open to deals as rival Raytheon Co. prepared to combine with United Technologies Corp. to create an aerospace-and-defense powerhouse. Lockheed has been seeking opportunities to “bring in the technologies faster into the company that we think are going to be crucial for the future,” Taiclet said during its October earnings call. “So we plan to be active, but we also plan to be very, very prudent.” The Aerojet transaction is expected to close in the second half of 2021 after getting regulatory approvals and a nod from Aerojet's shareholders. Aerojet advanced to $54.44 Monday before markets opened in New York. That's up 29% from Friday's close, which gave the El Segundo, California-based company a market value of $3.25 billion. Lockheed was little changed from its Friday close, which valued the buyer at about $100 billion. At the end of last week, Aerojet's stock was trading at 25 times expected earnings, compared with 16 times for Lockheed. Aerojet's shares have fallen 7.9% this year and Lockheed dropped 8.6%, both underperforming the S&P 500 Index, which climbed 15%. Lockheed's space division is its third-largest business, contributing 18% of its 2019 revenue. The company competes with Elon Musk's SpaceX for U.S. government rocket launches through the United Launch Alliance, its joint venture with Boeing Co. Lockheed was advised by Goldman Sachs, Ardea Partners and Hogan Lovells, while Citigroup and Evercore, as well as Jenner & Block and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represented Aerojet. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-21/lockheed-martin-to-buy-defense-supplier-aerojet-for-4-4-billion

  • The Pentagon’s supply chain faces an economy under siege

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

    The Pentagon’s supply chain faces an economy under siege

    By: Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — On the morning of April 2, companies up and down the Pentagon's supply chain got an email from Eaton Aerospace, a mid-tier supplier that provides parts such as fuel pumps and hydraulics to defense primes for aircraft like the KC-46 tanker and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. “The truly unprecedented situation with [the coronavirus] COVID-19 is jointly affecting our business, families and communities we live in,” said one such email, which was obtained by Defense News. “While the health and safety of our employees and those of our supply partners remains paramount, our industry is significantly impacted. ... As a result, our Eaton Grand Rapids, [Michigan], plant will [be] closed starting April 4, 2020 and will reopen on April 13, 2020." Similar emails for other locations followed. In a statement, Eaton Corp. spokeswoman Margaret Hagan acknowledged that the company was temporarily implementing closures “at a few sites,” but maintained that there would be no impact to the “critical support” provided to the U.S. military. “We've made the important decision to maintain operations during the COVID-19 crisis because Eaton products are critical to our global infrastructure,” she said. “As a strategic supplier of aerospace fuel, hydraulic, motion control, electrical and engine solutions for the aerospace and defense sector globally, Eaton's aerospace products and support services are vital not only to the military, but to the transport of passengers and goods around the world.” Although perhaps not a household name in the defense sector, Eaton is far from a small business, bringing in more than $21 billion in sales in 2019. However, the quiet closure of its production lines illustrates how widespread the impacts of COVID-19 have reached — past the major prime contractors like Boeing, or even its major subcontractors like Spirit AeroSystems, and to the large and small companies that populate the middle and lower tiers of its supply chain. “The whole supply chain is a mess right now,” said an employee of one electronics manufacturer that provides components for both commercial and defense products. The source, whose name and company affiliation Defense News is withholding to protect the individual from reprisal, described challenges with working from home and retaining workers on the production line. Some colleagues, the source said, are choosing to take paid leave or voluntary layoffs rather than risk exposure to COVID-19. “We are at 20 percent capability,” the source said. According to Jeremy Bash, a former Pentagon official now with Beacon Global, “there is deep concern among industry and department leaders that the second- and third-tier suppliers need to be protected." “There's a sense DoD [the Department of Defense] needs better visibility into the supply chain, mapping out how a part makes its way into a plane or ship," Bash added. “There is a growing number of tech companies providing software to illuminate supply chains, and since COVID, the phones of those companies have been ringing off the hook because the department now realizes supply chain concentration is a huge risk.” ndustrial shock waves But one doesn't have to dive down the supply chain toward Eaton to see that the defense market is taking a beating, particularly the companies that also have a strong exposure to the commercial market. Up until last month, financial analysts would have seen commercial sales as a major boon to the overall health of a defense supplier, but that has changed, as the economy has taken a nosedive, said Richard Aboulafia, a defense and aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “The commercial market is under siege, which means of course there is excess inventory, slumping revenue, major challenges on many levels,” he said. "On top of that, everybody faces the immediate impact of social distancing and workforce concerns. And on top of that, if you're heavily exposed to commercial, the harder time you might have getting credit. All of these are big issues. "The defense-industrial base, if it could somehow be removed from commercial aviation, we'd be in pretty good shape by the standards of the world economy. But we can't. They're intertwined.” Bloomberg reported Monday that Airbus sent a letter to employees over the weekend, warning that gaps in the supply chain, among other issues, will impact the company's ability to resume normal operations. Also on Monday, simulation firm CAE announced it was temporarily laying off 2,600 of its 10,500 global employees, while placing another 900 employees on a reduced work week. The company also instituted salary freezes and reductions for remaining staff, ranging from 50 percent for the CEO and executive team down to 10 percent for regular employees. Roughly 40 percent of CAE's overall revenue comes from defense contracts, according to the Defense News Top 100 list. Boeing, meanwhile, extended a shutdown of its Puget Sound, Washington, facilities, while also stopping work at its rotorcraft production line in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As a result of the Puget Sound shutdown, Spirit AeroSystems announced last week that it is halting work at a number of locations. Small businesses that form a core of the Pentagon's future technological development may be particularly vulnerable, according to government data and analytics firm Govini. In a new data sheet, the company noted there are roughly 50,000 small businesses that provide innovation support for the DoD, all of which is vulnerable to economic upheaval. “If this ecosystem suffers widespread failure due to COVID-19, the resulting impact will stretch well beyond short-term disruptions,” Govini said. “These vendors are not just critical links in the DoD supply chain important for immediate purposes. They are also vital for the development of both next-generation systems in the midterm and revolutionary capabilities that will shape the competitive landscape for decades into the future.” Between fiscal 2015 and fiscal 2019, roughly 28 percent of defense spending on underwater unmanned vehicles — a key part of the U.S. Navy's plan to build a fleet of the future — went to small businesses, according to Govini numbers. Small business contracts also accounted for 30 percent of the DoD's research on artificial intelligence during that same time period. Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned Defense News last month that “for small business, a shutdown would be extremely difficult to get through because even with bailouts and economic stimulus, once those businesses close up, its really hard to get those started again.” “If an airline goes out of business, the planes don't disappear — you can start over. If it's a highly specialized manufacturing company, those employees are going to disperse and try to find other work. So I think that's something to be very cognizant of because of all the consolidation in the defense industry,” he added. “If they have to curtail operations for an extended period of time, it's extremely difficult to get it going again.” What's the Pentagon's response? Starting March 20, the Pentagon began issuing guidance on how to support industry. But a three-day span last week showed how those efforts remain a moving target, particularly in relation to the smallest suppliers. On March 30, the department's acting director of defense pricing and contracting, Kim Herrington, issued guidance to contracting officers that essentially said industry should not be penalized for missing performance targets as a result of the ongoing pandemic. “We must do our utmost to ensure that both the Department and the vital industrial base that support us remain healthy for the duration of this emergency and emerge as strong as ever from the challenges of this pandemic,” Herrington wrote. But some in Congress feel the department is still not doing enough to clarify policy changes for contracting officers and defense companies. On April 1, a group of Ohio lawmakers wrote to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord, warning that “we are concerned that guidance to the defense contractor workforce remains ambiguous and lacks uniformity in application,” particularly in terms of communication from department contracting officers to small companies. Over the past several years, the Pentagon has worked to delegate decision-making authorities to low-level contracting officers. But while that may work to empower contracting officers to find creative solutions to problems under normal circumstances, during a pandemic, these officials are ill-prepared to decipher “uncertain, often conflicting guidance,” the lawmakers said. The lawmakers asked that contracting officers be directed to ensure that contractors are allowed to work remotely to the maximum extent possible; that contractors be given “maximum flexibility to meet their contractual obligations”; that efforts be made to not have “avoidable reductions” in the workforce; and that companies involved in research and development work be clearly labeled as essential personnel. And on April 2, two trade groups — the National Defense Industrial Association and the Professional Services Council — asked Congress to instate a six-month delay for a legal requirement included in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act that prohibits the government from doing business with companies that work with vendors Huawei and ZTE. That language “will impose significant financial and operational costs on medium- and small-sized firms at a moment of substantial uncertainty and hardship,” at a time when they are dealing with the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, the letter stated. Later in the day, the DoD released a statement providing clarification on previous announcements. The department confirmed that higher progress payment rates — which had been jumped the previous week — will apply to already completed work, and not just future production. The new cash-flow rules should result in more than $3 billion in new cash moving into industry, according to department estimates. But that prediction came with a warning: The Pentagon “has high expectations that that prime companies are ensuring cash flow is moving to small businesses in their respective supply chains who need it most.” So far, the Defense Contract Management Agency has modified approximately 1,400 contracts with increased rates, the announcement noted. Contracting officials are working to ensure invoices at the higher progress payment rate keep arriving on time, with the department claiming there have been “no reported delays on contractor submitted invoices.” The announcement also stated that any delay related to COVID-19 issues will result in “an equitable adjustment of the contract schedule and cost,” meaning the department will adjust the contracts so that the vendor does not take an economic hit. The steps taken by the department are important, said Bash, the former Pentagon official. “The most powerful force the government can bring to help these companies is to say to industry: ‘We have money,' ” he said. A wildcard, Bash noted, is the $17 billion in national security-focused funding made available under the most recent stimulus package passed by Congress. However, Byron Callan, an industry analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, warns that more money doesn't necessarily mean less problems. “The DoD faces the same issues as any other branch of the government or the Fed that is providing more cash to address the crisis — if people aren't at work because of COVID-19, that cash won't help much in keeping a factory or office open and all projects on schedule," Callan said. For Aboulafia, increasing the value of progress payments is a good first step for increasing the flow of cash to suppliers. “In times like this, it really is about access to cash because of the risk of credit markets freezing up for commercial companies. Accelerated payments, maybe loan guarantees should be considered," Aboulafia said. But he's realistic that the defense industry isn't the only issue on the table for the Trump administration. “I think there's a lot that government can do,” Aboulafia said. "Unfortunately there's a lot that government has to do because the entire economy has been put into a medically induced coma.” https://www.defensenews.com/coronavirus/2020/04/08/the-pentagons-supply-chain-faces-an-economy-under-siege

  • US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    11 mars 2020 | International, Terrestre

    US Army to conduct shoot-off for future indirect fires protection

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to conduct a shoot-off to evaluate the best options for a future indirect fires protection capability to defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missile and drones, according to a report sent to Congress and obtained by Defense News. The shoot-off that will take place at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, is fashioned much in the same way the Army recently conducted its “sense-off” to choose a new air and missile defense radar that will replace the sensor in the Army's current Patriot system, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of the Army's air and missile defense modernization effort, told Defense News in a March 9 interview. The Army has been trying to formulate its enduring Indirect Fires Protection Capability Increment 2 (IFPC Inc 2) system for several years. It purchased two Iron Dome batteries, produced through a partnership between Rafael and Raytheon, to serve as an interim solution for cruise missile defense. The acquisition was congressionally mandated. Those batteries will be delivered by the end of the year, Gibson said. The enduring system will defeat subsonic cruise missiles with an objective requirement to defeat supersonic variants as well as group two and three UAS and RAM threats, according to the report. The Army's Sentinel A3 and future A4 version will serve as the radar for IFPC, and its command-and-control system will be the Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System, or IBCS, which is also the brains for the Army's future Integrated Air and Missile Defense system that will replace Patriot. The intention for IFPC is to protect critical fixed or semi-fixed assets and is intended to be a more mobile solution than one that would suffice at a forward operating base, Gibson described, and it will fill in gaps between tactical short-range air defense and strategic air and missile defense such as the Patriot and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System. The Army's analysis, according to the report, included looking at solutions both from the Israel Missile Defense Organization and from U.S. industry. It determined, when considering integration with IBCS and Sentinel as well as the possible schedule, that risks exist for both the U.S. and Israeli solutions. “Given the assessed risks with the potential enduring IFCP Inc 2 solutions, the Army requires additional performance data against IFPC Inc 2 threats,” the report stated. “The Army will use a competitive process consisting of two phases to reduce program risk, while considering cost and schedule parameters.” In the first phase, industry will participate in a shoot-off demonstration using proposed launcher and interceptor solutions integrated into IBCS and Sentinel. IBCS is entering a limited-user test in May after struggling through a previous limited-user test several years ago. The system has been delayed for various reasons and likely won't reach initial operational capability until the third quarter of fiscal 2022. Sentinel A4 is also not operational, so the shoot-off will use the less capable A3 variant. Following the shoot-off, the Army will evaluate proposals and data from the event, analyzing digital simulation data to make a “Best Value determination” to pick one vendor to move forward, according to the report. The shoot-off is planned for the third quarter of FY21. The Army aims to deliver initial capabilities by FY23. To make a determination on the way forward, the Army conducted analysis for an enduring IFPC solution in FY19 to include taking technical data from its Expanded Mission Area Missile program of candidate interceptors. The verification phase evaluated Raytheon's Low-Cost Active Seeker as well as its SkyHunter interceptor (the U.S. variant of Rafael's Tamir missile used in Iron Dome) and Lockheed Martin's Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile. All three of the interceptors were characterized as possible candidates for an IFPC interceptor. The Army originally planned to develop and field its own multimission launcher as part of the enduring IFPC solution but canceled that program in favor of finding a more technologically mature launcher. The service evaluated whitepapers for IFPC launchers and determined that those proposed required further development, prototyping and integration work to be used as a dedicated IFPC component, according to the report. The analysis also found the Iron Dome launcher and Tamir interceptor's performance “is highly reliant” on its own battle management system and multimission radar, and the report determined that “for Iron Dome's launcher and Tamir interceptors to be a viable option for Enduring IFPC Inc 2, the [battle management and weapons control] and [multimission radar] functions require transferring into the Army's IBCS.” And current data provided from the Israeli organization has not included component-level models such as the missile seeker, missile guidance and control, and missile fusing needed to verify that the launcher and missile would work with IBCS, the report stated. “The tightly coupled nature of Iron Dome components within the Iron Dome architecture and a lack of sufficient technical data requires further development, prototyping and integration in order to provide a potential Enduring IFPC Inc 2 capability,” the report noted. Through analysis, the service determined that the U.S.-based Expanded Mission Area Missile candidates met range and maneuverability requirements and would be able to tie into Sentinel A3 by FY23 and A4 by FY25. The Tamir interceptor's performance data proves its effectiveness when used within the Iron Dome system, but since data is lacking, it's uncertain how well it might perform when linked through IBCS to the Sentinel radar. Tamir, however, is likely to perform similarly to the LCAS missile, according to the report. While analysis shows that the interceptors are “likely” to meet enduring requirements, the shoot-off demonstration will “increase the Army's confidence in interceptor performance within the AIAMD architecture,” the report states. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/03/09/army-to-conduct-shoot-off-for-future-indirect-fires-protection-capability/

Toutes les nouvelles