24 janvier 2020 | International, Aérospatial

How Top Military Contractors Raytheon And BAE Systems Are Drawing Non-Traditional Suppliers Into Defense

During the long years that U.S. forces were fighting Islamic extremists in Southwest Asia, Russia and China were investing in new warfighting technologies.

Russia's hybrid military campaign against Ukraine in 2014 was a wake-up call for Washington to start paying more attention to “near-peer” threats. China's steadily increasing investment in long-range anti-ship missiles, anti-satellite weapons and cyber warfare reinforced awareness that America's military might be falling behind in the capabilities needed for winning high-end fights.

These trends led the Trump Administration to produce a new national defense strategy in 2018 focused mainly on countering the military challenges posed by Moscow and Beijing. Most of that strategy's content is secret, but one element is clear enough: the Pentagon wants novel solutions to emerging near-peer threats, and it wants them fast.

Policymakers in both the Obama and Trump administrations have repeatedly stated non-traditional military suppliers are a vital part of the Pentagon's effort to get ahead of overseas rivals and stay there. “Non-traditional” has a specific legal definition in defense acquisition policy that potentially allows suppliers to bypass burdensome regulations when offering commercial products from outside traditional military channels.

In more common-sense usage, non-traditional simply means any company capable of offering the military a better mousetrap that doesn't usually do business with the five-sided building. That includes a majority of tech companies in places like Austin, Boston and Silicon Valley, especially startups with cutting-edge ideas. It may also include larger industrial companies like General Motors that are re-entering the military market after a long absence.

The challenge facing policymakers is how to leverage the skills and intellectual property of these non-traditional players without suffocating them under a blanket of bureaucratic requirements that contribute little to finding novel solutions. One way to tap the dynamism of commercial enterprises is to partner them with longtime military contractors who can assume most of the burden for negotiating the bureaucratic landscape.

Here is how two companies, Raytheon and BAE Systems, have stepped up to the challenge.

Raytheon. Massachusetts-based Raytheon has been a major military contractor since it pioneered radar during World War Two. It is in the process of merging with United Technologies, an aerospace conglomerate that has long managed to operate successfully in military and commercial markets (both companies contribute to my think tank).

Raytheon executives say the pace of change and the expectations of military customers have changed radically in recent years. It is not uncommon for military customers to seek new ways of sensing, processing or communicating that must be delivered within months rather than years. This emerging dynamic has led the company to rethink who it partners with in producing such solutions, and how to interact with them.

Raytheon has a cultural affinity for diversity, which may help it to think outside the box about who its partners should be. Although not all of the non-traditional suppliers with whom it teams are Silicon Valley startups, a majority have not previously offered defense products as part of their portfolios.

The role the company has fashioned for itself in partnering with such enterprises is to act as a translator between the fluid world of commercial innovation and the rule-based environment of military acquisition. Raytheon has always been driven by its engineering culture, so the company knows how to identify promising technologies that can be assimilated into cutting-edge combat systems. But it also knows the ins and outs of a baroque acquisition system that outsiders frequently find impenetrable.

Raytheon seeks to leverage the energy of non-traditional sources while remaining in compliance with relevant government standards. For instance, there needs to be effective communication between the company and commercial sources, but the ability of the partner to observe the intricacies of sensitive projects must be tightly constrained. The tension of being a valued supplier but not accustomed to working in a classified environment must be managed.

Non-traditional partners provide Raytheon with base technologies that potentially enable unique military capabilities, and they often can generate novel solutions to technical challenges quickly, thanks to their entrepreneurial cultures. Raytheon configures and integrates these inputs for military customers while translating the needs of those customers into terms the non-traditional supplier can understand.

BAE Systems. The military electronics unit of another major defense contractor, BAE Systems, Inc., is headquartered across the border from Raytheon's home state in Nashua, New Hampshire. BAE concentrates on many of the same technologies Raytheon does such as sensors, signal processing and secure communications—which isn't surprising, since the core of its electronics operation was founded after World War Two by former Raytheon employees. BAE is a consulting client, which has given me some insight into how the company views non-traditional suppliers.

In addition to pursuing partnering initiatives such as those at Raytheon, BAE Systems has fashioned an internal mechanism for leveraging the technology of entrepreneurial startups by helping them to finance their businesses. That mechanism is called FAST Labs, and as the name implies it was conceived to help generate novel solutions to military challenges quickly.

Beyond determining whether the company should manufacture key technology inputs internally or go outside, FAST Labs continuously scouts for promising innovations that are emerging from U.S. startups. When it finds ideas with high potential, it seeks to build trusted partnerships with the enterprises, venture capital investors, universities and government agencies aimed at speeding the pace of innovation. For example, BAE has sponsored technology accelerators at places like MIT.

Most of the startups FAST Labs assists are commercial companies with “dual-use” technologies potentially applicable to military purposes. Although the company has a significant commercial electronics business, the focus of FAST Labs is mainly on meeting the demands of military customers. It takes its cues as to what might be most worthy of support from agencies like the Air Force Research Lab and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

FAST Labs seems to be a unique business model within the U.S. defense sector. Because the electronics technologies on which the Nashua operation concentrates are fungible across diverse markets, BAE Systems has benchmarked FAST Labs against renowned commercial R&D centers such as the old Bell Labs. It is an unusual approach to military innovation, but like executives at Raytheon, BAE execs say the usual approach to developing warfighting systems just doesn't cut it anymore with their Pentagon customer.

https://www-forbes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/01/24/how-top-military-contractors-raytheon-and-bae-systems-are-drawing-non-traditional-suppliers-into-defense/amp/

Sur le même sujet

  • Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

    27 août 2020 | International, Naval

    Lack of U.S. Warship Repair Capacity Worrying Navy

    By: Megan Eckstein A deficit of ship repair capacity and an expected change in the Navy's needs for large combatants versus smaller ones may force the entire industry to rethink their roles in construction and maintenance work going forward, a panel of officials said this week. The two halves of the Navy's Team Ships acknowledged that more companies would need to get involved in ship repair, and also that more companies getting involved on the construction side could cause hardship from some of the traditional shipbuilders that have spent years optimizing their yards to build large warships. First, Rear Adm. Eric Ver Hage, the Commander of Navy Regional Maintenance Center (CNRMC) and Director of Surface Ship Maintenance and Modernization, said during the event that “we don't have enough (ship repair) capacity for peacetime,” let alone to repair combat-damaged ships during wartime. “Think about how long it took [USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) and USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)] to get back in operations” following fatal at-sea collisions in the Western Pacific in 2017, he said. “We'll see what we do with [USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6)], but that'll be a massive effort to repair her if that's where the decision goes – I'm talking years most likely. I think public and private investment is needed” to grow the ship repair industrial base. Ver Hage said the existing repair industrial base is working hard to get more efficient at the work it does, but ultimately that base is too small, especially as the Navy tries to grow its fleet. The rear admiral cited Titan Acquisition Holdings as one example of private investment: private investment firms The Carlyle Group and Stellex Capital Management came together to buy repair companies Vigor Industrial and MHI Holdings – and most recently, Huntington Ingalls Industries' San Diego Shipyard – to invest in the repair business on both coasts of the U.S. in a way that each small company might struggle to do on its own. Ver Hage said the fact that such large investment firms showed interest in ship repair means there's a future to this business model. He also cited the CARES Act, passed by Congress to keep the economy afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, as an example of public investment in shipbuilding and ship repair jobs as vital parts of the military's health but also the economy's health. The second fact the admirals wrestled with is that the shipbuilding industry in recent years has relied primarily on seven yards owned by just four companies to build large warships – but all indications point to a future fleet that relies less on destroyers and large amphibious ships and more on a large number of small amphibs, small combatants and unmanned surface vessels. “If the force structure comes up with the need for a portfolio of lesser large ships and more of the small ships, then the larger yards will have to determine how to flex to that. Their infrastructure is set up to build big ships. Are they capable of building smaller platforms? I think the answer is yes. There's also lots of opportunity for smaller yards who already are pretty efficient at building some of those smaller ships. So assuming that the piece of the pie does not grow, there will be a discussion about where the dollars go and where that capability exists,” Rear Adm. Tom Anderson, the program executive officer for ships, said during the same event. There have long been worries about the consolidation of the shipbuilding industrial base. If the U.S. were to go to war, so few yards have experience working with the Navy and building Navy ships, it would be hard for them to ramp up and help in a shipbuilding surge. The idea of bringing smaller yards into the industrial base has been one of the positives to come out of the discussions of Distributed Maritime Operations and its call to have a lot of small and unmanned ships in the fleet: more companies can compete for these types of ships, bringing fresh ideas and a larger industrial base for the Navy to work with. However, if the large yards see a decline in business, it's unclear what that will mean for the yard and their workers. General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, for example, only builds destroyers, which may be in less demand under the upcoming force structure assessment, still being reviewed by the Pentagon. Ingalls Shipbuilding is nearing the end of its work on the National Security Cutter, and its work on destroyers and amphibious ships – while certainly not in jeopardy of going away altogether – could see reduced demand as the Navy and Marine Corps eye smaller combatants like a frigate, and a Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) and small amphib in lieu of the traditional ships Ingalls has built for decades. Anderson said he took a trip to the Gulf Coast since taking over PEO Ships earlier this summer, and he said he didn't realize how many shipbuilders were there that not only work on Navy warships but auxiliaries, foreign military sales ships and commercial ships for the oil and energy sector, for example. These yards would all be set up well to compete for small or unmanned ships for the Navy, but they might be going up against large yards if they find themselves needing the work, too. “Not knowing what the force structure analysis is going to tell us we need, I think it's hard to say at this point, because I think the big yards could flex, absolutely. Are they better aligned at the moment to build the larger ships that they're building? Yes. We'll just have to see how the [FSA] plays out,” Anderson said. The two situations come together in an interesting way: the admirals suggested separately that, in a time of war, small repair yards could be called upon to help build ships; and they suggested that large yards could look to repair work to supplement any lost shipbuilding work – highlighting the predicament the entire enterprise finds itself in, with capacity and capability not necessarily matching up to needs and budgets. Prior to Ver Hage's comments about lack of ship repair capacity for peacetime, let alone wartime, event moderator and Hudson Institute senior fellow Bryan Clark said, “the commandant of the Marine Corps recently talked about the concern he has regarding the ability of the Navy shipbuilding industrial base and ship repair industrial base to restore or rebuild the fleet in the face of losses that might occur in a conflict. And he talked about how this is an element of deterrence: if you don't have the ability to sustain a fight, a protracted fight, then perhaps your adversaries think they can wait you out or just push through and eventually you'll get to the point where you can no longer continue the combat.” Breaking Defense first reported on these comments Commandant Gen. David Berger made in a draft document. In response, Anderson said that about two years ago Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts got a group together to talk about wartime planning for the industrial base, and what work could be done now to be better prepared in case of war. USNI News previously reported that much of that planning work was put to use when the COVID-19 pandemic started, with the Navy already having a good idea of where work is done and what vulnerabilities exist, thanks to this ongoing effort. Anderson said that some of the questions asked during this planning effort were how shipbuilders could rapidly deliver ships nearing the end of their construction, how they could accelerate construction of hulls still in early phases of work, and how ship repair companies could contribute to a ramped-up shipbuilding effort if called upon to do so. On the other hand, John Rhatigan, chairman of the Marine Machinery Associations, said during the discussion that shipbuilding yards ought to be contributing to the repair effort as well to address the deficit of repair capacity. Noting that submarine builders take on submarine overhauls to supplement their construction work, he said, “there are shipyards that maybe don't think they're back into overhaul mode, but they probably need to. I'll give you a good example: Bath Iron Works. They should be able to do overhauls and new construction at the same time. They just went through a strike and they're behind schedule and things like that, but I think they can get back on schedule and I think they should be available, or trying to make themselves available, for overhaul work.” He said these yards in the past have been swayed against doing repair work because, depending how the contract is structured, it could be a financially risky venture, especially given how common it is for growth work to appear once an overhaul is started. “I think there's capacity there that hasn't been tapped yet,” Rhatigan said. “I know that people have tried in the past, and just because someone said no in 2018 doesn't mean they're going to say no in 2021.” https://news.usni.org/2020/08/26/lack-of-u-s-warship-repair-capacity-worrying-navy

  • Here are the three companies selected to design hypersonic missile interceptors for MDA

    22 novembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    Here are the three companies selected to design hypersonic missile interceptors for MDA

    The Missile Defense Agency has chosen three teams to design a Glide Phase Interceptor to defend against hypersonic threats.

  • Soldiers to evaluate new light tank prototypes

    16 octobre 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Soldiers to evaluate new light tank prototypes

    Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is preparing a soldier vehicle assessment of two different light tank prototypes for infantry brigade combat teams that will start in January 2021 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The assessment will run through June 2021, according to the service. BAE Systems and General Dynamics Land Systems were chosen in December 2018 to each build 12 prototypes of the Army's future mobile protected firepower, or MPF, vehicle identified in the service's ground combat vehicle strategy published in 2015. The service had found the capability one the service lacks. GDLS is building a vehicle that takes the United Kingdom's AJAX chassis and combines it with an M1 Abrams tank turret. BAE Systems' design is an updated M8 Buford armored gun system with new capabilities and components. “I just had my deep dive today on the SVA [soldier vehicle assessment] with the 82nd [Airborne],” Maj. Gen. Brian Cummings, the Army's program executive officer for ground combat systems, told Defense News in a recent interview. Work is ongoing to prepare ranges and roads for the arrival of the prototypes, he said. The MPF is going to be critical for the infantry because it provides infantry brigade combat teams with an organic capability to take care of impediments to forward progression such as gunfire from a machine gun nest or another enemy vehicle. The Army is expected to choose a winner in 2022. The first units will get MPF in fiscal 2025. The Army plans to initially build 26 vehicles, with an option to build 28 more and retrofit eight prototypes. GDLS told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference that it has delivered three vehicles to the Army. One is at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, going through characterization and mobility testing and preparing for firing. Another is at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona, undergoing desert testing and preparing for soldier training. Five more prototypes are in “some form of checkout, getting ready for their final inspection report to deliver to the government,” a GDLS spokesperson said, and the company is on track to deliver all of the vehicles this year. BAE is looking forward to the assessment because the two prototypes are so different from one another, said Jim Miller, the company's senior business development director for combat vehicles. The BAE's offering is smaller — fitting in between the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and a Stryker in terms of size — while GDLS' vehicle is bigger, as it's based on the M1 Abrams chassis. The BAE's MPF prototype can be transported via a C-130 aircraft. Three can fit on a C-17 aircraft. And even though it is small, it has the survivability of BAE's Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, Miller said. The Army is requiring the vehicle be C-17 transportable. Soldier assessments for other recent competitions have weighed heavily into decisions, Miller added. “I think the soldier vehicle assessment is going to be really important,” he said. “Did we get this right? Now which one is closer to the mark?” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/15/soldiers-to-evaluate-new-light-tank-prototypes/

Toutes les nouvelles