Japan Buys Two SeaGuardians from GA-ASI

Sur le même sujet

• 

  19 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Market exposure in the Top 100: Defense, commercial aviation and much more

  By: Doug Berenson and Chris Higgins This year's Defense News Top 100 list of global defense companies coincides with a steep economic downturn created by COVID-19. Although the defense sector has faced pandemic-related business disruptions, it remains a safe haven, with most defense-oriented firms reporting only modest impact on revenues and profits. Seeing how diversified players rely on their defense units is of particular interest at a time when the commercial aviation market has all but collapsed. While many defense firms are bracing for stagnation in defense-spending growth, other markets could experience an extended downturn. Avascent drew on the Top 100 list to examine the broader mix of market exposure among firms comprising the global defense industrial base. We segmented company revenues across more than two dozen defense and commercial end markets. This analysis provides insight into how companies with defense business leverage exposure to other markets, either as a complement or as a hedge to their defense activities. One can think of defense companies in three categories: Defense/government pure-plays: Companies that focus overwhelmingly on military markets generate about 23 percent of the defense-oriented revenue on this year's list. To the extent these companies have revenue outside defense, it comes from close adjacencies in intelligence, civil space or others. Indeed, the top ranks of the Defense News Top 100 list includes numerous firms for whom defense and government comprise 85 percent or more of total revenue. Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, LIG Nex1, and Huntington Ingalls Industries and many others fall in this category. BAE Systems and L3Harris maintain significant positions in the commercial aviation supply chain, but these activities represent a small portion of their total revenues. The unique demands of military and government markets — complex acquisition processes, challenging sales channels, burdensome regulatory compliance — has led many leading defense players to maximize their position across the defense product range. These frustratingly unique features of government customers have deterred many commercial technology firms from pursuing this space, a fact that the U.S. Department of Defense is struggling to reverse. Firms in this category have optimized their financial management, business development and other processes to the particular demands of government customers. Within government markets, the different economics that characterize the sale of products and services has increasingly led to the separation between these two distinct segments. Many of the market leaders in U.S. government services, including Leidos, Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI International, SAIC and others, feature a near-exclusive focus on government customers. A range of firms providing such services continue to find business with both the government and commercial clients, to be sure, including Bechtel, Jacobs, Babcock International and KBR, to list just a few on this year's Top 100 list. But companies with a significant focus on mission-oriented requirements have increasingly focused solely on government customers. Commercial and defense sectors: Nearly 60 percent of the defense revenue tracked in the Top 100 list comes from firms that compete in sectors that cross the defense-commercial divide. These include shipbuilders and automotive manufacturers, but the vast majority of firms serving both defense and commercial customers are focused on commercial aerospace. A range of firms recognize the unique complementarity between military and commercial aerospace technology in their business mix. Airframe primes like Boeing and Airbus are chief among these, sitting atop vast aerospace supply chains. But many other household names have sought opportunity in commercial aviation, either as airframe primes (General Dynamics via Gulfstream, Textron via Cessna) or as suppliers of avionics, structures, and other content. Because it calculates 2019 revenue, this year's Defense News list does not count Raytheon Technologies, which was created with the merger of Raytheon Company and United Technologies Corp. in April 2020. The new “RTX” would have pro forma 2019 revenue of about $43.4 billion in defense and $33.7 billion in commercial markets; this excludes Otis (elevators) and Carrier (air conditioners), which were spun off concomitant with the Raytheon-UTC merger. Many firms with heavy commercial market exposure now face unprecedented economic headwinds. Between March 1 and Aug. 1, 2020, stock prices for firms spanning defense and commercial aerospace declined by 33 percent, as global air travel nearly ground to a halt amid the coronavirus pandemic. By contrast, an index representing defense/government pure-plays has dropped by just 5 percent over the same period. Conglomerates were in the middle, declining about 16 percent. The silver lining, however, may be the ability of some companies to draw on defense-related cash flows to sustain commercial aerospace investment in preparation for an eventual upturn. Industrial conglomerates: Finally, there are firms with a foot squarely in defense but which also pursue markets far afield, in terms of customer types and market economics. About 18 percent of the defense revenue tracked in the Top 100 list is earned by firms with interests that have almost no technical or customer link with defense. Large Asian conglomerates — including China North Industries Group Corporation Limited, also known as NORINCO; Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; and South Korea's Hanwha — top this category in total revenue. But several Western firms also follow this approach to varying degrees: Textron, Ball Corporation, Diehl Group and others combine widely disparate product lines in a holding company structure. With defense versus commercial valuations relatively high, there may be competing instincts in the boardrooms of these giants. On one hand, these companies may decide to reorient their portfolio more toward defense activities by exiting underperforming industrial businesses. On the other hand, firms could elect to use defense cashflows to support the broader corporation and position the company for an economic rebound. Trends to monitor While defense budgets could face downward pressure in much of the world, many U.S. contractors have good predictability through 2021 because of DoD outlays already in process. It is the wider commercial economy where the real uncertainty lies. This makes it hard to predict how many firms active in defense markets will fare over the next year, given the variety of other markets they serve. Over half the revenue earned by the Defense News Top 100 is generated from commercial sectors. Commercial aviation markets are likely to languish at pre-2019 levels through 2022 or later. The outlook for other commercial markets is more heterogeneous, but challenges exist across areas like shipbuilding, automotive, industrial equipment and energy. To the extent that countries pursue infrastructure-led stimulus, some of the more diversified companies may find pockets of sunshine amid the gloom. Doug Berenson is a managing director at Avascent, where Chris Higgins is a principal. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/08/17/market-exposure-in-the-top-100-defense-commercial-aviation-and-much-more/

• 

  14 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Big A&D Firms Seem To Be Merging Or Acquiring—Where’s Honeywell?

  Michael Bruno United Technologies (UTC) and Raytheon are working hard to convince shareholders to approve their mega-merger. L3 Harris Technologies is riding high after its heritage companies consolidated recently. Industry insiders are making bets on who is next. But Honeywell International has been conspicuously absent in all the major merger and acquisition (M&A) moves in recent years. Why? Honeywell Aerospace chief executive Tim Mahoney recently explained how his company still plans to take advantage of the wave of consolidation hitting aerospace and defense. “We've looked,” Mahoney told an Aug. 7 investor conference. “We've never thought—and we continue to not think—that scale is a major discriminator and a differentiator within our marketplace. Having said that, you need to be large enough to be relevant, and we have been at that point. But scale is not something that is attractive or makes you more attractive from an OEM perspective or from an aftermarket perspective. We've continued to differentiate ourselves relative to value-added offerings.” Mahoney spoke during a live interview with analyst Sheila Kahyaoglu at the Jefferies Global Industrials Conference. While Honeywell has remained active with bolt-on acquisitions—including the July 24 announcement it will buy autopilot specialist TruTrak Flight Systems for an undisclosed amount—the company has not consummated a prime- or OEM-level deal and even walked away from talks with UTC in 2016. That same year, Honeywell did buy warehouse automation specialist Intelligrated for $1.5 billion. And Honeywell leaders have long assured Wall Street that they keep their eyes open in A&D, as Mahoney reaffirmed. But they have complained that valuations were too rich to be conducive to dealmaking. Mahoney also indicated that Honeywell could take advantage of the consolidation trend in another way. “We've actually gone back and looked at when there has been very significant consolidations, or two companies coming together,” he explained. “That has actually helped us from a market share perspective, because typically when there's a large-scale integration of two companies, those two companies become inwardly focused, which is understandable. “As a result, we've been opportunistic relative to that,” he continued. “If you look at our cockpit systems business or some of those areas where we've competed with some of the companies that have consolidated, our auxiliary power unit business, you would see that we've actually grown disproportionately larger during those time periods.” One area Honeywell is now focusing on growing is its new big-data analytics software Forge, which the company recently rolled out for airlines and other industrial companies (Aviation DAILY, June 6). While the software expectedly looks to provide aircraft operators with predictive maintenance, fuel optimization and other flight operation benefits, Honeywell is looking to add ground operations through an expanding experiment with Swissport, one of the world's largest airport ground service providers. Last December, Honeywell and Swissport signed a five-year agreement initially to apply Honeywell's GoDirect Ground Handling product used across Swissport's global operation base. Ben Driggs, president of Honeywell Connected Aircraft, told the investor conference that the goal is to achieve faster airplane turnarounds in the 20-40% of the time the aircraft is on the ground. He said the partnership is first being implemented in Kansai International Airport (KIX) for Osaka, Japan, with Miami, Basel, Switzerland and “numerous” other Swissport airports planned. https://aviationweek.com/defense/big-ad-firms-seem-be-merging-or-acquiring-where-s-honeywell

• 

  23 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Battle Force 2045 could work — if defense leaders show some discipline

  By: Timothy A. Walton and Bryan Clark U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper is sprinting. With less than four months left in the administration's term, he unveiled a new vision for the Navy that would grow the fleet to more than 500 manned and unmanned vessels from today's 296 ships. Although some dismiss Esper's Battle Force 2045 concept as a political ploy shortly before an election, it could lead to a more effective and affordable future fleet — as long as Navy and Department of Defense leaders can avoid loading it down with expensive options. The Navy clearly needs to change its force design and operational approach. Even though naval forces are increasingly important to deter and defeat Chinese aggression, the Navy's previous plan to build a force of 355 ships lacked resilience and firepower, fell short on logistics, and was projected to cost 50 percent more than the current fleet. The Navy tried to adjust that plan with an integrated naval force structure assessment, but Esper rejected it, as it failed to implement new concepts for distributed multidomain operations and would be too expensive to realistically field. Instead, over the course of nine months, he and Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist led a study taking a fresh look at the Navy's force structure. The Hudson Institute contributed to the project by developing one of three fleet designs that informed the new plan. Hudson's proposed fleet is affordable to acquire and operate. Even though it consists of 581 vessels, more than 200 are unmanned or have small crews. The Hudson study's conservative estimates suggest it can be acquired for the ship construction funding in the Navy's President's Budget for fiscal 2021, adjusted for inflation, and would only cost moderately more than the current one to operate. The Hudson proposal becomes more affordable than the Navy's plan by gradually rebalancing the fleet to incorporate more smaller, less-expensive ships and fewer large multimission combatants. The proposed fleet would also constrain the size and cost of some large new ships, such as the future large surface combatant and next-generation attack submarine. Employing new operational concepts, the proposed fleet would outperform the current Navy in important metrics for future operations. First, the proposed fleet's groups of manned and unmanned vessels would generate more numerous and diverse effects chains compared to today's Navy, improving the force's adaptability and imposing greater complexity on enemy decision-making. Second, the fleet would deliver more offensive munitions from vessels and aircraft over a protracted period, and defend itself more effectively using distribution, shorter-range interceptors and electric weapons. Lastly, it enhances the fleet's amphibious, logistics and strategic sealift capacity. Overall, this results in a Navy that can help the joint force prevail across a range of potential scenarios, including the most challenging ones such as an attempted Chinese attack on Taiwan. The Hudson fleet is also achievable. Its shipbuilding plan relies on mature technologies or allows sufficient time to complete needed engineering and operational concept development before moving ships into serial production. The plan sustains the industrial base through stable ship-construction rates that avoid gaps in production and smoothly transition between ship classes. Even with this measured approach, however, the fleet can rapidly evolve, reaching more than 355 manned and unmanned vessels by 2030, and 581 by 2045. Although Battle Force 2045 focuses on ships, the Navy needs to spend more on improving repair yard infrastructure, growing munitions stocks, and providing command-and-control capabilities to the force. As the Hudson study shows, ship construction savings could help fund these and other enablers, but only if the Navy and the DoD have the discipline to avoid expensive new investments, such as building a third attack submarine every year, installing boost-glide hypersonic missiles on old destroyers or pursuing a significantly larger combatant to follow the Arleigh Burke class. Even if the procurement cost of these programs was funded through budget shifts within the DoD, each will incur a sustainment bill that is not factored into Navy plans and could accelerate the descent toward a hollow force. The Navy is now developing a new shipbuilding plan as part of its FY22 budget submission. Congress should carefully assess that plan and, in collaboration with the DoD, refine the budget. Esper may depart, but the results of this study can serve as a starting point for an operationally effective and fiscally sustainable fleet for the next administration. Timothy A. Walton is a fellow at the Hudson Institute's Center for Defense Concepts and Technology, where Bryan Clark is a senior fellow. Along with Seth Cropsey, they recently completed a study of future naval force structure. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/10/22/battle-force-2045-could-work-if-defense-leaders-show-some-discipline/