Lockheed Makes $4.4B Bid to Buy Aerojet Rocketdyne

Sur le même sujet

• 

  19 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

  Army Halts Apache Helicopter Deliveries

  For the second time in two years, the Army had to stop accepting Boeing's attack helicopter. The exact reason remains unknown. Marcus Weisgerber The U.S. Army has stopped accepting Apache helicopters from Boeing after the company found that an employee kept “improper” records concerning parts installed on the aircraft. It's the latest quality-control issue to bedevil America's largest planemaker, which is trying to shift its company's culture and repair its public image after two deadly airliner crashes and a production line that left tools and trash inside new tanker aircraft. “At this time the Army is still conducting a comprehensive review of a number of Boeing processes, production, and manufacturing plans for critical safety items applicable to all AH-64E aircraft production,” Lt. Col. Brandon Kelley, an Army spokesman, said in an emailed statement. When it learned of “improper record keeping” at its AH-64 Apache factor in Mesa, Arizona, Boeing “immediately notified the Army,” Steve Parker, vice president and general manager of Boeing Vertical Lift, said in a statement provided by a company spokesman. “Boeing and the government are jointly reviewing our Mesa quality management processes and procedures,” Parker said. “Flight operations and deliveries will resume when Boeing and the Army are satisfied this issue has been resolved and appropriate corrective action plans have been implemented.” Boeing no longer employs the worker who kept the improper records, according to a person with knowledge of the issue. Boeing's Mesa operation builds new Apaches and overhauls old ones with more modern equipment — a process known as remanufacturing. The company continues to build aircraft amid the delivery stoppage, an industry source said. “The Army will begin acceptance of aircraft once conditions have been satisfied to ensure production processes meet standards for safety and quality and the potential for future quality escapes has been fully mitigated,” Kelley said. “The Army will continue to work with Boeing in reviewing their quality processes and manufacturing of critical safety items and recommend changes as necessary to prevent future delivery of non-conforming product.” Kelley said that soldiers' lives were not put at risk by the issues. It's not the first time the Army has suspended Apache deliveries. From March to August 2018, the service halted acceptances after finding a flaw in a part that holds the helicopter's rotors to the aircraft. Boeing quality-control practices have been called into question by both the commercial industry and the military. The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating potential manufacturing issues on 787 Dreamliner aircraft. The U.S. Air Force had to halt deliveries of KC-46 tankers on numerous occasions after military inspectors found trash, parts, and tools left inside the aircraft. In March 2019, Will Roper, the head of Air Force acquisition, blamed the company's assembly line culture for the issues. The coronavirus pandemic has only made things worse for Boeing and its suppliers as air travel evaporates and airlines cancel plane orders. Earlier this year, executives said the company's $34 billion defense business would outperform its typically lucrative commercial business for the first time in more than a decade. Coronavirus-related factory shutdowns and production slowdowns started taking a toll on Boeing's defense business in the spring. Boeing delivered 54 fewer military aircraft and satellites so far this year when to the first three quarters of 2019, a 31 percent decline, according to company data. This year, Boeing has delivered 10 KC-46 tankers, less than half of the 21 delivered through the third quarter of 2019. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2020/10/army-halts-apache-deliveries-after-boeing-finds-improper-record-keeping-helicopter-factory/169332/

• 

  25 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Four factors to consider in keeping NATO relevant

  By: Hans Binnendijk and Daniel S. Hamilton The NATO alliance survived four years of U.S. President Donald Trump due largely to strong congressional support and clever leadership by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. After the bell ringing and fireworks end in European capitals to welcome President-elect Joe Biden, the alliance will need to realize that it can not go back to business as usual. The world has moved on during those four years and the alliance will need to continue to rejuvenate in order to remain relevant. That rejuvenation process will be enshrined in a new Strategic Concept, which should emerge over the next year or so. Stoltenberg already has a so-called reflection process underway designed to identify key areas where change is needed. Biden's foreign policy team will now weigh in. NATO's rejuvenation might unfold under what we call the “Four Cs.” We should want an alliance that is more coherent, more capable, more comprehensive in scope and with a more co-equal balance of contributions to the common defense. The return of Joe Biden alone will contribute to NATO's coherence, and reverse poisonous trans-Atlantic political relations. But the problem is deeper. Threat perceptions differ markedly across the alliance. There is broad lack of confidence in commitments to the North Atlantic Treaty, including its mutual defense Article V. There is democratic backsliding among several NATO members. Allies are facing off against each other in the Eastern Mediterranean. There are differing attitudes about Russian behavior around the Black and Baltic sea. There are differences about the endgame in Afghanistan. And there are uncertainties of how the alliance should address China's growing security role in Europe and the global commons. The new Strategic Concept will need to enhance coherence by reaffirming common democratic values and recommitting to the common defense. This will be the most important element of a new Strategic Concept. A review of the Strategic Concept can provide a process through which allies can assess mechanisms to uphold their mutual commitment to strengthen their free institutions, avoid straying from agreed democratic practices and prevent allies from confronting each other militarily. Second, the alliance needs to continue its efforts to strengthen its capabilities in two distinct areas: conventional military might and resilience against so-called hybrid or non-kinetic attacks. Since the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, NATO nations have begun to focus again on a major power competitor. Four NATO battlegroups are forward-deployed to the Baltic states and Poland. A small, very high-readiness force and a larger readiness initiative were undertaken to back up those battalions. A mobilization initiative was designed to make sure ready forces can forward-deploy quickly. But European defense budgets constrained by COVID-19 will put those initiatives in jeopardy. The Strategic Concept will need to prioritize those programs. The alliance must also more methodically address unconventional challenges to human security from Russia such as media disinformation, corrosive cyber operations, supply chain disruptions and energy intimidation. The Strategic Concept needs to design resilience programs so that alliance members can better protect the critical functions of our societies to such disruptive dangers. Next, the scope of NATO's mission needs to be more comprehensive. NATO's core tasks of collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security must be expanded to include countering challenges that contribute to global instability. Those challenges would range from managing global warming and pandemics through the refugee crisis to the rise of China. NATO has recently used its mobility and civil defense assets to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. NATO navies have contributed to saving the lives of refugees at sea. In addition, the consequences of a major ice melt will have a significant security impact in the Arctic, along urban coastlines and on further refugee flows. To remain relevant, NATO must begin to define its role in these areas. Stoltenberg has focused the alliance's attention on China. That nation is increasingly partnering with Russia in the military arena including defense industrial cooperation and joint exercises. It also has invested in European strategic infrastructure, created technology dependencies and used coercive diplomacy to stifle European voices. NATO's expanded role should include reducing those dependencies and developing much closer partnership ties with America's Asian allies. Finally, the new Strategic Concept should result in more co-equal trans-Atlantic distribution of military capabilities and responsibilities. This is less about traditional burden-sharing than it is about responding to two historical trends. Europe's response to the Trump years has been to seek greater strategic autonomy. China's military challenge has American planners focusing on Asia first. Many American friends of Europe are discussing a possible new division of labor, with the United States focusing more on China and European militaries focusing on Russia. This, however, could leave Europe poorly defended and open to coercion. The Strategic Concept will need to divine an elegant solution, perhaps with Europe accepting the responsibility to provide half of the capability needed to defend against a major Russian attack. NATO has remained history's strongest alliance precisely because it has adapted to new strategic conditions. It can do so again. Hans Binnendijk is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and formerly served as the U.S. National Security Council's senior director for defense policy. Daniel S. Hamilton is an Austrian Marshall Plan distinguished fellow and the director of the Global Europe Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/11/24/four-factors-to-consider-in-keeping-nato-relevant/

• 

  20 janvier 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

  American warship, F-35 jets to deploy with British fleet

  By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — U.S. combat jets and a destroyer are to join the British Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier on its maiden operational deployment to the Asia-Pacific region later in 2021, after officials formally approved the deployment Tuesday. British Defence Secretary Ben Wallace and U.S. acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller co-signed a joint declaration approving the deployment of U.S. Marine and U.S. Navy assets as part of a carrier strike group led by the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the British Ministry of Defence announced. U.S. assets attached to the carrier strike group will include a detachment of Marine F-35Bs and the destroyer The Sullivans, the announcement said. The U.S. military has been regularly flying its short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35Bs from the deck of the 65,000-ton Queen Elizabeth as the new carrier tests its capabilities. The warship was commissioned in December 2017, and the carrier strike group achieved initial operating capability in December 2020. The inclusion of Marine combat jets on the warship has long been planned by the two governments, not least because Britain has a modest numbers of F-35Bs available. The British carrier also will deploy Leonardo-built Merlin helicopters for anti-submarine missions and other duties. Wallace said in a statement that the U.K. “now possesses a 21st century carrier strike capability, which has been greatly assisted by the unswerving support and cooperation of the US at all levels over the past decade.” “This deployment embodies the strength of our bilateral ties and reflects the depth and breadth of this vital defence and security partnership,” he added. The British government has not officially announced where the deployment is expected to take the carrier force, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson previously said the group would be going to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and the Pacific region. That's expected to include Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Oman; Britain has a naval support base in the latter. British officials previously signaled the carrier and its support ships could transit through the South China Sea, where the U.S. regularly conducts freedom of navigation operations in disputed waters claimed by China. A second carrier, the HMS Prince of Wales, was commissioned in late 2019 and is scheduled to become operational in 2023. It was hit by a serious flooding incident last year, which caused the cancellation of a trip to the U.S. Eastern Seaboard for trials with the F-35B. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/01/19/american-warship-f-35-jets-to-deploy-with-british-fleet