9 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

Lockheed Martin Australia awards $37m contract to Safran to provide key systems design for Australia’s Future Submarines

October 8, 2019 - SYDNEY, Australia - Lockheed Martin Australia, together with the Department of Defence, today announced the appointment of Safran Electronics & Defense Australasia Pty Ltd (Safran) to design three major Combat System components for Australia's Future Submarine Program.

The $36.77 million contract, which will be in force until May 2023, will see Safran deliver the preliminary and detailed designs for the combat system's optronics search and attack mast, navigation radar and navigation data distribution components.

The contract scope will also include delivery of prototypes and interface simulators to enable Lockheed Martin Australia, as the combat system integrator, to conduct further test activities and validate the integrated performance of the combat system in its Adelaide-based Combat System Architecture Laboratory (CSAL).

While the contract represents the initial phase of development activities (including the development of design up to and including the component-level critical design reviews), it will also see Safran establish sovereign capabilities at its new facility in Botany, NSW, for the build, integration and ongoing sustainment of these components.

As part of its delivery of this work, Safran will subcontract two Australian companies, Acacia Systems and Thomas Global Systems, for the design and development of software and hardware, respectively. The contract will result in more than 11 full-time positions being created and sustained locally across Safran and its partners.

Speaking at the PACIFIC 2019 International Maritime Exposition, Lockheed Martin Australia and New Zealand Chief Executive, Joe North, congratulated Safran on the appointment and said he looked forward to working with the Australian team to support the Royal Australian Navy with enhanced sovereign capability.

"Lockheed Martin Australia, in concert with the Department of Defence, is committed to maximising opportunities for Australian industry involvement through all phases of the Future Submarine Program," he said.

"Safran represents the international benchmark in submarine optronics and navigation systems, and we are honoured to welcome the company and its partners to our Australian combat system team."

Safran Electronics & Defense Australasia CEO, Alexis de Pelleport, said the contract represents an important step towards strengthening the company's footprint and workforce in Australia.

"The contract with Lockheed Martin Australia and the Department of Defence will allow us to meet our shared objective of supporting local employment and developing Australian expertise at our Botany facility and through our local partners," he said.

"We are pleased to be working with Lockheed Martin Australia and the Commonwealth to deliver a superior submarine fleet for the region."

About Lockheed Martin Australia
Headquartered in Canberra, Lockheed Martin Australia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation. The company employs more than 1000 people in Australia working on a wide range of major programs spanning the aerospace, defence and civil sectors.

In 2016 Lockheed Martin Australia was announced as the combat system integrator for Australia's Future Submarine Program, charged with collaborating with the Department of Defence and Naval Group to design a combat system that would provide an enhanced submarine capability for Australia.

About Safran
Safran is an international high-technology group, operating in the aircraft propulsion and equipment, space and defense markets. Safran has a global presence, with more than 92,000 employees and sales of 21 billion euros in 2018. Safran is listed on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, and is part of the CAC 40 and Euro Stoxx 50 indices.

Safran Electronics & Defense Australasia has complete access to Safran's OEM knowledge and global network to locally support its customers. Safran Electronics & Defense Australasia is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Safran Electronics & Defense based in Sydney, Australia.

For more information: www.safran-group.com and www.safran-electronics-defense.com / Follow @Safran and @SafranElecDef on Twitter

CONTACT US

Media Contact
• Michelle Scully
Head of Communications Australia and New Zealand
Lockheed Martin Australia
+61 448 032 387
michelle.m.scully@lmco.com

Media Contact
• Pascal Debergé
Press Officer
Safran Electronics & Defense
+33 1 55 60 41 38
pascal.deberge@safrangroup.com

Media Contact
• Amaury Finaz
Maritime Director
Safran Electronics & Defense Australasia
+61 429 073 600
amaury.finaz@safrangroup.com

View source version on Safran Group: https://www.safran-group.com/media/lockheed-martin-australia-awards-37m-contract-safran-provide-key-systems-design-australias-future-submarines-20191008

Sur le même sujet

  • Harris and L3 CEOs talk merger, divestitures and why we all should have seen this coming

    15 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Harris and L3 CEOs talk merger, divestitures and why we all should have seen this coming

    By: Jill Aitoro If you ask Chris Kubasik, CEO of L3 Technologies, the company's pending merger with Harris Corp. should not come as a surprise to anyone. Such a move made sense on paper for years, even if the timing was never quite right. Now it is: Both companies are on an upswing, and both companies are led by individuals with an inclination to get it done. The result will be a deal — the largest defense merger in history, if you look at market capitalization — to create the seventh largest defense prime in the world. Defense News spoke to Kubasik and Bill Brown, the CEO of Harris, to find out more about the newly rechristened L3 Harris Technologies. Chris, you called this an acquisition that many felt made sense. So what were the challenges to making it happen, and why is now the perfect time? Chris Kubasik: I think in reality, people thought for years that this combination made sense. It was due to Bill and I working hard that we actually got it done. I think that now is the perfect time because of the customer's needs and demands for innovation and solution. Like I said, with the upswing in both companies, and both companies being strong, I think that gives us the opportunity to put this together, generate the cash and the synergies and position us for long-term value creation for our shareholders. The challenges of all these acquisitions [are so often] culture and leadership. Here, the cultures are aligned. Bill and I are completely aligned. We've known each other for years. We have a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. We're going to jointly chair the integration committee to make sure we get the best of the best — best people, best processes, best system. I'm sure I've never been more excited in my career than I am today, so it's going to be a lot of fun. The stakeholders are all going to benefit. Bill, how much was the 2015 acquisition of Exelis a building block toward this deal? Not necessarily a merger with L3 specifically, but really big merger that would really transform the company? Did you see this coming? Bill Brown: I've been here for seven years, so we really started early on in developing a culture of operational excellence. I think that has been pretty well embedded within the company. We've made some good progress here. We've leveraged a lot of those tools, effectively integrating Exelis. We reached the cost savings targets we thought we would deliver and we delivered it a year early. So I think we built a little bit of a muscle on how to do an integration. I think this is a great potential combination for us. It does position us well within the defense industrial based hierarchy. We'll generate a lot of savings. But more importantly, the portfolio capabilities is going to allow us to do different things, to provide different capabilities to the war fighter and different things that are clearly laid out in the National Defense Strategy. So as I look at this, it's the right transaction. It's the right time. It's the right environment to do this. A lot of this comes down to the leaders of the organization, and Chris and I [are] completely aligned in what to do and how to create value. So much of this also involves combining and integrating in a smart and efficient way, so should we expect any more divestitures? I know L3 just did a couple recently. Any more to come? Brown: I think if you look at what L3 has done recently, and what we've done over the last five or six years, we both have taken a critical eye to the business portfolio we had. If there's assets we think that are better owned by somebody other than [ourselves], we take a dispassionate view of that. And we transition those assets to a different owner. I think Chris and I will take a look at that going forward. I think there will be [divestitures], given the diversity of the business mix we'll have together. It does create the optionality for additional portfolio shaping. Nothing to mention today, but something we'll be taking a close look at over the coming months and years. Okay, so the couple of years before the transition, in terms of leadership — should I figure that those two years are going to be spent really establishing the integrated company? Kubasik: Absolutely. The top two focuses of Bill and I and the team will be the integration, and continuing to execute on our existing programs and commitments. That is first and foremost. We're going to generate a lot of cash. It's going to take several hundred million dollars of investments to integrate these companies. Then the rest of the cash we're going to maintain a competitive dividend, consistent with what we've done. We're very similar in that regard. In the first year, we're going to use the excess cash to repurchase shares. So the likelihood of acquisition from those first two years are very low. As Bill said, we'll look at the portfolio. We've clearly spent a lot of time together, but the next few months we'll get into it more and more and see what makes sense. The way I sum it up is, the merger creates better benefits and growth opportunities than either company could have achieved alone. I know both companies are incredibly strong in terms of C4ISR and a lot of what you might call the future warfare capabilities. What kind of growth do you anticipate in that area? Brown: When I look at the next several years, you're hitting on the right spot. When you look at C4ISR, it's a broad category. When you look at the pieces underneath that, I think Chris and I, our companies, bring great capabilities [that are] complementary. When you think about what we do at Harris, we've got a very strong position in tactical radios — global leadership, U.S. leadership. A lot of it's ground, starting the movements to airborne tier, starting to provide systems. Chris's business is very strong in avionics. It's very strong in data links, very strong in satcom, very strong between the two of us in optical capability. When you look at all of that broad way of getting better ISR information, I think we bring the right capabilities to the fight. Kubasik: We'll be spending about 4% of our revenues on R&D, which I think is aggressive. And we talk about the customers, just to clarify — we have two sets. We have the usual industry partners, who I think will benefit from this combination, the same way that our end-user DoD customer will as well. Are there any programs that you both were competing on, where there's going to need to be some sort management to eliminate conflicts of interest? Brown: Very, very small. It's almost negligible in terms of where we compete head to head. Again, it's a very complimentary set of businesses, so we don't see that as being a big concern. What kind of layoffs are you all anticipating? Brown: We expect half a billion dollars of cost savings, and half of it is going to come from supply chain and facility rationalization — consolidating our mutual footprint. About half of that other half, so 25 percent, is split from corporate and segment overhead reduction in functional efficiencies, shared services — things that we've done and Chris is now driving at all three. But we're in a market today where the unemployment rate's very low. We both were out there hiring people, trying to hire talented engineers and scientists, get people through clearances. So fortunately, we're in an environment where we need more people, not fewer people. Okay, so you think it'll be relatively modest, getting rid of where there might be overlap? Brown: There's going to be some overlap. There'll be some movement of people, but we're not prepared to talk about any employment reduction today. But again, look, it's an environment today where we're looking for more people, especially in the STEM field. The decision to make Melbourne, Florida the headquarters — will that be permanent? Brown: Yeah, it'll be as soon as we close. It'll be the headquarters in Melbourne, and Chris is going to move to Melbourne. We have about 7,000 people in Brevard County. We've been there for 40 years, very deep, entrenched infrastructure. If you know the area, a lot of the defense players, aerospace defense players, are moving now to the Space Coast. It's a very vibrant community. Again, we've been there for a while. We're deeply embedded into the community with a lot of infrastructure at Harris, so that's what we decided to do. Bill, I was convinced you guys were going to move to Washington for a while, but you proved me wrong. Brown: You know, it's interesting. Look, that came up for us, when we did Exelis, but Chris and I've talked about this. It just doesn't make sense for both companies to move headquarters at the same time. That provides an additional risk in a deal. We thought we need to move to one place or the other. We both thought that Melbourne was a better place for the headquarters of the company. Chris, you get to move again. Kubasik: You know, it's been a couple of years, time to move. I'm getting used to it, so if things slow down this week, maybe one night at 10:00 I'll log onto a real estate website and try to be a first mover before the prices increase down there. [laughter] I know you said in the next couple years no acquisitions would be on the horizon, but do you anticipate even more areas of business that would meld with those that you already play well in? Brown: Look, I would say you started out the question the way I'd answer it, which is: it's too soon to determine that. I think the next couple of years will be about integrating the companies. It'll be about divesting. If we see opportunities for portfolio shaping, making sure that happens, so we stay focused on the business where strategically it makes sense for us to be in longer term. But I think Chris and I both have talked very publicly, individually as companies, about M&A is a part of our long-term growth strategy. So over time, we do anticipate, under Chris's leadership, that there'll be other M&As that will happen over time. But I think in the next couple of years, unless it's something exceptional, must have, we're going to stand down on M&A and really focus on integrating the portfolios that we have. Kubasik: Now the organic growth opportunities, and the beauty of having two leaders at the top, will allow us to focus on our customers, not only in D.C., but globally. And you know how much I love to travel internationally — we're going to have customers in over 100 countries. I still look at that in amazement. We'll be able to deepen those relationships. We both work in a lot of the same countries, but when you have a larger combined content, I think we'll be able to advance internationally maybe further, quicker than we would have individually. So I think one of my focus areas is going to be to help grow the business and meet with those customers around the globe. Chris I've spoken to you a couple of times on the big plans and aspirations to be a non-traditional six prime. You got there way faster than I thought you would. Kubasik: Oh, thank you, I'm an impatient person. I know you also said to me that you didn't envision, and I quote, “building multi-billion-dollar satellites, airplanes and ships.” Does that vision of what the company is, and will be, as a six prime remain intact with this merger? Kubasik: We don't really have any major platforms, [but] when I look at the different domains that we're going to be able to serve, whether it's air, space, land or sea or cyber, that's the exciting part. On the air side, as an example, on a combined basis we have some pretty exciting capabilities with avionics and electronic warfare, as an example. So we'll be able to be on the legacy programs, like the F-16 and F-18, which we already are, and we'll have more content on the next-gen platforms like an F-35. So if we go domain by domain, you see the ability to better connect the different platforms to focus on the secured communication. I think we're well positioned for the multi-domain, command and control and communication systems. I'm excited about the small satellite business that Harris had. I think that's great. You know about our UUVs, our UAVs. I think it's going to work well in conjunction with the industry prime. It'll be a collaborative, cooperative relationship. Brown: I think we're not a company that does or will do a lot of these big, major platforms that the big primes are doing today. The way we look at it, 72 percent of the combined business will be prime, meaning sales to and customers. I think that's an important point to make. Bill you've talked to me about space superiority. How key is space to the combined business? Brown: We have a pretty broad business in space in terms of space superiority. A lot of it, it's ground-based capabilities that provide offensive and defensive capabilities to that space architecture. We've developed a lot of exquisite systems and components that have now moved into end-to-end mission solutions for small satellites. We've got a lot of capabilities on our end, in optics. Chris's business, L3, is also strong in small optics, and they've got really good signal intelligence capabilities that I think can augment the things that we do with some of the space architecture. So I see that as helping us continue to broaden that set of mission solutions in the space domain, that I think we spent the last several decades, actually, developing. What does this merger mean to the top primes? Brown: We have at Harris a great relationship with all of the primes. [We] do a lot of work particularly with Boeing and Lockheed. We do quite a bit now with Raytheon as well, so I think we have great partnerships, and I think if anything [this] is going to be additive to that partnership. I think it'll be favorably received by those guys. Kubasik: I agree a 100 percent. I think they're going to be equally excited as the DoD customer for the same reasons. We'll have the money to innovate the R&D, maybe bundle some solutions. They'll also share over time in the affordability of this synergy. I think it's a win-win for the industry and the DoD customers. Bill, in two years you hand the CEO spot to Chris. I'm asking you to look at a couple years down the road, and I know you're remaining on the board, but any other big plans? Brown: Look, that's three and a half years down the road. If I look at six months between sign and close – that's a lifetime year, as you can imagine. I've been CEO here for seven years. That puts me 10 years at the company. I think with Chris, we'll put the company together on the right track. Look, I'll find something productive to do with my life at that point. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/10/15/harris-and-l3-ceos-talk-merger-divestitures-and-why-we-all-should-have-seen-this-coming

  • The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

    16 décembre 2019 | International, Terrestre

    The US Air Force needs more tankers. Does the defense industry have the answer?

    By: Valerie Insinna SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. — With no end in sight to the demand on the tanker fleet, the U.S. Air Force is actively seeking agreements with defense contractors for aerial refueling services. On Dec. 17, Air Mobility Command will hold an industry day at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, in the hopes of better understanding how it can contract for commercial air refueling services to supplement tanking missions performed by the Air Force's KC-135s, KC-10s and KC-46s. “We do think that this is an opportunity that needs to be pursued,” Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, the command's deputy chief, said during an exclusive interview with Defense News on Dec. 10. “If we can find a viable, clear path with industry, we should do it.” The Air Force believes there are a certain set of aerial-refueling missions conducted in a uncontested environment that could provide a predictable stream of business, Thomas said. Through the industry day, the service is hoping to better understand how companies might be able to fulfill those requirements. “There are several providers ... that would propose that they have their own tanker that's already flying and doing great work for other air forces,” he said. “That's fascinating to us. There's another vendor that has procured boom-equipped tankers from a foreign air force that is a proven capability. There are some others that may be doing the same thing with a different foreign air force. So I would say that they're out there and they're committing to the idea that if the Air Force is serious, we're serious about this, too.” There are a number of parameters that industry would have to address, such as meeting the Air Force's aircraft certification standards and the Federal Aviation Administration's demands for refueling in U.S. airspace. Companies must also be able to refuel aircraft using a boom — a requirement that may hinder certain tankers that use a probe and drogue for refueling. “Right now, all commercial aerial refueling services are drogue only. It has to be a boom aircraft for the U.S. Air Force to be able to really leverage it in any meaningful way,” Thomas said. Although Thomas declined to talk about specific vendors that could provide air refueling services, Lockheed Martin and Airbus — which joined forces in 2018 to pitch a fee-for-service model for Airbus's A330 Multi-Role Tanker Transport — have been vocal about courting the U.S. Air Force as a customer. Michele Evans, head of Lockheed's aeronautics business, told reporters in June that the companies are in discussions with the U.S. military about A330 sales, leasing or a fee-for service construct, and that U.S. Transportation Command in particular showed interest. “We've really been able to show them what we think is capable, feasible,” she said. “You can never have enough tanking capability. As you look at the challenges of the battlespace and the threat and capabilities, having to be standoff farther and farther, it's a great opportunity for them to go revisit their capabilities versus capacity.” Still, Evans acknowledged there is much to be determined, including the exact nature of the business partnership between Airbus and Lockheed, should a contract emerge, and how the company would structure a fee-for-service contract with the Air Force or other potential customers. One possible construct would involve associating a cost for each gallon of fuel delivered. If the Air Force decides not to move forward with purchasing aerial refueling services, it still has a number of options for augmenting the tanker force. In the near term, Air Mobility Command can retain some KC-135s that were slated to be divested as the KC-46 comes online, Thomas said. In March, Transportation Command chief Gen. Stephen Lyons told Congress that the Air Force was considering keeping as many as 28 KC-135s. The Air Force is currently debating 14 KC-135s as part of the fiscal 2021 budget, Thomas said. “We'll see how the president's budget goes over. I really hope that it will allow us to retain some additional capacity. I don't know if it will,” he said. “But that's our first lever that we can pull." Another option is increasing the KC-46 program of record, which currently stands at 179 tankers. However, Boeing is still in the process of making extensive changes to the aircraft's remote vision system, which the aircraft uses for refueling, and Air Mobility Command won't be able to consider a production increase until those fixes are made, Thomas said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/12/13/the-air-force-needs-more-tankers-could-the-defense-industry-have-the-answer/

  • Meet Serval, France’s next multi-role armoured vehicle

    12 juin 2018 | International, Terrestre

    Meet Serval, France’s next multi-role armoured vehicle

    PARIS — France has given a brand name for its planned light multi-role armoured reconnaissance vehicle, or VBMR: Serval. The French Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly confirmed “the forces are waiting impatiently for these Light VBMR,” in a June 11 speech to mark the official opening of the Eurosatory trade show. “They will be efficient, protectors, innovative,” she added. “I believe they will be feared and decisive for our strategic security. For these Light VBMR, they lack nothing, except a name. It is a real honor to baptize these Light VBMR with the name Serval.” That name was a tribute to the “know-how and audacity” of the French forces and borrowed from a desert cat known for its “dexterity, speed and smarts,” she said. The French forces conducted the Serval combat operation in Mali, which ran from 2012 to 2014 and took its name from a wild cat found in sub-Saharan Africa. The French parliament has approved the multi-year defense budget, which has boosted the order for Light VBMR by 420 units to 978, she said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/12/meet-serval-frances-next-multi-role-armoured-vehicle/

Toutes les nouvelles