6 mai 2024 | International, Naval

NGA wants industry’s help monitoring illegal activity in Indo-Pacific

Interested companies have until May 24 to submit responses, after which some will be selected for review by the Defense Innovation Unit.

https://www.defensenews.com/intel-geoint/2024/05/06/nga-wants-industrys-help-monitoring-illegal-activity-in-indo-pacific/

Sur le même sujet

  • Why defense firms need to get systematic about M&A — big and small

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

    Why defense firms need to get systematic about M&A — big and small

    By: Eric Chewning and Frank Coleman III After years of growth, defense budgets will likely flatten (or decline). In such a financial environment, the U.S. Department of Defense will consider trade-offs between funding modernization, sustaining legacy equipment and preserving force structure. These hard choices will be informed by the DoD's strategic acquisition priorities, which will likely continue to reflect the need for innovation around leading-edge capabilities in areas like space, C5ISR, long-range precision fires, unmanned vehicles and artificial intelligence. To support these evolving mission requirements, the defense industry will need to ensure the industrial base is able to deliver technological advantage. This requires attracting world-class talent as well as the necessary financial capital to operate global industrial enterprises. Attracting these resources requires continued value creation through growth and return on invested capital improvements. But in a down budget environment, where is this growth to come from? While many will think organic growth is the best value-creating option (and often is), the answer also lies in augmenting a classic portfolio strategy with a systematic approach to transactions. Mergers and acquisitions are a proven growth accelerant for defense companies, and have generated superior shareholder returns and greater resilience for companies that have pursued it systematically. At first glance, this may simply seem like an obvious description of recent history. The aerospace and defense sector, after all, has seen rapid consolidation in the last five years, with deals worth $358 billion struck between 2015 and 2019, three times the total between 2010 and 2014. The problem for defense companies looking for more of the same is that this wave of consolidation now appears to have run its course. The combined market value of the top five defense hardware players is now more than four times that of the next five; so even as further mega-deals are theoretically possible, they will be increasingly difficult to execute, underscoring the value of programmatic M&A. Distinct from selective or organic deal-making approaches, programmatic M&A involves a company conducting two or more small or midsized deals per year, with an aggregate value greater than 15 percent of its market capitalization over five years, that align with their overall corporate strategy (which is hopefully linked to the “fast streams” of growth in the budget (see exhibit below)). These deals get choreographed around a specific business case, such as scaling or integrating vital digital capabilities, and are rooted in a disciplined appraisal of transactions. In the defense industry, programmatic M&A should be deployed against a strategy supported by the customer's need for innovation, lower costs and better mission outcomes for the war fighter. Our analysis shows that over the last decade, few defense companies took a programmatic approach to M&A. Those who did outperformed their peers in total shareholder returns by 10.4 percent. M&A was also an important key to resilience during the last defense spending downturn in 2007-2011: The top quintile of outperforming companies, as well as optimizing cash and flexing capex, used it as an opportunity to grow less cyclical parts of the business and build digital capabilities. Defense companies may be deterred by the current market environment, featuring stretched valuations, competition from institutional capital and a squeeze on mid-tier players. They may be cautious about the challenge of integrating smaller nondefense acquisitions into company processes and culture — a process that is easier to get wrong than right to be sure. The very complexity of these circumstances creates opportunities for bold players to differentiate themselves from their peers, align their strategies with national defense priorities and add significant value for shareholders. When done well, programmatic M&A can form a central pillar of their growth strategy. With a proactive approach to deal sourcing, holistic diligence, and in-house execution and integration expertise, companies can establish M&A as a critical capability and avoid the risks of reactive, one-off projects. In the challenging environment that confronts the defense industry today, those who act boldly will succeed in creating enduring businesses that can adapt to the evolving needs of the national defense. Eric Chewning and Frank Coleman III are partners at McKinsey and Company. Chewning previously served as chief of staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and before that as the Pentagon's industrial chief. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/11/16/why-defense-firms-need-to-get-systematic-about-ma-big-and-small/

  • Missile Defense Agency seeks $9.6 billion in FY23 budget

    30 mars 2022 | International, Terrestre

    Missile Defense Agency seeks $9.6 billion in FY23 budget

    The Missile Defense Agency is prioritizing efforts to go up again evolving threats like hypersonic weapons and cruise missiles including funding for a new missile defense architecture on Guam and development of a glide-phase hypersonic weapon interceptor in its FY23 budget request.

  • Is this the Marine Corps' next amphibious combat vehicle?

    28 septembre 2018 | International, Naval, Terrestre

    Is this the Marine Corps' next amphibious combat vehicle?

    By: Todd South MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. ― The winner of a contract to develop the Marine Corps new amphibious combat vehicle, the first of its kind in four decades, showcased a potential variant that would give commanders eyes on all areas of the littoral battlefield, on-board drones and targeted hand offs to any ACV in their formations. BAE Systems guided reporters through the interior of the vehicle, on display at this year's Modern Day Marine Expo in Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday. The variant isn't one that the Marines have yet requested, but John Swift, program director for BAE's amphibious vehicles, said the model was an effort to showcase what's possible with the new vehicle. Marines selected the BAE version earlier this year over SAIC's proposed vehicle. Swift noted that decision keeps BAE as the sole company providing such vehicles to the Corps since 1941. They've got to build 30 vehicles by the end of next summer, Swift said. Those vehicles will then go through testing before modifications and the composition of the fleet is decided. Marines want at least two variants as production begins in the next two years: a turreted assault vehicle and a command and control vehicle. As of now, the Corps' official numbers call for 704 ACVs for the fleet when full rate production begins in 2022. That number is planned to be completed within six years, Swift said. The composition of the fleet is still undecided, so the initial 30 vehicles delivered for testing will be basic platforms. But that was before an announcement reported by Defense News this week that the survivability upgrade contract for the existing AAV fleet of an estimated 392 AAVs was cancelled. The move is in line with larger National Defense Strategy aims to ramp up modernization by prioritizing money for those programs rather than legacy platforms. Marine Corps Program Executive Office for Land Systems spokesman Manny Pacheco told reporters at this week's expo that the early version, or ACV 1.1 outperformed expectations and delivery of the new vehicles would not take much longer than the planned upgrades, which could shorten the calendar. The deliveries were about six months apart, he said. Meaning that the brand-new vehicles would arrives shortly after the upgraded vehicles were planned. Swift and Pacheco said separately that the ACV 1.1 was able to both launch and recover, meaning return to ship. That wasn't an expectation until later versions, which sped up the capability development of the new vehicle, giving the Marines other options in how they would pursue modernizing the fleet. In a question and answer posting about the ACV by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, officials at the time said they would continue the upgrade program even if the early ACV versions achieved a “self-deployable capability.” The posting noted that the upgraded AAVs will “address capability gaps that need to be closed as soon as possible.” It went on to say that the aged AAV fleet also accounts for one-third of the Corps' lift capacity and “will need to remain operationally effective in the force until their replacements are procured.” Later in production there's also interest in building a recovery ACV, Swift said.https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/09/27/is-this-the-marine-corps-next-amphibious-combat-vehicle The new ACV has a host of differences and capabilities not on the more than 40-year-old AAVs but most immediately noticeable is it is an eight-wheeled vehicle. Gone are the treads of the tracked AAV. When asked about tire performance by reporters, Swift said that in testing the ACV was able to travel another 30 km with three debilitated tires. The same questions and answers list had several reasons for wheels over tracks: Greater mobility in complex, littoral terrain; • Increased IED protection (2X). • Reduced fuel consumption (

Toutes les nouvelles