Northrop expands team for program to replace US Air Force ICBMs

Sur le même sujet

• 

  27 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  COVID cash crunch still hurting small defense firms

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― Cash flow for small defense contractors is continuing to suffer under the coronavirus pandemic, according to a survey by the National Defense Industrial Association. The survey echoes warnings from the Pentagon that these firms, part of a vast network of suppliers that makes up the defense-industrial base, are especially vulnerable. The Pentagon this week announced it will make $3 billion in new “progress payments" to increase cash flow to prime contractors, expecting the money would then trickle down. Of the NDIA survey respondents: 67 percent of companies with less than $1 million in annual revenue have seen a cash-flow disruption. 60 percent said the crisis has interfered with their cash flow. 60 percent expect to have long-term financial and cash-flow issues stemming from the crisis. 66 percent said accelerated payments from the Defense Department or prime contractors would be the most helpful step toward business recovery. L3Harris Technologies said this week it will issue more than $100 million in payments to its small suppliers. Lockheed Martin announced Friday it executed $256 million in accelerated payment toward its $450 million goal. Both of these promised followed the Pentagon's announcement this month that it will boost progress payment rates from 80 percent to 90 percent for large companies, and to 95 percent for small businesses. The payments are made to contractors, usually on a monthly basis, for costs incurred and work performed under a contract; a 90 percent rate means that if $1 million in expenses are submitted on the program, the Defense Department will reimburse $900,000. Sixty-six percent of the respondents also said it would help them to receive flexibility on the performance of their contracts. Seventy-two percent expected to avoid overruns on their firm fixed-price contracts as a result of disruptions caused by COVID-19. On Thursday, acquisitions officials with the Army said they expect costs to rise, and in response will guard against program slips and closely watch vulnerable lower-tier companies with less slack in their workforces. Pentagon officials anticipate workforce and supply chain issues will yield a three-month delay across the majority of its Major Defense Acquisition Program portfolio. “The supply chain does have some challenges, and that's probably where the vast majority of any slips would occur that are tied to individual companies,” said Bruce Jette, the Army's acquisition chief. “These companies are small, and if one person gets COVID in the company, the next thing you know you've lost 14 days with the company because everybody that didn't get it is in quarantine.” As of April 10, 769 small businesses responded to the NDIA survey. The number of companies expecting cash-flow disruptions was slightly lower last month, when 458 small businesses responded. Factoring into cash-flow problems, according to the NDIA, are cuts to billable hours, delayed payments from prime contractors and government customers, a lack of telework options or schedule flexibility in contracts, and shelter-in-place orders that prevent employees from working. Beyond revenue expectations, meeting contract obligations and access to capital are where small businesses are taking the biggest hits during the pandemic. Other areas of difficulty were workforce availability, access to secure facilities, contracting officers accessibility, clear information from the Defense Department, confidence in the supply chain, and stock and cost of materials. The technology and services sectors reported more disturbances from the crisis than the manufacturing sector, NDIA noted. And businesses with fewer than 50 employees are feeling the brunt harder than businesses with more than 500 employees. Defense Contract Management Agency data this week showed that 106 out of 10,509 primary Pentagon contractors are closed, and 68 companies closed and then reopened. Of 11,413 subcontractors, 427 were closed, with 147 having closed and reopened. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/04/24/covid-cash-crunch-still-hurting-small-defense-firms/

• 

  30 janvier 2019 | International, Naval

  More Missile Defense Ships, New Ground Deployments

  By PAUL MCLEARY WASHINGTON: A top Pentagon official on Tuesday said major upgrades being made to dozens of Navy destroyers to give them new missile defense capabilities will continue, even as Navy leadership bristles at having so many ships tied up hunting for missile launches. The comments by James Anderson, assistant Defense secretary for strategy, plans and capabilities, came on the same day that Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats testified before Congress that US intelligence agencies assess North Korea is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs in any potential deal with Washington. “The Navy does have this mission of ballistic missile defense,” Anderson said during a talk at the Brookings Institution. “It is one of their core missions and it will remain so.” The Navy currently has 38 Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyers in the fleet with missile defense capabilities, he noted, and has plans to convert “all Aegis destroyers to fully missile defense capable” status, meaning 60 ships will be able to perform the missile defense mission by 2023. Just the day before Anderson's remarks, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson complained again that he has ships sailing in “small boxes” protecting assets on land, when they should be out performing other missions. “We've got exquisite capability, but we've had ships protecting some pretty static assets on land for a decade,” Richardson said. “If that [stationary] asset is going to be a long-term protected asset, then let's build something on land and protect that and liberate these ships from this mission.” Full article: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/01/more-missile-defense-ships-new-ground-deployments

• 

  14 décembre 2017 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  American exodus? 17,000 US defense suppliers may have left the defense sector

  WASHINGTON — A large number of American companies supplying the U.S. military may have left the defense market, according to a study announced Thursday, raising alarm over the health and future of the defense industrial base. The Center for Strategic and International Studies study said the number of first-tier prime vendors declined by roughly 17,000 companies, or roughly 20 percent, between 2011 and 2015. The full study, due to be released in January, was authored by CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group Director Andrew Hunter, Deputy Director Gregory Sanders and Research Associate Rhys McCormick. It was sponsored by the Naval Postgraduate School and co-produced by the Aerospace Industries Association, which released an executive summary on Dec. 14, the day of its annual aerospace and defense luncheon in Washington. The authors, who used publicly available contract data, write that it's unclear — due to the limitations in the subcontract database —whether the companies have exited the industrial base entirely or still perform work at the lower tiers. “There is no doubt that a huge portion of the recent turbulence in the defense industrial base has taken place among subcontractors, who are less equipped to tolerate the defense marketplace's funding uncertainly and often onerous regulatory regime — yet it remains extremely difficult to determine the real impact of these conditions on subcontractors,” the authors conclude. Further details may yet be revealed by the Trump administration's ongoing review of the resiliency of the defense-industrial base. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' assessment is due to President Donald Trump by mid-April 2018. The CSIS summary links 2011 Budget Control Act caps, subsequent short-term budget agreements, and Congress' “unpredictable and inconsistent” appropriations process to the “lost suppliers, changes in competition and market structure, and other turmoil” it found. The years 2011-2015 are considered a period of defense drawdown and decline. The authors, rather than focus strictly on the total decline of defense contract obligations over the entire period, chose to chart the “whipsaw” effect that struck certain sectors of the industrial base amid the imposition of sequestration in 2013 and subsequent budget caps. Though the defense budget had been declining in the years leading up to the Budget Control Act, the implementation of an across-the-board sequestration budget cut in 2013 “marked a severe market shock that had a considerable impact on the defense industry,” the authors say. Compared to the pre-drawdown fiscal 2009-2010 period, the start of the drawdown in fiscal 2011-2012, average annual defense contract obligations dropped 5 percent. When sequestration was triggered in fiscal 2013, defense contract obligations dropped 15 percent from the previous year. Average annual defense contract obligations fell 23 percent during the so-called BCA decline period, fiscal 2013-2015. The Army, which has a checkered modernization history, bore the brunt of the decline. Average annual defense contracts dropped 18 percent at the start of the drawdown, then 35 percent during the BCA decline period. Missile defense contract obligations actually gained 7 percent at the start of the drawdown and then dropped only 3 percent under budget caps. During his presidency, Barack Obama reversed course from early cuts to missile defense to spur the development and deployment of missile defense systems in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson reacted to the internally circulated findings earlier this month, saying budget cuts are responsible for the industry being “more fragile and less flexible than I've seen it, and I've been in the industry many, many years.” “What we've seen in the industry, I'll give you an example at Lockheed Martin: At the outset of budget cuts we were about 126,000 employees; today we are at 97,000 employees,” Hewson said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California. “Our footprint has shrunk dramatically. We see some of our small and medium-sized business, some of the components that we need, there's one, maybe two suppliers in that field where there were many, many more before.” Budget cuts have squeezed the Defense Department to unduly prioritize low-cost contracts over innovation and investment. Cost “shootouts,” she said, are endangering the military's plans to grow in size and lethality. AIA Vice President for National Security Policy John Luddy said companies have coped through a variety of “healthy efficiencies,” such as mergers and acquisitions, consolidating facilities, exploring shared services, and offloading certain contracting activities. “Our companies have done an amazing job of managing the downturn, they've pulled all kinds of levels to make it work, they've shown the ingenuity of the American free market system,” Luddy said. “Nonetheless, the uncertainty of the budgeting process has become a huge challenge for us.” Army Secretary Mark Esper, formerly of Raytheon, warned lawmakers at a Senate hearing Dec. 7 that uneven funding is driving small suppliers — “an engine of innovation” — out of the defense sector. “If you're a small mom and pop shop out there, and I'm referring to my industry experience, it's hard for them to survive in the uncertain budgetary environment,” Esper said. “And we risk losing those folks who may over time decide that they're going to get out of the defense business and go elsewhere. So that's a big threat to our supply chains.” But the CSIS study found that small vendors either increased their share of platform portfolio contract obligations or held steady, while large and medium vendors were most harmed by the market shock from sequestration and the defense drawdown. https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2017/12/14/american-exodus-17000-us-defense-suppliers-may-have-left-the-defense-sector/