Pratt & Whitney is pitching a new version of the F-35 engine

Sur le même sujet

• 

  13 janvier 2024 | International, Aérospatial

  Airbus lands record orders in 2023, beats Boeing on deliveries

• 

  10 octobre 2018 | International, Terrestre

  US Army triggers start of possible ground mobility vehicle competition after long delay

  By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army seemed geared toward holding a rapid competition to buy a Ground Mobility Vehicle in 2016, but the plan was delayed without much explanation in favor of buying an interim vehicle already in use by special operations forces. Buying the GMV was a top priority following the fall 2015 release of the Army's Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy, which called for such a vehicle in future and current operations. After a competition never materialized, however, rumors began to swirl that the Army may decide to buy more of the U.S. Special Operations Command's GMV — General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems' Flyer 72 — even after the service had spent several years prior testing a wide variety of commercial off-the-shelf options. But Congress spurred the effort in its fiscal 2018 defense policy bill, mandating the Army hold a competition and move forward with a program. The Program Executive Office Combat Support and Combat Service Support's product lead for the GMV has quietly stated on its website that the Army plans to pursue a competition for the GMV — calling it an Infantry Squad Vehicle — as a formal program of record. The office states that it is projected to enter into a production contract in fiscal 2020 to procure 2,000 vehicles, roughly a year later than originally planned. The Army took a big step forward on Sept. 24, releasing a market survey to industry, via the Federal Business Opportunities website, soliciting offerings for an Infantry Squad Vehicle. The notice states the service is looking for a vehicle that provides mobility for a nine-soldier infantry squad as well as its associated equipment to “move around the close battle area.” The vehicle should be lightweight, highly mobile and transportable “by all means” to include CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopters, UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters and by Low Velocity Air Drop. Responses to the solicitation are due on Oct. 26. While the Army has already bought quantities of the SOCOM vehicle for five airborne infantry brigade combat teams, other companies have continued to wait in the wings for the possibility to compete. And the pool of readily available ultralight vehicles is deep. In addition to GD's Flyer, these vehicles all participated in vehicle demonstrations at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in 2014: Boeing-MSI Defense's Phantom Badger. Polaris Defense's air-transportable off-road combat vehicle DAGOR. Hendrick Dynamics' Commando Jeep. Vyper Adamas' Viper. Lockheed Martin's High Versatility Tactical Vehicle, which is a version of the British Army's HMT-400 Jackal. The Army launched its new-start GMV program in 2017 as planned, based off the service's new combat vehicle modernization strategy released in 2016, which called for the capability. The Army planned to reach a full-rate production decision on a vehicle by the end of FY19. But then it decided to split GMV procurement into two phases in the FY18 budget request and, in the first phase, planned to exclusively buy 295 of GD's Flyers through a previously awarded contract with U.S. Special Operations Command. The second phase would open up into a competition to build 1,700 more GMVs. Procuring the GMV vehicles from SOCOM raised the unit cost of the vehicle higher than the unit cost of ones that would have been procured through competition, according to FY18 budget documents. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/09/us-army-triggers-start-of-possible-ground-mobility-vehicle-competition-after-long-delay

• 

  21 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  As Manufacturing Reshapes After COVID-19, Size Will Matter

  Michael Bruno May 20, 2020 If you like the cadre of big aerospace and defense companies now, you are going to love them later. Among the major trends the novel coronavirus is expected to catalyze within aerospace and defense (A&D) manufacturing is that the big will get bigger by gobbling up others or taking back more work. In the next few years, vertical integration should pick up momentum, according to several executives and consultants. After decades of OEMs, primes and top-tier companies outsourcing major work on their programs, many see the pendulum swinging back to bringing more of it in-house. “We've already seen signs of more vertical integration coming through the industry and potentially where some of that could be accelerated as we work through the crisis,” says one advisor. Boeing started this a few years ago as it insourced avionics and other niche segments. Major consolidation picked up last year with the mergers of Raytheon and United Technologies Corp. and L3 Technologies and Harris Corp. Now, whether it be protecting profits or securing supply, the reasons to own more of the work are burgeoning as industry is refashioned in the COVID-19 crisis. For starters, aerospace suppliers are facing diminished economies of scale but a greater share of fixed-cost in production, with a likely loss in profitability and competitiveness, say Roland Berger advisors Robert Thomson and Manfred Hader. So-called organic top-line increases, through insourcing and acquisition of additional work packages, are possible but only to a limited degree. A fixed-cost reduction likewise is only feasible up to a certain level due to equipment and overhead structures. So consolidation is an important lever to consider. Part and parcel to that will be the financial distress into which suppliers in Tier 2 and below fall—and the opportunity to roll them up. Top CEOs are watching. Speaking May 13 to an investor conference, Honeywell International Chairman, CEO and President Darius Adamczyk cited an inflection point. “For a couple of years now, I've been talking about how it is a seller's market, not a buyer's market,” he told Goldman Sachs. “But that calculus may change in the second half of the year, and I think it could become a bit more of a buyer's market, and the valuations may be better and different. That's something that we want to partake in.” Feeding the phenomenon could be a desire to bring supply closer to home, both for reliability and geopolitical reasons. Suppliers overseas once were revered for their low-cost footprint, but suddenly they are seen as vulnerable to pandemics, economic stress and global trade wars. In turn, consultants expect industry leaders to take another look at favoring local regions. Even in the defense realm, which for now is considered safer during this downturn, there is talk of larger firms becoming even more powerful. “Large pure-plays should come through the pandemic relatively unscathed but may be looking at lower spending growth outlooks,” Capital Alpha Partners Managing Director Byron Callan noted May 13. “Mergers and acquisitions may thus be more important in delivering growth—even though it's not organic growth—in 2021-25.” So where to look for vertical integration and consolidation from the top? Clues are already emerging, according to advisor presentations. First, look at niches where top suppliers already are prevalent—environmental and flight-control systems, landing gear, electrical power and interiors—and others where they are not there yet, including maintenance, repair and overhaul, logistics, aerostructures and engines. Next, look at the supply base from the perspective of a top supplier. Who is distressed or drawing down credit lines? What revenue mix do certain potential targets have—e.g., commercial vs. defense, products vs. services or aging vs. next-generation platforms? Finally, consider where the new nucleus of consolidation will be. Will more “super Tier 1s” such as Raytheon Technologies emerge, or will conglomeration occur among Tier 2 and 3 providers? The first would allow rationalization of capacity for detailed part production from Tier 1 to 3, for instance, with the super Tier 1s able to secure through-value-chain control and prevent subtier supplier failure, according to Roland Berger. The latter likely would be opportunistically driven rather than following any overarching industry logic. For smaller suppliers, the questions are more concise, as one consultant says. Do you want to be a buyer, a seller or risk it as is? A simpler question, for sure, but no less difficult to answer. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/manufacturing-supply-chain/manufacturing-reshapes-after-covid-19-size-will-matter