PZL Mielec delivers S-70i Black Hawk helicopters to Polish army 

Sur le même sujet

• 

  11 juin 2024 | International, Sécurité

  Dutch intelligence says Chinese cyber espionage goes wider than it suspected

• 

  28 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  Collapse of Boeing-Embraer deal could have major impact on C-390 Millennium’s future

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing's termination of a $4.2 billion deal for a majority stake in Embraer's commercial aviation business could have widespread implications on the Brazilian firm's flagship military aircraft. Boeing on Saturday announced that it would walk away from a joint venture that would give it an 80 percent stake in Embraer's commercial business, as well as a 49 percent stake in the company's C-390 Millennium cargo plane. Although Boeing said that the company would maintain previous teaming agreements to support Embraer with marketing the C-390 internationally, analysts told Defense News that the vitriol between the two companies could portend a wider collapse of their collaboration in the military sphere. “The future of the KC-390 without Boeing — or without a U.S. defense prime helping — isn't all that great,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “It just seems like cooler heads should probably prevail.” At Dubai Air Show last November, the companies announced the formation of a new entity known as Boeing-Embraer Defense set up specifically to proactively market the C-390 around the world — a step up from previous agreements that had Boeing in more of a hands-off role. The agreement gave Boeing a new plane that could compete head-to-head against Lockheed Martin's C-130, and gave Embraer the resources to match. The big question now is whether Embraer seeks out partnerships elsewhere for either the KC-390 or its commercial business, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “I just wonder, is there something else or someone else that emerges in 2021 or 2022 that ties up with Embraer. Could that be Chinese? Indian? Another country, company or entity outside of the United States?” he said. “That would be a more interesting broader change for aerospace, that has military implications as well, too.” It's even possible that Airbus could try to usurp Boeing's role as Embraer's partner on the C-390, said Callan, who noted that Airbus — like Boeing — does not offer a medium cargo transport aircraft that directly competes against the C-130. A good relationship gone bad On Monday morning, Embraer announced that it had filed arbitration proceedings against Boeing, capping off an angry back-and-forth between both companies that spanned the weekend. When Boeing announced it was walking away from the deal on Saturday, the company claimed it had “worked diligently over more than two years” to finalize the transaction, but that Embraer left some conditions of the master transaction agreement, or MTA, unresolved. "It is deeply disappointing,” said Marc Allen, Boeing's president of Embraer Partnership & Group Operations. “But we have reached a point where continued negotiation within the framework of the MTA is not going to resolve the outstanding issues." Embraer, however, issued a scathing statement of its own, asserting that it had fulfilled all contractual obligations and blaming the failure of the deal on Boeing's continued financial problems and the fallout from two fatal 737 MAX crashes. “Embraer believes strongly that Boeing has wrongfully terminated the MTA, that it has manufactured false claims as a pretext to seek to avoid its commitments to close the transaction and pay Embraer the US$4.2 billion purchase price,” the company said. “We believe Boeing has engaged in a systematic pattern of delay and repeated violations of the MTA, because of its unwillingness to complete the transaction in light of its own financial condition and 737 MAX and other business and reputational problems.” Boeing's decision to break its agreement with Embraer makes sense from a financial standpoint, Cai Von Rumohr, a defense analyst with Cowen, wrote in an email to investors. Because of COVID-19's impact on the aerospace industry, $4.2 billion seems an inflated price for Boeing to pay to acquire a controlling stake in Embraer's commercial business, and terminating the deal may help to free up cash that Boeing needs in the near-term. But while Von Rumohr said he believes Boeing and Embraer will continue to collaborate on the C-390, it will depend on whether the relationship can be salvaged. “This issue is, how pissed off is Embraer now, and is this something they're likely to get over to continue with what was a teaming agreement that made a whole lot of sense for both parties?” Von Rumohr told Defense News. Another major question is how the COVID-19 crisis effects worldwide defense spending, with implications for nations' domestic industries as well the international defense industrial base. Callan noted that some countries who have ordered the aircraft such as Brazil or Portugal “are probably looking at different defense budget projections. Aboulafia added that the dissolution of the partnership increases the likelihood that Embraer will need stimulus funds from the government of the Brazil to help fortify its commercial sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. “That money could easily come out of defense spending, which would impact Embraer defense programs, particularly Gripen or C-390,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/27/collapse-of-boeing-embraer-deal-could-have-major-impact-on-c-390-millenniums-future

• 

  13 août 2020 | International, Naval

  Shipyards Not At Risk, Despite DoD Warning It Needs $$ To Save Them

  A DoD paper for Congress suggests COVID could shut down shipyards, but Navy officials and analysts say there is little risk. By PAUL MCLEARYon August 12, 2020 at 4:04 PM WASHINGTON: A top Navy official today tried to clarify a Pentagon information paper leaked last week which warned that “at least one” of the seven shipyards that churns out ships for the Navy could close unless Congress handed over billions more to the service. As part of an $11 billion package the Pentagon is requesting from Congress to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on the defense industry, the Navy is requesting $4.7 billion in part to ward off the chances “at least one” of the big seven shipyards shutting down. The paper, which has been delivered to lawmakers on Capitol Hill, also warned of over 100,000 lost jobs across shipyards and factories that make aircraft and other weapons for the military. But the Navy's top acquisition executive told reporters today that the wording continued in the paper might leave too much out. “The words could be taken out of context,” James Geurts said. “There probably should be the word ‘temporarily' in there.” If a shipyard started to see a significant portion of its workforce test positive for COVID, “we might have to temporarily close down the shipyard for a period of time until we got it under control. Not that we would have to shut down a shipyard permanently.” The memo contains no such caveats, however. It flatly states a shipyard could close unless the Navy gets the funding boost. Asked where the paper came from, and who it was intended for, DoD spokesman Christopher Sherwood told me via email the department “provided informational material to our oversight committees when asked about the impacts COVID-19 has had on the Defense Industrial Base and our suppliers.” The Navy has gone to great lengths to help its shipyards weather the COVID storm, pumping $130 billion into its supplier base this year in upfront payments, spending that is 25% higher than at this point last year. But some yards have experienced pain keeping to schedule, with uncertain futures ahead as the Navy looks to change its fleet mix in the coming years to better compete with China and Russia. Mark Cancian, a defense expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, acknowledged that all Navy shipyards “have a backlog of work, including Bath Iron Works, which was the subject of speculation about closing.” Bath, already six months behind on building seven destroyers in dock, is stumbling to the conclusion of a six-week strike by 4,300 shipbuilders which will likely make those delays even longer. Likewise, the Mississippi-based Austal is looking at the end of the road for its contract to build dozens of aluminum Littoral Combat Ships in a few years, which would likely mark the end of the Navy's interest in buying aluminum hulls. That shipyard “would be at more risk” Cancian said. Neither shipyard is any worse off than the others due to COVID-related shutdowns, however, making the Pentagon's point that yards could shut and require COVID relief funds to keep going, an argument that finds few adherents. There's little doubt COVID is slowing down both ship construction and repair, “but that doesn't mean the Navy doesn't need the ships anymore,” said Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute. “It just means everything takes longer, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the shipyards are going to close.” Clark noted that while Bath is in a bad spot with delays to its destroyer work that will be compounded by the strike, the Navy still needs it to build destroyers in the future, since relying on Huntington Ingalls as the nation's only shipyard that can build the ships is too risky. Add to that the likelihood that the Navy will move toward buying more numerous small cruisers, unmanned ships, and smaller platforms for Marines and away from small numbers of large destroyers and amphibious ships in the future, means there will be more contracts, and work to go around later this decade. The service is still on track to deliver its much-delayed 30 year shipbuilding plan and force structure assessment this fall, in which several options like a new class of destroyers, a new class of smaller frigates, and smaller hospital ships will all likely find their way into the plans. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/shipyards-not-at-risk-despite-dod-warning-it-needs-money-to-save-them/