5 février 2019 | International, Naval

Sous-marins : la France et l'Australie vont verrouiller le contrat du siècle

Par Michel Cabirol

L'Australie et le groupe naval vont signer l'accord cadre de leur partenariat stratégique (Strategic Partnering Agreement). Naval Group devrait signer avant le printemps un contrat portant sur le design des sous-marins et estimé entre 1 et 2 milliards d'euros.

En Australie, Naval Group va bientôt voir la lumière après un très, très long tunnel de négociations. Lundi prochain, l'Australie et le groupe naval tricolore vont signer l'accord cadre de leur partenariat stratégique (Strategic Partnering Agreement ou SPA) en présence de Florence Parly et de son homologue australien Christopher Pyne, selon l'entourage de la ministre des Armées. Des négociations qui avaient commencé début février 2017. Un accord intergouvernemental entre l'Australie et la France avait été signé en décembre 2016.

Ce contrat "chapeau" intègre toutes les clauses de transferts de technologies, de garanties, de risques et de couvertures notamment sur la durée du contrat (50 ans). Il doit également protéger les propriétés intellectuelles de Naval Group. C'est donc l'aboutissement de négociations tripartites très complexes, qui vont en grande partie verrouiller le contrat du siècle pour Naval Group, sélectionné en 2016 par Canberra pour fabriquer douze sous-marins à propulsion classique pour un montant évalué à 50 milliards de dollars australiens (36,2 milliards d'euros).

Rassurer l'Australie

Cet accord vise principalement à assurer à (et rassurer) l'Australie que Naval Group sera capable tout au long de la durée de la vie du contrat des sous-marins (50 ans) de maintenir son outil industriel. La France a dû donner son assurance à l'Australie que Naval Group existera encore dans 50 ans pour assurer l'entretien des douze b'timents qui sont stratégiques pour Canberra.

De même, selon l'entourage de la ministre, le résultat des prochaines élections législatives australiennes, qui doivent avoir lieu au premier semestre 2019 afin de renouveler l'intégralité des 151 sièges de la Chambre des représentants et 40 des 76 sièges du Sénat, ne devrait pas changer l'accord entre l'Australie et Naval Group. Des assurances par l'opposition ont été données à la ministre lors de son passage en septembre dernier.

Un deuxième contrat en voie d'être signé

L'Australie devrait signer avant le printemps un deuxième contrat avec Naval Group, qui porte sur le design des sous-marins. Il était attendu depuis octobre 2017. Le montant est évalué entre 1 et 2 milliards d'euros. Ce contrat lancera officiellement les activités du bureau d'études du groupe naval en matière de design et d'analyse fonctionnelle des futurs b'timents. Il permettra de définir non seulement les spécificités opérationnelles des sous-marins mais également de déterminer le coût et les délais de fabrication. Enfin, il restera ensuite à Naval Group de signer le contrat de fabrication des douze sous-marins... Soit le contrat du sicèle.

Naval Group avait signé en septembre 2016 un premier contrat opérationnel d'environ 300 millions d'euros, dénommé "Design and Mobilisation Contract". Il avait permis de lancer les activités de structuration du programme et de coordination avec le groupe américain Lockheed Martin, l'intégrateur du système de combat et les partenaires australiens.

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/sous-marins-la-france-et-l-australie-vont-verrouiller-le-contrat-du-siecle-806260.html

Sur le même sujet

  • How Germany’s Military Fleet Is Evolving

    26 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    How Germany’s Military Fleet Is Evolving

    From replacing the Tornado fighter to buying new unmanned aircraft systems, a look at potential deliveries.

  • 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/

  • UK defense plans could take major hit from coronavirus fallout

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

    UK defense plans could take major hit from coronavirus fallout

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Britain is facing some “distasteful medicine “ in an upcoming defense review, with question marks around money, allies, the industrial base, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has warned. Giving evidence in a virtual session of the Parliamentary Defence Committee April 22, Wallace said there were some difficult issues to be addressed by a post COVID-19 Britain. “We will have to take some pretty distasteful medicine," he told committee members spread across the country in the first ever virtual session of the committee. "It's not just about sums of money. It is about cultural change — our relationship with our allies, what Britain's ambitions are going to be. Do we want to do everything? Do we want to do less? Do we want to let go of something? Do we want to bank on international consortia every time, or do we want to invest in our industrial base? All those are difficult questions. The defense secretary, who only recently recovered from COVID-19, said changing the culture is going to be as important as the sums of money made available to the Ministry of Defence in the integrated review. The government refers to it as an ‘integrated review' as it involves, defense, security, foreign policy and international development departments. Wallace said that whether the review is uncomfortable or not, his hope is the defense ministry will have a realistic amount of money available to undertake what it recommends. That's rarely been the case in previous reviews over the last 30 years or so, and few people here are expecting much different this time round. The issue is already complicated by the never-ending budget pressure at the MoD. According to the National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, the MoD already has a financial black hole for its equipment program of between £3 and £13 billion, or as much as $16 billion. John Louth, an independent defense analyst in the U.K., said one of the big challenges facing the MoD will be putting the procurement roadmap back together post COVID-19. “One of the real challenges will be re-profiling a schedule for procurement," Louth said. Everything is slipping to the right, and re-profiling is going to be difficult, particuarly as many of the programs are interdependent on other programs. That poses a large and difficult challenge within a restricted budget." The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to make more difficult allocation of cash to its various departments and ministeries in the next comprehensive spending review. That's not withstanding the fact that MoD personnel — nearly 3,000 at the last count — have been lauded for their excellent performance assisting the National Health Service and others, carrying out tasks ranging from delivering oxygen to hospitals to setting up and running command and control centers. In particular the MoD has been widely praised for rapidly constructing several field hospitals for COVID-19 sufferers, including a 4,000 bed facility at the Excel Centre in London. The site is well known to defense contractors, as it's the venue for the DSEI exhibition. The government announced last week it was pausing the integrated review to focus resources on the COVID-19 fight, without saying when the work would recommence. Wallace answered that question — twice. First he said the review would recommence next year; later he said the correct date was the end of this year, but he was seeking clarity on the exact timing. That decision will be taken by the Cabinet Office who are leading the review. They had previously ordered the review, which was initiated after Prime Minister Boris Johnson won the general election last December, be completed by July. That was a date many analysts and politicians, including the defense committee, thought was risky. “This [the delay] is welcome news. I want a longer period for the integrated review. I want us to examine our place in the world, especially post COVID. It's going to be a different world,” he said. Wallace, an ex-British Army officer, said the number one threat is lack of resilience. "I suspect it will be higher up the agenda as a result of the virus,” he said. The defense secretary said that unlike countries such as France, Britain wasn't bringing forward a number of programs to protect the industrial base. “We are though speaking to industry to ensure their cash flow is continuing. There is a lot of work on the books that we would like to keep going,” he told the committee. One industry executive who asked not to be named said, “cash is not an issue yet, but I'm prepared for that to happen. I'm bracing for extended credit being taken by our customers, but I haven't seen it yet.” The virus has had an impact on a number of major defense programs in the U.K., as people have been ordered to work at home or, if that's not possible, adopt social distancing requirements in the workplace. The impact that might have on defense suppliers ability to meet their contractual obligations, and subsequently their financial viability and and that of the supply chain, has been recognized by the government . A series of actions relating to paying suppliers has been in place since late March, with MoD procurement authorities advised to support suppliers in a range of ways to maintain cash flow. This includes forward ordering, payment in advance, interim payments and payment on order rather than receipt. The scheme has been well received by industry here. The executive said he applauded the government for its swift action, but acknowledged the challenge remains for protecting employment and cash flow. The executive did say though that more clarity was needed from the government over the availability of initiatives like the Corona Business Interruption Loan scheme for defense exporters. Wallace named BAE's F-35 and nuclear submarine activities as programs where the balance between COVID restrictions to keep workers safe and keeping production and cash flow moving were vital. “It's really important that we continue some work that's absolutely key. We also need to help these firms to get through the process, because cash flow is really important to their survival,” said Wallace. But it's not easy keeping your distance from colleagues if you are trying to build something like a nuclear submarine. As such, Wallace said submarine building activities in the U.K. had some of the highest absentee rates in the sector. BAE employs around 9,000 people at its nuclear submarine yard at Barrow in northwest England where it is building Astute-class attack submarines and working on the Dreadnought class of Trident nuclear missile boats. About 4,000 of the staff are working from home with over 1,100 employees now working on site – up from 800-900 last week. A BAE spokesperson said the employees were supporting critical work at the yard. Last week the company reported that HMS Audacious, its latest attack submarine to be built for the Royal Navy, had left the yard and was heading to the submarine base on the Clyde in Scotland. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/04/23/uk-defense-plans-could-take-major-hit-from-coronavirus-fallout/

Toutes les nouvelles