20 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By: Jeffery A. Green
An ancient Chinese stratagem instructs military leaders: “Chen huo da jie,” or “loot a house when it's on fire.” The tactic is simple and self-explanatory — strike when your enemy is most vulnerable. As America's people and industries reel from the impact of a global pandemic, the United States must take immediate action to protect our economic interests from being looted by a uniquely opportunistic adversary.
Many U.S. companies have been substantially weakened in both market cap and revenue by the COVID-19 pandemic. With countless companies struggling to survive this crisis, the U.S. should institute a temporary but immediate and total ban on the sale of any U.S. company deemed “critical infrastructure,” whose value has been materially impacted by the pandemic, to a Chinese-owned or controlled entity.
Until the president certifies that the economy has fully recovered from the effects of COVID-19, this ban should remain in effect. This crisis necessitates action far beyond the existing review process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
China's aggressive weaponization of its economy is no secret. Whether through currency manipulation or the withholding of critical materials, such as rare earth minerals, from the global supply chain, China has a reputation for using its economy in a targeted manner to further its ambitious global plans. Be it overtly or obliquely, through direct ownership or by de facto monopoly, China has encroached on or outright assaulted nearly every meaningful sector of the U.S. economy.
There is ample evidence of China's exploitation and deception related to COVID-19. Credible reports are emerging that Beijing has taken donations of personal protective equipment and sold them to Italy and possibly other foreign countries. Further, the dubiously low official infection and death figures released by China are being juxtaposed with higher U.S. infection and death rates to enhance the narrative that China is the more competent nation and should therefore be regarded as the preeminent global leader.
But China's infiltration and manipulation of the American economy and psyche began well before the COVID-19 crisis. From a national security perspective, Chinese companies have taken ownership of U.S. companies critical to the strategic supply chain, such as cutting-edge battery technologies and microelectronics. The U.S. is entirely dependent on China for segments of the supply of rare earth minerals, which are necessary for everything from cellphones to critical weapon systems. In 2013, a Chinese company purchased Smithfield Foods, simultaneously making the company the owner of both the largest pork producer globally and more than $500 million of American farmland.
Beyond industries like defense and agriculture that form America's economic and national security backbone, China has opened new fronts to project soft power as well. The Chinese conglomerate Tencent began a 2015 push, as Tencent Pictures, into Hollywood with significant investments in major U.S. films, including quintessentially American films, such as “Wonder Woman” and “Top Gun: Maverick.” The Cold War era was rife with films juxtaposing an American hero and a Soviet enemy. With Chinese investment in the U.S. film industry and the growing importance of the Chinese market for these films, it's no coincidence there is a dearth of communist Chinese government villains in today's entertainment market.
In 2004, China launched the Confucius Institute program, with the stated goal of promoting Chinese culture and language overseas. With mounting concerns about the spread of Chinese Communist Party propaganda through these institutes, as well as fears of possible espionage originating from them, universities across the world began canceling their affiliations. To date, more than two dozen U.S. universities have cut ties with these programs.
While America seeks to recover from the economic impacts of this pandemic, Congress and the administration must take swift action to ensure China is not afforded any opportunity to enhance its economic foothold in the U.S.
As distressed companies desperately look for funding and investment, the U.S. needs to send a message that financial exploitation by China will not be tolerated, especially if it involves companies working in industries critical to national security and our broader industrial base.
As part of this infiltration of our business community, defense enterprise and culture, China will likely hire an army of lobbyists and lawyers to oppose this proposal. This, too, should be prohibited for the length of the economic crisis in the U.S.
For millennia, Chinese dynasties have employed the tactic of looting a burning house as they vanquished enemies all around them. America must act before we become China's latest victim.
17 octobre 2023 | International, Terrestre, Sécurité
Thales and the Royal Netherlands Air Force strengthen their partnership with the delivery of the System Lifetime Extension Program (SLEP) on 13 Instrument Landing Systems and Distance Measuring Equipment.
26 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing has announced its withdrawal from the $85 billion Ground Based Strategic Deterrent competition, potentially leaving Northrop Grumman as the only contender vying to replace the Air Force's Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. “After numerous attempts to resolve concerns within the procurement process, Boeing has informed the Air Force that it will not bid Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) under the current acquisition approach,” reads a Boeing statement. “We've evaluated these issues extensively, and determined that the current acquisition approach does not provide a level playing field for fair competition.” Boeing Defense CEO Leanne Caret detailed the company's issues in a July 23 letter to Air Force acquisition executive Will Roper, which was obtained by Defense News and other outlets. “Throughout the procurement process, Boeing has been transparent with the Air Force about its concerns with the competition,” she wrote. “The final RFP released on July 16 made only modest changes to the draft RFPs that had been previously released. As relevant to the concerns Boeing had raised, the final RFP extended the proposal submission deadline by 60 days, from 90 days after the RFP's issuance to 150 days, and allowed offerors to submit ‘an alternative proposal in addition to their principal proposal,' that could include ‘a single, combined proposal' from both competitors." But Caret said that those changes did not address Boeing's primary concern: that Northrop Grumman would have an unfair advantage in the competition due to its recent acquisition of solid rocket motor manufacturer Orbital ATK, now known as Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. NGIS is one of two U.S. manufacturers of solid rocket motors, alongside Aerojet Rocketdyne, but both Boeing and Northrop had chosen Orbital as its supplier for GBSD prior to the merger. According to Caret, Northrop only recently — as of July 3 — signed off on an agreement that would firewall Boeing's proprietary information from Northrop's own GBSD team as Boeing negotiates with NGIS for solid rocket motors. Even though an agreement has now been reached, Caret contends that Boeing does not have enough time to negotiate a competitive price for the motors. Caret said the current acquisition approach gives Northrop “inherently unfair cost, resource and integration advantages related to SRMs,” adding: “As I said in my July 8 letter, we lack confidence in the fairness of any procurement that does not correct this basic imbalance between competitors.” Even the Air Force's accommodation that would allow Northrop and Boeing to submit a joint bid “is not a workable solution to these issues,” she said. “Because the final RFP does not address Northrop's inherent advantage as a result of its control of SRMs, Northrop retains the ability to compete on unequal terms against either a Boeing or a joint ‘alternative' proposal — and as a result, would not be incentivized to devote the significant resources required to develop such a proposal,” Caret said. Additionally, Caret said it is “not realistic” to expect that Boeing and Northrop could develop a competitive joint bid in the five months before proposals are due, given that both companies have been working on their separate proposals for more than two years. An Air Force spokeswoman declined to comment on the news, as the competition is currently in source selection. Inside Defense broke the news of Boeing's departure from the competition. Boeing's decision comes a week after the Air Force released its final request for proposals on July 16. A contract for the engineering, manufacturing and development phase is expected to be awarded by the end of 2020. Lockheed Martin had previously competed for the contract, but was ousted in August 2017, when the service awarded technology maturation and risk reduction contacts to Boeing and Northrop. It's unclear how Boeing's departure will affect the ultimate price of the GBSD program. In April, Gen. Timothy Ray, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, said he was counting on competition between Northrop and Boeing to help offset a near-term bump in cost expected as the Air Force makes investments in current infrastructure that will be reused for the GBSD system. Ultimately, that competition would help drive “billions” of dollars in savings over the lifespan of he weapon, he said. “Between the acquisition and the deal that we have from a competitive environment, from our ability to drive sustainment, the value proposition that I'm looking at is a two-thirds reduction in the number of times we have to go and open the site. There's a two-thirds reduction in the number of times we have to go and put convoys on the road.” It would be unusual for the Air Force to move forward with this program with only one competitor, Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners, noted in an email. “One option would be for the Air Force to re-write the RFP to address some of Boeing's concerns, which could delay the program,” he wrote. “The RFP had been seen by some analysts as favoring Northrop Grumman because the initial portion was cost-plus, but Boeing's concerns suggest it's worried about a strategic bid by Northrop Grumman.” During an earnings call on Wednesday, Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg referred to the GBSD program a single time — to say that the company would leverage its development work on GBSD for future programs such as NASA Commercial Crew effort and next-generation space launch. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2019/07/25/boeing-drops-from-next-generation-icbm-competition/
29 juillet 2021 | International, Aérospatial
The unveiling of the light, single-engine aircraft comes amid the country’s current work on the Su-57, a heavy fighter jet also developed by Sukhoi.