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

Worse than 9/11: Defense firms with exposure to commercial market losses cut overhead to the bone

By: Jill Aitoro

WASHINGTON — Defense companies with substantial exposure to commercial markets are taking dramatic measures to limit overhead and preserve cash, with one chief executive calling the new coronavirus pandemic “worse than anything we've seen.”

Among the companies that announced cost-cutting measures tied to losses or potential losses from the COVID-10 crisis, CAE pointed to temporary layoffs — starting first with almost 500 unionized employees, but with more inevitably to follow, CEO Marc Parent said during a webcast hosted by RBC Capital Markets.

Parent and his executive team are taking salary cuts of 50 percent, with vice presidents taking cuts of 30 percent, managers and directors 20 percent, and all others 10 percent. The company is also taking capital expenditures as well as research and development investment to the bare minimum.

“We're not Pollyanna here,” Parent said during the webcast. “We're assuming a tough period, and we're taking immediate steps to preserve cash.”

In terms of business disruption, “this is worse than anything we've seen,” including 9/11, he added.

GE Aviation, which already announced a hiring freeze, the cancellation of salaried merit increases and a reduction of nonessential spending, will cut about 10 percent of its U.S. workforce. CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary starting April 1. The division also pointed to temporary lack of work impacting about 50 percent of its U.S. maintenance, repair and overhaul employees for 90 days.

Meanwhile, Airbus is looking to investor incentives to gain some cash, canceling one planned dividend payment and another proposed 2019 dividend payment of 1.80 euros (U.S. $1.90) per share to save the company 1.4 billion euros ($1.5 billion). It's also lining up 15 billion euros in new credit to provide more cash to weather the crisis.

All three companies are big players in commercial aviation. Airbus ranked No. 9 on the Defense News Top 100 list of defense companies, but with only 17 percent of its 2018 revenue coming from the defense and security business. GE ranked No. 29, with 13 percent of business coming from defense, and CAE ranked No. 70, with 40 percent coming from defense.

The defense portions of the businesses are also feeling the impact, though less substantial because of the structure of contracts that often extend to multiple years. For CAE, programs fall under long-term contracts, versus “per sip” agreements more typical of commercial customers where revenue is driven by utilization. The company's CEO, Parent, also pointed to a $4 billion backlog in defense.

Still, base access restrictions and the natural limitations on movement of people has made both training and order fulfillment more difficult for the defense business.

“And the general preoccupation of the crisis has impact on the speed of procurement processes,” Parent said. “We don't see obvious structural impact, but we can anticipate short-term friction.”

Publicly traded companies with mixed commercial-defense business have also seen deeper losses to stock price, generally speaking, compared to more pure-play defense companies. While Lockheed and Northrop Grumman stock prices have dropped about 34 percent and 24 percent in the last month, respectively, CAE and GE have dropped 66 percent and 48 percent, respectively.

Boeing, with 66 percent of revenue coming from commercial and other nondefense markets, has seen a whopping 67 percent drop during that period.

Raytheon, despite being almost entirely focused on defense, saw a bigger drop than most pure-play companies of about 47 percent during the last month, likely due to the increased exposure to commercial that will come with its United Technologies merger.

But stock price can be a rather deceiving picture of impact on industry, particularly long term, warned Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners.

“A lot of these stocks are part of the S&P 500, where price movements have no relation to underlying fundamentals,” he said. “On the flip side, you could see rotation out of defense and into [those companies] that people think will recover. In other words, folks may be hiding out in defense stocks, but reallocate to markets that they figure are bound to recover eventually” — such as travel and leisure.

Looking at defense companies, “Raytheon has been the worst performing stock because they got tied into commercial aerospace through the merger," Callan said, “but going forward that may be the most interesting [stock] of all because there will be a degree of balance.”

In other words, what's true now on Wall Street could change considerably months from now. The same could be said about the long-term position of these companies, regardless of how grave the circumstances are today.

“The world will return to normal. All crises will come to an end,” Parent said, pointing to the advantage of supporting a highly regulated industry. “We have staying power and stamina to weather the storm, but we're not taking anything for granted. ... We want to be ready when we come out of this.”

https://www.defensenews.com/coronavirus/2020/03/23/worse-than-911-defense-firms-cut-overhead-to-the-bone/

Sur le même sujet

  • US Navy should turn to unmanned systems to track and destroy submarines

    14 avril 2020 | International, Naval

    US Navy should turn to unmanned systems to track and destroy submarines

    By: Bryan Clark Anti-submarine warfare, or ASW, is one of a navy's most difficult missions. Sonars detect submarines with only a fraction of the range and precision possible using radars or visual sensors against ships above the water. Submarines can carry missiles able to hit targets hundreds of miles away, requiring searches to cover potentially vast areas. And the torpedoes that aircraft and surface ships use to sink submarines need to be dropped right on the submarine to have any chance of sinking it. These challenges led the Cold War-era U.S. Navy to rely on a sequential approach for tracking enemy submarines. Electronic or visual intelligence sources would report when an opposing sub was leaving port, and it would hopefully get picked up by sound surveillance, or SOSUS — sonar arrays on the sea floor — as it entered chokepoints, like that between Iceland and the United Kingdom. Patrol aircraft would then attempt to track the submarine using sonar-equipped buoys, or sonobuoys, and eventually turn it over to a U.S. nuclear attack submarine, or SSN, for long-term trail. The U.S. ASW model broke down, however, in the decades following the Cold War as U.S. submarine and patrol aircraft fleets shrank, the Chinese submarine fleet grew, and Russian submarines became quieter. Today, the U.S. Navy devotes enormous effort to tracking each modern Russian submarine in the western Atlantic. During the 2000s, the strategy of full-spectrum ASW started an essential shift in goals, from being able to sink submarines when needed to being able to defeat submarines by preventing them from accomplishing their mission. Full-spectrum ASW and other current concepts, however, still rely on aircraft, ships and submarines for sensing, tracking and attacking enemy submarines to bottle them up near their own coasts or sink them in the open ocean. Although SOSUS has improved since the Cold War and is joined by a family of new deployable seabed arrays, the next link in the U.S. ASW chain is still a P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, or a U.S. SSN. These platforms are in short supply around the world, cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to buy and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to operate. With defense budgets flattening and likely to decrease in a post-COVID-19 environment, the U.S. Navy cannot afford to continue playing “little kid soccer” in ASW, with multiple aircraft or ships converging to track and destroy submarines before they can get within missile range of targets like aircraft carriers or bases ashore. The Navy should instead increase the use of unmanned systems in ASW across the board, which cost a fraction to buy and operate compared to their manned counterparts. Unmanned aircraft could deploy sonobuoys or stationary sonar arrays, and unmanned undersea or surface vehicles could tow passive sonar arrays. Unmanned surface vehicles could also deploy low-frequency active sonars like those carried by U.S. undersea surveillance ships that can detect or drive off submarines from dozens of miles away. Although autonomous platforms will not have the onboard operators of a destroyer or patrol aircraft, improved processing is enabling small autonomous sensors to rapidly identify contacts of interest. Line-of-sight or satellite communications can connect unmanned vehicles and sensors with operators ashore or on manned ASW platforms. A significant shortfall of today's ASW concepts is “closing the kill chain” by attacking enemy submarines. Air- or surface-launched weapons have short ranges and small warheads that reduce their ability to sink a submarine, but their cost and size prevents them from being purchased and fielded in large numbers. Unmanned systems could address this shortfall in concert with a new approach to ASW that suppresses enemy submarines rather than destroying them. During World War II and the Cold War, allied navies largely kept submarines at bay through aggressive tracking and harassing attacks, or by forcing opposing SSNs to protect ballistic missile submarines. The modern version of submarine suppression would include overt sensing operations combined with frequent torpedo or depth-bomb attacks. Although unmanned vehicles frequently launch lethal weapons today under human supervision, the small weapons that would be most useful for submarine suppression could be carried in operationally relevant numbers by medium-altitude, long-endurance UAVs or medium unmanned surface vessels. Moreover, the large number and long endurance of unmanned vehicles would enable the tracking and suppressing of many submarines over a wide area at lower risk than using patrol aircraft or destroyers. Today the U.S. Navy uses unmanned systems in ASW primarily to detect submarines. To affordably conduct peacetime surveillance and effectively defeat submarines in wartime, the Navy should increase the role of unmanned systems. Using manned platforms to conduct command and control, and unmanned vehicles to track, deter and engage submarines, could significantly reduce the costs of ASW operations and enable the Navy to scale its ASW efforts to match the growing threat posed by submarine fleets. Bryan Clark is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is an expert in naval operations, electronic warfare, autonomous systems, military competitions and war gaming. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/13/us-navy-should-turn-to-unmanned-systems-to-track-and-destroy-submarines/

  • Climate-forward defense: Achieving a military mind shift

    14 février 2023 | International, Autre défense

    Climate-forward defense: Achieving a military mind shift

    To succeed in future conflicts, militaries must look beyond merely making bases and equipment more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

  • How The U.S. Army Will Incorporate New Tech For Aviation Readiness | Aviation Week Network

    19 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

    How The U.S. Army Will Incorporate New Tech For Aviation Readiness | Aviation Week Network

    The U.S. Army plans to use like digital twins and advanced manufacturing to improve aviation sustainment.

Toutes les nouvelles