Nouvelles

“Le rapport de l'industrie comprend également l'impact de COVID-19 sur le marché mondial. Restez à la maison | Restez en sécurité Avions militaires Marché Dans les avions militaires, les segments d'avions multirôles et de transport devraient représenter 59,3% et 23% du marché. L'industrie Avions militaires a connu un taux de croissance solide au cours de la décennie précédente et devrait beaucoup progresser au cours des prochaines décennies. Il est donc essentiel d'identifier toutes les opportunités d'investissement, les menaces à venir du marché, les facteurs limitants, les défis, la dynamique du marché et les avancées technologiques pour renforcer la présence dans Avions militaires industries. La recherche proposée a analysé tous les éléments ci-dessus afin de présenter au lecteur une analyse détaillée qui inspire la croissance attendue de ses activités. Les fabricants suivants sont évalués dans ce rapport en termes de chiffre d'affaires, de chiffre d'affaires et de part de marché pour chaque société: Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Bae Systems, Airbus, Embraer, Dassault Aviation, Russian Aircraft, Sukhoi, Pilatus Aircraft, Alenia Aermachhi, Saab AB, Eurofighter Typhoon, Obtenir un exemple de copie PDF (comprenant la table des matières, les tableaux et les figures) @ https://garnerinsights.com/Avions militaires Marché Les types de Avions militaires couverts sont: Avions de combat, avions non-de combat Les applications de Avions militaires couverts sont: Défense, Sauvetage, Autre Le rapport Avions militaires propose des profils détaillés des principaux acteurs afin de donner une vision claire du paysage concurrentiel des perspectives. Il comprend également l'analyse de nouveaux produits sur le marché, l'aperçu financier, les stratégies et les tendances marketing. Pour obtenir ce rapport à un taux rentable, cliquez ici @ https://garnerinsights.com/Avions militaires Marché Analyse régionale pour le marché Avions militaires Amérique du Nord (États-Unis, Canada et Mexique) Europe (Allemagne, France, Royaume-Uni, Russie et Italie) Asie-Pacifique (Chine, Japon, Corée, Inde et Asie du Sud-Est) Amérique du Sud (Brésil, Argentine, Colombie, etc.) Le Moyen-Orient et l'Afrique (Arabie Saoudite, EAU, Egypte, Nigeria et Afrique du Sud) Les données analysées sur le marché des Avions militaires vous aident à mettre en place une marque dans le secteur tout en concurrençant les géants. Ce rapport fournit des informations sur un environnement concurrentiel dynamique. Il offre également un point de vue progressif sur différents facteurs qui déterminent ou limitent la croissance du marché. Obtenir la description complète du rapport, la table des matières, le tableau des figures, le graphique, etc. @ https://garnerinsights.com/Avions militaires Marché Table des matières: Couverture de l'étude: Elle inclut les principaux fabricants couverts, les principaux segments du marché, la gamme de produits proposés sur le marché mondial, les années considérées et les objectifs de l'étude. En outre, il aborde l'étude de segmentation fournie dans le rapport sur la base du type de produit et de l'application. Résumé: Il résume les études clés, le taux de croissance du marché, le paysage concurrentiel, les moteurs du marché, les tendances et les problèmes, ainsi que les indicateurs macroscopiques. Production par région: le rapport fournit des informations sur les importations et les exportations, la production, les revenus et les acteurs clés de tous les marchés régionaux étudiés. Profil des fabricants: chaque joueur décrit dans cette section est étudié sur la base de l'analyse SWOT, de ses produits, de sa production, de sa valeur, de ses capacités et d'autres facteurs essentiels. Les objectifs du rapport sont les suivants: – Analyser et prévoir la taille du marché de l'industrie sur le marché mondial. – Étudier les principaux acteurs mondiaux, l'analyse SWOT, la valeur et la part de marché mondiale des principaux acteurs. – Déterminer, expliquer et prévoir le marché par type, utilisation finale et région. – Analyser le potentiel et les avantages du marché, les opportunités et les défis, les contraintes et les risques des régions clés globales. – Identifier les tendances significatives et les facteurs qui déterminent ou freinent la croissance du marché. – Analyser les opportunités sur le marché pour les parties prenantes en identifiant les segments à forte croissance. – Analyser de manière critique chaque sous-marché en termes de tendance de croissance individuelle et de leur contribution au marché. – Comprendre les développements concurrentiels tels que les accords, les extensions, les lancements de nouveaux produits et les possessions sur le marché. – Décrire de manière stratégique les principaux acteurs et analyser de manière exhaustive leurs stratégies de croissance. Accéder à la description complète du rapport, à la table des matières, à la figure, au graphique, etc. @ https://garnerinsights.com/Avions militaires Marché La croissance de ce marché à l'échelle mondiale est soumise à divers facteurs, dont la consommation de Avions militaires produits, les modèles de croissance des sociétés inorganiques, la volatilité des prix des matières premières, l'innovation des produits et les perspectives économiques des pays producteurs et consommateurs. En conclusion, ce rapport vous fournira une vue claire de chaque fait du marché sans qu'il soit nécessaire de vous référer à un autre rapport de recherche ou à une source de données. Notre rapport vous fournira tous les faits sur le passé, le présent et l'avenir du marché concerné. Contactez-nous: Mr. Kevin Thomas +1 513 549 5911 (US) +44 203 318 2846 (UK) Email: sales@garnerinsights.com“

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Point Blank Enterprises Inc., Pompano Beach, Florida, has been awarded a maximum $81,265,600 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for body armor. This was a competitive acquisition with five offers received. This is an 18-month base contract with two one-year option periods. Location of performance is Florida, with a Nov. 30, 2021, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting agency is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-20-D-1254). Arjo Inc., Addison, Illinois, has been awarded a maximum $47,500,000 fixed-price with economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for medical equipment and accessories for the Defense Logistics Agency electronic catalog. This was a competitive acquisition with 115 responses received. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Illinois, with a May 3, 2025, performance completion date. Using military services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2025 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2DH-20-D-0038). NAVY General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. (GDEB), Groton, Connecticut, is awarded $60,594,296 for a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to provide U.S. Trident II Strategic Weapon System (SWS) ship alterations and United Kingdom SWS ship alterations for Strategic Systems Program shipboard integration installations. Work will be performed in Bremerton, Washington (29%); Groton, Connecticut (24%); Kings Bay, Georgia (24%); Bangor, Washington (9%); Cape Canaveral, Florida (7%); Norfolk, Virginia (3%); Washington, D.C. (2%); Faslane, Scotland (1%); and Plymouth, England (1%). Work is expected to be complete by April 2024. The maximum dollar value, including the base period and two option years, is $60,594,296. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $8,511,473; other procurement (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $8,534,755; fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $3,171,978; and United Kingdom funds in the amount of $2,098,018 are being obligated at time of award. Funds in the amount of $8,511,473 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was a sole-source acquisition in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) and (4). Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N-00030-20-C-0028). Virginia Pilot Association, Virginia Beach, Virginia, is awarded an $8,175,544 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract to provide support services to assist with the navigation of ships for Commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic Port Operations Division. All work will be performed in Norfolk, Virginia, and is expected to be complete by May 2025. This contract will include a 60-month base ordering period with an additional six-month ordering period option pursuant of Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.217-8; an option to extend services, which if exercised, will bring the total value to $9,058,663. The base ordering period is expected to be completed by May 2025; if the option is exercised, the ordering period will be completed by December 2025. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $50,000 will be obligated to fund the contract's minimum amount and funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. One source was solicited for this non-competitive, sole-source requirement in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1, and one offer was received. Naval Supply Systems Command Fleet Logistics Center Norfolk, Contracting Department Norfolk, Virginia, is the contracting activity. ARMY KVG LLC, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (W564KV-20-D-2002); Crowley Government Services Inc., Jacksonville, Florida (W564KV-20-D-2004); Agility International Inc., Alexandria, Virginia (W564KV-20-D-2003); Maersk Line Ltd, Norfolk, Virginia (W564KV-20-D-2005); Aecom Management Services Inc., Germantown, Maryland (W564KV-20-D-2006); and American Roll-on Roll-off Carrier Group, Parsippany, New Jersey (W564KV-20-D-2007), will compete for each order of the $49,010,000 contract for the transportation of equipment, cargo and passengers within the European Command area of operations. Bids were solicited via the internet with 16 received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 9, 2023. The 409th Contracting Support Brigade, Kaiserslautern, Germany, is the contracting activity. The Lighthouse for the Blind, St. Louis, Missouri (W81XWH-19-D-0008); Atlantic Diving Supply Inc.,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (W81XWH-19-D-0007); American Purchasing Services LLC,* Miramar, Florida (W81XWH-19-D-0006); and TQM LLC, St. Charles, Missouri (W81XWH-19-D-0009), will compete for each order of the $45,000,000 contract for sets, kits and outfits to supply complete medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, dental, laboratory and veterinary equipment and material sets. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of May 4, 2024. U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, Fort Detrick, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Raytheon Co., Dulles, Virginia, was awarded a $27,472,296 hybrid (cost-no-fee, firm-fixed-price) contract to provide technical expertise, system operators, maintenance and life-cycle support for the sustainment, operations and support management of numerous training aids, devices, simulators and simulations. Bids were solicited via the internet with three received. Work will be performed in Kuwait, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2023. Fiscal 2020 defense overseas contingency transfer funds in the amount of $5,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity (W900KK-20-C-0031). MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY Davidson Technologies,* Huntsville, Alabama, is being awarded a modification in the amount of $20,696,405 to previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (ID/IQ) contract HQ0147-19-D-0004. The contract value is increased from $2,437,491 to $23,133,896. Under this contract the contractor will continue to develop a cyber-secure information technology infrastructure that allows users to access data via a virtual desktop infrastructure. The work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama. The ordering period of the ID/IQ is May 23, 2019, to May 22, 2024. A second task order award in the amount of $12,200,000 is being issued at this time. Fiscal 2020 research and development funds in the amount of $12,200,000 are being obligated on the task order award. The original award was made under Special Topic Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) number HQ0147-17-S-0002 that was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website to solicit white papers related to advanced research technology and development in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.102(d)(2)(i) to meet full and open competition requirements. The government received 26 white papers in response to the BAA and selected seven from which proposals were requested. This original award results from one of seven proposals received. The Missile Defense Agency, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. *Small business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2175622/source/GovDelivery/

The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft. By DAVID DEPTULA In American politics people like to talk about third-rail issues, those that kill you when you touch them. For the Air Force, retiring the much-loved and much-misunderstood A-10 Warthog has been a third-rail issue. Army folks, generally not known for their knowledge of aircraft capabilities, LOVE the A-10, largely because it is something Army troops can see results from and it's really loud and looks aggressive, a combination ground pounders appreciate. Key members of Congress have loved the A-10 because it's based in their districts (the late Sen. John McCain) or because their spouse flew the airplane (former Sen. Kelly Ayotte.) OK, and a few really do believe the A-10 should be kept because it is the best close-air-support aircraft. In the 2021 budget, the Air Force is taking a new approach, trying to blend extending the life of most of the A-10 fleet while retiring some. The head of the Mitchell Institute, Dave Deptula, presents a detailed argument in favor of the new approach. Will the Air Force touch the rail or? Read on? The Editor. Some were surprised to see the Air Force again trying in the latest budget request to retire 44 A-10s from, bringing the total force of 281 Warthogs down to 237. Any discussion regarding the status of the A-10—or any other capability in the Air Force's inventory—needs to start with the fact that the Air Force is seriously underfunded. Between 1989 and 2001, the Air Force absorbed the largest cuts of all the services as a percentage of the overall defense budget. Between 2008 and 2011, the Air Force received its lowest share of the defense budget going all the way back to the Eisenhower Administration. On top of those slim budgets, the service does not even receive all that is allocated to it in its total budget. Roughly 20 percent is removed from its control as a budget pass-through to the Intelligence Community. In 2020, that equaled $39 billion—enough to buy 400 F-35As. The chronic deficiencies in Air Force funding were the motivating force behind service leaders releasing “The Air Force We Need,” a plan that calls for growing the number of operational squadrons from 312 today to the 386 required to execute the national defense strategy. While that assessment has yet to be met with funding from the administration or Congress it provides a realistic way to view risk; the difference between what the Air Force needs and what it currently possesses. Because of this disparity, the Air Force is continuously forced to trade existing force structure to pay for modern weapons. It does not matter that the Air Force fields the oldest and smallest aircraft force in its history, or that nearly every mission area is coded “high demand, low density.” The Air Force leaders who sought to retire the A-10 in 2014 did not actually want to cut the aircraft, but they had no other choice due to the Budget Control Act of 2011. While that era has passed, the same dynamics are still at play— a service that is under-resourced, overtasked, compelled to retire aircraft to free up resources to modernize the remaining inventory of mostly geriatric aircraft. With that background, it is important to understand the Air Force's plan to cover the panoply of mission requirements that it faces. Defense leaders today are anticipating a broad array of future threats ranging from non-state actors like the Islamic State and Boko Haram on the low end, North Korea and Iran in the middle, and China and Russia as peer adversaries on the top of the spectrum. The overlapping concurrency of these challenges makes for a difficult balancing act given the chronic underfunding of the Air Force and the fact that dealing with each threat demands a different set of tools. This is precisely why the Air Force wants to retain the bulk of the A-10 inventory. They are planning on doing it in a smart way to achieve two primary goals. First, to assure sufficient capacity to ensure that when combatant commanders need the aircraft the Air Force has enough aircraft so that one squadron can be continuously deployed for combat operations. Second, to assure sufficient capability, leaders are investing in re-winging all the remaining A-10 airframes, funding avionics improvements, and other critical upgrades. Taking these steps will ensure the A-10 can continue to fly and fight into the 2030s. The reason for this is simple: when it comes to effectively and efficiently dealing with certain missions in the low- to medium-threat environment, few aircraft can net better results than the A-10. These aircraft are incredibly precise, efficient to operate, can haul a tremendous load of munitions, and their ability to integrate with other aircraft as well as ground forces is legendary. However, when defense leaders consider operations at the higher end of the threat spectrum, the reality is that A-10 cannot survive. In such environments, commanders select appropriate capabilities rather than risking airmen or mission success. Close air support is a mission—not an aircraft—and it can be executed by many aircraft other than the A-10, particularly in higher threat scenarios. This is why A-10s were not employed over Syria. It would have put them at risk against sophisticated Russian air defenses and combat aircraft. Commanders prudently decided to harness F-22s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, F-16s, and others to secure desired objectives because these aircraft could better defend themselves against those threats. Such sophisticated defenses require continued investment in aircraft like the F-35 and B-21. These are the sorts of aircraft—empowered with fifth generation attributes like stealth, advanced sensors, and computing power—that will be far better equipped to handle mission demands against potential adversaries equipped with the most advanced weapons coming out of China or Russia. Preparing for the future demands adjusting the Air Force's existing aircraft inventory in response to budget realities. Dialing up investment in fifth-generation aircraft is an essential requirement, especially given that too few B-2s and F-22s were procured in the past. The types of combat scenarios that defined the post-9/11 world occurred in permissive airspace at the low end of the threat spectrum. America's interests demand a much more far reaching set of options able to operate and survive in high threat environments. That is why investments in A-10 modernization and newer designs like the F-35, B-21, and next generation air dominance aircraft are so important. However, capacity still matters. The Air Force needs to be properly resourced so it does not have to gut the very numbers that will prove essential in future engagements. No matter the theater in which a fight may erupt, the type of combat action, or the scale of the operation, the need for numbers of airframes is a constant—the same cannot be said for surface forces. It is well past time for leaders in the Department of Defense, the White House and on Capitol Hill to start properly scaling Air Force resources to align for the actual mission demand required by our National Defense Strategy. David Deptula, a member of the Breaking Defense Board of Contributors, is a retired Air Force lieutenant general with over 3,000 flying hours. He planned the Desert Storm air campaign, orchestrated air operations over Iraq and Afghanistan and is now dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/a-smart-approach-to-retaining-most-of-the-a-10s

Lee Hudson The Pentagon intends to request additional stimulus funding from Congress to support the defense industrial base in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Defense Secretary Mark Esper says. The funding would go to small suppliers that have been hit hard by the spread of the novel coronavirus, Esper said May 4 during a Brookings Institution event. In recent weeks, Congress has passed about $3 trillion in emergency funding bills related to COVID-19. The Senate is in session this week, but the House has postponed votes. It is unknown when the next stimulus package will wrap up. “We anticipate the likely need for additional monies ... because we see again greater demand with regard to medical supplies and equipment,” Esper said. But House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said the Pentagon should not receive stimulus funding from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act because the public health sector needs it more. Last week, Pentagon acquisition executive Ellen Lord said the Pentagon may have wiggle room to use some of its own operations and maintenance funding to pay for COVID-19-related efforts. Lord cautioned that the Pentagon may not have the fiscal flexibility to pay for new demands on the agency to battle COVID-19. “I will say that we continue to look at gaps in funding we have for specific issues. We continue to work with [the Office of Management and Budget] on that, and we will continue to talk to Congress about what we assess as our needs to really carry out our missions,” Lord said. The Defense Department (DOD) wants to continue supporting the defense industry by issuing progress payments to help with cash flow, Esper said. “DOD is not an island. We really rely heavily on the private sector, and so many of our private sector workforce has been affected by COVID-19,” Esper said. Some defense contractor personnel are infected with the virus, while others are working in states with shutdown orders and management does not want them coming into work because of tight quarters, he said. Separately, Esper is concerned the nation's additional debt incurred due to COVID-19 may result in smaller defense budgets during a critical time when China and Russia are strategic competitors of the U.S. The U.S. must recapitalize the nuclear triad and invest in hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, space capabilities and directed energy, Esper said. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/dod-seeking-more-covid-19-stimulus-funding-esper-says

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Northrop Grumman and Raytheon Technologies are teaming up to fight for the right to build America's next missile interceptor, the companies announced Monday. The two companies hope to be one of two teams to be downselected by the Missile Defense Agency later this year, as the Pentagon seeks a replacement for the Redesigned Kill Vehicle program, which was cancelled last August after department officials decided the program was too technically challenged to continue. On April 24, the Pentagon formally issued a request for proposals for the new competition, known as the Next Generation Interceptor. The MDA requested $664.1 million in fiscal year 2021 for the NGI program, as part of a $4.9 billion five-year budget plan. “We have the right team, technology and expertise in place to meet our customer's needs for enhanced capabilities, from the identification of a ballistic missile launched by an adversary, all the way to its elimination,” Blake Larson, corporate vice president and president Northrop Grumman Space Systems, said in a statement. “The joining of true experts — with mastery from threat detection to interception — creates a team capable of developing a revolutionary solution that is designed to defeat emerging threats,” added Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon Missiles & Defense. The two companies have a depth of knowledge of the current missile defense architecture, with the press release claiming one or the other company currently provides “the interceptor booster, kill vehicle, ground systems, fire control and engagement coordination” systems for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. In addition, while the RKV program was led by Boeing, Raytheon was the company actually building the kill vehicle as a sub-contractor. Raytheon Technologies, formed via a merger of Raytheon and United Technologies, began trading on the stock market at the start of April. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2020/05/04/northrop-raytheon-team-on-next-gen-interceptor-bid

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. weapons makers have teamed up with medical device companies to increase the supply of ventilators that can be used to combat the coronavirus pandemic, people working on the project said. The two groups do not regularly partner on projects, but when a defense industry consultant with an engineering background realized weapons makers could help solve supply-chain problems within the U.S. ventilator industry, the creation of Vent Connect was set in motion and is set to be announced on Monday, the people said. The idea gathered momentum when industry associations like the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents plane makers and defense contractors including Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) and General Dynamics Corp (GD.N), teamed up with AdvaMed, the Advanced Medical Technology Association, whose members include vent manufacturers. A handful of ventilator makers including ResMed Inc (RMD.N), and Zoll, an Asahi Kasei Corp (3407.T) company, post requests in the ventilator parts marketplace to a group of 60 weapons and airplane makers to help meet surging demand for the life-saving machines, an AdvaMed representative said. Working since March to cut through challenges as varied as how to handle intellectual property, confidentiality issues, cybersecurity and logistics, the two associations created the marketplace that is now serving as a new avenue for the ventilator supply chain. The defense companies involved in the project did not want their names published because they did not want to appear to seek credit for their efforts. At its outset, the task was gargantuan. One ventilator maker, Medtronic (MDT.N), released a parts list with over 1,500 items to see if there was any crossover with the defense supply chain, two of the people said. Alphabet Inc's Google (GOOGL.O) was brought in to help set up a website so that the companies could better coordinate online. The two industries share some common equipment. For example, fighter jets use pressure sensors to regulate oxygen to their face masks, which are also a key element in a ventilator to ensure that the rhythm of a patient's breathing pattern is monitored and maintained for the person's comfort. The efforts to try to stem the ventilator shortage are being worked on by the U.S. Army as well. In mid-April, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy offered an investment of $100,000 to innovators who could come up with a “rapid ventilator production system to support field hospitals that are still requiring critical infrastructure.” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-industry/u-s-arms-makers-and-medical-device-firms-team-up-to-make-ventilators-idUSKBN22G12C

POLICY PERSPECTIVE by Ian Mack CGAI Fellow May 2020 DOWNLOAD PDF Introduction In the autumn of 2019, the federal government announced on www.buyandsell.gc.ca the creation of a discussion group to address in-service support for the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs). The objective of Canada's procurement is 15 warships and the project is in the early stages of modifying the design of the U.K.'s global combat ship (GCS), with the first Canadian ship delivery anticipated after 2025. It must be assumed that this discussion group formation is the first stage of industry consultation. The City-class Type 26 frigate design has been in development for over a decade and the first of eight U.K. Type 26 warships is now in production. BAE Systems won the contract for the design and construction work in the U.K. This design has been available for export under the moniker global combat ship, and both Canada and Australia have selected it – the latter intending to build nine Hunter-class frigates. While neither the Australian nor Canadian designs have been completed, the combat systems will apparently be quite different across the three nations. However, it is unlikely that the major platform design will change dramatically. If this assumption is correct, it could mean that the major equipment of the platforms of some 32 hulls would likely be substantially the same. And from an in-service support point of view, this clearly creates an opportunity for international co-operation wherever it makes sense. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – International Programs There are indications that three-nation government-to-government meetings have taken place to exchange views on creating a user group during the acquisition activity. It would make sense to also explore a related arrangement for in-service support. Clearly, with the potential to support 32 equipment sets across the marine platforms, there are many opportunities for economies of scale which could reduce the costs for all three nations – for common design modifications, for spares through bulk buys, for depot-level maintenance with many more units, for common training of potentially two to four times individual nations' throughput/requirements and the like. Such synergies could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars in savings over the extended lives of these warships. But international programs are not always easy to establish and implement, for many reasons. Nations are very different. They place different priorities on defence matters so the simple co-ordination required to achieve timely agreements can be difficult. Governments also change and a falling-out between two nations can lead to reversals. Nations lose some of their autonomy in decision-making when they join such programs, which can be a major deterrent. And governments have approaches to contracting which are very different, so negotiations on behalf of multiple governments can become bogged down in disagreements as to what approaches nations will support. In a perfect world, Canadian and Australian officials might have included an option during the design selection competitions so that such international in-service support programs could have been enabled by adopting a number of mandatory attributes. Unfortunately, the variability in schedules driving Canada's and Australia's frigate programs, as well as the built-in challenges of running competitions, conspired against any detailed discussion of “what ifs”. Work share (or industrial benefits) is important – to the domestic industries and thus to governments that always care about high-value jobs of the sort one finds in defence-related work. Without doubt, companies in all three countries are already seeing dollar signs and/or may already have won certain rights during the competitions for selection. Hence, Australia and Canada would be unlikely to sign up if all the work is being done, say, in Europe because the bar to agree to collaborate for other reasons could be so high as to be a non-starter. And there could be a number of other challenging commercial issues related to such things as intellectual property that could affect the shape of work-share agreements. There are also many tactical issues. The three time zones are not conducive to ongoing dialogue; one should never underestimate the challenges of working across large distances. As simple as international meeting arrangements should be, one of the partners will not be able to make it at the 11th hour more often than one expects – much less the travel budget involved and/or the cost of personnel liaison/exchange programs between the countries. Canada's Treasury Board is frequently much more involved in expensive and long-term international contracts, routinely requiring the tedious achievement of annual approvals. Nations and organizations have different laws/regulations and standards respectively which must be synchronized upfront and as changes occur. And so it goes. One can conclude that, aside from international information exchange forums, complex business arrangements involving both governments and industries in international programs detrimentally impact a nation's autonomy in decision-making and often offer fewer economic benefits. They are not for the faint of heart. TOP OF PAGE Conventional Wisdom – The Opportunity If one were to consider an international three-party in-service support (ISS) program for common platform major equipment/systems which would leverage BAE Systems as the common ISS agent, wouldn't there be potentially significant benefits to Canada? On the face of it, one must assume that the answer is “maybe” and this is worth exploring. In reviewing this option from a Canadian perspective, it would be appropriate to assess the ISS outcomes against the four sustainment pillars as now mandated for inclusion in the business cases driving Department of National Defence (DND) ISS procurement decisions: performance (operational readiness), value for money (price at or below the market rate), flexibility (adaptable and scalable to accommodate change in operational tempo and available budgets) and economic benefits (jobs and economic growth for Canadian companies). As mentioned earlier, international programs often render economic benefits much more elusive. However, in terms of performance, flexibility and value for money, there is no doubt that the potential exists to see maximum return on investment. In the case under review, BAE Systems is reported to be the second largest Western defence contractor and therefore should be able to wield the clout that comes with it when dealing with major equipment system manufacturers (OEMs). And of course, the supplemental impact must also be understood and catered to – BAE Systems can choose to be difficult in any business arrangement without significantly affecting its bottom line. With respect to contractual response to major equipment and systems performance (which contributes to technical readiness), a client with a large work share is more likely to get attention for initiatives to maintain and improve performance than will smaller clients. This would be important in this case because the three navies operate in significantly different environments around the world with the concomitant variations in some performance requirements. As well an OEMs' failure to address the concerns of three allied navies could result in being blacklisted by BAE Systems when procuring equipment/systems for new ship designs, while timely and effective contractual response could lead to future opportunities. Low performance achievement could also deliver a much more significant blow to an OEM's reputation if more than one navy is impacted detrimentally – witness the Boeing scenario with the 737 Max. This can be important, as select foreign OEMs have essentially ignored Canada before when Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) equipment has suffered performance shortfalls. From a performance perspective, an international ISS program with BAE Systems at the centre could be a plus. In terms of providing adaptability and scalability, the presence of a number of clients can allow reductions in the demand for various services by one client (e.g., facing a budget downturn) to be picked up by another on an interim basis. Alternatively, the need for a surge in support by one navy (e.g., facing major unforeseen operations) may be easier to address by diverting some degree of effort from other clients. Only in the case where all clients are experiencing a similar variation in demand will such flexibility be jeopardized; but such a challenge can equally accrue whether in an international support program or not. Therefore, on balance, there can be greater flexibility in traditional circumstances for an international program, but there are limits. Value for money should be a strong argument for an international collaboration, if only because of economies of scale when considering, in this case, a fleet of 32 ship sets instead of eight, nine or 15 – and that is as-fitted, with spares increasing the overall numbers of common units of equipment. As an ISS client agent with much more maintenance, repair work and spares demand for an OEM, there would be greater interest in keeping multiple navies happy with the prices paid and the requirement over time to see support costs reduced. International programs frequently benefit by pooling spare units and ownership by OEMs, such that the number required (and hence the costs) are lower and risks to availability can be somewhat mitigated. Instead of each nation addressing emerging technical issues separately, sharing the costs should make it cheaper for all. So too are there potential benefits for OEM infrastructure, as top-notch physical plant and software assurance against cyber-attack are much more affordable to all concerned. Hence, the conventional wisdom is that such an international in-service support program should offer a better return on investment in terms of greater performance at lower costs, as well as the possibility for greater scalability to adapt to variations in demand for services. But as mentioned earlier, this comes typically with the potential for fewer economic benefits for Canada – clearly an important consideration. TOP OF PAGE Unique Considerations of the Case at Hand In exploring a possible international program for the U.K., Australia and Canada to leverage their selection of the same basic platform design and designer (BAE Systems), it is useful to accept the conventional wisdom but explore additional factors that should be weighed in a sustainment business case. What follows is a potpourri of additional considerations worthy of study. It is useful to address what could be included in the term “in-service support”. Based on common equipments and systems, it could include design agent services, maintenance, spares, training and documentation within an integrated data environment, to name the most important few. Nations could also select from among these options for hybrid arrangements. Near the top of the list for CSC is the fact that it is under the umbrella of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS). The strategy specifically prevents the NSS shipyards from providing a single day of in-service support once they are delivered to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) unless such shipyards win those rights through a competitive procurement process. This is unique – a departure from past approaches in Canadian government shipbuilding – and quite frankly considered to be imprudent. In the very early days of a new class of complex ships, the prime contractor (often the build shipyard and/or designer) usually provides as a minimum a number of years of ISS. The shipbuilder typically has the best expert knowledge that exists for the initial years of services, along with the relationships and a degree of leverage with the major equipment/systems' OEMs. Normally, an in-service support bridging contract is awarded concurrent with the ship construction contract. Often, the prime contractor is then awarded a long-term ISS contract. There is a story as to why ship maintenance support for vessels delivered under NSS departed from the norm (there is always a story), and confirmation should be obtained as soon as possible that the earlier decision is reversible, to allow the business case to include all options. Related to the former paragraph, Canada has relatively recently awarded a contract to Thales for support services for the Arctic offshore patrol ships and the joint support ships. Although these ships have yet to be turned over to the RCN, one would expect that even at this early stage many lessons have been learned which should be taken into account when conducting the business case, such as whether the knowledge was/is available to support first-day-under-power with the RCN. BAE Systems is at the heart of the potential international program. From the internet alone, one observes that, among other classes of Royal Navy (RN) ships, BAE Systems manages design, equipment maintenance and ship modifications for the RN's Type 45 destroyers. It therefore would be important to ask the RN how well their approach is working and to explore the details of the existing contract, infrastructure arrangements, innovations introduced and performance to date. This would be a bellwether to the likelihood that the RN would be at least interested in an international support program for their Type 26 frigates in terms of capability and customer-focused cultural flexibility at BAE Systems. And if they have misgivings and/or if Australia is not interested, the international program option may be eliminated from the business case. One would expect that all three nations would support the generation of their own business cases and compare conclusions before making decisions. Earlier, I offered the assumption that the platform systems are likely to employ the same major equipment systems, but that the combat systems are unlikely to be common. But to overstate the obvious, warships are not like layer cakes – they do not have separate top and bottom halves. The three naval variants being procured are exceptionally integrated and complex super-systems. Therefore, in-service support must address both sets of major equipment/systems – platform and combat systems. BAE Systems is the overall combat systems integrator for the Type 26 frigates destined for the RN and an obvious choice to deliver in-service support. Lockheed Martin Canada is the equivalent for the CSC. And BAE Systems Australia is partnered with Lockheed Martin Australia and Saab Australia to deliver the combat system integration for the Hunter-class frigates. Therefore, an international – almost-whole-of-ship – ISS solution might even offer significant economic benefits to all three nations. This could create challenges based on the proverbial “too many eggs in one basket”, and certain safeguards would be required. It is worthwhile to note an anomaly in Canada's case regarding the construction of these warships. BAE Systems is responsible for building all of the ships in question in the U.K. and Australia, but Irving Shipbuilding is responsible under NSS to construct the CSCs. One should never underestimate the shipbuilder's knowledge when dealing with a complex seagoing vessel, and a sole platform-related focus on BAE Systems alone would, in the Canadian case, be a deficit in any international program. Irving Shipbuilding's contribution should therefore be considered in the business case for Canada. Should the business case be strong, there is an argument that a directed contract to an Irving-BAE partnership for in-country platform in-service support would make sense and be in the public's interest. As mentioned earlier, although this was prohibited under the original terms of the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, it could be waived in this instance for those warships that will be the backbone of Canada's maritime defence for 30 years. It would provide significant economic benefits as well. There is clearly the significant potential of operational value to such an arrangement, in addition to strong performance supporting day-to-day readiness. The three nations are on three different continents, and all three navies pursue global deployments. The availability of full ISS in or within the reach of Canada, the U.K. and Australia provides significant benefits to all three navies over their 30-year lives when breakdowns occur far from home port. The business case should take into account the fact that the U.K. may export the global combat ship design more broadly in the world. If an international consortium delivering in-service support were in place, it could become an important selling feature for potential buyers of the GCS. This undoubtedly could enhance value for money, flexibility and performance for the three plank owner nations. And from a Canadian perspective, as the nation with the largest stake in the game at 15 warships, we should be able to significantly influence the contractual arrangements with current and future parties to the international program. A typical and expensive part of the life cycle of warships is midlife conversions. Combat systems in particular require modernization to employ new technologies designed to address new threats. These are extremely complex endeavours. Once again, the degree of value for money through life could be even greater, depending on the degree of commonality of the equipment upgrade options selected. And the very fact that Canada would see opportunities worth considering as fully developed options would in itself offer potential cost benefits that would otherwise be unlikely to occur. As part of the business case analysis, it would be useful to study the commercial marine industry examples of international in-service support. Large ship operators and OEMs are very experienced in working across national and client boundaries to deliver economical services. Any business case should capture the pros and cons more broadly in the commercial business sector as well. There could be a benefit as part of an international program in terms of the people required. As the proverb goes, many hands make light work. Since the launch of what was then termed the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy, Canada's marine HR challenges within government have become more pronounced. An international program could lighten the load while expanding the experience base for involved government and naval personnel in tackling the demands of supporting as complex a platform as the CSC. It would be important to understand the challenges surrounding the governance in the broadest sense. Though not at all unique, governance would likely need to be structured to address three separate functions – the integrated supplier-client engagement, the clients' government-to-government activity and industry-to-industry supplier co-ordination. While not uncommon when contracting for goods and services for complex systems, the international aspects, length of the arrangement and the ever-increasing volatility in the marketplace are noteworthy. With such complexity and the constantly changing stakeholders involved over 30 years, the mechanisms for a strong and appropriate relationship alignment would be critical to long-term success. When dealing with a high degree of complexity in an international program such as this, the business case needs to assess the likelihood that the collaboration can be created and maintained in terms of the critical enabling relationships. In the factors highlighted here and as with any business case, the importance of comparing the international program solution with what seems to be the more recent and typical Canadian in-service solution resulting from a competitive procurement cannot be underestimated. Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships and Joint Support Ships In-Service Support (AJISS) is the latest Canadian example and must be carefully analyzed even at this early stage to determine the prognosis for achieving the desired outcomes. Again, engagement with allies to assess their experience with single-nation support scenarios would be important in establishing the right comparators to enable coherent business case recommendations. It would be prudent to consider the long view as part of the business case – including such things as the likelihood that nations would retire their warships at different times or even opt out of the international ISS program long before end-of life. While much can change, an early appreciation and understanding of various scenarios and the related risks would be important. As a final point, such complicated business case assessments are never easy. After assembling the assumption set and the criteria analysis, and after negotiating “les grandes lignes” of a contractual agreement, it would be important to avoid the common pitfall of allowing one or two pros or cons to dominate the decision-making. Too often, the complexity that defies the “kiss principle” leads to rejection of otherwise optimum solutions. But at the end of the day, one must accept that it will be a judgment call. TOP OF PAGE Concluding Material Under the five-year-old Defence Procurement Strategy, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) is responsible for leading the industry engagement that launches defence procurement processes. More recently, the ISS procurement strategies have been based on the results of the sustainment initiative business case led by DND. At virtually every opportunity over the past decade, I have emphasized the importance of managing expectations. In every discussion with industry, it behooves those leading the CSC in-service support exploration activity to include the possibility of an international program solution. To eliminate that option without study would be both shortsighted and inexcusable. Also, failing to repeatedly ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the potential for such an outcome would lack transparency and be disingenuous. When the RCN's readiness to deliver operational capability is at stake, along with billions of Canadian taxpayers' dollars for CSC in-service support over 30 years, it matters. And an international in-service support program for the new frigates of Canada, the U.K. and Australia is an important option worth considering. TOP OF PAGE About the Author After a 38 year career with the Royal Canadian Navy, Ian Mack (Rear-Admiral Retired) served for a decade (2007-2017) as the Director-General in the Department of National Defence responsible for the conception, shaping and support of the launch and subsequent implementation of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and for guiding the DND project managers for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, the Joint Support Ships and the Canadian Surface Combatants. He also had responsibility for four vehicle projects for the Canadian Army until 2015. Since leaving the government, he has offered his shipbuilding and project management perspectives internationally. Ian is a longstanding Fellow of the International Centre for Complex Project Management. He also is allied with Strategic Relationships Solutions Inc. He is married to Alex, and has three grown children. With few accommodations for impaired mobility, he remains active. Upon retirement, he founded a small business, Xi Complexity Consulting Inc. in Ottawa Canada. TOP OF PAGE Canadian Global Affairs Institute The Canadian Global Affairs Institute focuses on the entire range of Canada's international relations in all its forms including (in partnership with the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy), trade investment and international capacity building. Successor to the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI, which was established in 2001), the Institute works to inform Canadians about the importance of having a respected and influential voice in those parts of the globe where Canada has significant interests due to trade and investment, origins of Canada's population, geographic security (and especially security of North America in conjunction with the United States), social development, or the peace and freedom of allied nations. The Institute aims to demonstrate to Canadians the importance of comprehensive foreign, defence and trade policies which both express our values and represent our interests. The Institute was created to bridge the gap between what Canadians need to know about Canadian international activities and what they do know. Historically Canadians have tended to look abroad out of a search for markets because Canada depends heavily on foreign trade. In the modern post-Cold War world, however, global security and stability have become the bedrocks of global commerce and the free movement of people, goods and ideas across international boundaries. Canada has striven to open the world since the 1930s and was a driving factor behind the adoption of the main structures which underpin globalization such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and emerging free trade networks connecting dozens of international economies. The Canadian Global Affairs Institute recognizes Canada's contribution to a globalized world and aims to inform Canadians about Canada's role in that process and the connection between globalization and security. In all its activities the Institute is a charitable, non-partisan, non-advocacy organization that provides a platform for a variety of viewpoints. It is supported financially by the contributions of individuals, foundations, and corporations. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institute publications and programs are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Institute staff, fellows, directors, advisors or any individuals or organizations that provide financial support to, or collaborate with, the Institute. https://www.cgai.ca/an_in_service_support_opportunity

Waking up to the use of drones in its fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, the ministry of civil aviation and Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) have launched the GARUD portal. The platform will provide fast track exemptions to government agencies for using drones in their operations against the pandemic. GARUD or ‘Government Authorisation for Relief Using Drones' was developed by the National Informatics Centre in eight days. Providing exemptions to government agencies by changing Rule 160 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, for easy and fast approvals for drone usage, any government department can apply for these exemptions on the GARUD platform. However, the government has also put restrictions on these exemptions. For instance, the government will provide permission to only battery-operated drones or remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs). Permission won't be granted to autonomous and fixed-wing RPAs. The order also makes the organisation responsible for ensuring safe operations of RPAs. Operations involving RPAs are to be conducted under the supervision of authorised entity while not risking lives, property, or any other aircraft. Moreover, the government has allowed all the government agencies to use either their own drones or use ones offered by third-party providers which are mostly startups. According to the rules, all the drones should have a valid unique identification number (UIN) or drone acknowledgement number (DAN) issued by the DGCA. The agency using the RPAs will have to update the details of the drone on DGCA's Digital Sky platform. Moreover, the drones shouldn't be weighing more than 25 KG and cannot pick up, drop or spray any substance. This provision leaves authorities to use these drones for surveillance. Other restrictions include no flight before sunrise and after sunset. The government also imposed a height limit of up to 200 metres for the drones. Besides surveillance, many drone startups in India are also looking to support the delivery of essentials. They are also being used to back on-ground medical staff. Pune and Silicon Valley-based FlytBase is offering drone services free to government officials until May 2020. Moreover, Hyderabad-based Marut Drones is delivering medicines and collecting blood samples. It has also been deployed to spray sanitizer in the city. Recently, the DGCA also allowed hyperlocal delivery provider Dunzo and Bengaluru-based drone maker Throttle Aerospace Systems to test their long-range drone delivery solutions. These startups are also expected to deliver grocery via drones in the near future. https://inc42.com/buzz/drones-cleared-for-take-off-as-govt-launches-garud-portal-to-simplify-norms/

SMi Reports: Royal Air Force's Wing Commander Judith Graham to brief on RPAS Capabilities at UAV Technology, this September. 05/04/20, 05:43 AM | Unmanned & Other Topics In recent news, the UK Royal Air Force is set to integrate the new Protector UAS, replacing the current Reaper models in service. As armed forces continue to invest in UAV developments, where remote combat UAS and ISR capabilities have solidified their importance to modern military operations, the RAF plans to acquire 16 Protectors by 2024.*With that said, SMi Group's 5th annual UAV Technology conference, reconvening on 28th and 29th September 2020 in London, UK and will further investigate RPAS capabilities. The 2020 event promises to provide a comprehensive overview of the latest wingmen programmes, long range ISR capabilities, regulation, counter-UAS technology and more. For Interested parties, there is an early bird saving of £300 for bookings made by 29th May. Register at http://www.uav-technology.org/robtomPR2 The Royal Air Force's Remotely Piloted Air Systems Programme Manager, Wing Commander Judith Graham will be providing an exclusive keynote presentation on ‘Transforming the Royal Air Force's RPAS Capabilities' covering: • Progress in delivering the Protector Remotely Piloted Air System to the Royal Air Force and testing the limits of the platform. • Advancing towards Airspace Integration and Certification. • Operational advantage of the Protector and how this will be leveraged in future operational planning, including Brimstone missiles, and upgraded sensor packages. • Looking further ahead: what part will the Protector play in future conflict both against near-peer and irregular adversaries. Delegates attending Europe's leading conference dedicated to UAV development will learn from high profile UK and international military speakers as they meet and share their insight and experiences with UAV technologies. For the full speakers and the programme, visit: http://www.uav-technology.org/robtomPR2 UAV Technology 28th - 29th September 2020 London, UK Sponsored by: AeroVironment, Fizoptika, Leonardo and Mynaric For sponsorship and exhibition queries please contact Justin Predescu jpredescu@smi-online.co.uk or call +44 (0) 20 7827 6130 For delegate queries please contact James Hitchen jhitchen@smi-online.co.uk or call +44(0)207 827 6054 For media queries please contact Carina Gozo at CGozo@smi-online.co.uk. *‘ RAF unveils deadly new Protector drone armed with ‘game-changing technology' (Express: August, 2019) https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1169075/raf-news-drone-protector-drone-high-tech-armed-surveillance-aircraft --END— About SMi Group: Established since 1993, the SMi Group is a global event-production company that specializes in Business-to-Business Conferences, Workshops, Masterclasses and online Communities. We create and deliver events in the Defence, Security, Energy, Utilities, Finance and Pharmaceutical industries. We pride ourselves on having access to the world's most forward thinking opinion leaders and visionaries, allowing us to bring our communities together to Learn, Engage, Share and Network. More information can be found at http://www.smi-online.co.uk https://www.roboticstomorrow.com/news/2020/05/04/top-royal-air-force-representative-to-present-at-uav-technology-2020/15214/