Cobham Sells Sparta Unit to Parsons

In yet another M&A action in the defense industry British contractor, Cobham plc (COB:LSE), has agreed to sell its Analytic Solutions group to Parsons Corporation. The transaction is estimated at about $350 million.

Sparta was formerly a private company started in 1979 that provides SETA support as well as technical products and services to the U.S. defense and intelligence business sector. The company was acquired by Cobham a few years ago. Foreign defense contractors, especially those from Great Britain, had grown their presence in the U.S. defense market in the last decade through mergers, acquisitions as well as winning some contracts. Due to the rapid expansion of the defense budget post-9/11 the market was their for them to provide competition to the U.S. domestic industry.

Sparta provides design, development, fielding and sustainment support for ballistic missile defense systems primarily working through the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). It also supports tactical weapon systems especially in the area of logistics as well as network-centric warfare operations. Sparta also supports the intelligence community through developing software and hardware tools and operating computer networks and systems.

Parson’s is about a $2.7 billion engineering support company that not only provides defense services but also civil efforts across the globe. These include engineering and construction, transportation and infrastructure support. Many of their efforts in defense have synergy with Sparta’s but they provide some that are different such as range and training support. Parson’s revenue recently peaked in 2008 and is now about $700 million less then that year. Stock price and Net Operating Income though have gone up steadily though.

If the U.S. defense budget does see major cuts it might be harder for the U.K. and other non-U.S. companies to sustain their current level of revenue. The pressure to always choose a domestic provider will be high on the U.S. Defense Department and the Services. Cobham could also be looking at the market and believing that what Sparta provides may be an area of shrinkage or more competition and now has decided to focus on more core assets. Sparta formed one of nine business units in the company. Last year the company had revenue of about $3 billion.

If the expected decline in defense spending does occur then the U.S. defense industry may see major consolidation as happened in the 1990′s though M&A as well as companies moving out of the sector. The government reportedly has made it clear that they would not like to see any of the big 5 defense contractors (Boeing (BA), Raytheon (RTN), Lockheed Martin (LMT), Northrop Grumman (NOC) and General Dynamics (GD), who are the primary hardware providers merge as did happen in the 90′s.

The SDSR and the American Defense Budget

It is not abnormal for a new government to do a spending review when they take control and readjust expenditures. The new Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition in the United Kingdom did this but they were in a tough spot due to the last several years of deficit spending. The Coalition had to reduce total spending greatly and one area they focused was defense.

The normal process for building a defense budget is to define what capabilities are required and then invest the available money into the highest priority. Because the British defense spending had been so affected by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan their investment programs had suffered. In the United States total defense spending increased several hundred billion dollars to pay for the operations while several core investment programs such as Lockheed Martin’s (LMT) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) were maintained.

To achieve an eight percent reduction in defense spending which has been reported as closer to fifteen due to off budget spending for Iraq and Afghanistan the new U.K. budget takes major cuts at operational units and capabilities.

One aircraft carrier is to be retired. The two under construction will have limited air wings including cuts to the number of F-35 JSF aircraft for the Royal Air Force and Navy. Surface combatants will be reduced and new submarines delayed. All manned ISR assets will be eliminated being replaced by UAV and Allied systems. Ground troops will be cut making it even harder to maintain current operational obligations including total withdrawal from Germany.

If the U.S. defense budget faced a similar situation it would be a reduction of about $80 billion in spending a year. This would lead to major cuts to the quantities of current new systems being purchased such as UH-60 helicopters, DDG-51 destroyers and F-35 aircraft. Active forces would have to be reduced and the Navy may have to eliminate aircraft carriers or major quantities of surface ships. The Army would lose whole divisions of troops from the current ten active ones. The Air Force would have to retire F-15, F-16 and A-10 aircraft faster then currently planned.

Investment in new systems such as the LCS, JSF, KC-X and new Army vehicles would be slowed down delaying their development and entry into production. As in the Seventies and Nineties the lack of funding would reduce training and maintenance of current units reducing operational capability.

There is no doubt the U.S. faces budget challenges. The defense budget will have to be reduced as part of an attempt to control spending since it makes up such a large part of discretionary spending. The question will be how severe and in what areas will they be felt. The U.S. does not want to end up in a situation like the U.K. where their military capability is eroded to the point that they cannot necessarily meet combat requirements and treaty obligations.

Potential Sale of Northrop’s Ship Yards Signal First Major Shakeup of U.S. Defense Contractors

On Friday Northrop Grumman (NOC) one of the biggest U.S. defense contractors filed paperwork with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) that lays the ground for selling their shipbuilding assets. As early as June the company had said that they were considering this move.

As we wrote several weeks ago the U.S. Navy is looking at a severe reduction in planned ships and ship construction:

“With the pressures on the defense budget caused by the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last nine years as well as the high cost of new ships the number of orders each year has been reduced. On top of that the Obama Administration canceled or restructured planned programs by ending the DDG-1000 and substituting current DDG-51 class ships as well as ending a plan to have two designs produced for the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and have a competition.”

So far at least one company, Cleveland Ship, has said that they intend to purchase Northrop’s yards. There are also reports that several private equity companies are exploring the purchase. Many smaller defense contractors or parts of larger ones have recently been purchased by equity companies including the sale of Northrop’s SETA arm, TASC, to one in 2009.

There have been rumors that the then smaller Northrop would consider a merger with Boeing (BA) to maximize the similar product lines and capabilities.

In the Nineties as the defense budget declined due to the “Peace Dividend” there was major contractions in the number of defense contractors mainly through M&A activity. The expected decline in the next decade will have the same effect as the number of programs and contracts decline.

Northrop’s ship yards in Louisiana and Virginia make aircraft carriers, destroyers and amphibious war ships. The Newport News facility is the only place that aircraft carriers are made as well as doing major refit work on them. Its operation is critical to the support of the U.S. Navy which is built around these ships.

The yards are also major employers for these states and their closing or reduction would be severe blows to the local economy. Keeping them open and working is critical to not only the industrial base but also the economy during a recession.

Unfortunately the Department of Defense is looking at improving efficiencies in their defense contracting. Keeping sites open just to have jobs is inefficient and costly. This may mean money for other programs may have to be used to maintain this industrial base capability. The balancing act will only get harder as defense budgets decline.

The U.S. may be entering a time when it cannot afford or build enough ships to support its current industry and while ship construction is first it may spread to other sectors of the defense economy such as aerospace and vehicle development and production.

Any loss of industrial base this time around will be expensive and time consuming to recover when the U.S. is facing economic and budgetary difficulties.

Photo from cybaea’s flickr photostream.

Austal USA Continues Work on JHSV

The U.S. Department of Defense awarded Austal USA (ASB:AU), the U.S. subsidiary of Australia’s Austal, a contract for two more Joint High Speed Vessels (JHSV). These represent the fourth and fifth ships of the class being built for the U.S. Navy and Army. The JHSV will be used to move supplies and equipment to an area where they are needed. As there name implies they are much faster then traditional merchant shipping.

This order follows one for the advanced procurement items issued four months ago worth $100 million. This contract has a value of about twice that. Austal is building as many as ten under the contract but ultimately the U.S. would like to buy over fifty. Austal would be one of the sources considered for the follow on contracts.

Austal is known for making high speed ferries but their U.S. subsidiary based in Mobile, AL has branched out into military projects. They have teamed with General Dynamics (GD) to build one of the designs accepted for the original Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. The Navy was going to have this team along with Lockheed Martin (LMT) build the ships but has now changed their minds after the first three were started to have a competition for the remaining ships. Austal will most likely be one of the bidders for that contract.

The first JHSV will be delivered at the end of next year. The first of many ships that the company will build for the U.S. Navy Austal hopes.

U.S. Shipbuilding Industry the First to Consilidate Due to Defense Spending Realities

Northrop Grumman (NOC) has announced that they will close one of their yards in Avondale, LA with the first layoffs planned for early October as well as look at selling their shipbuilding business. This decision is based on the fact that the Navy is not buying enough ships and has led to rumors of a Boeing (BA) and Northrop merger.

With the pressures on the defense budget caused by the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last nine years as well as the high cost of new ships the number of orders each year has been reduced. On top of that the Obama Administration canceled or restructured planned programs by ending the DDG-1000 and substituting current DDG-51 class ships as well as ending a plan to have two designs produced for the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and have a competition. Northrop says that the Avondale facility will close when it completes the two LPD-17 class amphibious warfare ships being built there.

The Navy is trying to aid the company and keep its industrial base larger by accelerating a new tanker program three years. This will allow Northrop to bid on them and perhaps be able to build them in Avondale. The moving up of the construction will also free up dollars in the out years for the new SSBN program which is expected to eat up most of the ship building dollars.

Even with this announcement there is no guarantee that Northrop will win the work since the ships are based on an existing hull already made by General Dynamics for underway replenishment ships. Northrop is just reacting to the writing on the wall.

The Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has just announced a whole set of initiatives to make defense spending more efficient. Spreading work across multiple ship yards just to keep them working is not the way to gain efficiency. It might make sense from an industrial base concern but is not the best way to save the taxpayers money. The Pentagon either has to balance these two demands or accept that their industrial base will begin to wither if their is not enough work to keep it going.

The same may happen to the aviation industry as F-22 and C-17 production is ending leaving just the JSF and the new KC-X tanker as major programs. This might not be enough to support Lockheed Martin (LMT) and Boeing’s capabilities for military aircraft production. Boeing will close their Long Beach, CA plant once the last C-17 rolls off the line and without winning the KC-X won’t have a military aircraft in production. This might make them tempted to merge with another contractor to keep some capability.

The cost of modern weapons may lead to a round of consolidation such as happened in the Nineties as the industry adjusted to the reduced defense dollars after the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately this is capability that will be hard to re-grow if needed putting the U.S. in an interesting position in the future if there is a need for another ramp up in defense spending.

BAE Systems Looks to Sell Chunk of U.S. Subsidiary

Since 9/11 and with the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. defense budgets has increased dramatically. Due to this increase in spending as well as the reduction in the domestic industrial base since the end of the Cold War the large European defense contractors entered the U.S. market. Now that those commitments are winding down and concerns about the size of the deficit and government spending in general may cause the defense budget to shrink some are rethinking their commitment to this market.

Both BAE Systems (BAE:LSE) and EADS (EADS:P) entered the U.S. market by setting up subsidiaries and acquiring American defense contractors. These moves were seen as a simple way around the security and technology transfer requirements. BAE especially established itself as a maker and support contractor for military vehicles heavily used by the Army and Marine Corps. Now there are reports that BAE will look to sell part of its U.S. operations.

A few years ago BAE purchased Armor Holdings as a way to expand their vehicle and armor production. BAE has made a great deal of money making Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for the American military as well as armor plate used by other companies. Unfortunately Armor Holdings biggest contract was to make the FMTV truck and that contract was lost to Oshkosh (OSK) in 2008. BAE is now missing a great deal of the revenue that Armor Holdings move promised.

Supposedly BAE will look to sell its platform solutions group. This business group provides products that is “serving the defence and aerospace communities with capabilities and products that improve operational safety and enhance mission effectiveness.”

Certainly there has been much discussion over the last few months as it becomes clear the defense budget will take some hits that there will be consolidation and mergers within the defense industry. By selling this group BAE raises capital to buy other companies that will help them focus on certain core capabilities or expand into new markets. Other companies may be willing to buy the group for the same reason.

If this does happen it will be a sure sign that many see little or no future expansion in the U.S. defense industry and their might be another round of consolidation as happened in the 1990′s. There are already rumors of Boeing (BA) merging with Northrop Grumman (NOC) for example.

These kind of signs and rumors indicate it might be a rough few years for the defense industry and their stocks as this is all sorted out.

Despite Gate’s Proposals SETA Contracts Still Being Awarded

Over the last two years the U.S. Defense Department has been reviewing how it handles its support contractors. These Scientific, Engineering, Technical and Analytical (SETA) contractors work side-by-side with government employees and military in acquisition and management offices to aid them in carrying out their work. These contractors have grown in size as part of the workforce and in the amount of money they receive often on time and material contracts where they are paid for the work they do by the hour rather then fixed price.

In 2009 the Department began to “insource” these contract jobs where they were converted to civil service positions. This was driven by the need to increase the size of the government’s acquisition workforce and also to counteract claims that these contractors were doing “inherently government” work that should be done by an official. Insourcing has seen the elimination of several thousand contractor jobs. There have been complaints that insourcing has not necessarily been done fairly with the government choosing positions based on cost estimates rather then their real role. The loss of a contractor position means a company loses revenue and often an employee. Sometimes whole contracts have been insourced leading to serious problems for smaller companies.

Two weeks ago Secretary Gates’ announced a new initiative that rather then just insourcing jobs he plans to cut thirty percent of the contracts over the next three years. He has realized that converting the slots to government may not be saving money in the long run which is his goal and has decided to minimize future conversions. This has roused the ire of the Unions who represent Federal workers who fell that there should be more insourcing.

Despite these moves the government still relies on SETA contracts and continues to announce contracts for them.

In the middle of this month the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) awarded Tetra Tech (TTEK) a support contract through their Missile Defense Agency Engineering and Support Services (MiDAESS) vehicle. This contract if all options are exercised is worth $270 million. Like many large commands that award these kind of contracts MDA set up an omnibus contract in this case MiDAESS that allows qualified companies to bid on tasks that minimize the source selection process.

Last week General Dynamics (GD) won an IT support contract from the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. This is an over $60 million contract to provide help-desk and network support for the organization. IT services are one of the areas that were being considered to insource as they are often contract provided mainly due to the flexibility and pay structure of contractors compared to government. The government has always had a hard time fitting IT into the GS pay scale due to the compensation for these skilled and in-demand personnel.

Until the Defense Department can decide on what its workforce balance should be and what tasks are needed then these kind of contract awards will continue. Gates’ plans to reduce may see smaller contracts but at the same time a smaller contract will provide less support to the government. It may be that a return to the Nineties of “doing more with less” may be happening again as the defense budget restructures to reflect the ending of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Navy to Upgrade Tomahawk Missiles Through Contract with Lockheed

The U.S. military still uses many weapon systems originally developed in the Seventies and Eighties. The fact that they can is a testament to good maintenance practices and the capability inherent in the systems to be continuously upgraded to take advantage of improvements in technology. The BGM-109 Tomahawk is a subsonic land attack cruise missile that has seen quite a bit of use especially in Desert Storm. Originally developed by General Dynamics (GD) it is now produced by Raytheon (RTN). It currently exists in ship and submarine launched versions.

In order to continue the ability to use the system the U.S. Navy has announced a contract for Lockheed Martin (LMT) worth up to $57 million. This contract is to develop new software that controls the missile. The first year of the contract has a value of a little over $16 million.

The idea of continuously improving systems like this is that the military may take advantage of their substantial investment in building the missiles over the last thirty years. This practice also allows development of countermeasures and improved performance against any new defenses developed over time.

This approach maximizes the value of existing weapon systems and their basic capabilities.

Photo from morebyless’ flickr photostream.

Dueling View on Defense Competition

Last week the former Reagan era U.S. Secretary of Defense John Lehman had an opinion piece in many newspapers across the country discussing the need for competition in large defense contracts. He specifically was writing in support of the dual engine track for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). This controversial program where a second source of engines for the advanced multi-role aircraft is being funded by Congress despite the objections of two Administrations, the Pentagon and the Air Force is being defended as risk reduction and as offering potential cost savings. This is how Lehman discusses it.

Certainly the idea is sound in that the second engine in development by General Electric (GE) and Rolls-Royce (RR:LSE) as an alternative to the main one being made by Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies (UTC), may end up costing less and be ready sooner but at a time when the program is struggling as well as the whole Federal budget it may be a luxury that the country cannot afford. Lehman cites previous examples of using alternate engines from when he was at the Defense Department that showed “benefits came swiftly and have endured. Reliability, performance and fuel economy improved steadily. Engine-caused accidents dropped. By the second year of full competition, the cost per engine had dropped 20 percent.” He points out that for the three major fighter programs of the Seventies and Eighties — the F-14, 15 and 16 — this approach was used successfully.

For both 2010 and 2011 the Obama defense budget request asked for no funding for the second engine. In the 2010 budget Congress found it by adding money and not taking it out of the core F-35 program. For 2011 the Senate has moved to try and not fund the program but the House markups so far continue it. If the final bills from each part of Congress contain differences it will have to be worked out in Conference. Obama has threatened to veto the bill if it contains the second engine but he did that last year and ended up accepting it. Obviously the Congressional delegations from the states where GE and Rolls-Royce are doing their work support it while the Connecticut delegation where P&W makes their engine have been trying to counter it.

In another view Congressman Tiahrt (R-KS) recently was interviewed about his efforts to promote the use of American contractors for programs. Tiahrt wants the Pentagon to maximize the use of American defense contractors even when it would have to lead to a sole source contract as there would only be one U.S. company able to do the work. The Pentagon does everything it can to avoid sole source contracts as that transfers most of the risk from the contractor to itself leaving little options of the program’s schedules and cost increases. Competition has long been one of the cornerstones of defense acquisition.

Tiahrt believes that the Defense Department must maximize the use of U.S. companies to provides jobs. At this time of current economic problems basically using the defense budget to provide “stimulus”. The problem this faces is that due to the decline of the U.S. industrial base in the Nineties there are often only one U.S. supplier for a product. Tiahrt uses the example of the buying of Russian Mil-17 helicopters for use in Afghanistan by the Afghan military rather then purchasing the UH-60 from Sikorsky, another part of United Technologies. The reasons given for the purchase are more driven by requirements and the needs of the Afghan environment and capability. This is a system they are familiar with, it is simple to maintain and matches well to the environment.

Tiahrt, a former Boeing (BA) employee, is also a big supporter of awarding the new KC-X aerial tanker to that company and preventing the European defense giant, EADS (EADS:P). He had criticized the previous award to Northrop Grumman (NOC) and EADS overturned on Boeing’s protest in 2008. Now that Boeing and EADS are in direct competition for the latest attempt to award this contract he has kept up the criticism.

The problem that the Pentagon faces is only Boeing and EADS have the capability to provide this aircraft. The last tanker that was purchased was the KC-10 in the Eighties made by McDonell Douglas, who are now part of Boeing. With those two companies merged there is no U.S. competitor for the KC-X. In the early part of this decade the U.S. Air Force did award Boeing a sole source lease for KC-767 tankers but this was overturned after Congress found collusion by Air Force and Boeing officials this decision launched the second contest won by Northrop and EADS in 2008.

Tiahrt is right in that the Defense Department should try to award to American companies but the number of those producing major systems has declined. The increase in spending since 9/11 has seen major market penetration by European companies mainly through acquisition of U.S. companies and the establishment of subsidiaries. This has been driven by the need for multiple sources for systems to help keep prices low.

Without a major investment in revitalizing the U.S. industrial base this will be the situation faced anytime a major contract comes up for award Congressman Tiahrt’s protests notwithstanding.

In order to meet Lehman’s desire for competition the U.S. has to allow foriegn bidders which is an unfortunate fact-of-life. Congress will need to face this unless they just want to give contracts to American companies which would counter their desire to do defense purchasing more efficiently and at less cost. The decline of the Nineties is the root cause of this situation and there is no easy short term answer.

KC-10 photo from Mr. T in DC’s flickr photostream.

F-35 photo from Rob Shenk’s flickr photostream.

Penny Pinching at the Pentagon May Cost Contractors

Foreseeing a near term future where the defense budget will begin its long predicted decline the U.S. Defense Department held a meeting with contractors and then announced to the public a goal of saving $20 billion a year through better acquisition. The idea is to plow that money back into new weapon system acquisition and development. While the goal is laudable it may be hard to implement and the loss of this money to defense contractors may hurt the industry in the long run.

The defense budget is coming under pressure from both internal and external sources. Internally the growth of the ground forces and the ten year plus deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan are causing personnel and operations cost to grow every year. The Department like the U.S. as a whole is also facing large health care related bills. Externally the U.S. cannot keep on spending billions a year that it doesn’t have. The total budget will face cuts and since defense spending is the largest discretionary piece of the pie it will have to be reduced or limited in growth.

DoD is hoping that by doing better work awarding contracts they can save a portion of the $20 billion. They are looking for their industry partners to provide the rest through efficiencies in management and production costs. One issue that will be dominant is a goal to begin maximizing the use of fixed price contracts over cost plus and time and material ones. This is the part that will be hardest for industry to swallow or adjust too.

Cost plus and time and material contracts have their place in the realm of government acquisition. Cost plus are normally used for development efforts and the transition to steady state production. They are used because the risk is high to both the government and contractor in the areas of schedule and cost. Buying and developing new capabilities are hard and expensive. Schedule slips cost money and using fixed price contracts puts all of the cost risk on the contractor — not the government. In the past using fixed price for development work have been a failure. Contractors find themselves bearing all of the cost overruns which leads to program’s either being canceled or new contracts with more money being negotiated.

Time and materials sound like what they are. The government buys services by paying for the labor and materials used to provide it. Fixed price might limit the contractor in what services they can provide or who they can hire.

Fixed price contracts force everything to be managed to price and cost. If the contractor doesn’t do a good job of pricing the original contract it can get messy very fast.

Certainly it should be possible to eke out $20 billion from the $400 billion spent a year this applies too. That means some contracts and programs may be eliminated or cut back which will hurt the providers.

Congress too will play a role as eventually they decide what the Defense Department spends. Just by eliminating earmarks the money could be found fairly easily in the total budget. Unfortunately Congress earmarks because they want to. It is hard for them to not do it. They will fund the programs they want to fund to the level they desire no matter what the Pentagon requests.

Certainly the idea of leaning out production is viable. This though happens when a program is in steady state and costs are well understood. The problem with development programs is that their costs are estimated at various stages using the best models around, but often problems happen that are not expected. Problems lead to cost growth and schedule growth.

In the end it might just be easier for the Pentagon to cut $20 billion in spending by eliminating programs. Then that money can be put into those that are favored. That will cost some defense contractor a contract and a service a modernization program that they need.

Despite Government’s Intentions Industrial Base Continues to Shrink

Both the Obama Administration and Congress are expressing concerns with the shrinking U.S. defense industrial base. Highlighted by the fact that there is only one American company, Boeing (BA), able to bid on the critical KC-X aerial tanker program the fact is over the last twenty years the available defense contractors has been contracting. Despite efforts by the government to spur more competition recent M&A activity only continues to shrink the supplier base.

Ideally the government wants as large an industrial base as possible to provide more competition and hopefully better prices. Congress is working on legislation to try and guide the Defense Department to consider new and innovative sources. Unfortunately as past performance ranks as one of the bigger considerations when a contract is awarded it is hard for new companies to break in, especially if they are selling hardware. The traditional suppliers like Boeing (BA), Lockheed Martin (LM), Raytheon (RTN), General Dynamics (GD) and Northrop Grumman (NOC) still dominate when it comes to aircraft, tanks and other major programs.

Over the last ten years there has been market penetration by the large European defense contractors especially by BAE Systems (BAE:L) of Great Britain. This company has made judicious acquisitions of U.S. contractors and now makes vehicles, artillery and support equipment for the U.S. military. EADS (EADS:P) through its U.S. subsidiary has some contracts with the military but is trying for the KC-X aerial tanker contract which will cement its role as a major U.S. supplier if they win.

Despite these plans M&A activity among defense contractors continues. Honeywell announced a major acquisition of the European firm, Sperian, to broaden their exposure to the personnel protection equipment market. The Canadian company, CGI, plans to acquire U.S. technical support contractor Stanley in another billion dollar deal significantly expanding their presence in the U.S. market.

These moves while good for the companies involved reduce options for the Defense Department. It is hard for a new company to break through unless they offer a significant price advantage then other contractors. Often though the military has been burned by going with the lowest price as these sometimes end up being unrealistic and the companies cannot deliver what is promised at the price awarded. This makes those evaluating bids gun shy of these situations. They end up preferring a known quantity at a higher price over an unknown one.

Unestablished suppliers sometimes have a hard time breaking through. Air Tractor, Inc. makes agricultural and utility aircraft. They are trying to bid on a new contract for Afghanistan. Since their rugged aircraft don’t have things like ejection seats or retractable landing gears they don’t meet some of the requirements. The company argues that those kind of needs are not really applicable and should be looked at again. Sometimes DoD places too many requirements on systems and that stifles innovation and prevents new products from being considered and this contract is an example.

Congress wants to use changes in policy to expand the supplier base but this may lead to risky contracts. The reflex to criticize the Defense Department and contractors when there are cost and schedule issues makes it hard to be innovative or different. The U.S. in order to gain industrial base expansion may need to spend money less efficiently.

Photo from stevecadman’s flickr photostream.

Alabama Offers Advantages to EADS For KC-X as Boeing Workers Strike

If EADS’ (EADS:P) American subsidiary wins the contract from the U.S. Air Force for the new aerial they will assemble the basic aircraft at a new facility in Mobile, AL. When they along with Northrop Grumman (NOC) had the short lived contract two years ago to build the KC-45 derivative of the Airbus A330 the plant would have been used then. Once the contract was lost to Boeing’s (BA) protest the plans to use the plant were put on hold.

EADS has already stated that if they executed the contract all A330 transport production would be transferred to America from current European plants. There are several benefits to EADS by doing this. First the weak dollar will help lower costs of materials and production. Secondly Alabama is a right-to-work state and a non-union workforce is almost guaranteed. This will be a big change from the highly unionized and regulated workforces of the company in France, Germany and Spain.

There is currently a movement by both U.S. and foreign companies to move production and other services back to the United States. A good deal of these decisions are being driven by the dollar’s strength and to take advantage of excess capacity.

The Japanese automakers have been doing this for years driven by U.S. requirements for car assembly in the States. Honda, Toyota, Nissan and others have plants primarily in Southern States primarily due to the lack of unions as well as the desire of those states to provide economic assistance and financial incentives. Volkswagon for example has just started production of a large plant outside Chattanooga, TN to illustrate that this process is still on-going.

If a company like EADS is going to produce aircraft for the U.S. military it would make sense to try and assemble these in the U.S. As already demonstrated during the last two years of struggle over the KC-X contract it helps them get Congressional support. The advantage of a non-union workforce will not only help costs but prevent potential issues with labor relations and strikes.

Strikes are one of the most disruptive events that may affect production for the military. The only worst thing is really sabotage. The Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (SAC) strike in 2006 affected production of the UH-60 Black Hawk aircraft for the Army and the SH-60 model for the Navy. These aircraft were and continue to be critical to U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The strike was settled after six weeks but it left bad feelings between the company, its unions and customers.

Boeing has suffered several strikes over the past few years. These have not only affected their civil aircraft production but also military products. On Sunday the union representing workers at their St. Louis, MO plants voted to authorize a strike if negotiations don’t resolve contract issues related to seniority. The threat was quickly followed by workers in Kansas where the new Boeing tanker would have some work done.

The workers at the Long Beach, CA facility where the C-17 transport is manufactured have now been on strike for two weeks due to current contract negotiations. This just further illustrates the point that despite the priority of military systems even they may be delayed by the Boeing workforce.

Boeing has moved to counter the reliance on unions by establishing a production facility in South Carolina which is also a right-to-work state. In this way they are mirroring the Japanese automakers and EADS.

At a time when one of the biggest messages in Boeing’s favor is to not delay the KC-X contract any longer by allowing time for EADS to bid or waste time with a competition. If a strike did happen that delayed 767 tanker production once Boeing won the contract it would be a serious black eye for the company and its supporters.

Boeing could try to avoid this by slowly moving production to its South Carolina facility which presumably will be non-unionized but that would antagonize its Washington based Congressional allies. There would also be a cost associated with the move that might increase the cost of the production beyond what the Air Force wants or initially awards. The hope is that the KC-X will use a fixed price contract so Boeing would have to have a good estimate going in and try to limit upfront costs.

EADS by starting out in Alabama avoids the potential issue with a unionized workforce. This should also have mean labor costs for the assembly portion of the aircraft. Score one in the foreign company’s favor.

Datamonitor Report on the Global Top 10 Aerospace and Defense Companies

Our premier sponsor, ASD Reports, is offering a new one form Datamonitor on the Global Top 10 Aerospace and Defense Companies. You can find it here. This report provides a “comprehensive view of the aerospace & defense industry and its top 10 companies.”

Defense Technology International Publication

This publication focuses on the critical role of defense technologies in programs, policies, programs and funding, providing readers with integrated intelligence and global perspective in Land, Sea, and Air. For military officers, government officials and lead system integrators involved in air, land or sea defenses,

Get it here now.

Land Munition Solutions 2009 Conference

Insurgent threats in operational theatres are continuing to diversify. Without an effective munitions management and procurement strategy the ability of our forces to fight the irregular warfare battle will become diminished.

Land Munition Solutions 2009 will bring together over 200 leading military, government and industry experts in the munitions field to discuss and debate the key issues facing the munitions industry today, such as:

• What effect have current operations had on our munitions acquisition and management strategy?
• What are the urgent operational requirements and what is affordable?
• A detailed examination of insensitive munitions
• How is the target set changing in operational theatres and its effect on current stockpiles?
• What future solutions will increase lethality yet reduce collateral damage?

We are honoured to present a distinguished speaker panel, brought from across the world. Their presence along with that of the assembled delegation of senior level military and industry attendees will ensure 3 days of unparalleled learning and networking opportunities.
Here from speakers including:

• Jyuji Hewitt, Deputy Commander, US Army Joint Munitions Command, USA
• Dr Joseph Lannon, Director, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), USA
• Dr Helmut Muthig, President & CEO, TDW Gesellschaft für verteidigungstechnische Wirksysteme mbH and Vice President for Germany of the Insensitive Munition European Manufacturers Group (IMEMG), Germany
• Lieutenant Colonel Michael Koehler, In-Service Manager Army Ammunition, German Army Office, Bundeswehr, Germany

Land Munition Solutions will be the only place to discuss and understand the latest munitions developments, meet with the key procurement personnel and see the latest solutions being developed by industry.

Please visit www.land-munitions.com for full programme and speaker updates. Please quote LMS DPN

Sponsor: BAE Systems

Anti-Submarine Warfare 2009 Conference

Clarion Events presents another must attend conference for those concerned about current capability challenges and skills in ASW. It will be held on the First and Second of December in London, U.K.

‘Submarines are decisive force projection and sea denial platforms, whose numbers, utility and impact look set to increase as geo-strategic competition re-emerges and irregular activity grows at sea in the coming years. Developed states have failed to invest sufficiently in the skills and technologies necessary to counter a wide range of modern submarines and mini-submarines, with the result that even modest submarine capabilities are likely to pose significant threats, both to the international system and to naval and other expeditionary forces.’

Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Chris Parry, Former Director General, Development, Concepts and Doctrine, UK Ministry Of Defence
There has never been a more appropriate time for the world’s key stakeholders in ASW to meet and discuss their capability challenges. With the diversion of platforms away from ASW, pressures on military spending and the continued debate over the growing underwater threat there is no doubt there is a major gap in the ability to detect and neutralise these threats. The conference will cover the key issues in ASW including:

• What are the current and emerging underwater threats?
• To what extent are we going to sustain our open ocean ASW capability?
• Do we know enough about ASW in the littoral environment?
• How do we best integrate future ASW capability and how can it be affordable?

Anti-submarine Warfare 2009 will bring together personnel from across the ASW community, technical and scientific leaders, long-term ASW commitments and requirements personnel and organisations at the forefront of ASW solution development.
At this conference you will:

• Learn from other leading nations and commands in the field of ASW
• Identify and understand the evolving underwater threats
• Network with 200+ ASW specialists
• See the latest solutions from industry

Anti-submarine Warfare 2009 will be the event that will aim to answer the central question – how must we embrace and undertake future ASW operations?

For more information visit:
www.anti-submarinewarfare.com

Email:
[email protected]

Tel:
+44 (0)20 7370 8668

ASD Reports Latest On The Counter-IED Systems Market

Our premier sponsor, ASD Reports, is offering a new one on the The Counter-IED Systems Market 2009-2019. You can find it here. This report discusses how this sector will expand through urgent needs to counter improvised explosive devices. The report “examines this sector comprehensively, providing a review of current programmes and products with an emphasis on revenues.”

Land Munition Solutions 2009 — Management – Affordability – Precision

Land Munition Solutions 2009 — Management – Affordability – Precision

In an age of Counter Insurgent operations and rapid technological change, land based munitions and their requirements must be continually reviewed for both their relevance and reliability. Whether it is the way we manage them at home, the method of their delivery to theatre and to training establishments or their eventual use; effective land munition solutions are critical for greater efficiencies throughout their entire life cycle including their development, testing and fielding in operational theatres.

Many nations face challenges in their ability to manage their ammunition effectively including the types, age, amount and quality of their current stocks. This conference will look at what efficiencies can be made and what effect this has on keeping munitions safe, relevant and ready for distribution and use by the warfighter. At this conference you will learn:
• What effect have current operations had on our munitions acquisition and management strategy?
• What skills must we keep updated for an effective industrial base?
• What are the urgent operational requirements and what is affordable?
• What are we doing to make munitions safer for their handlers?
• How is the target set changing in operational theatres?
• What future solutions will increase lethality yet reduce collateral damage?

Land Munition Solutions will enable delegates to meet with those at the forefront of munitions development; top level technical, procurement and operational military personnel.

The format of the event – roundtable discussions, extended Q&A time, panel sessions and networking opportunities – will encourage participants to share knowledge and experience.

ASD Latest Report on European Logistics

Our premier sponsor, ASD Reports, has written a new one on the European Defense Logistics (Information Systems) Market. You can find it here This report discusses the transformation from a system that is a “mass model of dumping huge amounts of supplies into a combat theater to a lean, agile delivery system focused on war fighter needs.”

Has Force Protection Turned the Corner?

It has been a good few weeks for Force Protection. First they set up the joint venture withe British company Morgan Crucible JV to produce new armored support vehicles for the British military. Then they won a contract from Hungary for three Cougar vehicles plus support. While this is not a large contract it may certainly lead to other contracts from the new Eastern European NATO countries. Now it is reported that they have won a contract from the U.S.M.C. for upgraded MRAP vehicles. The big prize that is still out there is the MRAP-ATV contract which will build a new, lighter and more maneuverable vehicle for use in Afghanistan. Force Protection had been losing work in 2007-2008 after a big boom in 2005 and out due to the rapid demand for MRAP driven by the reaction from Congress to the IED threat. The company’s stock declined rapidly and there was a shareholder suit filed. If the company can keep up this pace and win some of the MRAP-ATV work then it will have a solid future for the next few years. Depending on how the new budget integrates MRAP and the future replacement for the FCS requirement there might be more work there for a long time. More to come on this for sure.

Good and Bad News for Boeing in Gates’ Proposals

Today Secretary Gates announced the broad themes of Obama’s next year’s defense budget. Several major Boeing programs were cut. The KC-X tanker though keeps going so there is still hope that the company will win that contract. The Seattle Times has a writeup here of the challenges the company faces. Unfortunately for the company the F-22 and C-17 programs will finish after completing whatever aircraft are on order. The Airbone Laser will remain as an R&D program and the second aircraft won’t be built. The CSAR-X helicopter program will be canceled as well. Boeing won this originally but the award was overturned on protest and a new competition was being held. Boeing will also significant cuts to the Ground Based Mid-course ballistic missile defense system which it was the System Integrator on. The Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) will also be restructured with all ground vehicles cut out of it. Boeing was the leader on this program as well. Overall the proposed budget contains some major hits to the company. There is no guarantee that the budget will make its way through Congress with all these proposals in it, but if some stand then the company will see a loss of business. These could be made up from other contracts or new work as the DoD remakes itself.

Alaska’s Disadvantaged Businesses Comfortable that Obama’s Rules Won’t Affect Them

Last Tuesday, 4 March, President Obama announced some new rules affecting how the government will try to contract. One of them is to try and reduce, or even eliminate, no-bid contracts. Of course he may not have explored fully Federal procurement rules and goals. One of the types of companies that qualify to get these sole source contracts are disadvantaged, minority owned corporations. This rule is to encourage Federal work flowing to these companies. Now the Alaskan Native corporations (ANC) have put out that this change in how the government will operate won’t affect them. TMCNet.com reports that the four largest of these all basically said that their business will continue. Most of these disadvantaged business are limited to contracts under $5 million, but due to a quirk in the law the ones owned by Alaskan natives do not have such limits. In 2004 these ANC had over $1 billion in business. This illustrates that some reforms, if it is a reform, will be harder then others due to the various, somewhat arcane provisions, of Federal contracting and the different goals set by the government. If you want to encourage non-traditional companies from doing business you may have to accept or adjust your desires in other areas.

NetLine Reports on Defense Procurement News

One of our sponsors is NetLine Corporation who publish various trade publications and white papers. Their add is the Free Business Downloads. One of their premier titles is Defense Technology International (DTI). This free magazine “focuses on the critical interplay of programs, policy, funding and operations to provide integrated intelligence and global perspective to defense and government leaders worldwide.” They also have several other government and defense related titles that are worth reading.

Grant Thornton Corporate Finance LLC Releases New Report on Aerospace Component M&A

The Grant Thornton Corporate Finance LLC released a new report on M&A activities within the aerospace industry. It is titled, Sector outperforms: 2008 M&A activity matches prior-year record, the report details recent M&A transactions; discusses market trends and prospects; and reviews activity in the related segments of composites, MRO & distribution and defense systems.

For more information please contact the company. Their website is located here.

New MRAP Proposal Submitted by Oshokosh

As was written about at BNET: Government the U.S. military is moving forward with a new generation of MRAP vehicles that will be lighter and more maneuverable for Afghanistan. The Business Journal of Milwaukee writes that Oshkosh submitted its proposal on 9 January for the program. Oshkosh along with BAE, Navistar and Force Protection would seem to be the main contenders for the program. The MRAP-All Terrain Vehicle program will be managed like the recent JLTV award for multiple development contracts with a test and evaluation program for different vehicles. More then one successful design may be awarded production contracts as the program goes.

Next Page »

• Archives

  Select Month May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 December 1969 0

• Browse By Topic

  Select Category AADC AAI Corporation AAR Corporation ABB Bomem Ace Electronics Acquisitions Adams Brothers Adaptive Methods ADSI ADT ADVS Aecom Technology Aeroleaders 2.0 AeroVironment afghanistan Agility DGS Agusta Westland Air National Guard Airbus Akimeka Technologies Alabama ALAS Defense Systems Corporation Alaska Alder Foods Alenia Aeronautica Alion Allen Vanguard Alliant Lake Alliant Techsystems Allied Defense Group Allison Transmission Alphaport Altair Engineering AlumiPower AM General Amercian Systems AmericaQual Group LLC AmeriQual AMTEC Corp. Archer Western Contractors Argon ST Arizona Armstrong Tools Arotech AS&E ASC Astra Microwave AtHoc Software atk Atlanta Cutlery Atlas Air ATS Corporation Austal Australia Austria AVI BioPharma Avineon Axiom Resource Management Babcox & Wilcox backers bad news BAE Systems Battelle Memorial Institute Bayview Edison Industries BBN Technologies Bearing Point Belgium Bell Bell Canada Biometrics bioTRAiTS BL Harbert International Black & Veatch Bliley Technologies BMMI BNET Boeing Booz Allen Hamilton BRAC Brazil BRS Brush Wellman Bulgaria Business Line Butt Construction BVR Systems BVT Surface Fleet CACI Caddell Yates CAE CAE California campaign manager Campbell-Ewald Canada Careers Carmanah Technologies CDO CEi Ceradyne CGI Chemring Cisco Citigroup Cleveland BioLabs Cobham Defense Electronic Systems Colombia Colt Colt Defense CombiMatrix Commentary commercial aviation Companies ComTech Concurrent Technologies Congress Connecticut Contingency Management Group Contract Additions Contract Awards Countries Cray Cree crime CSC Cubic Curtiss-Wright Czech Republic D’Assault DARPA DB Control DCK Pacific DE Technologies Defense Systems Holding Denmark Department of Defense detriment development program Digital Fusion DISA DLA DRS Technologies DSME DTRA Ducommun Dynamic Flowform Dyncorp DZSP 21 e mail EADS EADS Astrium Earnings Eaton Editorial EEI EFW Inc. EG&G Egypt Elbit Elbit Systems ELTA Systems Embraer EnergySolutions England Environet ESRI Esterling Defense Technologies Estonia Events Evinrude Evolved Machines Express Scripts Fairway Medical Technologies Federal Budget Process Fidelity Technologies Finemeccanica Finland FLIR Florida FMS FN Force Protection Ford France GAO GATR Technologies GE General Atomics General Dynamics Georgia Germany Goodrich Greece Grohman Growler grumman Gryphon Technologies HAL Hamilton Sundstrand Harbert International Harris Corporation Harris Technical Hawaii Hawker Beechcraft Heckler Koch Hensel-Phelps Construction Herley Industries Hesco Hewlett Packard HGS HII Hires Holland Honeywell HP HTSI Humana Hydrema IAI IAP Worldwide Services IBM ICS Impeva Labs Inc India Industry Analysis Insitu Intermec Iraq Ireland Irkut iRobot ISR Israel IT Italian Alenia Aeronautica Italy ITSI ITT Corporation J&J Worldwide Japan Justice Department K-CX News Kaman Corp Kamov Kansas Kazakhstan KBR KC-X KC-X Tanker News Keres Consulting Konsberg Kratos Kuwait L-3 Laser Energetics Limo-Reid Lockheed Martin logistics MacAulay-Brown Mahindra Satyam mail exchange Maine Malaysia ManTech Marinette Marine Maryland Massachusetts MB Aerospace McDonnell Douglas McTaggert Scott MDA medicine Menlo Worldwide Mercedes Metal Storm MHI Michigan Microsoft MiG Military Aviation Miltec Mincom missile defense Mississippi Missouri MTC Incorporated Nammo Nanocomp NASA National Presto Industries Navantia Navistar NetLine.com New Mexico New York New Zealand NFS NGIA NIITEK Norsat northrop grumman Northrop Grumman Corp. Norway NRO ObectVideo Ohio Olin Corp One Network Oracle Orbital Systems Oshkosh Truck Corp Osiris Therapuetics Pakistan Paradigm Peck & Hale pennsylvania Pennsylvia PEO(STRI) Plasan Plasan North America Point Blank Solutions Polaris Powerwave Pratt & Whitney Press Releases production program Promotions Proposal Protest PSM GmbH Qatar QinetiQ Raman International Rand Raydon Raytheon RaytheonThalesSystems Reaction International Ltd Reed Incorporated Relm Wireless Restructuring RLM Holdings Robys Country Gardens Rockwell Collins Rolls-Royce Russia S S&T SAAB Sabalcore Sabre Defence Saft SAIC Satellites Saudi Arabia Savi SBIR Schott North America SCIA Scotland Secure Communication System Seeking Alpha Seprotech Serco ServerVault Services SETA Seven Q Seven Seyr Daimler Puch Shaw Group SI International Siemens Sierra Nevada Sikorsky SMDC SoBran Solazyme Sonju Industrial South Africa South Carolina South Korea space Spain Spectrum Communications SPSA SRI International States Sukhoi Sun Microsystems SupplyCore Suspensions Sustainable Oils Sweden Switzerland Syndicated Industry News Syntiron LLC Sypris Solutions Tactical Air Defense Services TAIC Taiwan Talley Inc. tankers Tata TCS Technest Holdings Teledyne Technologies Telelogic Telos Corporation TelstraClear Telus Tenix Group Texas Textron Textron Marine & Land Thales ThyssenKrupp Trade Shows and Events training TSSI TTM Technologies Turkey U.S. Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security U.S. Marine Corps U.S. Navy UAE UES Inc. UltraCell Unisys Unitech United Aircraft Corp. United Launch Alliance United States UnitedHealth URS US SOC USCG USJFCOM UTC V Systems Composites Verizon Vermont ViaSat Video Viper Aircraft Virginia Visure Solutions VMD Vodafone Vought VT Group Washington Watts-Weitz WFS wichita eagle Widepoint Wisconsin women in uniform Woodward Governor Worldtech International Wyle Labs

• Browse By Subject Tags

  5 million afghanistan air force armed services committee bae systems BNET Government Industry Boeing business day business wire chief executive officer Contract Awards defense budget defense contractors Defense Industrial Base Department of Defense EADS General Dynamics grumman house armed services committee indefinite delivery indefinite quantity indefinite quantity contract intelligence surveillance KC-X KC-X Tanker News l 3 communications Lockheed Martin missile defense agency nasdaq northrop grumman Northrop Grumman Corp. northrop grumman corporation nyse nyse amex press release raytheon company technorati tags today announced that upi u s air u s air force u s army u s department u s marine corps u s navy york business

• Blogroll

  • Contract – U.S. Dept. of Defense
  • Defense Industrial Base
  • KC-X Tanker News
  • Transparency International UK – Defence and Security Programme

• Pages

  • Archives
  • Site Map
  • About Us

• Search This Site

  

  Custom Search
• • 
• • 
• • 

• Recent Posts

  • Defense M&A — Seeking Alpha
  • AM General’s JLTV Candidate to be Unveiled in Warren — Press Release
  • Lockheed Martin Completes Delivery of 17 CC-130J Super Hercules Aircraft to Canada — Press Release
  • Raytheon fires Excalibur from G6 self-propelled howitzer — Press Release
  • More F-35 Work for Lockheed Martin

• FREE Business Downloads

• Latest Defense News

  • Pratt & Whitney and Boeing Representatives Sign Engine Contract to Power U.S. Air Force’s KC-46 Tanker — Press Release
  • GAO Expresses Concerns with KC-46A Development
  • Contracts for March 23, 2012
  • Contracts for March 22, 2012
  • Contracts for March 21, 2012
  • Contracts for March 20, 2012
  • Contracts for March 19, 2012
  • Contracts for March 16, 2012
  • Contracts for January 30, 2012
  • Contracts for January 27, 2012
  • Contracts for January 26, 2012
  • Contracts for January 25, 2012
  • Contracts for January 24, 2012
  • Contracts for January 23, 2012
  • DoD Testers Express Concerns with KC-46A Schedule
  • Contracts for January 20, 2012
  • Contracts for January 20, 2012
  • Contracts for January 19, 2012
  • Contracts for January 18, 2012
  • Contracts for January 17, 2012
  • Contracts for January 13, 2012
  • Contracts for January 12, 2012
  • Contracts for January 11, 2012
  • Contracts for January 10, 2012
  • Contracts for January 10, 2012
  • Contracts for January 09, 2012
  • Contracts for January 06, 2012
  • Recriminations in Kansas for Boeing
  • Contracts for January 05, 2012
  • Boeing to Close Wichita Facility
  • Contracts for January 04, 2012
  • Contracts for January 03, 2012
  • Contracts for January 03, 2012
  • Boeing May Not Work on KC-46A in Kansas
  • Contracts for December 30, 2011
  • Contracts for December 29, 2011
  • Contracts for December 28, 2011
  • Contracts for December 27, 2011
  • Contracts for December 27, 2011
  • Contracts for December 23, 2011
  • Contracts for December 22, 2011
  • Contracts for December 21, 2011
  • Contracts for December 20, 2011
  • Contracts for December 19, 2011
  • Contracts for December 16, 2011
  • Contracts for December 15, 2011
  • Contracts for December 14, 2011
  • Contracts for December 13, 2011
  • Contracts for December 12, 2011
  • Contracts for December 09, 2011
  • Contracts for December 08, 2011
  • Contracts for December 08, 2011
  • Contracts for December 07, 2011
  • Contracts for December 06, 2011
  • Contracts for December 05, 2011
  • Contracts for December 02, 2011
  • Contracts for December 01, 2011
  • Contracts for November 30, 2011
  • Contracts for November 29, 2011
  • Contracts for November 28, 2011
  • KC-46A Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) Indicates Higher Costs
  • Contracts for November 25, 2011
  • Contracts for November 23, 2011
  • Contracts for November 23, 2011
  • Contracts for November 22, 2011
  • Contracts for November 21, 2011
  • Contracts for November 21, 2011
  • Contracts for November 18, 2011
  • Contracts for November 17, 2011
  • Contracts for November 16, 2011
  • Contracts for November 15, 2011
  • Contracts for November 14, 2011
  • Contracts for November 10, 2011
  • Contracts for November 09, 2011
  • Contracts for November 08, 2011
  • Contracts for November 07, 2011
  • Contracts for November 04, 2011
  • Contracts for November 03, 2011
  • Contracts for November 02, 2011
  • Contracts for November 01, 2011
  • Contracts for October 31, 2011
  • Contracts for October 28, 2011
  • Contracts for October 27, 2011
  • Contracts for October 26, 2011
  • Contracts for October 25, 2011
  • Contracts for October 24, 2011
  • Contracts for October 21, 2011
  • Contracts for October 20, 2011
  • Contracts for October 17, 2011
  • U.S. Air Force and Boeing Complete KC-46A IBR
  • Contracts for October 19, 2011
  • Contracts for October 18, 2011
  • Contracts for October 14, 2011
  • Contracts for October 13, 2011
  • Contracts for October 12, 2011
  • Contracts for October 11, 2011
  • AUSA 2011 Annual Meeting & Exposition
  • Contracts for October 07, 2011
  • Contracts for October 05, 2011
  • Contracts for October 05, 2011

  More Defense News -->