While the Minister of the Armed Forces, Sébastien Lecornu, called on the Directorate General of Armaments, or DGA, to be more daring on October 24, Emmanuel Chiva's first announcements in this area will certainly have surprised more than one person.
In fact, the General Delegate of Armament did not announce a new technological program, or a new technical first, but the possibility, in the future, for France, to order, in anticipation of export, bare hulls of FDI frigates, from Naval Group.
In doing so, the DGA is moving closer to an analysis published on Meta-defense in 2021, which recommended, precisely, orders, in anticipation of export, of certain equipment built by the French defense industry, in order to reduce delivery times and production costs, in order to assert itself in future international competitions.
However, the operational buffer, as it was then called, went further in the thinking and in the use of the potential benefits that such an approach could bring to French industrialists, but also to the armed forces. Perhaps this is the right time to kill two birds with one stone, while the momentum is clearly well underway at the DGA?
In this section:
The Operational Buffer, as discussed in a Meta-defense article from July 2021
In many ways, The Operational Stamp, presented in 2021, is close to the strategy briefly mentioned by Emmanuel Chiva. It was, in fact, a question of anticipating export needs, by producing additional equipment on orders intended for the French armies.
The aim of this approach was, above all, competitive: by proceeding in this way, the armoured vehicles, frigates or combat aircraft offered by French manufacturers were available within much shorter timeframes than with a traditional order, which must be integrated into a production schedule that is difficult to disrupt.
In addition, these excess orders made it possible to smooth out the efficiency of industrial activity, with the key being cost reductions that could be very significant depending on the sector.
We recall, for example, that by moving from an order for 17 FREMM frigates delivered over 10 years for the French Navy to 8 frigates over the same time frame, the unit price of each ship almost doubled, just as was the case when the order for Tiger helicopters was moved from 215 units to 77.
In fact, the pre-production of the equipment made it possible to offer both unbeatable lead times and very aggressive prices, two arguments that are all the more decisive in times of crisis, as is the case at the moment.
If the defense industry was the first to benefit from this measure, it also benefited the French armed forces, which, for the occasion, saw their own equipment cost significantly less to produce, while amortizing development costs over a higher number of units produced.
There are 75% of this article left to read, Subscribe to access it!
The Classic subscriptions provide access to
articles in their full version, and without advertising,
from €1,99. Subscriptions Premium also allow access to archives (articles over two years old)
BLACK FRIDAY : – 20% on new monthly and annual Premium and Classic subscriptions, with the code MetaBF2024, until 03/12/24
The smartest and most influential site on the French military web 😄 Bravo Fabrice for your very constructive work and for your ideas which advance the debate!
Finally the beginning of the beginning of reflection of our Parisian brains, sclerotic by 30 years of benefits of peace. I don't really see the benefits at the moment, we are rather told about deficits, but hey!
for my part, which does not commit much, I think it would be wiser to release 3 well-armed and finished FDI frigates, which would be allocated to the French Navy, which would not harm them. in the event of a contract, these boats could be delivered very quickly and thus satisfy customers in a hurry. continuing to produce this frigate, well-born I think and apparently well-placed in price, could further reduce costs and allow it to win export contracts. the cost of fixed assets for Naval Group, which is only half state-owned and the other half private, if I am not mistaken would not be gigantic and the Navy using them could pay rent like a vehicle LOA. it is perhaps time to get out of the accounting logic of a state sclerotic by an administration that purrs while thinking about the time of leaving the office and which is not interested in the needs of those for whom it is supposed to work. These comments are only my own.
thanks.
So, in sum: https://meta-defense.fr/2024/08/02/programmes-industriels-de-defense-lpm24/
yes sir.
The Defense industry "rediscovers" the problems of the volume industry: producing in volume, in cycle time, in cost and in quality without compromising the "richness of the Offer" .. ("Any car as long as it is black" said H Ford at the beginning, then it was quickly made partly obsolete by the Marketing of the 50s/70s. We discover and implement "the explosion of the nomenclature" at the end of the process (Color, sunroof, engine, finishes .. in the automobile for example)
There are no unique solutions, volume effect on input costs, fixed and variable expense curves, lead times, limited physical or human capacities, depending on the "burst point".
The models exist, and are well taught in Engineering Schools (with the elective option "Industrial Engineering"). The "cases" often come from the US Defense Industry of 1943/44..B17, B24 Liberator...LibertyShips... with volumes multiplied by 100 or 1000 in 2 years..!
We should be pleased that the DGA is taking hold of it... because the process is as important as the technology if we want to move away from "luxury craftsmanship" (M Goya). This is evidence of a radical change of era and not understanding it is fatal for our BITD
In this case, to get out of the wooden language, do BITD companies need ESG criteria in their annual report? What do greenhouse gas emissions have to do with the rem of these executives? The mission of Dassault, Thales, EADS, Naval Group or KNDS is to provide us with the best possible weapons en masse. And we don't give a damn about knowing that they will have done it by satisfying far-left whims. The BITD must make it possible to provide weapons that themselves provide a democratic system.
But let's be honest, who can imagine Thales or Dassault making cheap weapons in quantity... I'm lucky enough to know some, they don't think like the people in the automobile industry (simple and repeatable millions of times), they think tailor-made and expensive. Senior executives, instead of being interested in this realignment, are paid by shareholders based on off-the-ground criteria. HR policies are orthogonal to what is necessary, because of the emergence of far-left activists in decision-making levels that should be protected from madness. I don't understand how we can leave so much room for such bizarre people, without reference points, without a compass, overripe fruit of too soft sciences, in instances that are vital to society.