E - Finmeccanica

More documents

Recommendations

Info

H I G H L I G H T S 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAGAZINE that billions also cover shortfalls in other accounts, from military pay to weapons repair. Some of these ‘shortfalls’ will disappear as troops come home from Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, but many will not. Future OCO funding is set for USD 50 billion per year, a cut of over USD 100 billion from today’s figures. However, CSIS estimates that an additional USD 20-30 billion will need to be absorbed into the ‘base’ defense budget. No one knows how much of that amount is spent on contracts or whether those contracts will need to be continued, so the impact on industry is uncertain, but even with one per cent growth, absorbing USD 20 billion will mean displacing other expenditures. The second challenge is how to pay for unfunded shortfalls. Even today’s USD 700 billion does not pay for everything the military plans to buy, from the Army’s future Ground Combat Vehicle and tactical wheeled vehicles to the cost of replacing the Ohio-class nuclear ballistic missile submarines. In addition, the cost of ‘reset’, replacing or restoring equipment used or damaged in Iraq or Afghanistan, could add tens of billions to the unfunded shortfall. The military services have struggled this summer to identify the size of these shortfalls and to fit them into the upcoming budget for FY2012 and beyond. In some cases, they have yet even to acknowledge that such shortfalls exist, preferring to hope that funding will be provided from elsewhere. Additional shortfalls will arise from rosy projections of the future cost of military personnel, including health care, and of the annual cost of operations, including contracts for services. Historically, DoD underfunds such projections by 1.5 per cent per year, and the failure to realize rosy projections will likely add perhaps USD 4 or 5 billion per year to the unfunded shortfalls. Overall, these shortfalls could require another USD 30-40 billion in funding. Failure to fund them will affect contract spending, though in ways that are too hard to predict at this time. The third and perhaps biggest challenge to US defense spending does not come from DoD at all. It is the challenge of reducing the annual US federal budget deficit. Projections from July 2010 call for record deficits in FY2011 and FY2012 of approximately USD 1.4 trillion per year. Economists disagree on whether the US economy needs more stimulus spending before deficit reductions begin, but domestic American politics will dictate that deficits will need serious attention, perhaps as soon as the FY2013 budget. Defense spending is nearly one quarter of total US federal budget spending, making it difficult to conceive of any serious deficit reduction plan in which DoD spending does not play a substantial role. Proportionally, DoD’s share could be as large as USD 100-150 billion per year. Today, it would be hard to get Congress to approve a defense budget with cuts of that size, but the domestic political environment could change as elected representatives and senators equate the threats of deficit spending with reduced overall national security. The factual landscape has already changed in this regard. For the entire period following the end of World War II, US defense spending has been higher than the annual federal budget deficit. That changed in FY2009, when for the first time, the deficit exceeded defense spending. Annual deficit projections remain larger than projected defense spending. More troubling still is the annual payment on the total federal debt, held down by historically low interest rates. CSIS projects that a mere one per cent increase in anticipated interest rates will mean that by as soon as FY2015, the US government will spend more on annual debt payments than on defense. This unprecedented budget reality makes it even harder for the US to address the deficit without including serious defense spending cuts. Taken together, these three challenges significantly increase the pressure on the US defense budget. The DoD response thus far appears vigorous but not large enough. First, Secretary Gates has called for increased efficiencies in defense spending, aimed at saving USD 100 billion over the next six years. All of those savings would be available to offset the shortfalls described above. That is, Mr Gates has said the military services, once they identify the actions that produce efficiencies, may reapply the freed-up funds to other needs. USD 100 billion over six years is roughly 2.5 per cent of the defense budget, but this will not be sufficient for either the OCO funding demands or the unfunded shortfalls. Still, this is a step in the right direction, and it has the added advantage of encouraging the open acknowledgement of shortfalls, but it is far too small to make much of a difference. In addition, DoD has undertaken additional actions to promote efficiency in contracts, which as noted above constitute nearly USD 400 billion in annual defense spending. Chief among these initiatives will be enhanced competition, framed by greater attention to affordability of requirements. In announcing the contract efficiencies, Dr Ashton Carter, the under secretary for acquisition, technology, and logistics, emphasized that his actions were not aimed at budget targets, but these acquisition efficiencies may nevertheless yield additional benefits and reduce budget pressures further. The size of the future budget challenge facing DoD is substantial, and current efforts will not be sufficient. However, there is time to work on these challenges, and other factors (including economic growth rates) may change the targets significantly. Regardless of the responses ultimately adopted by DoD and the US federal government, reliance on contractors will remain a prominent part of US defense spending, and the future of both the government and its contractors will be intertwined. Right: Robert Gates, US Secretary of Defense, on a visit to soldiers near Kandahar, Afghanistan 22 23
H I G H L I G H T S 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAGAZINE ©NASA OUR JOURNEY FROM SPACE TO EARTH INTERVIEW WITH NICHOLAS J.M PATRICK, KATHRYN P. (KAY) HIRE AND TERRY W. VIRTS, 3 OF THE 6 CREW MEM- BERS WHO THIS PAST 8 FEBRUARY BROUGHT NODE3 TRANQUILITY AND THE CUPOLA, MODULES SYNONY- MOUS WITH THE EXCELLENCE OF MADE IN ITALY, TO THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION From space to Turin, or Rome... 3 of the 6 American astronauts from NASA who this past 8 February brought Node3 Tranquility and the Cupola to the International Space Station came to Italy to meet in person the people and technology that made it possible for them to successfully carry out their mission. Listening to them tell the story of their daily lives in space is a truly unique experience, even more so considering that Nicholas J.M Patrick, Kathryn P. (Kay) Hire and Terry W. Virts became full-fledged protagonists in the history of space exploration with this mission. we were going to try to go to Test-Pilot School to see if I could be an astronaut. So that was... when we decided that, it was about 1997, I think. What is the image from space that you hold most dearly? Nicholas: Definitely the view from the Cupola. I was getting out of my EVA suit and Terry said “Nick come on ©NASA over and take a look at this fantastic view!” I looked outside and couldn’t believe my eyes. Terry: The Cupola with its 7 portholes pointed towards Earth that offered us a panoramic view that we had never before seen in space. How does technology help you deal with the ‘daily routine’ up in space? T: There are lots of different problems that we have to solve in space and some of them we solve with very basic things that we have here on Earth and then other ones require higher technology, ‘space age stuff’. We moved our Tranquility module and our Cupola and several other modules with the robotic arm using some advanced software that use computer graphics to show a virtual world where the Space Station is. It helps us to make sure that everything is clear when we are moving it around. And then, on the other hand, we did a lot of work inside and outside that just required basic mechanic skills. We were like auto-mechanics in space. You trained for a long time. What is the reality of dealing with microgravity? N: The one thing for which we can’t really train very well is micro-gravity. And, the reality is that it is much more difficult than you would expect. You don’t have to use muscles to hold yourself, you can just hold on very gently with fingertips and occasionally let go. The problem is that the things you need – and we need a lot of things to do our work in space – tend to float away unless you put them in a pocket (where you forget them) or grid them to a wall. A screwdriver behind your head, a flashlight inside the back of your shirt. Things just disappear and then reappear all of a sudden. What is the most comfortable place on the ISS? T: Oh, that’s a good question. There are a lot of nice places on the station and each place has its own flavor. It’s not like it’s all the same. Every room is different. Undoubtedly the European lab in Columbus, built by Thales Alenia Space here in Turin, was my favorite place to sleep. Node- 3 was very comfortable also because it was new and there wasn’t very much stuff in there, it was not crowded. At any rate, sleeping in space doesn’t have to be the same as in your own bed… N: The way we sleep in space is we use a sleeping bag and we likely tie down the sleeping bag to whatever surface you want to hold it against. You could use the floor, the wall. I When did you actually decide that this would become your job, to be an astronaut? Terry: Well, when I was a little kid, is when I actually wanted to be an astronaut. But it wasn’t until years later – when I was an Air Force F-16 pilot stationed in Europe in Germany – I was trying to decide what I wanted to do in the future. And we just came to the decision, my wife and I, that Right, clockwise, from top: George Zamka, Terry Virts, Kathryn Hire, Nicholas Patrick, Robert Behnken and Stephen Robinson Space Shuttle Endeavour lands in darkness on Runway 15 at the Shuttle Landing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida after 14 days in space. Top: the American astronaut Nicholas Patrick ©NASA/Sandra Joseph and Kevin O’Connell 24 25
Page 1: Finmeccanica magazine n.17 - 9/2010
Page 4 and 5: 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAGAZINE The 20
Page 6 and 7: H I G H L I G H T S 9/2010 FINMECCA
Page 10 and 11: PH RI GI MH O L I GP HI AT NS O 9/2
Page 16 and 17: H I G H L I G H T S ©NASA 9/2010 F
Page 18 and 19: F O C U S 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAGAZ
Page 28 and 29: H I S T O R Y 9/2010 FINMECCANICA M
Page 30 and 31: A E R O N A U T I C S 9/2010 FINMEC
Page 32 and 33: H E L I C O P T E R S 9/2010 FINMEC
Page 34 and 35: D E F E N C E A N D S E C U R I T Y
Page 36 and 37: D E F E N C E A N D S E C U R I T Y
Page 38 and 39: S P A C E 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAGAZ
Page 40 and 41: E N E R G Y 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAG
Page 42 and 43: T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 9/2010
Page 44 and 45: T R A N S P O R T A T I O N 9/2010
Page 46 and 47: P E O P L E 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAG
Page 48 and 49: P E O P L E 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAG
Page 50 and 51: E V E N T S 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAG
Page 52 and 53: E V E N T S 9/2010 FINMECCANICA MAG
Page 54 and 55: C H A R I T Y 9/2010 FINMECCANICA M
Page 56 and 57: AMERICANNews CYBER SECURITY: A CHAL
Page 58 and 59: AMERICANNews ASSESSING DEFENSE MARK
Page 60 and 61: AMERICANNews VISITING ELSAG: BEHIND
Page 62 and 63: AMERICANNews WHEN COMPLIANCE MEANS

E - Finmeccanica

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?