O petróleo está em queda, mas a incerteza continua em alta

[Fogueiro]

Zacks Independent Research raised the estimated earnings per share of RAYTHEON CO (RTN) for the fiscal year ending December 2007 to $3.29 from $3.08.

Zacks Independent Research raised the estimated earnings per share of Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMT)for the fiscal year ending December
2007 to $6.65 from $6.05.

[/b]

[Fogueiro]

Tks

[MarcoAntonio]

Done!

[Fogueiro]

Argolada...

Vou olhar para a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)e depois volto.

Com as pressas nem reparei que MRAP era uma sigla e
não um ticker...

Nota: uma asneira, de vez em quando, faz parte do meu salário.

[Keyser Soze]

India's MRCA Fighter Competition

"It's the biggest fighter aircraft deal since the early 1990s," said Boeing's Mark Kronenberg, who runs the company's Asia/Pacific business. DID has offered ongoing coverage of India's planned multi-billion dollar jet fighter buy, from its early days as a contest between Dassault, Saab, and MiG for a 126 plane order to the possible entry of American competitors and even EADS' Eurofighter. What began as a lightweight fighter competition to replace India's shrinking MiG-21 interceptor fleet appears to have bifurcated into two categories now, and two expense tiers.

So, what's going on? In a word, lots. The participants are changing, India's view of its own needs is changing, and the size and nature of the order may be changing as well… (updated Nov 10, 2006).

The Competitors: Analysis

Recent changes in India's needs and the contest participants are changing the relative rankings of the contenders. Geopolitical considerations are also intruding, as most of these choices have the potential to improve relations with an important potential ally. As noted above, standardization arguments will also carry weight. India's Air Force currently operates 26 different types of aircraft, and India is not eager to add to its support headaches.

Rather than predict, DID will simply summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the current and potential competitors. These aircraft also group into two very different categories: single engine lightweight fighters in the $25-40 million flyaway range (F-16 Falcon, JAS-39 Gripen, MiG-35, Mirage 2000-5); and larger dual-engine mid-range fighters in the $55-70 million flyaway range (Eurofighter, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Rafale).


Lightweight Fighters


F-16 Fighting Falcon (Lockheed, USA). Presumably, Lockheed's "Block 70" offering would be an upgraded version of the F-16E Block 60 "Desert Falcon" currently serving with the UAE. Strengths include the widest multi-role capability among lightweight fighters, its AN/APG-80 AESA radar, a wide choice of proven avionics and systems, a long record of proven service so all issues are known, and widespread compatibility with potential allies in Asia and the Middle East who also fly F-16s. The combination of an AESA radar on a less expensive platform is also good news for cruise missile defense efforts, if that's considered a priority.

Yet the Indian Air Force has just never seemed interested in the F-16. Weaknesses include the fact that Pakistan also flies F-16s; the fact it's a new aircraft type so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; and the difficulty Lockheed would have complying with industrial offset provisions given their lack of penetration in India.

JAS-39 Gripen (Saab, Sweden; marketed by Britain's BAE). True fourth generation lightweight fighter, significantly more capable than category competitors like the F-16 and Mirage 2000 though the MiG-35 may give it a run for the money. Other strengths include the fact that it has been designed for exceptional cost of ownership, and can operate from roads instead of runways if necessary. The JAS-39 A-D models' use of a modified F404 engine also indicates that it could be modifiable to use India's Kaveri engine (the Tejas LCA will use F404 engines until Kaveri is ready, if it ever is); but the next-generation model is upgrading to the F414G engine, and is likely to need a corresponding level of engine performance.

The next generation Gripen Demo version Saab is now offering also begins to address the aircraft's range limitations, and the new aircraft will also include an AESA radar and other enhancements. Its drawbacks include the fact it's a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; and a low volume of international orders to date that raises questions about the platform's ability to modernize over the next 30 years. Saab usually handles industrial offsets via its automotive group, which could represent either a difficulty or a market opportunity for the company. It also carries no spin-off geopolitical plusses, and this last weakness may be the real nail in its competition coffin.

MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35 (Rosonboronexport, Russia). This modified MiG-29 includes improved radar and avionics that give it multi-role capability, extra fuel in a new aircraft "spine," and thrust-vectoring engines a la India's SU-30MKIs. Their presence in India also makes compliance with industrial offset requirements easier. Strengths include compatibility with the existing and future MiG-29 fleet, and its ability to carry advanced Russian missiles already in service like the revolutionary AA-11/R-73 Archer and longer range AA-12/R-77 "AMRAAMski." The MiG-29's biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability; the MiG-35 fixes them, and may even add an AESA radar of its own if Phazotron-NIIR can have its new Zhuk-MAE ready in time. Technology sharing and co-production is also considered to be a plus; as one Indian officer put it: "Russians have their problems of delayed projects and unreliable spare supply but they give access to everything, unlike the Americans."

Its biggest weakness is the IAF's not-so-great experience with India's existing MiG-29s, which have had maintenance problems in addition to their other deficits. Secondary weaknesses include legitimate speculation about the future viability of the platform, which has been eclipsed by the SU-30 to the point that its design bureau's very industrial future is seriously in doubt. Although Algeria's $1.8 billion order has helped, some industry observers have forecast that without a win in India, that platform and even RSK MiG itself may not have much of a future.

Mirage 2000-5 (Dassault). Withdrawn, for reasons that still aren't entirely clear. Richard Aboulafia points out that the history of global fighter purchases shows strong clustering at the lower-price end of the market; shutting down Mirage 2000 production would shut Dassault out of that niche. A Mirage 2000 entry would have had strengths that included compatibility with Mirage 2000s already in service, which performed very well in the 1999 Kargil skirmishes. An infrastructure already exists for industrial offsets, and its low end price could be raised along with its capabilities by adding equipment developed in the Rafale program.

The Mirage 2000's potential performance similarity to the Tejas LCA project is both weakness and strength. One the one hand, that would have made it a good insurance policy if confidence in the Tejas fell. On the other hand, it may not have been seen as adding enough to the force mix if confidence in the Tejas program is high.

Tejas LCA (HAL et. al., India). A lightweight, indigenously-developed fighter aircraft expected to enter service around 2010. Currently in testing using GE's F404 engine, while the accompanying Kaveri jet engine project remains in the R&D stage and has been forced to find foreign design help. The Tejas is not an MRCA competitor – but its development plans, the confidence in its success, its ability to stay under $25 million, the potential for a naval variant, et. al. will have a behind-the-curtains influence on every MRCA decision. See DID's in-depth coverage of the Tejas LCA program for more.


Mid-Range Fighters


Eurofighter Typhoon (EADS/BAE, Europe & Britain). A fourth generation aircraft currently optimized for the air-air role through its performance characteristics and what is by all accounts an excellent pilot interface. Reportedly has "supercruise" capability of being able to exceed Mach 1 without using afterburners, though some analysts have cast doubt on how sustainable that is. Some observers believe that aside from the F-22A Raptor, the Eurofighter is the next-best in-service air superiority aircraft world-wide (a competition with the SU-30MKI would be interesting). Future upgrades will give it more mult-role capability. EADS Airbus might be able to handle the industrial offsets angle if things ever got that far.

Weaknesses include the fact it's a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed; its lack of an AESA radar; its lack of naval capability; and the non-existent geopolitical benefits of selecting it. Given the Eurofighter's performance and cost range, simply buying more SU-30MKIs would appear to make far more sense.

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet (Boeing, USA). Highly upgraded version of the F/A-18 A-D Hornet, enlarged and given new engines and avionics. Strengths include its powerful AN/APG-79 AESA radar, which has drawn significant interest from India. This radar could allow Super Hornets to play a unique role in India's fighter fleet as versatile "quarterbacks" (or better yet, "cricket captains") due to their radar's performance and information sharing abilities. Other advantages include carrier capability, a very wide range of integrated weapons, a design that is proven in service and in combat, and complete assurance in its future given the US Navy's commitment to it. The existence of a dedicated electronic warfare variant as of 2009 in the EA-18G Growler may also be a potent motivator, as long-range strike and carrier strike will increasingly require this unique capability. Last but certainly not least, this choice offers an opportunity to create an early "win" which would strengthen India's new alliance with the USA and prove its new status in the world. After all, no other nation has even been offered the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet.

Weaknesses of the platform include poorer aerodynamic performance than the Eurofighter or Rafale due to inherent airframe limitations, and the fact it's a new aircraft type for the IAF so the entire support infrastructure would have to be developed. Industrial offsets could also prove challenging, but the Super Hornet's Boeing connection may be able to solve this problem via the civil aircraft market.

Rafale (Dassault, France). Advantages include demonstrated carrier capability in the Rafale-M, which could be a very big factor if the RFP includes that as a requirement. The aircraft offers exceptional ordnance capacity for its size, and can have its range extended via conformal fuel tanks (unknown to DID whether this has been tested on the Rafale-M). It also offers superior aerodynamic performance over the F/A-18 family. The Rafale claims "supercruise" capability, but observers are skeptical and it has been challenging to demonstrate this with the Snecma R88-2 engine. Installing the Kaveri engine may be possible, and would give that engine a broader fleet of aircraft that would amortize its costs better – albeit at a likely performance penalty. The Rafale would have some equipment, maintenance and spares commonalities with existing Mirage 2000 fleet, which would probably increase if the Mirage 2000s were modernized later on.

Weaknesses include the fact that the Rafale has yet to win a single export competition worldwide, the need for additional funds and work integrate many non-French weapons if one wishes to use them on the Rafale, and its lack of an AESA radar. Rafale's failure to win export competitions means more than a perception of "also-ran" status; as DID noted in an update to our Singapore fighter coverage (the Rafale lost to the F-15SG Strike Eagle), it is already forcing cuts in future Rafale procurement to pay for modernization, a dynamic that could get worse over the next 30 years.

F-35 Joint Stike Fighter (Lockheed-led, multinational). India's Chief Air Marshal recently specificaly noted that the JSF was not in their plans for this buy, a likelihood that DID's analysis had noted earlier due to probable lack of availability before 2015. If it were flying today, the F-35B would probably be by far the best fit for India's requirements. The planes would be carrier-capable from all of India's naval air platforms, including smaller carriers the size of INS Viraat (ex-Hermes) or LHD amphibious assault ships, and could use roads and short field runways as well for maximum operational flexibility. F-35 JSFs would sport ultra-advanced systems that include the AN/APG-81 AESA radar, and incredibly advanced sensor systems and electronics that would make it India's most capable reconnaissance asset and even a potential electronic warfare aircraft. Other strengths would include greater stealth than any other competitor, which is critical for both air-air dogfights and strikes on defended targets. The Super Hornet may be able to fill the role of an aerial cricket captain, but the JSF is more like Sachin Tendulkar.

India has been invited to F-35 events. With potential US order numbers dropping, India might even be accepted into the program if they pushed for it. The F-35's killer weakness is timing. Its advanced systems, established industrial partnerhsip structure and program procurement policies could also make it nearly impossible to meet India's industrial offset rules.


in http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mir ... ges-01989/

[fiódor]

Já agora, uma acabada de sair...

09 Aug 2007 13:19 GMT


Lockheed Martin to supply long-range radar to Thai air force
SYRACUSE, New York (Thomson Financial) - Lockheed Martin Corp said it has won an order to provide a TPS-77 long-

range, air surveillance radar to the Royal Thai Air Force.

No financial terms were disclosed and Lockheed said the the radar will be installed and operational in 2009.

Lockheed said the deal is its first direct commercial sale to the Thai government.

tf.TFN-Europe_newsdesk@thomson.com

[Keyser Soze]

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles are a family of armored fighting vehicles designed to survive IED attacks and ambushes. There is no common design; there are several vendors, each with a competing entry.[1] The US Marine Corps, who are spearheading the MRAP program, plans to replace all HMMWVs in combat zones with MRAP vehicles.[2] As armored vehicles are considered an "urgent need" in Iraq and Afghanistan, this program is primarily funded under an "emergency war budget." For fiscal year 2007, US$1.1 billion is earmarked for MRAP.[3] This program is very similar to the US Army's Medium Mine Protected Vehicle program.[4]

MRAP vehicles are usually built with a "V" shaped hull that assists deflection of a mine or IED blast away from the vehicle’s interior keeping the passengers safe and the vehicle intact. This design dates to the 1970s when it was first implemented by South African company, Land Systems OMC, whose vehicles have since been used by various military forces around the world.

A variety of contracts have been placed by the United States for this type of vehicle in response to the situation in the Iraq War. By issuing contracts to several companies, the Marine Corps hopes to accelerate the rate of production, in order to expedite their delivery to their forces. However, there are only two steel mills in the United States, Oregon Steel and International Steel Group, qualified to produce armor steel for the Defense Department, which has been in negotiations to ensure enough steel is available to keep pace with production.[5] The concept is to replace Humvee type vehicles with a more robust, survivable vehicle when on patrol "outside the wire'.

Designs have been submitted by the following companies.

* Armor Holdings (which announced its purchase by BAE Systems on 7 May 2007)[6]
* BAE Systems
* Force Protection Inc
* General Dynamics Land Systems
* General Purpose Vehicles
* International Truck and Engine Corporation
* Oshkosh Truck
* Protected Vehicles Incorporated
* Textron Marine and Land Systems


Orders

MRAP Program

Partial list of orders under the MRAP program:

* On January 30, 2007, FPI received an order for 2 Cougar H and 2 Cougar HE vehicles for testing and evaluation by the USMC for the MRAP program.[7]
* On February 14, the Marine Corps Systems Command placed a US$67.4 million delivery order for 65 Category I Cougar H, and 60 Category II Cougar HE vehicles,[8] as well as a US$55.4 million delivery order 15 Category I BAE RG-33 vehicles, and 75 Category II BAE RG-33L vehicles, built in York, Pennsylvania.
* On April 24, the Marine Corps Systems Command placed a US$481.4 million order with Force Protection for 300 Category 1 Cougar H vehicles and 700 Category II Cougar HEs.[9]
* On May 31, the Marine Corps Systems Command ordered 1200 Category 1 International MaxxPros at a cost of $623M.[10]
* On June 1, FPI received an order for 14 Category III Buffalo vehicles from the Marine Corps Systems Command. The contract is worth an approximate US$11.9 million and is scheduled for completion by spring 2008.[11]
* On June 19, the Navy placed an order on behalf of the Marine Corps and Army for 395 Category 1, 60 Category 2 Force Protection Cougars at a cost of US$221 million, and for 16 Category 2 International MaxxPro XLs for the sum of US$8 million.[12]
* On June 28, amended July 16, BAE received a US$235.8 million order for 16 RG-33 Category I patrol vehicles, 239 RG-33L Category II vehicles, 170 RG-33 Cat I variants for the United States Special Operations Command, out of their total allotment of 333 vehicles, and 16 RG-33L Category II Ambulance variants, which are the first vehicles in the competition specifically listed for the ambulance role.[13][14]
* On July 13, Stewart & Stevenson (Armor Holdings) received an order for 1,154 Category I and 16 Category II MRAP vehicles from the Marine Corps Systems Command. The vehicles are for delivery by February 2008 and the order is worth US$518.5 million.[15]
* On July 20, IMG received an additional order for 755 Cat I MaxxPro MRAP vehicles. [16]

Parallel Programs

Orders of vehicles associated with the MRAP program:

* On June 19, 2007 the US Army ordered an additional 44 BAE RG-31 Mk 5 vehicles and an additional 369 M1117 ASVs.[17]


Categories

The MRAP class is separated into three categories which describe the vehicle's weight class and size.

Category 1 (MRAP-MRUV)

The Mine Resistant Utility Vehicle (MRUV) is smaller and lighter, designed for urban operations.

Category 1 MRAP vehicles ordered or currently in service:

* Armor Holdings Caiman - 1,154 ordered for delivery by February 8 2008 .[18][19][20]
* BAE OMC RG-31[21]
* BAE RG-33 4x4[22]
* Force Protection Cougar H 4x4 - 700 vehicles ordered. [23][24]
* International MaxxPro - Two Cat 1 prototypes delivered,[25] 1,944 vehicles ordered. [26][27]
* Textron M1117 Guardian - Removed from competition. As of May 18, 2007, has been notified by the USMC that they will not be receiving any additional orders as part of the MRAP program.[28]
* Protected Vehicles Inc./Oshkosh Truck Alpha - Although 100 vehicles were initially ordered, OshKosh were notified by the Marine Corps on June 29, that they would receive no further orders for the PVI Alpha due to "concern regarding overall vehicle survivability" and other fundamental design deficiencies of an automotive and ergonomic nature, adding that remediation "would require significant redesign".[29][30]

Category 2 (MRAP-JERRV)

The Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Rapid Response Vehicle (JERRV) is designed for missions including convoy lead, troop transport, ambulance, explosive ordnance disposal and combat engineering.

Category 2 MRAP vehicles ordered or currently in service:

* Force Protection Cougar HE 6x6 - 700 vehicles ordered.[31]
* BAE RG-33L 6x6
* GDLS RG-31E
* Oshkosh Truck Bushmaster IMV
* Protected Vehicles Inc Golan Armored Vehicle
* International MaxxPro XL - 16 vehicles ordered.[32]
* Armor Holdings Caiman - 16 vehicles ordered [33]

Category 3

* Force Protection Buffalo

Effectiveness

The MRAP may not be effective against Explosively Formed Penetrators (EFP), which use a shaped charge to form a hypervelocity jet of metal, capable of cutting through thick armor. Use of EFPs more than doubled in 2006 and is expected to continue to increase.[34] [35] However, the Marines estimate that the use of the MRAP could reduce the casualties in Iraq due to IED attacks by as much as 80 percent.[36] The alleged MRAP weakness is being addressed by the next generation MRAP II.

MRAP II

On July 31, 2007, the Marine Corps Systems Command launched an MRAP II pre-solicitation, to develop a new vehicle that offers a higher level of protection than the current MRAP vehicles, particularly from advanced threats such as explosively formed penetrators.[37] In addition, the new solicitation will provide the Joint Program Management Office with a greater flexibility to increase production capability and provide vehicles with enhance protection and performance to meet future near-term requirements.[38] Full text of the solicitation can be found here.

Ceradyne announced the introduction of the Ceradyne BULL, a vehicle designed to compliment the MRAP and MMPV programs, on June 7, 2007 .[39] This vehicle differs from most existing MRAP vehicles in that it claims to be able to defeat Explosively Formed Penetrator type IEDs.[40] On July 27, OshKosh announced an agreement with Ceradyne Inc. and Ideal Innovations Inc. to develop the Bull on a current combat-proven OshKosh chassis.[41] It is now thought that the BULL will be the Ceradyne/Oshkosh submission to the MRAP II competition.[42]

in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRAP_(armored_vehicle)

[MarcoAntonio]

Excelente recolha, Keyser.

É notável que um país que representa 4.5% da população mundial, apresente 46% dos investimentos na Defesa a nível mundial.

Não muito menos que o resto do mundo todo junto...

[Fogueiro]

Bom trabalho, Keyser Soze!

Se fosse de 1970, aquela lista incluiria Portugal, com a Fabrica de Braço de Prata, que pena o PREC tê-la mandado para as urtigas!

Da minha lista, as preferenciais eram LMT, PCP, GD e RTN que são aquelas em que já entrei, além da BEAV, que já estava na Carteira NY há algum tempo. Esta última também faz upgrades do interior dos aviões de passageiros e até foi porque acredito no aumento da procura disso que a comprei inicialmente.

Vou olhar para a Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP)e depois volto.

Podes ver quais as não-americanas da tua lista que têm ADRs em NY?

[Keyser Soze]

in http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation ... bg1918.cfm

Military spending

May 8th 2007
From Economist.com

SAUDI ARABIA'SS military expenditure amounted to 8.8% of GDP in 2005, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank. America spent 4% of GDP, though its total was $495.3 billion, compared with the Desert Kingdom's $25.4 billion. Saudi Arabia has expensive tastes, buying military hardware, such as jet fighters, from its British and American allies. China spends less, at 1.4% of GDP, but it has the second-biggest total expenditure after America, if exchange rates are calculated to reflect purchasing-power parity.

Keeping the peace

Jun 6th 2007
From Economist.com

INOFFENSIVE Norway comes top in a global-peace index of 121 countries compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Little surprise, then, that it was also home to three Nobel peace-prize winners. The EIU's index takes note of 24 indicators like militarisation, crime rates, involvement in conflicts and relations with neighbours, so small democracies tend to fare well. America, at a lowly 96th position (only one above Iran), is dragged down by factors such as its involvement in Iraq and heavy military spending. On the other hand, American residents have done their bit for world peace too. More Nobel prize winners have lived there than anywhere else.

[Keyser Soze]

Military budget of the United States

The United States military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated for the funding of the Department of Defense. This military budget finances employee salaries and training costs, the maintenance of equipment and facilities, support of new or ongoing operations, and development and procurement of new equipment. The budget includes funding for all branches of the military: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.

It does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, e.g. $120Bi in 2007).[2]


Budget for 2007 [3]

link oficial: http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/ ... et/fy2007/

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007 is:

Total Funding $439.3 Billion +6.9%
Operations and maintenance $152.2 Bil. +6.6%
Military Personnel $110.8 Bil. +3.7%
Procurement $84.2 Bil. +10.5%
Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation $73.2 Bil. +3.1%
Military Construction $12.6 Bil. +57.5%
Family Housing $4.1 Bil. +2.5%
Working Capital Funds $2.4 Bil. +9.1%

Further, the Department of Energy will spend an additional $23.4 Bil. during FY'07 for the development, maintenance and production of nuclear warheads. [4]


According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in 2003 the United States spent approximately 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion.

As percentage of its GDP, the United states spends 3.7% on military. This is higher than France's 2.6%, and lower than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[6] This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP. Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[7]

Because the U.S. GDP has risen over time, the military budget can rise in absolute terms while shrinking as a percentage of the GDP. For example, according to the Center for Defense Information, the US outlays for defense as a percentage of federal discretionary spending, has from Fiscal Year 2003 consumed more than half (50.5%) of all such funding and has risen steadily.[8] Discretionary spending accounts for approximately 1/3 of all federal outlays[2]. Therefore, comparing nominal dollar values of military spending over the course of decades fails to account for the impact of inflationary forces, for which military spending as a percentage of GDP does account.

The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are funded outside the Federal Budget (through supplementary spending bills), so they are not included in the military budget figures listed above.[9] In addition, the United States has black budget military spending which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures. Other military-related items, like maintenance of the nuclear arsenal and the money spent by the Veterans Affairs Department, are not included in the official budget. Thus, the total amount spent by the United States on military spending is higher.


in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... ted_States

[Keyser Soze]

A defense contractor is a business organization or individual that provides products or services to a defense department of a government. Products typically include military aircraft, ships, vehicles, weaponry, and electronic systems. Services can include logistics, technical support and training and communications support.




in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor



List of modern armament manufacturers
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mo ... ufacturers


List of United States defense contractors
in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un ... ontractors

[Keyser Soze]

Major arms industry corporations by nation


Argentina
Fábrica Militar
Fábrica Militar de Aviones

Austria
Glock
Steyr Mannlicher

Australia
Tenix
Australian Defense Industries
Australian Submarine Corporation

Belgium
Fabrique Nationale de Herstal

Brazil
Taurus

Canada
Colt Canada

China
Norinco

France
EADS
Dassault Aviation
DCN
Thales Group
GIAT Industries

Germany
Carl Walther GmbH Sportwaffen
EADS
Heckler & Koch
Krauss-Maffei
Rheinmetall
Mauser - Manufacturer of the famous WWII K98.

India
DRDO
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited

Israel
Israel Aircraft Industries
Israel Military Industries
RAFAEL Armament Development Authority
Elbit

Italy
Beretta
Finmeccanica
Fincantieri
Avio
AgustaWestland
Benelli (firearms)

Norway
Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace
Nordic Ammunition Group

Russia
Kartsev-Venediktov Design Bureau
IZH
Sukhoi
Mikoyan

South Africa
Denel

Sweden
BAE Systems Bofors
Kockums
Saab

Switzerland
SIGARMS
RUAG
Pilatus Aircraft
Armasuisse
MOWAG (General Dynamics)

Turkey
MKEK
TAI
Aselsan

United Kingdom
BAE Systems
Cobham plc
MBDA
Rolls-Royce

United States
AAI Corporation
BAE Systems Inc.
Boeing
Carlyle Group
Colt's Manufacturing Company
General Atomics
General Electric (primarily through GEAE)
General Dynamics
Honeywell
Lockheed-Martin
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Raytheon Corporation
United Defense (now BAE Systems Land and Armaments)
United Technologies (primarily through Pratt and Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation)


in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

[Keyser Soze]

A Indústria de Defesa

The arms industry is a massive global industry and business which manufacturers and sells weapons and military technology and equipment. Defense companies produce arms mainly for the armed forces of States. Products include guns, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships, electronic Systems, and more. The arms industry also conducts significant research and development.

It is estimated that yearly, over 1 trillion dollars are spent on arms. [1] Many industrialized countries have a domestic arms industry to supply their own military forces.

Contracts to supply a given country's military are awarded by the government, making arms contracts of substantial political importance. The link between politics and the arms trade can result in the development of what US President Eisenhower described as a military-industrial complex, where the armed forces, commerce, and politics become closely linked. Various corporations, some publicly held, others private, bid for these contracts, which are often worth many billions of dollars. Sometimes, such as the contract for the new Joint Strike Fighter, a competitive tendering process takes place, where the decision is made on the merits of the design submitted by the companies involved. Other times, no bidding or competition takes place.

In the Cold War Era, arms exports were used by both the Soviet Union and the United States to influence their standings in other countries, particularly Third World Countries. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, global arms exports initially fell slightly, but have since grown again to cold war levels. [2] Russia is the world's top supplier of weapons, a spot it has held since 2001, accounting for around 30% of worldwide weapons sales, followed by the United States, France, Germany and Britain.[3][4]


Sectors

Aerospace systems

Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and naval aviation), conventional missiles, and military satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortiums mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter. [6]

Naval systems

All of the world's major powers maintain substantial maritime forces to provide a forward presence and enhance overall mobility, with the largest nations possessing aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and advanced anti-air defense systems. The vast majority of military ships are conventionally powered, but some are nuclear-powered. The U.S. Navy is by far the largest in the world, and most of the large contracts in this sector are awarded to American firms, such as Newport News Shipbuilding (a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman) and Bath Iron Works and Electric Boat (subsidiaries of General Dynamics). There is also a large global market in second-hand naval vessels, generally purchased by developing countries from Western governments. [7]

Land-based weapons

This category includes everything from light arms to heavy artillery, and the majority of producers are small. Many are located in Third World countries. International trade in handguns, machine guns, tanks, armored personal carriers and other relatively inexpensive weapons is substantial. There is relatively little regulation at the international level, and as a result, many legitimately produced weapons fall into the hands of rebel forces, terrorists, or regimes under sanctions. [8]


World's largest defense budgets

This is a list of the fifteen countries with the highest defense budgets for the year 2006. The information is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, [9] Total World spending amounted to $ 1,158 billion USD in 2006, with nearly half of the total amount spent by the United States.





in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

[Keyser Soze]

Este tópico é sobre assuntos militares e empresas que operam no sector da defesa.


Complexo Industrial-Militar

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship among a nation's armed forces, its private industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply material and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for revenue.

The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, and whose motivation is profiteering. The sociologist C.Wright Mills had in the book Power Elite, described how an elite consisting of men from the higher circles of Economic, Military and Political order were the real rulers, beyond democratic control.

According to historian William H. McNeill, the 2nd modern MICs arose in Britain and France in the 1880s and 1890s. The naval rivalry between these two powers was of utmost significance in the fermentation, growth and development of these MICs. Conversely, the existence of these two nations' respective MICs may have been the source of these military tensions. Officers like John Fisher influenced the shift toward faster technological integration (which meant closer relationships with private, innovative companies). Similar MICs soon followed in nations like Germany, Japan, and the United States.

Industrialists who played a part in the arms industry of this era included Alfred Krupp, Samuel Colt, William Armstrong, Alfred Nobel, and Joseph Whitworth.

Technology has always been a part of warfare. Neolithic tools were used as weapons before recorded history. The bronze age and iron age saw the rise of complex industries geared towards the manufacture of weaponry. These industries also had practical peacetime applications, as well. However, it was not until the 19th or 20th century that military weaponry became sufficiently complicated as to require a large subset of industrial effort solely dedicated to warfare. Firearms, artillery, steamships, and later aircraft and nuclear weapons were markedly different from medieval swords -- these new weapons required years of specialized labor, as opposed to part-time effort. Furthermore, the length of time necessary to build large weapons required pre-planning and construction even during times of peace. This trend of coupling some industries towards military activity gave rise to the concept of a "partnership" between the military and private enterprise.

In the case of the United States, it is difficult to estimate the degree of dependence of the U.S. economy on its military and defense spending, but it is clearly enormous, and legislators fiercely resist defense cuts that affect their districts. In Washington State, an economist estimated in 2002 that in Western Washington 166,000 jobs, or about 15% of the workforce, depended directly or indirectly on military installations alone, not counting defense industries. In Washington State overall in FY2001, about $7.06 billion arrived in U.S. Department of Defense payroll, pensions, and procurement contracts—and Washington State was only seventh among the fifty states in this regard.

Sustaining political support for the military-industrial complex has been a challenge for political élites. In 1977, after the Vietnam war and the Watergate crisis, President Jimmy Carter began his presidency with what historian Michael Sherry has called "a determination to break from America's militarized past" (In the Shadow of War: The United States since the 1930s [New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1995], p. 342). But the so-called "Reagan Revolution" successfully restored the preeminence of the military-industrial complex. By linking what Hugh Heclo of George Mason University has called a sacramental vision of America with the defense establishment, Reagan cloaked the nation and its national security state in the mantle of the Protestant covenant theology in a way that has become since the 1980s a shibboleth of the Republican Party—and of large parts of the Democratic Party as well.

President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address, on January 17, 1961:


"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU


In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government.

in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-i ... al_complex