{"id":35075,"date":"2017-10-23T16:06:48","date_gmt":"2017-10-23T16:06:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/uncategorized\/2017\/10\/23\/interview-bae-systems-ceo-jerry-demuro-talks-priority-programs-and-the-trump-proactive-approach\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T00:15:35","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T00:15:35","slug":"interview-bae-systems-ceo-jerry-demuro-talks-priority-programs-and-the-trump-proactive-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/c4isrnet\/electronic-warfare\/2017\/10\/23\/interview-bae-systems-ceo-jerry-demuro-talks-priority-programs-and-the-trump-proactive-approach\/","title":{"rendered":"Interview: BAE Systems CEO DeMuro talks priority programs, and the Trump \u2018proactive\u2019 approach"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

BAE Systems, Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of BAE Systems plc in the U.K., is a defense giant in its own right \u2014 operating relatively independently as is required by U.S. procurement standards, but still competing handily with the largest companies supporting the military services around the globe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you ask CEO Jerry DeMuro, he\u2019ll say the main accomplishment thus far in his four years since coming on board from General Dynamics is further unifying a business primarily born out of acquisition. He sat down with Defense News to discuss the business today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What would you categorize as your three most critical military efforts right now?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would put electronic combat solutions, which is not just [electronic warfare]. It\u2019s got some offense and defense on cyber. It\u2019s got some countermeasures, whether they be electronic or infrared countermeasures protective systems. That whole class is just exploding and very high priority for our customers if you think about what the Air Force, particularly with its platforms, is trying to accomplish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before you move on to the next, let me interrupt you. In terms of EW, all we are hearing is how far behind the U.S. is, how we took our eye off the ball, and how Russia is advancing. What are your thoughts on that and what can industry do to push this forward?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think both the customer and industry are collaborating very well in what I would call sixth-generation capabilities, as well as being able to deploy the current capabilities in a very small form factor so they could be used in manned, unmanned, small platforms. Think of an application like the long-range anti-ship missile, the LRASM. We essentially put some of those capabilities, very small form factor, in the front end of a weapon. So some of the technologies are being applied very quickly to address those perceived gaps, at the same time we\u2019re working on the next generation of capabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Those capabilities involve] not only looking at emerging and advanced threats, multispectral threats, and being able to counter those, but also cognitive electronic combat. So you use machine-learning algorithms to characterize the threat in real time. Then, to develop and address that threat in real time as you look at the model today, it is understanding what that total threat profile is, developing the counters, loading it into the systems, and then off you go. This is about doing it in real time and being able to do it autonomously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do you feel the proper procurements are in place to actually get there?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think the right kind of development efforts and focused efforts are going on. There is quite a bit of dialogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Okay. So, other priority programs?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A very important and critical focus for us is in the land domain and particularly combat vehicles as both [the] U.S. Army and the Marine Corps recapitalize the combat vehicles fleets. There is a whole host of programs, which collectively begin to provide [the military] with capabilities that they say they need for the next couple of decades. [With the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle] program, I think the Army has taken a brief pause to think about a long service duration that these will have and building in the additional capacity for the growth in that long service period. At the same time, they are modernizing the balance of the Army brigade combat team vehicles. As you know, we have four of them. We are proceeding with a major upgrade to the self-propellant howitzer, the M109. The Bradleys are receiving some very significant upgrades in both mobility, command and control, and survivability. We are also looking at enhancements to the M88 [vehicle]; as these vehicles get larger, heavier, more complex, how do you service them in the field? So that whole category of programs, along with the amphibian programs that the Marine Corps is looking at.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s not just building those vehicles. It\u2019s also looking at next generation, generation and a half. How do we enhance lethality and survivability? So when I get to lethality, it is about also a set of programs related to precision-guided weapons. We have a whole class of things going on all the way from the [Advanced Precision Kill Weapon] System where we have gone from virtually zero to \u2014 I think this year we are going to do 10,000 units. It\u2019s a very popular weapon to be used on everything from the A-10 and the F-16 to rotary-wing aircraft, domestically and internationally. We have like 20 or 21 letters of request in on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can you talk me through BAE\u2019s strategy for the Mobile Protected Firepower program? What are you hearing from the Army?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think the Army is looking at its mission in Europe, in particular in the near term, as well as its recent experience in the Middle East, and [the need to be] able to project power very rapidly to that level of lethality. It\u2019s very difficult to move an Abrams [tank] in any quantity. I think this chief and his team would like to accelerate that. We see it very high on their priority list, as you know. BAE actually won the program back in the mid-90s to do essentially this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So if the Army is serious, and they certainly appear to be in our meetings with all levels [of leadership] including [Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army] Gen. [Mark] Milley, we intend to pursue it very vigorously. We think we have a great solution that will optimize mobility, lethality and survivability, and answer the needs of the Army. We are fully prepared for the very low-risk, high-performing solution, and we applaud the Army\u2019s initiatives in acquisition strategy, maybe taking some lessons from successful programs like [the Amphibious Combat Vehicle] to really reduce risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know BAE has a role in the LCS program. What do you think about the Navy\u2019s decision to pursue a new frigate design?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are not a shipbuilder. Our core capability is in modernization. That\u2019s where our expertise lies. Could we bring some of the skill sets and capital assets that we have to bear? If we had the right partner to design and build those ships. Design and new construction is not our forte.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Are there any other opportunities? I know the U.K. business is interested in actually pitching for the new frigate.<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Type 26 that they are designing and building for the U.K. I think is a fantastic ship. It is the most modern, purpose-design-built ship that I am aware of for the anti-submarine warfare mission, for instance. We might serve as a channel to market, or they might partner with a build yard. So that is wide open.<\/p>\n\n\n\t