Aireon ALERT now open for pre-registration

On the same subject

• 

  March 7, 2022 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

  Guerre en Ukraine : le fabricant d’armes américain Lockheed Martin enchaîne les records en Bourse, Thales encore en dessous des siens malgré un gain de plus de 30%

  L’investissement ESG, très prisé en Europe, a longtemps pesé sur le cours de Bourse du Français Thales, qui tire 50%...

• 

  September 12, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  DSEI: British, Italian defense companies jump on Tempest

  By: Sebastian Sprenger and Andrew Chuter LONDON – BAE Systems and Leonardo on Wednesday formalized a partnership agreement to cooperate on the Tempest next-generation combat aircraft, following a pact signed between the U.K. and Italian governments late Tuesday afternoon. The inclusion of Italy in the ambitious project marks the third partner nation, following Sweden, that the British were able to sign. And BAE officials on hand here at the DSEI defense trade show hinted that more could follow soon. Leonardo brings with it a smattering of Italian companies, including Avio Aero and Elettronica, adding to the team of MBDA and Rolls Royce already onboard. BAE Systems chief Charles Woodburn said both nations and their respective industries are “committed” to seeing Tempest through. The program is envisioned to be a sixth-generation, aerial combat system featuring manned planes, drones, sensors and weapons working in unprecedented collaboration. The two countries already work together on the American-led F-35 as well as the Eurofighter Typhoon. Advancing those programs is also an explicit objective in the new partnership between London and Rome. A statement released by the UK Ministry of Defence Wednesday morning framed the government agreement – signed by Simon Bollom, the head of Defence Equipment and Support, and Lt. Gen. Nicolò Falsaperna, Italian Secretary General of Defence – as a broad pledge to cooperate on matters of “combat air capability.” The idea is to “deepen discussions on Tempest military requirements,” come up with a “road map” for feeding advanced Eurofighter capabilities into the future program, and facilitate an industry ecosystem to make it all happen, according to the statement. “The U.K. and Italy have a proven 50-year track record of working closely together on Combat Aircraft development and support through the Panavia Tornado and Eurofighter Typhoon programs,” reads the defense ministry statement. “Both governments confirmed a common desire for a strong industrial base to develop key capabilities and boost prosperity in both nations. The agreement also paves the way for closer industrial collaboration, including through shared industrial entities such as Leonardo and MBDA.” Leonardo CEO Alessandro Profumo lauded the joint Tempest effort as an “ambitious and strategically important” program. Joining it this early in the process, he said, would allow his company greater say in future decisions. The U.K.-Italy venture comes as France, Germany and Spain are working on their own version of Europe's next-generation weapon, the Future Combat Air System. With much pomp and circumstance accorded here to the Tempest effort, including promotion under the banner of the Royal Air Force and a full-scale mockup sitting prominently in the exhibit hall, the continental counterpart appeared more of a distant theory in comparison. The FCAS program, led on the industry side by Airbus and Dassault, has been dogged by a fundamental disagreement between German and France about the exportability of its envisioned components. Berlin taking a more restrictive stance than Paris when it comes to potential buyers in the Middle East. Following Spain's recent inclusion in the program, the Madrid government has designated electronics specialist Indra as the national industry lead, a move that left the Spanish Airbus division feeling burned, according to sources. Trade show attendees here associated with the FCAS program brushed aside the notion of Tempest as the more concrete proposal, noting how Brexit would cast a shadow of uncertainty on the UK's budget, not to speak of Italy's ongoing financial troubles. At the same time, the U.K.-Italian-Swedish and the Franco-German-Spanish efforts make for formidable competition in a continent where military budgets are limited. Asked by a reporter how he sees the two programs play out over the next ten years, Profumo only stated the obvious: “Two programs are more expensive than one.” So where might the British turn next in their quest for international partners? Woodburn, the head of BAE, told Defense News that talks with other possible partners are ongoing. "We are in discussions with other nations, but what it shows is there are plenty of people who want to join the team although they may be different types of partners to the ones we have right now," he said. Leonardo U.K. boss Norman Bone said Team Tempest hadn't stopped talking to core companies but were also looking at partners who bring other benefits. “We haven't drawn the line on industrial capability but maybe there are partners who bring money and markets in exchange for technology transfer,” said Bone. Enzo Benigni, the CEO of Elettronica, said his company's participation in Tempest is a crucial milestone for the company. “It's a partnership that will last 40 or 50 years,” he told reporters. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/11/british-italian-defense-companies-jump-on-tempest

• 

  April 6, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Pentagon denies it seeks to hide future budget information

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is pushing back on reports that it seeks to classify previously public information about its future spending plans, with the department insisting that the transparency of this information that is public as part of the regular budget rollout process will not change. The Future Years Defense Program provides spending projections for how the Department of Defense plans to invest its money over the coming five-year period. While the numbers are not locked in and regularly change year by year, the projections can provide valuable information to the public and industry about what the department views as priorities and where programs might be going. Information about a legislative proposal from the Pentagon seeking to classify FYDP data was published Monday by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood wrote that the proposal would “make it even harder for Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget.” It is traditional for FYDP numbers to be included as part of the budget rollout, as well as be included in program-by-program breakdowns. However, Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood said that the legislative language is not aimed at information that is currently made public during the normal budget process. Instead, it is focused on a requirement in the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on what is provided to Congress. “The 2018 NDAA required a formal unclassified version of the FYDP report,” Sherwood said in a statement. “The Department has not to date complied with that request because we are very concerned that providing that level of detail for the outyears might put critical information at risk and breach classification standards." “The DoD is exploring all possible paths forward, including requesting relief from the new requirement, as well as trying to determine how much information can safely be public in addition to all the budget information already made available,” he continued. “It is important to note that there is a difference between a formal Unclassified FYDP report and the unclassified outyear data for any given program that people often refer to as the FYDP for a program. We have and will continue to provide the classified FYDP as we have since 1989. There will be no reduction in any currently provided information,” he added. Asked specifically if that meant information about the FYDP that is usually included in public budget documents provided to media, Sherwood said: “The legislative proposal would not affect or change how DoD currently provides budget information.” Whether that assurance will satisfy advocates of keeping the FYDP open is uncertain, but the DoD appears behind the ball on convincing Congress that less transparency is a good idea. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas., the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said he had only learned of the proposal when reports emerged, but indicated that any attempt to limit information about the FYDP is unlikely to meet a warm reception on Capitol Hill. “Obviously my inclination is: That's a bad idea,” Thornberry said. “I have not heard the department's justification for it. But I would say they've got a pretty high evidentiary threshold to overcome, to get Congress [to] go along with classifying the five-year FYDP.” Thornberry said he understands the concern, elucidated in the DoD proposal, that modern computing techniques could allow a foreign competitor to gather information about American plans from the data. But taxpayers deserve to know how their money will be spent in the future, the former committee chairman said, and that outweighs such concerns at the moment. The House believes “that the greater good is the transparency with the American people. So that's our default position, I think in both parties,” Thornberry said. “They hadn't made their case to me yet, but I think it's going to be hard for them to overcome that default position.” The Pentagon ultimately benefits from more openness when it comes to discussions on the budget, said Tom Mahnken, a former Pentagon official who is now president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “It clearly is important to protect certain aspects of the U.S. defense budget from disclosure. The Defense Department has successfully met that challenge for decades,” Mahnken said. “But there is also a compelling case for disclosing how the Defense Department plans to spend its resources and whether its budget is aligned with its strategy. “Transparency ultimately helps the Defense Department make the case for the resources it needs in Congress as well as the public at large.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/04/03/pentagon-denies-it-seeks-to-hide-future-budget-information/