November 2, 2020 | International, Naval

American shipbuilding: An anchor for economic and national security

By: Peter Navarro

“Don't give up the ship!” These were Capt. James Lawrence's dying words defending the USS Chesapeake during the War of 1812. Over 200 years later, the United States Navy and America's critical shipbuilding industry are issuing the same cry from shipyards across our nation.

Here is a simple truth: A true renaissance of America's shipbuilding industry will require a large-scale overhaul and new strategy before it can churn out the ships we urgently need to maintain our status as the greatest maritime power in world history.

In the first year of his “Peace through Strength” administration, President Donald Trump made a 355-ship Navy the official national policy by signing the 2018 Defense Authorization Act. Currently, however, we are asking too few ships to do too much while many vessels are decades old and severely backlogged for critical repairs. This egregiously long queue is an open invitation to foreign adversaries, who are displaying increasingly aggressive postures and rapidly expanding their own naval capabilities.

Today, only seven shipyards across the country are capable of constructing large or deep-draft Navy vessels. More subtly, each yard has become specialized to build a specific warship, whether it be a nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarine or an Independence-class littoral combat ship. This specialization, while optimal for workforce training and infrastructure investments at specific yards, makes them remarkably vulnerable when there is a downturn in government contracts or the private market contracts.

Foreign competitors such as China anchor their shipyards in tens of billions of mercantilist and predatory government subsidies every year. Unable to compete with such foreign subsidization, the American shipbuilding industry has lost 75,000 jobs — a decline of over 40 percent. For every shipbuilding job in America, three indirect jobs are supported. We have therefore allowed predatory foreign markets to steal approximately 300,000 good-paying American jobs — the population of St. Louis, Missouri.

Our strategic and economic adversaries know the importance of shipbuilding. To understand the dangers, consider this: From 2010 to 2018, the Chinese Communist Party has provided over $130 billion in shipping and shipbuilding subsidies. Now, it controls the world's second-largest commercial fleet by gross tons, and constructs one-third of the world's ships.

If Pax Americana is to continue, we must live up to the maxim of former Assistant Secretary of the Navy and 26th President Teddy Roosevelt: “A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace.”

Restoring investment in shipbuilding will leave a wake of prosperity for our economic security and send waves of strength for our national security. Expansion in capacity and capabilities of our shipyards will again incentivize commercial shipbuilding, increasing industry efficiency and creating competition, eventually lowering the overall cost of production. This must be our policy goal.

If we commit to a revitalization of our shipyards, in just a few years, scores of vessels could again make maiden voyages from American yards built at the hands of thousands of American steelworkers, pipefitters, welders and electricians — a renaissance of one of our nation's most integral industries. This would mean thousands of new jobs in Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and throughout the Gulf Coast. This means secure waters around Greenland, the Bering Strait and the South China Sea as well as the straits of Bab el-Mandeb, Malacca and Hormuz.

While the 296-ship fleet of the U.S. Navy is still the most powerful in the world, Communist China's People's Liberation Army Navy is now sailing approximately 350 warships and counting. Some estimates say Communist China's Navy could be as large as 450 ships by 2030 — and it's not just China that is a cause for concern.

While the Chinese Communist Party militarizes the South China Sea, Russia — which will assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in May 2021 — has been quietly rebuilding its Arctic fleet. This is a region that will be of critical importance in the years to come as northern shipping lanes open and natural resources make themselves available. As it stands now, the U.S. Navy can't effectively access these waters, as it lacks the ice-hardened warships to do so.

Our shipbuilding industry was once a bulwark of American manufacturing, but decades of neglect, ambivalence to predatory foreign markets and sequestration have caused it to take on water. If we don't begin patching the holes now, it won't be just an industry that sinks. It may well be our economic and national security, as we will be unable to protect the world's sea lanes — the arteries of commerce and veins of national defense.

While our enemies argue American manufacturing and might is on the decline, we repeat the battle cry of Capt. John Paul Jones: “I have not yet begun to fight!”

Peter Navarro is the assistant to the president and director of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy within the White House.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/10/30/american-shipbuilding-an-anchor-for-economic-and-national-security/

On the same subject

May 14, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Interview: Finland’s defense minister talks air defense, EU procurement regulations
By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Finland's defense minister, Jussi Niinistö, visited the Pentagon May 8 to sign a letter pledging greater trilateral cooperation between his nation, the United States and Sweden. After the event, he talked with Defense News about his goals for the meeting, shared concerns about the European Union's new defense initiative and Finland's relationship with NATO. Finland just signed a new statement on trilateral defense cooperation with the U.S. and Sweden, but it's fairly broad language. What do you see as the most concrete part of the agreement? Firstly, I have to say it is not a “trilateral agreement,” in a legally binding way. It is a statement of intent, and there is a big difference with that. I think the most important part of the statement of intent is the exercise part. We have had good exercise cooperation with the United States and Sweden lately. For instance, last year, Sweden arranged a multinational exercise called Aurora, [in] which both U.S. and Finland participated. For instance, right now in Finland there is an Army exercise called Arrow, there are U.S. Marines taking part in that. In the autumn, there will be a big exercise in Norway called Trident Juncture ― high-visibility exercise. Finland will be taking part with 1,500 or up to 2,000 soldiers, and also Sweden is taking part in that big exercise. Remember that in 2021, Finland will be arranging a similar kind of exercise like Sweden did with the Aurora exercise, so we will have over 20,000 soldiers in Finland, and the most important partners in that exercise are the Untied States and Sweden. But the 2021 exercise has been in the works for a while. So does this change that at all? Well, it is a cooperation done on a win-win basis. We go to exercise, for instance, to Sweden or the United States, Finnish Air Force is taking part at Red Flag exercise in October this year. This is the first time in Finnish Air Force history that we take part in this biggest exercise in the world. The United States comes to our exercise. So everybody hopes to benefit in this cooperation. Finland has been very supportive of the EU Permanent Structured Cooperation on Security and Defence initiative, but the U.S. has been wary. Did that topic come up during your talks with U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis? Yes, it was a topic. PESCO is a topic, I guess. Every time Secretary Mattis meets with a European counterpart, he will talk about PESCO. And I understand it. We talk with the same voice on this issue because, for instance, the United States defense industry is worried about this PESCO project, [if it will] lead to the fact that every country in the European Union has to buy defense products from the European Union. And Finland doesn't want it to be like that. We have a strong opinion that we want to buy the best available defense material, wherever we want, because since 1992, when Finland decided to buy F-18 fighter planes, we have been practically married with United States defense technology, and we buy a lot of stuff, from Israel also. So for a country like Finland, which is militarily nonaligned and has territorial defense, [it] has to take care of defense on her own if needed. Of course we hope partners [will come to our aid], but alone if needed. It's very important that PESCO is not excluding [non-EU industries]. Finland is in the early process of buying a new fighter. How do you balance between quantity and quality when looking at the new fighter? We have money for €7-10 billion (U.S. $8-12 billion), and we are going to buy 64 fighter planes. We have been always counting on quality: quality on planes and quality on training our pilots. Our pilots are the best in the world, let me say that, because they are trained so well. We have our own special program. We train them in Finland, and they get along very well in international [exercises]. I am thrilled to see what happens in the Red Flag exercise, what is the level of expertise of Finnish pilots now, because it has been very good during the recent years. Sweden is looking to buy Patriot, and some of the Baltics have limited networked air-defense capabilities. Would you want an interoperable system among all Baltic nations for air defense? No. No. We are not exploring that kind of possibility. But we have done cooperation when it comes to radar with Estonia. For instance we bought medium-range radars, we purchased 10 and Estonia two, so we bought them together. So we do that kind of cooperation. And it was a couple of years ago. Could you see that expanding to other nations or areas? We can buy together. For instance, we bought ― last year I was able to buy surplus material from South Korea, K9 Thunder self-propelled howitzers, 48 pieces. At the same time, we negotiated the same deal for Estonia, who is going to buy [the same]. So we do that kind of cooperation all the time, [but] Estonia is part of NATO, we are a militarily nonaligned country. We make materiel procurements together, but it doesn't bind us. What do you want to see happen from the upcoming NATO summit? There are issues to be discussed inside NATO, for instance, the command structure. But of course we are looking forward to taking part in the Resolute Support mission, and the political dialogue all in all is important for us. We want to be part of that, and I know Sweden does too. Anything you will specifically be pushing for? Well, Finland is not going to push in a NATO summit. We just hope that we can take part in these summits in the future and have this important political dialogue together and to be partners in NATO, enhanced-opportunities partners. That is good for our defense capabilities. That, we want to continue. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/05/11/interview-finlands-defense-minister-talks-air-defense-eu-procurement-regulations/
September 28, 2018 | International, Naval, Land

Is this the Marine Corps' next amphibious combat vehicle?
By: Todd South MARINE CORPS BASE QUANTICO, Va. ― The winner of a contract to develop the Marine Corps new amphibious combat vehicle, the first of its kind in four decades, showcased a potential variant that would give commanders eyes on all areas of the littoral battlefield, on-board drones and targeted hand offs to any ACV in their formations. BAE Systems guided reporters through the interior of the vehicle, on display at this year's Modern Day Marine Expo in Quantico, Virginia, on Tuesday. The variant isn't one that the Marines have yet requested, but John Swift, program director for BAE's amphibious vehicles, said the model was an effort to showcase what's possible with the new vehicle. Marines selected the BAE version earlier this year over SAIC's proposed vehicle. Swift noted that decision keeps BAE as the sole company providing such vehicles to the Corps since 1941. They've got to build 30 vehicles by the end of next summer, Swift said. Those vehicles will then go through testing before modifications and the composition of the fleet is decided. Marines want at least two variants as production begins in the next two years: a turreted assault vehicle and a command and control vehicle. As of now, the Corps' official numbers call for 704 ACVs for the fleet when full rate production begins in 2022. That number is planned to be completed within six years, Swift said. The composition of the fleet is still undecided, so the initial 30 vehicles delivered for testing will be basic platforms. But that was before an announcement reported by Defense News this week that the survivability upgrade contract for the existing AAV fleet of an estimated 392 AAVs was cancelled. The move is in line with larger National Defense Strategy aims to ramp up modernization by prioritizing money for those programs rather than legacy platforms. Marine Corps Program Executive Office for Land Systems spokesman Manny Pacheco told reporters at this week's expo that the early version, or ACV 1.1 outperformed expectations and delivery of the new vehicles would not take much longer than the planned upgrades, which could shorten the calendar. The deliveries were about six months apart, he said. Meaning that the brand-new vehicles would arrives shortly after the upgraded vehicles were planned. Swift and Pacheco said separately that the ACV 1.1 was able to both launch and recover, meaning return to ship. That wasn't an expectation until later versions, which sped up the capability development of the new vehicle, giving the Marines other options in how they would pursue modernizing the fleet. In a question and answer posting about the ACV by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, officials at the time said they would continue the upgrade program even if the early ACV versions achieved a “self-deployable capability.” The posting noted that the upgraded AAVs will “address capability gaps that need to be closed as soon as possible.” It went on to say that the aged AAV fleet also accounts for one-third of the Corps' lift capacity and “will need to remain operationally effective in the force until their replacements are procured.” Later in production there's also interest in building a recovery ACV, Swift said.https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/09/27/is-this-the-marine-corps-next-amphibious-combat-vehicle The new ACV has a host of differences and capabilities not on the more than 40-year-old AAVs but most immediately noticeable is it is an eight-wheeled vehicle. Gone are the treads of the tracked AAV. When asked about tire performance by reporters, Swift said that in testing the ACV was able to travel another 30 km with three debilitated tires. The same questions and answers list had several reasons for wheels over tracks: Greater mobility in complex, littoral terrain; • Increased IED protection (2X). • Reduced fuel consumption (
June 17, 2022 | International, Aerospace

La DGA commande un prototype de laser anti-drones à Cilas
La Direction générale de l'armement (DGA) a annoncé, mercredi 15 juin, avoir passé commande auprès de la PME Cilas, basée à Orléans (Loiret). La DGA indique avoir attribué à Cilas le marché L2AD, qui prévoit notamment l'achat d'un prototype opérationnel de système laser capable d'identifier, poursuivre et neutraliser des micro-drones (de 100g à 25kg). Le système Helma-P, développé par Cilas, dispose d'une puissance de deux kilowatts, peut détecter un appareil à trois kilomètres de distance et le neutraliser à moins d'un kilomètre, même lorsque sa vitesse dépasse les 50 km/h. Le laser peut également éblouir le drone, en saturant ses capteurs optiques. Une technologie que compte utiliser le ministère des Armées « afin notamment de renforcer la protection des sites militaires sensibles et des opérateurs d'importance vitale », précise le communiqué. D'un montant maximal de 10 M€, ce contrat s'inscrit dans un programme plus vaste de lutte anti-drones, pour lequel les armées prévoient d'investir 300 M€ sur 10 ans. L'Usine Nouvelle du 16 juin

All news