Are the days of pulling pits at the rifle range coming to an end?

On the same subject

• 

  May 10, 2019 | International, Naval

  France: C'est confirmé, le Charles-de-Gaulle aura bien un petit frère

  Florence Parly, ministre des Armées, a annoncé ce mercredi 8-Mai, sur BFMTV et la radio RMC, que la France travaille sur un projet de porte-avions. La France ne possède qu'un seul porte-avions, le Charles-de-Gaulle, actuellement en mission dans l'océan Indien, pour 18 mois. "Nous travaillons sur une nouvelle génération de porte-avions a déclaré Florence Parly au micro de Jean-Jacques-Bourdin. Puisque le porte-avions (le Charles-de-Gaulle) aujourd'hui déployé dans l'océan Indien est un élément extrêmement fédérateur y compris au plan européen". La ministre française des Armées a en revanche jugé prématurée la proposition allemande d'un porte-avions européen, soulignant que cela nécessitait un commandement européen compliqué à mettre en œuvre. " Je crois qu'on n'en est pas encore tout à fait là." "Il faut réfléchir d'abord à ce que pourraient être les conditions d'emploi d'un porte-avions européen", a observé Florence Parly. "Une chose est de le construire à plusieurs, une autre de le mettre sous un commandement européen. Là, c'est beaucoup plus compliqué", a-t-elle ajouté. Rappelons que le Charles-de-Gaulle a quitté son port d'attache toulonnais fin 2018 pour une mission de 4 mois. Long de 261,5 mètres, ce vaisseau-amiral français peut emporter 40 aéronefs, dont 30 avions Rafale. Sa construction avait débuté en 1987 pour remplacer le Clemenceau. https://www.nicematin.com/politique/cest-confirme-le-charles-de-gaulle-aura-bien-un-petit-frere-380954

• 

  July 16, 2020 | International, Land

  Key House Democrats want to lock in New START weapons limits

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The chairmen of the House foreign affairs and intelligence committees are pushing a measure meant to extend the last remaining U.S.-Russia arms control agreement amid fears President Donald Trump will let it lapse. Led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the proposal would require congressional approval to increase the nuclear arsenal above the limits of the 2010 New START treaty, if the pact is allowed to expire next year. The measure was offered as an amendment to the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, which is set for floor consideration next week. Engel's amendment was cosponsored by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and House Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I. “This Administration's recklessness has left New START as the only remaining agreement limiting Russia's nuclear weapons. Despite the White House's claims, there's no ‘better deal' with Russia and China on the horizon, and the clock on New START is ticking,” Engel said in a statement. “The president doesn't seem to have a problem with Russia developing more and more nuclear weapons that could strike the United States, so Congress has to do everything we can to keep these protections in place.” The action came days after Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned he's not very optimistic about prospects for an extension because of Washington's focus on making China sign onto the pact. U.S. and Russian envoys held talks last month in Vienna, but Beijing has refused to take part. Engel's amendment states that the U.S. should extend the pact for five years, to an expiration date of February 5, 2026, unless Russia is in material breach of the treaty or if it is replaced by a new, stronger agreement. It also provides the executive branch with permission to continue inspection activities and other transparency measures if New START expires on February 5, 2021, assuming that the government of Russia reciprocates these steps The New START treaty limits each country to no more than 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers and envisages sweeping on-site inspections to verify compliance. The amendment would bar funding to increase the arsenal above the treaty limits unless the president notifies Congress in advance of the new military requirements, certifies that the additional deployments are necessary and justifies the deployments, reports the associated costs and operational implications, and requires that any increase in deployed nuclear weapons is subject to a joint resolution of approval. It also requires detailed reports on Russian nuclear forces and, with and eye toward potential growth in China's nuclear arsenal, requires briefings and reports regarding the administration's arms control approach with Beijing, according to a summary. It also requires a presidential certification before New START would lapse that this would serve U.S. national security interests, an assessment whether continuing limits on Russian nuclear forces would serve U.S. interests and a plan for how the U.S. military and intelligence communities will address the post-New START environment, including the potential funding and development of additional nuclear deterrence and intelligence requirements. If Engel's amendment is accepted by the House Rules Committee and adopted by the House, it would almost certainly invite resistance from hawkish supporters of the president during negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the NDAA. Senate Armed Services Committee's Chairman Jim Inhofe, a proponent of nuclear weapons spending, has historically been a skeptic of the treaty. Kingston Reif, the Arms Control Association's director for disarmament and threat reduction policy, said the Trump administration doesn't seem like it will extend New Start and that Congress ought to be putting in roadblocks. “Crucially, the amendment would require congressional approval to increase the nuclear arsenal above the treaty limits, if the treaty is allowed to expire next year. A decision as consequential as increasing the size of the deployed arsenal, which hasn't occurred in decades, merits special scrutiny,” Reif said. After both Moscow and Washington withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year, New START is the only remaining nuclear arms control deal between the two countries. Russia has offered its extension without any conditions, while the Trump administration has pushed for a new arms control agreement that would also include China. Moscow has described that idea as unfeasible, pointing at Beijing's refusal to negotiate any deal that would reduce its much smaller nuclear arsenal. Trump declared an intention to pull out of the agreement in May, citing Russian violations. Russia denied breaching the pact, which came into force in 2002, and the European Union has urged the U.S. to reconsider. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/07/15/key-house-democrats-want-to-lock-in-new-start-weapons-limits/

• 

  January 13, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Lawsuit threatens $23B weapons sale to UAE

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― A small, 2-year-old nonprofit think tank has taken a step that most advocacy organizations never dare try: It has sued the U.S. State Department to derail a $23 billion arms sale to the United Arab Emirates. In a legal claim announced last month, the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs asserted that the Trump administration failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its decision to sell F-35 fighter jets and other weapons to the UAE, which places it in breach of the Administrative Procedure Act. It has asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to find the sale invalid. The case is unusual, as is the theory of the case, but so is the Trump administration's approach to the sale, said Brittany Benowitz, a legal expert on human rights and arms trade. Such legal challenges rarely succeed, but if this one does, it could halt the deal even if Washington and Abu Dhabi follow through with plans to sign contracts in the waning days of the Trump administration. “If you can say this deal was executed improperly and the contractor was on notice of that, which they are, then I think you can say it's possible to stop the sale before delivery,” Benowitz said. The State Department declined to comment on the pending litigation, in line with its policy. The new lawsuit against the State Department came after a failed attempt in Congress to block the sale of 50 Lockheed Martin-made F-35 aircraft, 18 General Atomics-made MQ–9B Reaper drones and Raytheon Technologies-made munitions. The Senate narrowly rejected a challenge to the sale amid arguments from the administration that the sales would make the UAE more interoperable with partners and defend itself from “heightened threats from Iran.” Opponents said the fast-tracked process was incomplete, leaving questions about the security of U.S. weapons technology, the potential of sparking a Middle Eastern arms race, and the potential for the weapons to be used in Yemen and Libya; these arguments were echoed in the lawsuit. The State Department came under scrutiny for irregularities in a previous sale. Its inspector general, who was later fired, found that a separate “emergency” sale of $8 billion in precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia and the UAE failed to “fully assess” or mitigate the risk of civilian casualties in Yemen. To boot, Saudi Arabia and the UAE reportedly breached arms sale agreements with the U.S. by transferring American materiel to al-Qaida-linked fighters and other militant factions in Yemen. Lawmakers have also called for an an investigation into reporting that the UAE may have transferred American-made Javelin anti-armor missiles to the Libyan National Army in violation of a United Nations arms embargo. “What we're saying is that the State Department rushed this through without congressional oversight, they didn't follow their own rules and they didn't apply the same metrics that would guide approval to others,” said Justin Russell, the director of the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs. The organization conducts advocacy and research on the conflicts in Libya and Yemen. “Congress tried to block [the sale] on the same merits and when that legislation failed, we said, ‘Wait a minute, we've got to stand up and do something.'” The Administrative Procedure Act allows a court to “hold unlawful and set aside any agency action ... found to be in arbitrary, capricious, an abseils of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Here, the lawsuit argues the State Department didn't find, as required under the Arms Export Control Act, that the sale “will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace” ― or present “a reasoned explanation” for its actions as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. In 2019, the Campaign Against the Arms Trade won a U.K. Court of Appeal ruling to ban new arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The government has since renewed sales, and CAAT applied for judicial review into the legality of the U.K. government's decision to renew arms sales to Saudi Arabia. In the U.S., there has not been a successful court case of targeting government-to-government sales in recent years, according to Benowitz. What's also unusual about the New York Center For Foreign Policy Affairs' approach is that it doesn't rely on a human rights argument but rather points to aberrations in the process ― particularly past end-use violations that ought to have have disqualified the UAE, she said. “There have been court challenges to arms sales in the past on human rights grounds, but this challenge on national security grounds under the Administrative Procedure Act is unprecedented,” she said. “It's rare because we have never had a record of irregularities like the one we have now.” By Benowitz's reckoning, if a finalized deal is invalidated in the courts and it is found that the deal never should have been entered in the first place, its unlikely the U.S. could be penalized financially by the UAE. “To get a remedy, or damages, under contract law, you have to have ‘clean hands,' so it would be difficult for the Emiratis to recoup,” she said. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/01/12/lawsuit-threatens-23b-weapons-sale-to-uae