Army looks to give its old combat boot the boot

On the same subject

• 

  September 6, 2018 | International, Naval

  US Navy must be able to compete in ‘gray zone’ conflict, says top service officer

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy has to be able to confront great powers in areas short of open warfare, the service's top officer said Wednesday at the second annual Defense News Conference. China and Russia have employed tactics to harass neighbors and challenge the U.S. Navy, from the former's island building projects in the South China Sea to the latter's harassment of U.S. forces at sea, which it has used to score political points with its population. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson told the crowd that competition with other great powers has to be seen on a spectrum and that the Navy must compete in all realms to stay ahead. “This competition is [defined] by a spectrum,” Richardson said. “You've heard terms like ‘gray war,' ‘competition below the level of conflict': All of these sorts of phrases try to grasp at this very smooth spectrum, from competition all the way to conflict. Our response to that going forward is going to be key to ensure that we are not only competitive but ahead. It's not sufficient to be competitive, we want to be winning.” The Navy has to be competitive in all its warfare domains to achieve the objectives laid out in the recent National Defense Strategy, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, that moves the military away from low-end counterterror operations and refocuses on high-end conflict. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2018/09/05/us-navy-must-be-able-to-compete-in-gray-zone-conflict-says-top-service-officer

• 

  May 5, 2020 | International, Naval

  Fincantieri CEO on winning the US Navy’s frigate competition

  By: Tom Kington ROME — As CEO of Italy's state-controlled Fincantieri since 2002, Giuseppe Bono, has built cruise, merchant and naval vessels, including the FREMM frigate, for the Italian navy. Last week the type was picked by the U.S. sea service for its newest frigate, the FFG(X), in a deal worth $5.58 billion if options for nine vessels are exercised after the first ship. The FFG(X) will be produced at Wisconsin's Marinette Marine shipyard, which Fincantieri bought in 2008 and where it already builds Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships for the U.S. Navy and Saudi Arabia with Lockheed Martin. In an interview with Defense News, Bono explained why FREMM beat off the competition, why shipyards should always be prime contractors, and why building cruise ships makes you punctual. What are the reasons you won this competition? In the U.S., more than elsewhere, the quality-price ratio was crucial. And our vessel fit the requirement. The U.S. wanted a ship with anti-submarine capability and this ship is unique in its class because it has that capability. The other competitors offered ships derived from other designs. The customer also wanted a ship which was already at sea. In a way we were lucky. On paper, the other offerings might have been great, but we are operational. Our proposal was also more complete because the design is extremely flexible thanks to the possibility of fitting different defense systems. We had also studied an AEGIS version of the FREMM with Lockheed Martin and knew it would not need large, structural work. What was your reaction when you heard you had won? My colleagues were more emotional about than me. I pursue objectives and strategy. You teamed with Lockheed Martin on the LCS program but here you went alone. We never considered a U.S. partner. This bid was different to the past, with a new approach. In this case the shipbuilders were candidates to be prime contractors. And with a track record with 16 LCS orders for the U.S. and four for Saudi Arabia we are an American shipyard, this time with an Italian design. We have worked very well with Lockheed Martin, but as prime contractor on the Littoral Combat Ship it was the point of contact with the customer, meaning the yard was a step back and that sometimes led to a short circuit. When the shipyard is speaking to the customer as prime, it facilitates the relationships and leads to a better product and lower prices because certain decisions can be made faster. You will, however, work with U.S. firm Gibbs and Cox on the FFG(X). Gibbs and Cox frequently works with the U.S. Navy and knows its needs perfectly. We have a long and positive experience working with them on the LCS and we teamed with them to adapt the FREMM for the U.S. Navy. As work gets underway at Marinette will you need to hire new workers and make further infrastructure improvements? A lot of the work we needed to do at Marinette has already been done. When we first took over, in a springtime, we were shocked to find that the forecourts were muddy due to snowmelt. Now we have paved them over and increased efficiencies in terms of the yard's layout. We will need to find extra space because the FFG(X) will overlap with LCS construction, but we have shown we can build two FFG(X) vessels simultaneously as well as LCS vessels at Marinette. That said, depending on future programs, if the opportunity arose to buy a new yard, we will consider it. We would not be against the possibility, but it is not an issue now. There have been some legislative provisions requiring Buy American for certain FFG(X) components. How will this affect you going forward on this ship? On the LCS there are a number of Italian components, albeit a very limited number. The vessel also has Rolls Royce gas turbines, not GE, showing that price and quality always win out. On the LCS, the four diesel sets for power generation were built by our subsidiary Isotta Fraschini Motori. They are also on the Italian FREMMS. Now we will see if they can be used on the U.S. vessels. The Freedom LCS class experienced delays at the outset. How are you going to try and avoid that for FFG(X), understanding that there are always challenges with a first-of-class ship? There is a difference between a ship and other platforms like an aircraft or an helicopter. A ship does not have a prototype, only the first in class. The prototype of a ship becomes operational. This means the first vessel needs more time than the successive ships. On the LCS program the construction time sped up and prices fell as it accelerated. Is this the biggest ever win for an Italian firm in the U.S. defense market? Yes, I think so. It the result of working well and showing you are serious, of delivering on time and on budget. All these aspects are strongly taken into account by the customer and they give you an advantage. This is fundamental and one of our characteristics, derived in part from our work on cruise ships, which are built on a turnkey basis. The discipline there is unique. You need to deliver on a specific day which is established years earlier, otherwise the penalties never stop. Being punctual is in our DNA. Add to that we are always prime contractor, and a cruise ship is no less complex than a naval ship. In the military sector, delivering on time happens rarely. There are many examples of delays in some countries which can be almost infinite. Turning to Europe, there is ongoing consolidation in the German shipbuilding sector. How does that affect your plans to launch a type of European naval Airbus with French yard Naval Group? With Germany we have a consolidated and long-standing partnership related to the submarine sector. Consolidation must happen in Europe if it wants to count for something in the world, for this reason our goal must be a common defence. There are four of five major yards in the U.S. We cannot think of having more than that in Europe. We must consolidate. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/04/interview-fincantieri-ceo-bono-on-winning-the-us-navys-frigate-competition/

• 

  March 10, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Who were the largest major arms exporters in the last 5 years?

  By: Chiara Vercellone WASHINGTON — The United States was the largest exporter of major arms from 2015-2019, delivering 76 percent more materiel than runner-up Russia, according to a new study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute think tank. The U.S. contributed about 35 percent of all the world's arms exports during that five-year time period, partly supported by the increased demand for American advanced military aircraft in Europe, Australia, Japan and Taiwan, said Pieter Wezeman, a senior researcher at SIPRI. The study found that the U.S. provided major arms — defined by the think tank as air defense systems, armored vehicles, missiles and satellites, among other materiel — to 96 countries in those five years, with half of the weapons going to the Middle East. From 2015-2019, Russia's major arms exports decreased by 18 percent; France's increased by 72 percent, making it the third largest exporter; and Germany's increased by 17 percent, making it the fourth largest exporter. Worldwide arms exports rose nearly 6 percent in 2015-2019 from 2010-2014, and increased 20 percent from since 2005-2009, SIPRI said. Arm exports to countries in conflict in the Middle East increased by 61 percent in 2015-2019 compared to 2010-2014, the study showed. Saudi Arabia, the country to which the U.S. exported the most arms, was the largest importer globally in 2015-2019. The kingdom's imports increased 130 percent compared to the previous five-year period. Armored vehicles, trainer aircraft, missiles and guided bombs were among the leading arms purchased by the kingdom. Despite attempts in Congress to restrict arms exports to Saudi Arabia, the delivery of major arms, including 30 combat aircraft ordered in 2011, continued in 2019 as the U.S. provided 73% of Saudi Arabia's imports. In May, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration to push through an $8 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries for precision-guided bombs and related components. In July, he said blocking the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia would “weaken America's global competitiveness and damage the important relationship [the United States] share with [its] allies and partners.” U.S. arms exports to Europe and Africa increased by 45 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in 2015-2019. U.S. arms exports to Asia and the Oceania region decreased by 20 percent, as a result of fewer arms exports to India, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Since 2018, the U.S. has exported almost 100 major weapons to international organizations like the United Nations, the African Union and NATO, the report said, noting that Russia did not send weapons to these organizations. Among the top 10 arms exporters outside Europe and North America, Israel and South Korea showed the biggest increase in exports. Israeli arms exports increased by 77 percent in 2015-2019 — a record for the country, according to the study. South Korea, which showed a 143 percent increase during that same time period, more than doubled its number of export clients. https://www.defensenews.com/2020/03/09/who-were-the-largest-major-arms-exporters-in-the-last-5-years/