October 15, 2020 | International, Aerospace
WASHINGTON — As the Army looks to bring on two future helicopters by 2030, the service is planning to review its entire aviation fleet in fiscal 2023, Lt. Gen. James Pasquarette, the Army G-8, told Defense News in an Oct. 8 interview.
Over the past several years, the Army has said it is at “an inflection point” when it comes to prioritizing modernization in order to ensure soldiers can fight in a multidomain environment against near-peer adversaries. Part of that is ensuring the Army is balanced properly when it comes to making sure the current fleet is ready while funding the ambitious development of two new aircraft along with a number of other enablers like a digital backbone, air-launched effects and a new engine, to name a few.
In FY20, the Army took controversial steps to shift funding from the current fleet to the future one when it decided it would not buy Block II CH-47F Chinook cargo helicopters for the active force, opting to procure the variant just for special operations.
Congress has pushed back on that decision in both its FY20 and FY21 defense bills, injecting funding into the program to keep the pump primed to build Block II Chinooks for the active component against the Army's wishes.
So far the Army isn't planning on backing down on its decision to scale down and only buy the Block II variant for special operations.
“The Army's position has not changed. I mean, our position is we don't have to make a decision,” Pasquarette said.
“It's based on the age of the fleet and other factors,” Pasquarette said. “Our concern is that if Congress decides that we need to move down the Block II path here ... that starts to push out dollars against our modernization priorities that we're very concerned about.”
The Army “must develop” both the Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) and the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), he stressed.
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy also signaled during an Oct. 8 interview with Defense News that tough decisions on the aviation fleet would have to be made as the FLRAA and FARA aircraft begin to fly.
The prototype aircraft for FARA are expected to start flying in the fourth quarter of FY22 and the engineering and manufacturing development phase is expected to begin in FY24.
FLRAA prototypes will be delivered in roughly the summer of 2026.
The last time the Army restructured its fleet was in 2013 to deal with impending budget cuts and reductions that would have been made through sequestration. The effort was a way to take control of what was cut rather than let every program across the board take salami-slice chops.
As a result, the service decided to retire its OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters and use AH-64E Apache attack helicopters paired with Shadow unmanned aircraft systems to fill the armed scout role until future aircraft could come online.
December 3, 2024 | International, Aerospace
The AI-driven personnel management system “was the equivalent of having one extra body in that department, saving them approximately 1,000 hours a year."
January 20, 2022 | International, Land
La Tribune rappelle les enjeux liés à la taxonomie en matière de financement des industries de défense. Le quotidien évoque une note de la Banque de France sur la finance durable, datée d'octobre dernier, qui estimait que « les stratégies d'investissements responsables peuvent revêtir plusieurs formes », dont « des stratégies d'exclusion », et que « certaines entreprises sont exclues en raison de la nature de leur activité (par exemple : tabac, alcool, armement, jeux d'argent) ». Une telle classification avait suscité la réaction de la ministre des Armées, Florence Parly : « J'ai constaté, non sans une grande surprise, qu'un projet qui sera soumis à l'Union européenne place les industries de défense sur le même plan que les entreprises des secteurs pornographique ou des jeux d'argent », avait-elle indiqué, soulignant :« nous ne pouvons pas laisser faire cela sans réagir. La taxonomie influe sur le traitement réservé à un secteur d'activité selon sa classification ». La Tribune rappelle que Guillaume Faury, président du GIFAS et CEO d'Airbus, a estimé, lors de ses vœux à la presse début janvier, que le financement des activités de défense est « un vrai sujet de préoccupation » : « Il existe un certain nombre de réticences, parfois des grandes, des organismes financiers, pour des raisons qui sont plus ou moins systémiques ». Dans ce contexte, « on attend très clairement un message positif », a-t-il expliqué. Soulignant le rôle positif et sociétal de la défense, le dirigeant a déclaré souhaiter, de la part des pouvoirs publics, « une influence sur les critères de sélection des bons investissements. Un investissement qui va dans la défense permet d'assurer la sécurité, la prospérité, l'équilibre et la stabilité » d'un pays en général, et de la France en particulier. Plus particulièrement, Guillaume Faury attend « un message positif et une direction claire des autorités en général sur tout ce qui est ESG (Environnement, Social, Gouvernance) et taxonomie », a-t-il insisté. Le président du comité défense du Conseil des Industries de Défense Françaises (CIDEF), Eric Béranger, par ailleurs PDG de MBDA, avait averti également, en juin 2021, lors du Paris Air Forum organisé par La Tribune : « ce qui va sortir du projet de taxonomie de la Commission européenne va être extrêmement important : si les activités de défense sont qualifiées de non durables et, donc, d'une certaine façon non propice à des investissements financiers, ce sera une prescription très importante à destination de tous les investisseurs ». La Tribune du 17 janvier
June 20, 2019 | International, Other Defence
By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― The Democratic-controlled House passed a $985 billion appropriations package for fiscal 2020 that aims to fund national security at $17 billion less than the White House requested, end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months, pull military support in Yemen and defund the W76-2 nuclear warhead. The vote was 225-203, with seven Democrats voting with the Republican minority. Zero Republicans voted for the bill. It's a salvo from Democrats in FY20 budget negotiations with the GOP-controlled Senate and White House, and the White House has threatened that President Donald Trump would veto the massive bill. Beyond the above provisions and others, the administration strongly objected to language meant to block Pentagon funds being applied to a wall on the southern border. The threat foreshadows pushback from the Senate and the White House, in part because both advocated for a $750 billion national defense budget, while the House-passed bill is consistent with a $733 billion national defense budget. (The House bill would fund the Pentagon alone at $8 billion less than the White House request.) The four-bill “minibus” contained the two largest of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill and the Defense bill. For the defense, it totaled $645.1 billion in base-defense funding, and $68.1 billion in the budget-cap-exempt wartime funding account. House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., emphasized the package's investments outside the Pentagon, including a 4 percent increase in State Department funding. “This bill rejects the administration's unacceptable budget request and irresponsible policies and, rather, strives to uphold many bipartisan congressional priorities,” Lowey said when the bill was introduced. “America's foreign policy is strongest when diplomacy, development and defense are well-funded and equally prioritized, as many of today's global challenges cannot be addressed by military intervention alone.” Republicans have opposed the minibus as an empty exercise because Congress lacks a bipartisan deal to ease spending caps and avoid across-the-board sequestration cuts. Nor does the bill contain border wall funding sought by conservative Republicans. “Moving these bills as-is is a wasted opportunity because the bills are far from what the president has requested and will support,” said the House Appropriations Committee's ranking member, Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas. “Defense spending does not meet the request while nondefense spending greatly exceeds the request in current levels. This could lead to a veto and another government shutdown, something both [parties] agree would be devastating ― in addition to these funding concerns.” The White House issued a veto threat last week that spelled out its objections to provisions in the bill that would end the post-2001 war authorizations after eight months and pull military support in Yemen―and because the House parked less defense spending in the budget-cap skirting war fund. The language surrounding the authorization for the use of military force, Granger said, could jeopardize the Pentagon's ability to conduct military operations worldwide. “It's a bad policy that will force the DoD to unwind counterterrorism operations overseas if the Congress and the president cannot agree on a new authorization,” she said. To avoid another government shutdown, 12 appropriations bills must pass Congress and get the president's signature by Oct. 1. Negotiations between the White House and lead lawmakers on a deal to ease budget caps has been ongoing, according to a statement last week by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.. (The Senate Appropriations Committee hasn't yet moved any of its bills.) Another likely sticking point in budget talks with the GOP-controlled Senate and the White House is the minibus' bill's prohibition on the Defense Department spending funds to implement its policy on open transgender service. The vote to approve an amendment that contained the prohibition broke mostly along party lines, 234-183. The amendment targets a March 12 memo that would largely bar transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning to another gender, and require most individuals to serve in their birth sex. The House defeated Republican amendments that would have added back $19.6 million for the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched nuclear warhead and would have added back $96 million for “conventional missile systems” in the range of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. However, it also defeated a Democratic amendment that would have barred funding for research on the Long Range Standoff weapon. The bill was passed out of committee with language to restrict the Pentagon's authority to transfer money between accounts to $1.5 billion ― a response from Democrats to the administration's use of defense funds for Trump's proposed border wall. Next week, the House is expected to take up a separate minibus that contains the Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which was at the heart of last year's 35-day government shutdown. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/06/19/house-passes-983-billion-spending-package-226-203-bucking-white-house/