Atlas Elektronik, Thales Deutschland to develop K130 CMS

On the same subject

• 

  May 19, 2020 | International, Land

  Oshkosh, Saudi Arabia’s Al Tadrea launch joint venture to make armored vehicles

  By: Agnes Helou BEIRUT — American firm Oshkosh Defense and Saudi Arabia's Al Tadrea Manufacturing Company have established a joint venture to manufacture armed vehicles in the kingdom. The two companies formed Oshkosh Al-Tadrea Manufacturing, creating “the largest partnership in the history of Saudi armored vehicles,” according to a message on Al Tadrea's official Twitter account. Defense News reported in 2017 that Al Tadrea was in talks with Oshkosh to manufacture armored vehicles in Saudi Arabia. Al Tadrea CEO Fawzi Bin Ayoub Sabri confirmed during an interview that year at the Bahrain International Defence Exhibition and Conference that his company was “"discussing partnerships with many international companies, particularly negotiating with Oshkosh Defense to produce armored vehicles.” Wednesday's online signing ceremony was held between officials and senior executives of the two companies. The joint venture, also known as OTM, will be based in Saudi Arabia, and the kingdom will hold the largest property share, according to a May 14 report by the Saudi Press Agency. “The joint venture will design and provide its first vehicles to be built based on the model of the Oshkosh Defense vehicle in the medium-sized 4×4 Tactical Vehicle (FMTV) category,” the press agency reported. OTM will “develop manufacturing expertise to become a major partner for wheeled tactical vehicle services, [and] it will also provide the necessary services to its customers in the security and military sectors in the Kingdom, through an integrated and sustainable support fleet, as well as activating the supply chains more broadly and more efficiently,” the report read. In a speech during the virtual ceremony, the head of Al Tadrea said: "The current efforts made by the kingdom in the field of industries, especially military industries, demand from us to move forward and follow the government's directions to achieve everything related to homeland security, and to raise the efficiency of military industries and the support of Saudi talents and human capabilities that we rely on by providing job opportunities to the Saudis.” For his part, John Bryant, the president of Oshkosh Defense and the executive vice president of its parent company, Oshkosh Corporation, said that “both Oshkosh Defense and Al Tadrea Manufacturing have worked closely for more than two years to establish this joint venture, by transferring its technology and capabilities. We are very excited to cooperate with this Saudi company with a solid history.” The two firms prepared for this joint venture by providing training opportunities and accreditation certificates to future OTM employees. The training sessions covered manufacturing, repairing and joint maintenance of M-ATVs, which are mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles made by Oshkosh and currently in service within the Royal Saudi Land Forces. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/05/14/oshkosh-saudi-arabias-al-tadrea-launch-joint-venture-to-make-armored-vehicles/

• 

  October 25, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Belgium reportedly picks F-35 for future fighter jet

  By: Valerie Insinna and Sebastian Sprenger WASHINGTON and LIÈGE, Belgium — Belgium appears poised to select Lockheed Martin's F-35 over the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next-generation fighter jet, with government sources on Oct. 22 telling national news outlet Belga that an F-35 victory has already been decided. The Belgian government is expected to formally announce its decision before Oct. 29, Reuters reported on Monday. A Lockheed Martin spokesman said he could not confirm whether Belgium had communicated its choice to the firm, but said the company remains confident in its offering. “The F-35 offers transformational capability for the Belgian Air Force and, if selected, will align them with a global coalition operating the world's most advanced aircraft,” Mike Friedman said in an emailed statement. “The F-35 program is built on strong international partnerships, and our proposal includes significant industrial opportunities for Belgian companies to contribute to the global F-35 enterprise.” The F-35 was widely considered the favorite in the competition, which included the Eurofighter — a partnership among the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Germany. This summer, Belgium announced that it would also consider two options in addition to the F-35 and Typhoon: France's Dassault Rafale or upgrading its existing F-16 fleet instead of purchasing new aircraft. U.S. aerospace behemoth Boeing and Sweden's Saab pulled out of the competition last year, with Boeing claiming that Belgium's requirements favored the F-35 and Sweden stating that it was not able to provide the operational support needed by the Belgian Air Component. A win by the F-35 would further solidify the joint strike fighter's dominance among U.S. allies in Europe and deal a heavy blow to Franco-German ambitions for a prominent role in building Europe's next-generation defense capabilities. Both Rafale and Eurofighter had pitched extensive industrial packages to Belgium in the hopes of bolstering their offers. Analysts had said that Belgium's decision could be a bellwether for future European fighter jet competitions. U.S. industry sources told Defense News this summer that they believed that President Donald Trump's rhetoric on NATO allies' defense spending and tariffs on steel and aluminum may have led Belgium to take a closer look at the European offers. Meanwhile, European defense officials and experts repeatedly made the case that Belgium should pick a European plane. For Brussels, the capital of Europe, to choose the U.S. plane would amount to nothing less than an act of “betrayal,” the French business journal La Tribune headlined on Monday. Two practical considerations were seen as playing heavily into the Belgian government's inclination toward the joint strike fighter: For one, the neighboring Netherlands already is an F-35 customer. The two countries agreed some years ago to pool their resources in policing their common airspace, and having only one aircraft type presumably would be good for interoperability. In addition, Belgium for decades has had an agreement with NATO that requires its planes to be capable of carrying U.S. nuclear weapons into a hypothetical atomic war. Belgium, like neighbor Germany, stores a few warheads within its borders for that purpose. Certifying a European-made aircraft, like the Airbus Eurofighter, for the nuclear mission after the F-16 is politically tricky and – some say – perhaps even undoable given the current state of trans-Atlantic affairs. In that line of thinking, a nuclear-capable F-35 could represent the most trouble-free option for Belgium. The Belgian decision is sure to be watched closely by Germany. Berlin is in the market to replace its Tornado aircraft, looking for roughly 90 new planes. While officials have said they prefer the Eurofighter, uncertainty surrounding the nuclear-weapons certification of the future fleet remains something of an elephant in the room. Belgium intends to buy 34 new fighters to replace its aging inventory of F-16s, which number about 54 jets — although that number may be even fewer after an embarrassing incident earlier this month, where a mechanic accidentally opened fire while doing repair work and and blew up a neighboring F-16. In January, the U.S. State Department pre-emptively approved a $6.53 billion F-35 sale to Belgium that would include 34 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variants, 38 F-135 engines manufactured by Pratt & Whitney, and a slew of other equipment to enable operations, training and logistics. That estimate is expected to come down as Lockheed and the government hammer out a final contract. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/22/belgium-reportedly-picks-f-35-for-future-fighter-jet

• 

  January 22, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

  What new documents reveal about Cyber Command’s biggest operation

  Mark Pomerleau New documents provide insight into the growing pains U.S. Cyber Command faced in building a force while simultaneously conducting operations. The documents, which were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Security Archive at George Washington University and later shared with journalists, are a series of internal briefings and lessons from the Defense Department's most complex cyber operation at the time, Operation Glowing Symphony. That operation was part of the larger counter-ISIS operations — Joint Task Force-Ares — but specifically targeted ISIS's media and online operations, taking out infrastructure and preventing ISIS members from communicating and posting propaganda. While Cyber Command described the operation, which took place in November of 2016, as a victory in the sense that it “successfully contested [ISIS] in the information domain,” the documents demonstrate the extent to which the command was still learning how to conduct operations and the exact steps to follow. “Process maturation is something they pull out a lot. Obviously, as CYBERCOM was standing up, it was pulling together plans for how they were going to operate. They actually hadn't operated that much,” Michael Martelle, cyber vault fellow at the National Security Archive, told reporters. “A lot of these frameworks were formed in theory. Now they go to try them out in practice.” Cyber Command leaders have stressed in public remarks for years that the command was building its force while operating. But the extent of those operations has been limited. Officials in recent years have explained that the command didn't undertake many offensive operations. One official said last year he could count on less than two fingers the number of operations, Cyber Command conducted in the last decade or so. One member of Congress said DoD didn't conduct an offensive cyber operation in five years. But when they were in action, in this case with Operation Glowing Symphony, Martelle said the documents show cyber leaders did not anticipate the amount of data they would access. “They actually weren't prepared for the amount of data they were pulling off of ISIS servers ... CYBERCOM was not set up for an operation of this magnitude from day one,” he said. “They had to learn on the fly, they had to acquire on the fly, they had to grow on the fly.” The documents note that Cyber Command's capability development group, is “developing USCYBERCOM data storage solutions.” The capabilities develop group, now known as the J9, serves as the advanced concepts and technology directorate and worked to plan and synchronizing cyber capability development and developed capabilities to meet urgent operational needs. Experts had noted that in the past the CDG/J9 had been stressed in recent years by a limited staff and burdened by developing tools for operational needs, namely Joint Task Force-Ares. Another example of potential growing pains the documents point to was the fact that updates to operations checklists were not made available readily to the team. Finally, the documents note that authorities and processes the command was operating under that the time were restrictive in some cases. “Absent of significant policy changes from [the office of the secretary of defense], USCYBERCOM is limited in its ability to challenge ISIS [redacted]. As a result, USCYBERCOM has [redacted] to achieve our objectives,” the executive summary of a 120-day assessment of Operation Glowing Symphony says. Those authorities and processes have been streamlined by the executive branch and Congress in recent years. Commanders now follow a process that defaults toward action, Maj. Gen. Dennis Crall, deputy principal cyber adviser and senior military adviser for cyber policy, said during an event Jan. 9. He explained the updated process provides continuity, tempo, pace and timing. Ultimately, Martelle noted that the real importance behind Operation Glowing Symphony is that Cyber Command used the experience from those events and Joint Task Force-Ares more broadly as a template for future operations. Cyber Command's top official, Gen. Paul Nakasone, who was also led Joint Task Force-Ares, has noted that the task force laid the foundation for the Russia Small Group, which was created to combat election interference in the 2018 midterms. “This concept of a task force lives on. A lot of that thinking came from what we were doing in 2016,” he told NPR. That task force has now evolved to be more all encompassing covering election threats more broadly. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/cybercom/2020/01/21/what-new-documents-reveal-about-cyber-commands-biggest-operation/