Brazil's Embraer to build NATO-approved aircraft in Portugal

On the same subject

• 

  May 2, 2023 | International, C4ISR

  Generative AI providing fuel for hackers, DISA Director Skinner says

  Generative AI is “one of the most disruptive” technological developments in a “very long, long time,” DISA's Lt. Gen. Robert Skinner said.

• 

  February 12, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  How Republicans might accept a smaller defense budget

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert is willing to meet Democratic lawmakers partway in their reported plans to trim the defense budget: cut back on civilian employees, not equipment and modernization. “Like everything else in government, personnel is your biggest cost, and the civilian-to-uniform ratio ... is at an all-time high,” Calvert, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subpanel, said in an interview Wednesday. “Our inability to correct that trend is eating away at our military, our procurement, our readiness, all the above, and so we need to do this.” President Joe Biden is expected to release his federal budget plan in April, but battle lines are being drawn on Capitol Hill ahead of what is expected to be a tighter military budget than in recent years. While some key Republicans want to protect the military budget increases that came under then-President Donald Trump, or even build upon them, Calvert said he is open to “responsible reductions.” He is offering civilian cuts as an alternative to cutting end strength and weapons platforms. “Rather than reducing [personnel in] uniforms ― and I think there's some talk about doing that, especially in the Army ― we need to look at the civilian workforce, which is at the highest ratio to uniformed service members than it has ever been,” Calvert said. “If you're going to cut defense, are you going to cut procurement? People are arguing we need to build the Columbia-class submarine and Virginia-class submarine ― and I agree ― that we [keep the] Space Force, and [that] our satellite program is woefully behind ― and I agree. Where do you make your reductions when your overwhelming cost is personnel?” Under Calvert's bill, the Rebalance for an Effective Defense Uniform and Civilian Employees Act, or Reduce Act, a 15 percent cut to the civilian workforce overall and a cap for the Defense Department's Senior Executive Service at 1,000 employees would have to be in place by fiscal 2025 and remain through 2029. The defense secretary would be empowered to use voluntary-separation and early-retirement incentives toward the reduction. The legislation, which has been introduced several times before, was inspired by a 2015 study by the Defense Business Board that illustrated how the Department of Defense could save $125 billion over five years by slashing overhead. Still, the proposal to cut civilians would face new optics this year. As civilian voices were muted in favor of uniformed leaders under the Trump administration, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former general, committed under bipartisan pressure to “rebalance” Pentagon decision- and policy-making in favor of civilian leaders. It's also a different tact than that of the House Armed Services Committee's new top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers, who plans to guard against cuts and would prefer a 3-5 percent increase in defense spending ― which Pentagon leaders say is required to carry out the 2018 National Defense Strategy. It's still early in the budgeting cycle, and the two may align. But in meantime, Calvert's approach offers something to fiscal conservatives, and it tracks with past efforts from Rogers' predecessor, former Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. Even if Republicans can fend off a top-line cut or win an adjustment for inflation to keep shipbuilding and aircraft procurement on track, Calvert said he supports cutting the Defense Department's civilian workforce. “Hey, I hope Mike's right. I mean, he is a good friend, but I think he's a realist too,” Calvert said. “I worked with his predecessor on procurement reform, I'm trying to do some personnel reform, and we need those reforms on both sides.” For their part, Democrats swiftly rejected Calvert's legislation, making it one of the first skirmishes of the annual battle over the defense budget. The defense subpanel's new chairwoman, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said she discussed the matter with Calvert and disagrees with him. “His proposal could lead to some of the most talented and committed DOD public servants losing their jobs,” McCollum said in a statement. “While we agree there is excess defense spending, my focus is on making smart investments that yield demonstrable outcomes by cutting waste and ending subsidies for outdated and unnecessary programs and facilities. In my view, the existing Department of Defense civilian workforce is mission critical to ensuring our national security.” The American Federation of Government Employees has historically opposed the bill, and a spokesman said funding and defense policy legislation passed last year prohibit civilian workforce cuts “without regard to impacts on readiness, lethality, military force structure, stress of the force, operational effectiveness and fully burdened costs.” With 768,000 federal employees working across all Defense Department components, the proposed cut amounts to 100,000 employees. Between 2015 and 2019, an average of just under 82,000 employees left DoD jobs each year. Calvert contends his 15 percent cut could be accomplished through attrition, not firings, and target “growth in middle management,” not the supply depots scattered around the country that have political backing. Previous cuts of civilian personnel have fueled increases in contracting costs ― and Calvert said he is open to cutting those too, in partnership with McCollum. “There would be discretion on the part of the people running the Pentagon; there are people you don't want to lose, they're in a special category, I get it,” Calvert said. “There are probably a lot of people you wouldn't miss, people up for retirement.” Democrats are more apt to take on nuclear modernization, which is projected to cost the Pentagon more than $240 billion in taxpayer dollars through 2028. In the balance is the contract for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, awarded to Northrop Grumman last year, to replace aging, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Politico reports that progressive lawmakers and disarmament advocates are lobbying allies in the Biden administration for a pause in the GBSD program, while the Air Force and its allies in Congress, think tanks, and defense contractors are sharpening their arguments to preserve the program. Calvert acknowledged criticism of nuclear spending from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., but said big cuts to the nuclear triad lack the backing to succeed. (The panel rejected a funding cut for GBSD last year.) “I know Adam has been critical of that, but there's absolute support for redundancy of the deterrent within the Republican ranks, and so I don't see that going away. What I'm hearing so far out of the administration is that they feel the same way, so I don't think that's going to happen,” Calvert said. Austin and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks have voiced support for nuclear modernization broadly but stopped short of pledging to uphold the current nuclear modernization strategy in its entirety. Nuclear modernization cutbacks would “weaken the United States,” Calvert argued. “We're not just thinking about Russia; we've got China, who's rapidly militarizing space, and their missile capability is improving. Obviously we've got countries like North Korea or Iran that are building their own missile capability, so we have to have a strong deterrent to make sure we are ready for any contingency.” Jessie Bur of Federal Times and Leo Shane III of Military Times contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/02/11/how-republicans-might-accept-a-smaller-defense-budget/

• 

  November 9, 2020 | International, Naval

  Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery

  By: Tom Kington The Italian Navy is laying the groundwork for a new DDX-type destroyer program, adding naval firepower for the country amid an increasingly volatile Mediterranean region. (Italian Navy) ROME — Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers. After building 10 FREMM-class frigates — the same type acquired by the United States — as well as designing new 4,500-ton multimission ships, a 33,000-ton landing helicopter dock and new logistics vessels, a risk-reduction study is due to start on two 10,000-ton destroyers dubbed DDX. “Destroyers are fundamental for a blue water fleet like Italy's, which must be capable of projecting capability at sea and from the sea while operating across the whole spectrum of maritime and joint operations,” Vice Adm. Aurelio De Carolis, deputy chief of staff of the Italian Navy, told Defense News. “Apart from carriers, amphibious vessels and submarines, you need destroyers with land strike and task group-protection capabilities,” he added. The Navy wants the 175-meter-long vessels to replace two aging destroyers, the ITS Durand de la Penne and ITS Mimbelli. Those two vessels entered service in the early 1990s and were joined in service by Italy's two more recent Horizon-class ships, which the Navy classifies as destroyers. “We have always had two pairs of destroyers in service, dating back to the 1960s,” De Carolis said. With €4.5 million (U.S. $5.3 million) budgeted so far for two-year feasibility and risk-reduction studies starting early next year, the Navy aims to have a final operational requirement by 2022, sign a construction contract in 2023 — funding permitting — complete the design in 2025, and receive the first ship by 2028. Current plans envisage vessels that are 24 meters wide with a 9-meter draft and more than 300 crew, while offering a top speed of over 30 knots using the CODOGAL (COmbined Diesel Or Gas And eLectric) propulsion system, De Carolis said. The system allows the use of either gas or diesel turbines, plus electric propulsion for lower speeds. Italy is renewing its Navy amid the Mediterranean Sea's shift from a backwater to a tinderbox as Turkey throws its weight around, Libya remains tense after years of conflict and Russia tries to increase its regional influence. When fully budgeted, the ships likely will be built by Italian state firm Fincantieri, keeping the yard busy after a run of recent naval construction thanks to Italy's $6.3 billion so-called Naval Law in 2014 that led to the landing helicopter dock (LHD), multimission vessels (PPA) and logistic ship programs. Equipping the warship Long-range firepower for the destroyers will be guaranteed by six eight-cell missile launchers for a total of 48 cells, with two launchers toward the bow (ahead of the bridge) and the remainder amidships. Aster anti-air missiles, already in use on other Italian vessels, will be adopted, as well as a land-strike missile. “The Navy needs a credible land-strike capability and we are considering options now,” De Carolis said. That could lead the Navy to consider MBDA's naval variant of the Scalp missile. What is confirmed is the acquisition of the European consortium's Teseo Mk2 Evolved anti-ship missile, which the admiral said offers “land-strike capability in the littoral.” The weapon will be fired from launchers located immediately behind the bridge, he confirmed. A rear helicopter deck and hangar will be able to host two Navy EH101 or two SH90 helicopters. The ship's cannons will be the same Italian-built types that have become standard issue for Italy's naval vessels in recent years. A Leonardo 127mm gun at the front of the vessel will fire the firm's Vulcano guided munitions, while two Leonardo 76mm guns at the center of the vessel will fire the guided Dart munition, again developed by the Italian firm. A third 76mm gun sits astride the helicopter hangar at the rear of the ship. Dubbed “Sovraponte” and built to be positioned on top of ship structures, the cannon was first developed for the PPA vessels. “We are satisfied with Sovraponte,” the admiral said. The cannon is one example of how the destroyer will leverage new technologies funded by the Naval Law, with radar another example. The destroyers will mount Leonardo's Kronos, an active electronically scanned array radar with a fixed face as well as C- and X-band antennas, which are mounted behind panels above the bridge. This technology was used in the two “Full” versions of the seven PPA vessels. Leonardo will also supply the same rotating L-band long-range radar, to be positioned at the rear of the vessel, which has also been adopted for the LHD Trieste. The combat management system as well as the communications and electronic warfare suites will be derived from those developed for the newest ships of the fleet, while anti-submarine capabilities will include sonars (both hull-mounted and towed array), torpedo launchers, and decoys. What's next? The Trieste is set to join Italy's three San Giorgio-class amphibious assault ships to provide a four-strong amphibious fleet, which will require protection, De Caroils said. “We will need at least two destroyers ready at all times, which means four destroyers in total,” he explained. “The procurement is also part of our commitment to NATO since we are part of a project to stand up new amphibious task forces, each containing three battalion-level landing elements with related combat and combat-service support, which means four amphibious ships and destroyers for protection. “These destroyers will defend — together with [anti-submarine warfare] frigates, submarines and embarked naval aviation — amphibious naval task groups during their movement towards assault areas, and then provide effective naval fire support for the sustainment of projection and ashore operations carried out by elements of the landing force. All this is required, including the capability to play the crucial role of coordination and control of the airspace over the amphibious objective area. “The U.S. and Russia still operate cruisers, but most other navies today rely on destroyers for fighting power. They must cover anti-air, anti-ship and anti-submarine operations with a focus on integrated air and missile defense, including ballistic missile defense.” The most “critical task” for destroyers, he added, is protecting carrier battle groups and playing the typical “shotgun role” for carriers. Examples he gave included the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War when the Italian vessel ITS Audace was part of the escort to the U.S. Navy aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, and during Operation Enduring Freedom in 2002, when the ITS Durand de la Penne escorted the U.S. Navy carriers John C. Stennis and John F. Kennedy. “Italy cannot do without a balanced Navy covering all operations from blue to green to brown waters and well into the littorals, from minesweeping to submarines and fixed-wing carriers, with overall air protection provided by destroyers and anti-submarine warfare mostly played by frigates,” he added. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/09/italy-plans-new-destroyers-for-2028-delivery