May 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By BRADLEY BOWMANon May 20, 2020 at 4:01 AM
Even as many Americans huddle in their homes to avoid the coronavirus, our adversaries have continued to use military power to test and undermine the United States. Since the crisis began, Moscow has sent bombers to probe American air defenses near Alaska. China escalated its belligerent activity in the South China Sea. Iran has harassed U.S. naval vessels in international waters. North Korea launched a barrage of missiles. Hackers have pummeled defense networks and suppliers with cyberattacks. All the while, terrorists have continued attacking U.S. and partner forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Authoritarians and terrorists apparently did not get the memo that they were supposed to play nice during the pandemic. They clearly still believe they can advance their interests and undermine ours with the employment of cyber and kinetic military power.
Despite this, opponents of defense spending may cite the economic consequences of COVID-19 — huge deficits and ballooning national debt— in an effort to slash the Department of Defense's budget. If they succeed, American military supremacy will erode further, inviting aggression from adversaries and decisively undermining American security.
To be clear, the United States did not find itself in this tenuous position overnight. America's military edge has been eroding for years. For many years after 9/11, Washington repeatedly failed to provide the Pentagon with the timely, predictable and sufficient funding necessary to maintain current readiness and modernize its forces.
When confronted with this difficult choice, defense leaders were often forced to postpone vital weapon modernization research and development programs to resource and support the next units to deploy.
Meanwhile, Beijing and Moscow studied how the United States fights wars and undertook comprehensive efforts to modernize their weapons and revamp their operational concepts.
So, by 2018, the military balance of power had shifted so significantly that the National Defense Strategy (NDS) Commission — a group of bipartisan national security experts not prone to hyperbole — sounded the alarm. “The security and wellbeing of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades,” they warned. “America's military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree.”
Thankfully, the U.S. has now emerged from what the 2018 National Defense Strategy called a “period of strategic atrophy” and taken concerted action. With increased defense funding in the last few years and a focus on great power competition, the Department of Defense is undertaking the most significant U.S. military modernization effort in decades.
In order to win the intense military technology competition with Beijing and others, the Pentagon is focusing its research and development on artificial intelligence, biotechnology, autonomy, cyber, directed energy, hypersonics, space and 5G. Simultaneously, the Pentagon and combatant commands are working to develop a new joint concept to employ these new weapons.
Despite these positive efforts, U.S. military supremacy has continued to erode.
Consider Indo-Pacific Command's report submitted in March warning that the military balance of power with China continues to become “more unfavorable.” The United States, it said, is accumulating “additional risk that may embolden our adversaries to attempt to unilaterally change the status quo before the U.S. could muster an effective response.”
This is because America has not yet deployed most of the weapons and capabilities it has been developing and is still crafting its new joint warfighting concept. To be sure, each of the U.S. military services are sprinting to field key systems, weapons, and capabilities in the next few years. But the Chinese Communist Party and its People's Liberation Army are sprinting too, and there is no time to waste.
The bipartisan experts on the NDS Commission recommended that “Congress increase the base defense budget at an average rate of three to five percent above inflation” in the coming years. If Congress ignores its own commission and slashes defense spending, U.S. military supremacy will continue to erode and could eventually disappear.
The far left and libertarians often respond to such arguments by emphasizing the size of the U.S. defense budget. What they fail to mention is that U.S. defense spending, measured either as a percentage of gross domestic product or a percentage of federal outlays, is near post-World War II lows.
That doesn't mean assertive congressional oversight is not needed; there is certainly room for improvement at the Pentagon. Indeed, defense leaders must continue to ruthlessly establish priorities, eliminate waste, and implement efficiencies—while credibly demonstrating tangible stewardship to Congress and taxpayers.
One should not dismiss the severe economic impacts of the coronavirus. The Congressional Budget Office has highlighted the potentially dire consequences for the federal deficit and debt. But Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security's mandatory spending — not discretionary defense spending — is the primary driver, by far, of fiscal unsustainability.
If the American people and their representatives in Congress provide the Department of Defense sufficient resources over the next few years, the U.S. military will be able to complete and field vital modernization programs. This will ensure U.S. troops have what they need and will enable the United States to re-assert the military superiority that has been so beneficial to peace, prosperity, and security.
The coronavirus has certainly demonstrated the need for better domestic health security programs and has delivered a body blow to the U.S. economy. But if political leaders respond by slashing the Department of Defense's budget, Washington risks making American military superiority yet another casualty of the coronavirus.
Bradley Bowman, former advisor to Sens. Todd Young and Kelly Ayotte, is senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/dont-let-the-covid-deficit-hurt-defense-spending
October 17, 2023 | International, Naval
General Dynamics Electric Boat is the prime contractor and lead design yard for the Virginia class and constructs the ships in a teaming arrangement with HII's Newport News Shipbuilding in...
June 2, 2020 | International, Land
Le bilan des exportations d'armement françaises 2019 atteint le montant de 8,3 milliards d'euros, selon les chiffres de La Tribune. Les ventes d'armes françaises baissent de 11,1% par rapport à 2018 (9,1 milliards), une année où la France avait enregistré sa troisième meilleure performance en 20 ans ; toutefois les prises de commande en 2019 consolident la place de la France dans le top 5 des exportateurs mondiaux. La Tribune rappelle que sur 10 ans, l'industrie d'armement française a vendu pour plus de 86 milliards d'euros d'armements à l'exportation. La part des achats de systèmes d'armes français par des pays européens progresse par rapport à 2018 (25%), avec 45 % du total des prises de commande de 2019, gr'ce notamment à la signature de trois grands contrats : Naval Group en Belgique, Airbus Helicopters en Hongrie (hélicoptères H225M et H145M) et Thales et Airbus en Espagne (satellites de communication sécurisée, Spainsat NG I et II). La Tribune du 2 juin
February 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
By: Sebastian Sprenger MUNICH — As the European Union wrestles to assert its role in world affairs, its members are increasingly looking to Germany and France. But the two allies have yet to find their groove when it comes to weapons cooperation and joint operations. The recent Munich Security Conference added new assignments to Germany's to-do list, taking the already immense expectations of Berlin to a new level. Officials are slated to announce key program decisions this spring that could redefine the trans-Atlantic relationship on a political and industrial level. The government also wants to put teeth to the promise of an operational role together with France by initiating a naval protection mission in the Strait of Hormuz under an EU flag. But Germany is famously sheepish on defense matters, its coalition-government parties CDU and SPD are far apart on key strategic questions, and Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer oversaw an intra-party struggle that some in Germany say left her weakened. Here's a look at some of the key items in Germany's portfolio: Speaking at Munich, French President Emmanuel Macron once again offered French nuclear weapons in the context of protecting EU members, now that the U.K. is leaving the bloc. He largely repeated his points from an earlier speech in Paris, which amounted to an overture to European allies to discuss the issue further. German officials appeared unsure about the whole idea, even though Munich Security Conference emcee Wolfgang Ischinger flagged the proposal as an open invitation that requires a formal response. When asked about the idea, Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed Germany's dependence on the NATO nuclear umbrella, which is underwritten by the U.S. arsenal. Since Macron has ruled out putting his country's atomic weapons under some kind of EU authority, what exactly is on the table, she wondered. For example, does the proposal imply some kind of European nuclear industry — a no-go for Germany? “We must have the conversation,” Kramp-Karrenbauer said. “But I can't imagine coming to a decision that would have us leave the American umbrella only to slip under a French one that is much smaller.” Creative law Germany previously punted on a Strait of Hormuz naval protection mission to protect cargo ships against Iranian harassment, but Berlin wants to try again. Doing it with the Americans is off the the table because Europeans are spooked by Washington's “maximum pressure” campaign, so a strictly European mission would be ideal. And since the French and the Dutch already have sent ships to patrol the crucial waterway under their own moniker, why not expand that mission into an EU-led affair? Putting the mission under the auspices of the European Union would require “better use” of permissions granted in the bloc's founding legal texts, Kramp-Karrenbauer told the Munich conference audience. According to a German Defence Ministry spokesman, that's a reference to Article 44 of the Treaty on European Union. The section says the European Council can authorize a group of countries to carry out certain missions if they have the desire and wherewithal to do so. As for the wherewithal, Kramp-Karrenbauer left open exactly what types of assets the German Navy would be able to contribute to a Strait of Hormuz mission. The timing also remains murky. While the minister mentioned the need for an EU summit on the topic, her spokesman said there was no information yet about when such a gathering could happen. Issue experts have said protecting global shipping lanes should be considered low-hanging fruit for Germany, as the mission is inherently defensive in nature. “It's the mission that Germany should have chosen months ago,” said Jeffrey Rathke, president of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies at Johns Hopkins University. Tornado warning Replacing Germany's fleet of aging Tornado aircraft is a can of worms like no other. That's because a portion of the fleet is assigned to carry American nuclear-tipped gravity bombs into Russia in the event of a major war. Though largely symbolic, the idea of German pilots using German aircraft to deliver American nukes is something of a quiet cornerstone of trans-Atlantic relations. People here don't like to talk about it much, but the effect is significant. The Tornado aircraft are getting old, which means the nuclear weapons will soon need a new ride. And this is where things get even trickier: Each of the replacement candidates can satisfy one requirement of Berlin's decision-making calculus, but not all of them. Boeing's F-18 fighter jet would represent a political commitment to the United States as the guarantor of nuclear deterrence. In such a scenario, the Pentagon presumably would lean forward to quickly sort out the requisite modifications and certifications, which is no small matter when it comes to nuclear weapons employment. The Airbus-made Eurofighter, on the other hand, would dovetail with plans by Germany and France to build the Future Combat Air System — and prop up local industry at the same time. Airbus said it would consider a pick of the F-18 as a death knell for the futuristic program, a view that France is reportedly also pushing behind the scenes. At the same time, there is the question of the U.S. government's willingness to approve a European aircraft for the most sensitive of missions, especially when the Trump administration already feels cheated by the continent on defense and trade. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, once in the running, is not expected to make a return to the competition, the German Defence Ministry spokeswoman told Defense News. Kramp-Karrenbauer said she will decide by the end of March. Speaking at Munich, she also hinted at a new round of fundamental discussions about the nuclear-sharing mission in general. “That is the political dimension of the decision that we have to debate within the coalition,” she said. “I want to have that debate relatively quickly, as we need clarity.” Three strikes? The “Taktisches Luftverteidigungssystem,” or TLVS, is one of those German word creations that sounds as complicated as it is. The program would replace the venerable Patriot anti-missile system that's been in service for decades. Made by Lockheed Martin and its German junior partner MBDA, it boasts several new features, like 360-degree radar, interceptor coverage and open-data architecture. Crucially, Berlin wants complete control over all system components, as opposed to simply buying something akin to a license for using American-made gear, which is how many weapon sales work. While officials had been gung-ho about the program, things have gone quiet since last December, when the government disclosed that contract negotiations over the industry consortium's second offer weren't going as expected. At the time, the plan was to conclude talks by the end of the year, though that didn't happen. As of earlier this month, the talks were still ongoing, according to the defense spokeswoman. “The negotiations are on a good track,” she told Defense News. Once considered a must-have project by Berlin, TLVS' future may now look iffy, especially given there is talk of yet another, third offer to be solicited from the vendor team. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/munich-security-conference/2020/02/24/germanys-to-do-list-a-spring-of-indecisions-is-brewing-in-berlin/