Back to news

February 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Germany’s to-do list: A spring of (in)decisions is brewing in Berlin

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/

On the same subject

  • Sub builder Electric Boat injects millions into Groton expansion

    September 24, 2018 | International, Naval

    Sub builder Electric Boat injects millions into Groton expansion

    By: The Associated Press GROTON, Conn. — Submarine builder Electric Boat has announced plans for an $850 million shipyard expansion in Connecticut. The Day reports the company released plans for expanding its Groton shipyard Thursday as it prepares to build a new class of ballistic missile submarines. Electric Boat says it plans to construct a new assembly facility and a floating dry dock. The environmental consulting company helping with the project says the facilities will allow Electric Boat to bring the submarine materials to the site by water and help reduce construction traffic. Some residents have opposed the project, arguing that it will impact their waterfront views and lower their property values. Electric Boat says it looked at alternative sites, but none of them worked. Construction on the buildings is expected to start in 2019. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/09/21/sub-builder-electric-boat-injects-millions-into-groton-expansion

  • This mobile comms unit has people talking

    June 20, 2019 | International, C4ISR, Other Defence

    This mobile comms unit has people talking

    By: Mark Pomerleau The Army has a slew of ongoing efforts to modernize its tactical network, including a focus on a pilot unit that moves quickly through the world and spectrum to tailor critical communications systems support. The Expeditionary Signal Battalion-Enhanced (ESB-E) supports units that don't have organic comms capabilities. These could include military intelligence battalions, chemical battalions, engineering battalions or air defense artillery branches. The ESB-E can also augment regular Army units, as a renewed focus on great powers requires all units to be much more mobile and expeditionary. What that means for signal battalions is their gear will have to be easily carried and set up to enable them to maneuver with units in a rapid manner. “The Army's transitioned to focusing on data environment and near-peer threat. The need for those logistical tails and for the enablers to move rapidly has increased, which is part of the demand signal that has gotten us away from” the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical of the past, Maj. Jeff Forry, S-3 50th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, told C4ISRNET during a demo of Army network modernization efforts at Fort Myer June 18. Forry said they've provided much more modular and scalable capabilities than the Humvee-mounted, satellite transportable terminal-based capabilities of year's past. In March 2018, the Army authorized the beginning of the ESB-E pilot, which is intended to create more mobile and agile kits for signal brigades. As part of the pilot, three companies under the battalion have been outfitted with capabilities from three vendors. This includes basebands — made by DTech, PacStar and Klas — with accompanying Tampa Microwave or L3 satellite terminal dishes of varying diameter depending on the users the unit needs to accommodate. Overall, the battalion has packages to provide communications for a variety of users. “When I plan a mission, less than 20 users, I'd start looking at small [packages] ... when we start pulling 20 up to 48 I'm looking at medium, and then after that we'd either use multiple mediums or start looking at the [large] package,” Forry said. The modularity of the kits mean, in many cases, just adding more users merely involves just sliding a small router into the baseband and utilizing a slightly larger satellite terminal. This is easier than the old WIN-T way of doing things where teams needed to bring full transit cases to add more users and bandwidth. One user noted that the modularity of the kit allows teams to mix and match based on the requirement. For example, if they only need connectivity to the Pentagon's secret network, as opposed to the unclassified network, they only need to bring those services with them. During a recent event at Dugway Proving Grounds, members from the signal battalion supported a chemical brigade, which had to get in and out of affected areas very quickly. The team took a small package and was able to get communication up in less than 10 minutes. They were onsite for 20 minutes, packed up and moved to the next site. The Army is continuing to utilize training events, combat training center rotations and exercises such as Saber Guardian in Europe to evaluate systems within the pilot program and execute operational tests for the gear. “The different approach we took for this prototype that we're doing is we didn't go set off a dedicated unit to do an operational test,” Col. Greg Coile, project manager for tactical networks at Program Executive Office Command, Control, Communications-Tactical, said. “Their operational test is when they go to Saber Guardian, when they go do the operational support, that is how we're testing and ... we use that user feedback going forward.” Coile added that this ongoing experimentation also allows units to get more repetitions as opposed to the old way of doing things, where the unit would get the equipment two weeks ahead of an operational test at something like the Network Integration Evaluation. Now units get an entire year with the equipment, which means the value of feedback is much higher, Coile said. The capabilities for the ESB-E unit will be part of the Army's first delivery of capability in 2021 for its network modernization the service is calling capability set 2021. Coile said the pilot will run until September, after which the Army will begin to make decisions on down-selecting vendors and outfitting actual units with the kits. The plan is to have every unit have the same equipment, as opposed to three companies currently outfitted with different vendor equipment for the prototype. A battalion will be complete in 2019, Coile said, and they are funded for three more in 2020. Moreover, they'll buy more in late 2020 to early 2021 and field those three. In 2021 there is funding for another three units, but the Army leadership will have to make a decision on what units get that. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2019/06/19/this-mobile-comms-unit-has-people-talking/

  • FARA: Five-Way Fight For Army’s Future Scout

    February 26, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    FARA: Five-Way Fight For Army’s Future Scout

    By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. WASHINGTON: After four decades of failed attempts to replace its Vietnam-vintage OH-58 Kiowa scout, next month the Army will choose two of five competing teams to build prototypes for a new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft. Those prototypes, in turn, will compete for a mass-production contract in a 2023 “fly off,” with deliveries no later than 2028. A new scout is urgently overdue as the US faces ever-more-sophisticated Russian and Chinese air defenses that can keep traditional aircraft at bay. But with limited budgets, the Army will have to pick and choose high-priority units to get FARA first, and the rest of the force will have to wait. “We've got to look at, where are the most critical spots to bring capability,” said Brig. Gen. Michael McCurry, director of aviation for the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for operations and plans. The priority is the cutting-edge combat units that must break open sophisticated anti-aircraft defensives for the rest of the force to follow, he told me: “That penetrate force, that's where FARA is going to go.” Learning From the Past Now, the Army has made its job easier in a couple of important ways. Perhaps most important, instead of the traditional dozens or hundreds of detailed technical specifications that hem in designers' ingenuity, Future Vertical Lift director Brig. Gen. Walter Rugen told me, “we have very few critical attributes within our FARA spec.” One huge thing that the Army is not asking for: stealth. Unlike the costly Boeing Comanche cancelled in 2006, the FARA won't have to be shaped and coated to be impervious to radar – which is largely irrelevant to low-flying helicopters hiding behind hills, trees, or buildings, which are most often detected by the sound of their rotors, not by radar. Like the Comanche, advertised as a “digital quarterback,” FARA will act as an electronic hub for battlefield intelligence, collecting target data from drones and passing it to Army artillery, hypersonic missiles, and Air Force strike fighters – but network tech has come a long way since 2006, the year before the iPhone went on sale. Finally, unlike the Comanche, FARA won't be a conventional helicopter with a single main rotor and a small tail rotor for stability. The speed and range required to survive the future battlefield are greater than that classic set-up can achieve. That's driven all four firms who've discussed their designs in public – Boeing has not revealed anything – to adopt innovative configurations the Army's never fielded before. Only one of the designs, Sikorsky's, is based on an existing aircraft that's done actual flight tests. But the Army is confident the competitors can deliver. In detailed modeling, Rugen said, “all those offerings are beating those [minimum] mission critical attributes that we're trying towards.” Congress actually cut the FARA budget for 2020 by $34 million. That won't slow the program down, the Army has said, but it will reduce the amount of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) the service can provide the contractors to build their prototypes around: weapons systems including a 20-millimeter autocannon and a missile launcher, Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) electronics, and the GE Improved Turbine Engine. To simplify and speed up development, all the competitors are required to include these standard-issue systems in their design — but the aircraft they build around them are radically different. Design shop AVX has proposed an aircraft with two helicopter-style main rotors for vertical takeoff, wings for extra lift, and a pair of their characteristic ducted fans for speed. AVX, founded by Bell alumni, has never built an actual aircraft. But it's backed by the manufacturing might of the much larger L3Harris, a firm created by the merger of the 18th and 26th-largest defense contractors in the world (as per their 2019 rankings on the Defense News Top 100). By contrast, Bell – part of Textron, No. 34 on the Top 100 – is a major builder of both military and commercial helicopters, as well as the revolutionary V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, from which the company's contender for the Army's future transport aircraft, the V-280, derives. Ironically, the Bell 360 Invictus is the most conservative-looking of the four known FARA designs: It's a streamlined single-main-rotor helicopter (looking kind of like Comanche) with the addition of two short wings for extra lift. Inside the aircraft, though, Bell is using new fly-by-wire flight controls and other technologies developed for its civilian Bell 525. Aerospace giant Boeing – No. 2 of the top 100, counting its defense contracts alone – builds the Army's current mainstay armored gunship, the AH-64 Apache; its heavy lifter, the CH-47 Chinook; and, with Bell, the V-22 tiltrotor. But Boeing, which built the stealthy Comanche, is so far in public-relations stealth mode on FARA, declining to discuss its design. Karem Aerospace is another design shop with an excellent pedigree – its founder is the father of the Predator drone – but no track record of actually building an aircraft. However, it's partnered with Northrop Grumman (No. 3 of the top 100) and Raytheon (No. 4) for this program, giving it serious manufacturing heft. The Karem AR-40 design has a unique combination of a single main rotor on top, a propeller at the tail that can swivel to act either as a tail rotor for stability or a pusher propeller for thrust, and wings that can tilt for the optimum aerodynamic angle in different modes of flight. Last in the alphabet, comes Sikorsky, the helicopter division of the world's biggest defense contract, Lockheed Martin. While Sikorsky's Raider-X design hasn't flown yet, it's essentially a 20 percent larger version of the two S-97 Raiders the company built and flight-tested at its own expense. (One of them was totaled in the process, thankfully with no loss of life). And Sikorsky already knows how to upscale its compound helicopter technology, because there's already an even bigger member of the family, the Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant, now in flight tests for the Army's Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA). All these aircraft derive from the Collier Trophy-winning X2 and share its configuration: two main rotors on top, using ultra-rigid blades to provide maximum lift with minimum vibration at high speeds, and a single pusher propeller at the tail. Between the X2, the S-97, and the SB>1, Sikorsky's configuration has been through far more flight testing than any of its competitors on FARA. So which team has the best combination of innovative design, proven technology, and the manufacturing muscle to build it at a price the nation can afford? That's a call the Army will make, and soon. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/fara-five-way-fight-for-armys-future-scout

All news