Hanwha Aerospace Awarded $2.4 Billion by Australia for 129 Infantry Fighting Vehicles

On the same subject

• 

  December 20, 2022 | International, Other Defence

  New Japanese strategy to up defense spending, counterstrike purchases

  Japan has released its National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy and Defense Buildup Program.

• 

  October 4, 2019 | International, Land

  State formally approves $39M Ukraine arms sale

  BY REBECCA KHEEL The State Department formally approved a potential $39.2 million sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles and related equipment to Ukraine, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced Thursday. News of the approval broke earlier this week, but Thursday's announcement represented the formal notification to Congress of the approval. The sale, which is now subject to a 30-day congressional review period, would include 150 Raytheon-made Javelin missiles and 10 launchers, as well as related equipment and support. “This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of Ukraine,” Thursday's announcement said. “The Javelin system will help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity in order to meet its national defense requirements.” The United States first sold Ukraine 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers in 2018. Thursday's announcement comes as House Democrats pursue an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, in part over his handling of U.S. military aid to Ukraine. The Javelins are separate from almost $400 million in Pentagon and State Department aid that was held up earlier this year, but they have still come under scrutiny after they were mentioned in the July call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that's at the center of an impeachment inquiry. Democrats are probing whether Trump pressured Ukrainian leaders to investigate 2020 election rival and former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, as alleged in a whistleblower complaint. Among the questions is whether Trump held up military aid to Ukraine, which is battling Russia-backed separatists, as leverage. About $400 million in aid for Ukraine approved by Congress was held up over the summer before being released Sept. 11. Trump acknowledged holding up the money, but has alternately said he did so because of concerns about corruption or because he believes Europe is not contributing enough to Ukraine. In the July call, Zelensky told Trump his country was almost ready to buy more Javelins, according to a rough transcript of the call released by the White House last week. Immediately after Zelensky mentioned the Javelins, according to the rough transcript, Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor though” and asked Zelensky to look into CrowdStrike, a U.S.-based internet security company that initially examined the breach of the Democratic National Committee's servers in 2016. On the call, Trump also asked Zelensky to work with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Bar to investigate Biden's role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor, according to the reconstituted transcript. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/464257-state-formally-approves-39m-ukraine-arms-sale

• 

  December 9, 2019 | International, Other Defence

  Opinion: Is Pressuring Allies To Pay More For Defense Worth The Cost?

  President Donald Trump appears to be getting his wish that U.S. allies pay more for their own defense, which begs the question: Is the victory worth the cost? Pushing allies to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense is not a new concept. Trump's predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama both argued for greater burden sharing, and Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region had allies starting to move toward that benchmark. Arguably, Trump's “America First” drumbeat is getting NATO allies to pay a bigger share of the cost of their defense three decades after the end of the Cold War. Military spending by European NATO nations and Canada has risen 4.6% this year, and the majority of allies have plans to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024, according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. Meanwhile, the U.S. is on a path to dial back its contribution from 22% of NATO's total funding to 16%. “This is a direct result of President Trump making clear our expectations that these Europeans would step up to help secure their own people,” says U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Unfortunately, Trump has not stopped there, openly expressing disdain for an organization established to guard against the kind of territorial expansion undertaken by the former Soviet Union. He has hurled sophomoric barbs at steadfast allies such as the UK, Germany and Canada, while refusing to criticize Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the architect of both the Crimea invasion and Moscow's campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. For the first phase of the Trump presidency, his cabinet tried to temper those go-it-alone impulses. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to reassure allies of U.S. support for their security. But more recent White House appointees have been less willing to cross their boss. Even more damaging was Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw most U.S. forces from Syria, disgracefully abandoning America's Kurdish allies to the benefit of Turkey, Russia and Iran and leaving Europe more exposed to attacks from Islamic extremists. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist. Trump sees NATO in a transactional way, “as a project in which the United States acts as a sort of geopolitical umbrella, but the trade-off is that there has to be commercial exclusivity,” he added. “It's an arrangement for buying American.” While Macron is calling for a reconsideration of what NATO means in light of reduced American commitment, European nations are not waiting. They are building up their own defense industrial base. In 2017, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, which is pursuing research toward new missiles, aircraft, missile defense and electronic attack capabilities. U.S. efforts to have its companies included in the work have so far been brushed off. Trump's hardball approach also is being applied to key allies in Asia that have long served as a bulwark against a rising China. The U.S. alliance with South Korea is now reviewed annually, instead of every four years. And after signing a deal in February that calls for South Korea to pay nearly $1 billion to maintain the U.S. military presence there, Washington is now demanding that Seoul pay $4.7 billion annually. Before an agreement was reached, the U.S. walked out of the talks. The Trump administration also is looking for more cash from Japan, calling for more than triple Tokyo's $1.7 billion contribution toward hosting U.S. troops in its country. These requests are straining longstanding alliances. South Korea is edging closer to China, while Japan, which has a strong industrial base, might partner with the UK on its Tempest fighter program. To be sure, U.S. defense exports remain near an all-time high. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced $55.4 billion in potential Foreign Military Sales in fiscal 2019, about the same as the prior year. But there are indications that Trump's pay-up-now methods may lead to an erosion in future sales. Asking allies to contribute more for their own defense certainly has merit, but the wider risks to U.S. global interests cannot be ignored. Can 70-year-old alliances survive if the leading partner vocally questions their value? And if the alliances crack, what would that mean for the U.S. military industrial base? “The more our alliances fray,” says Eric Edelman, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense, “the less interest people have in buying U.S. defense goods and services.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-pressuring-allies-pay-more-defense-worth-cost