Leonardo invests in ‘fully electric’ Skydweller drone

On the same subject

• 

  April 9, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  India opens contest to supply more than 100 fighter jets

  NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India is seeking to buy around 110 fighter jets, the air force said in a request for information issued on Friday, marking the first step toward a long-delayed deal that could be worth more than $15 billion. Boeing (BA.N), Lockheed Martin (LMT.N), Saab (SAABb.ST) and Dassault Aviation (AVMD.PA) are among the manufacturers expected to compete. The aircraft must be built largely in India as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's drive to build a domestic industrial base. The air force said in a notice that “85 percent will have to be made in India by a Strategic Partner/Indian Production Agency”. Lockheed has offered to move its F-16 production line in Fort Worth, Texas, to India and make it the only plant worldwide to produce the F-16 for not only India but also other countries, said Vivek Lall, vice president, strategy and business development at Lockheed Martin. Lockheed has teamed with India's Tata Advanced Systems to build the planes locally while Sweden's Saab has entered into a partnership with the Adani Group, a resources conglomerate. The other contenders have not announced their local partners. The tender will be open for makers of both single engine and twin-engined combat jets, in a widening of the field. The Eurofighter Typhoon and Russian aircraft are also potential contenders under the new requirements. A spokesman for Dassault Aviation which makes the twin-engine Rafale declined to comment. Earlier, the defense ministry had sought expressions of interest from single-engine manufacturers which effectively restricted the contest to Lockheed's F-16 and Saab's Gripen fighter jets. But in February the government asked the air force to open up the competition to twin-engined aircraft, in the latest flip-flop in policy that has delayed the acquisition process for years and left the air force short of hundreds of planes. India began its search for new planes for the Indian air force in 2003 to replace its Soviet-era MiG fighters. The request for information is open until July, the air force said. A request for proposal will then be issued followed by bid evaluations and contract negotiations. The process could take years, officials say. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-defence/india-opens-contest-to-supply-more-than-100-fighter-jets-idUSKCN1HD1UX

• 

  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

• 

  April 17, 2020 | International, Naval

  Berlin is reportedly brokering a deal to consolidate German naval shipbuilders

  By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — The German government is facilitating talks between major naval shipbuilders in an effort to set up a national conglomerate rivaling industry champions like Naval Group in France and Fincantieri in Italy, according to a local media report. Negotiations to that effect have been ongoing behind closed doors since the beginning of 2020 between ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, German Naval Yards Kiel, and Lürssen, broadcaster NDR reported Thursday. Top executives from the companies confirmed the developments on Twitter, though without elaborating on the status of the negotiations. News of the consolidation plan comes in the wake of German Naval Yards Kiel and TKMS losing a multibillion-dollar contract for new Germany Navy frigate-type ship, dubbed MKS 180. Dutch bidder Damen won the competition in January. The Dutch company has teamed with Lürssen for the program, vowing to do most of the construction work in Germany. Still, the MKS 180 award angered industry lobbying groups in Germany, who argue that the country's good-faith effort to carry out a European Union mandate for bloc-wide competition in major public programs backfired. Other European countries tend to keep such defense-related work within their own industrial ecosystems, the argument goes. “The need for a German consolidation in naval shipbuilding has been repeatedly emphasized by us and our owner, Privinvest, during the past few years,” German Naval Yards Kiel CEO Jörg Herwig was quoted as saying in a statement. “Only a strong German player will be able to remain globally competitive and strengthen the German technology sector.” Privinvest is owned by French-Lebanese businessman Iskandar Safa. A request for a statement from the German Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy was not immediately returned on Thursday. The idea of a unified German naval industry cluster runs counter to the narrative that the European defense market should focus less on national retrenchment and instead bank more on efficiencies through cross-continental mergers. “I think we have to be honest with ourselves and admit that European defense acquisition will be mostly national, and maybe binational or trinational,” said Sebastian Bruns, a naval analyst with the University of Kiel in northern Germany. Bruns said Lürssen's role in the consolidation talks will be interesting to watch because the company has its foot in the door of the MKS 180 program — through Damen — and at the same time would benefit from a German industry conglomerate with the Navy as a guaranteed customer. All the while, German Naval Yards Kiel has begun the legal process of challenging the Defence Ministry's pick of Damen for the business. Letting the litigation play out in the courts is all but certain to cause a delay in the eventual delivery of the vessels to the sea service. But in the course of future consolidation talks, the government could use its leverage as the broker — and ultimate approval authority — to put the protest by German Naval Yards Kiel to rest and let the MKS 180 program proceed swiftly, Bruns said. “In the end, the most important question is what actual results will come out of this,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/04/16/berlin-is-reportedly-brokering-a-deal-to-consolidate-german-naval-shipbuilders