Back to news

November 16, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Les EAU profitent du Dubai Airshow pour renforcer leurs équipements militaires

Pleins feux sur les Emirats arabes unis et leur salon de l'aéronautique, le Dubai Airshow. Afin d'assurer le plus grand rayonnement possible à l'évènement, les EAU ont annoncé une série de contrats militaires, pour un montant global dépassant les 4 Md€. L'annonce la plus notable a été la commande de deux ravitailleurs supplémentaires Airbus A330 MRTT, pour un montant de 625 M€. Les livraisons débuteront en 2024 et les deux appareils bénéficieront des dernières améliorations opérationnelles développées par les équipes d'Airbus Military Aircraft. Autre contrat d'importance, celui passé auprès de Progressive Technologies pour la fourniture de munitions pour la Force aérienne et la Défense aérienne des Emirats Arabes Unis. L'américain Goodrich s'est vu attribuer 16,5 M€ pour la fourniture de services de soutien et d'assistance technique ainsi que de pièces de rechange. Thales a de son côté enregistré deux contrats, l'un portant sur l'achat de systèmes de communication, l'autre portant sur l'achat de pièces de rechange et de maintenance.

Air & Cosmos du 15 novembre

On the same subject

  • A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short

    September 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security, Other Defence

    A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short

    Mark Gunzinger Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past. Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy. While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets. The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs. While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.” This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders. More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks. Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations. If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options. In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake. First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs. Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language. Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball. The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/

  • Is Dassault Aviation on Way to Another Rafale Jet Export Contract?

    July 28, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Is Dassault Aviation on Way to Another Rafale Jet Export Contract?

    Dassault Aviation CEO Eric Trappier hinted at a new Rafale jet export contract in the making while speaking at his company's first half 2020 financial results conference in Paris earlier this week. “A potential new Rafale export contract is postponed,” he said while referring to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Dassault's performance without naming the country with whom his company was close to signing the contract with. This is the first official acknowledgement by Dassault Aviation of a new Rafale export order reaching the contract stage- the first since deals were struck with Egypt, Qatar and India starting 2015. Reports of India being in talks to buy an additional 36 Rafale aircraft have been going on for a while now, but nothing has been revealed officially as yet. In addition, Dassault Aviation is in talks with UAE and Malaysia. It is in competition to sell jets to Switzerland and Finland pitted against European rivals Eurofighter and Saab. Of these prospects, India appears as the most likely candidate even as the first five Rafale jets arrive in India Monday. Earlier this year, comments by the Indian Chief of Defence Staff, Gen Bipin Rawat that a potential order for 114 jets would be “staggered” set off speculation of an additional order for Rafale fighters. A staggered purchase (of the Rafales) would ease financial burden by paying for the jets as they are manufactured. In addition, buying additional Rafales would ensure that the jets keep getting supplied to India uninterrupted beyond the end of the first contract for 36 jets. Several Indian media reports said that French aircraft manufacturer Dassault and India's HAL are in talks for possible cooperation in producing Rafale fighter jets in India for additional anticipated orders under a staggered procurement plan. The Economic Times reported in February this year that a few rounds of discussions have taken place between the two companies on possible work share for additional orders of the Rafale. In this context ‘work share' could mean local assembly of either the aircraft or some major components. It could also mean installation of some Indian components in the jet. Dassault and HAL are already implementing a contract to modernize India's Mirage-2000 jets. Additional Rafales could be cheaper than the 36 ordered in 2016 for Euro 7.8 billion. Of the total cost, Euro 195 million was spent on India-specific enhancements which will come down as the majority of the cost was for R & D, modification and certification. Besides, India had paid for setting up two bases for just 36 aircraft. These bases can easily accommodate more jets. https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27509#.XyCAdZ5KiUk

  • Signature du nouveau contrat d’objectifs et de performance 2022-2026 entre le ministère des Armées et l’Onera

    March 23, 2022 | International, Aerospace

    Signature du nouveau contrat d’objectifs et de performance 2022-2026 entre le ministère des Armées et l’Onera

    DÉFENSE Signature du nouveau contrat d'objectifs et de performance 2022-2026 entre le ministère des Armées et l'Onera Florence Parly, ministre des Armées, et Bruno Sainjon, PDG de l'Onera, ont signé, le 3 mars dernier, le contrat d'objectifs et de performance (COP) de l'Onera, pour la période 2022-2026. Ce document, qui « reconnaît le succès de la transformation de l'Onera et la consolidation de son statut de partenaire clé du ministère des Armées et de l'industrie aéronautique et spatiale », est l'aboutissement d'un travail entamé dès 2020 entre l'Onera, l'Agence de l'innovation de défense (AID) et l'ensemble de ses partenaires institutionnels, académiques ou privés. Il en résulte neuf objectifs opérationnels, dont, notamment, « l'exploitation de la complémentarité de l'Onera et du CNES au bénéfice du secteur spatial ». Bruno Sainjon souligne que « le ministère des Armées confirme une nouvelle fois son soutien au développement de l'Onera, par le renouvellement de sa subvention précédemment réévaluée, complétée par le financement d'investissements tels que la modernisation des moyens de télédétection aéroportée ou de calcul intensif, ou encore la croissance de l'activité contractuelle du secteur Défense de l'Office ». Florence Parly a déclaré : « Ce contrat d'objectifs et de performance pour la période 2022-2026 illustre pleinement le soutien de l'État à l'Onera, en prévoyant une augmentation des moyens financiers qui lui seront alloués. Il conforte le rôle central de l'Office dans la recherche et le développement de la filière aérospatiale française, en pleine synergie avec l'industrie dont il contribue à l'excellence au niveau mondial. L'Onera contribue directement à notre souveraineté sur le long terme, non seulement pour la France mais également pour l'Europe. Avec ce contrat d'objectifs et de performance, l'Office se voit confirmé dans sa mission d'être au cœur des grands projets aérospatiaux ». Le Journal de l'Aviation du 21 mars

All news