Back to news

January 23, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

Mme Parly : Le ministère des Armées n’est pas un « client vache à lait »

Posté dans Industrie, Politique de défense par Laurent Lagneau Le 22-01-2019

Certes, si la trajectoire financière établie par la Loi de programmation militaire [LPM] 2019-25, promulguée le 13 juillet dernier, est respectée, le budget des Armées va augmenter significativement au cours des prochaines années, avec, au total, une enveloppe de 295 milliards d'euros. Il s'agit de pouvoir moderniser des capacités clés, ce qui signifie un carnet de commandes bien rempli pour les industriels de l'armement.

Pour autant, et comme l'avait déjà dit le président Macron en juillet 2017, « l'intérêt des armées doit primer sur les intérêts industriels. » Plus tard, lors de ses voeux aux Armées en janvier 2018, il avait remis une couche en évoquant un « meilleur rapport coût-efficacité » s'agissant des matériels. « L'État est aux côtés de ses industriels, il l'est pour les besoins de ses armées comme à l'export, mais j'attends la même exigence, la même transparence et le même esprit de responsabilité de nos industriels de défense. [...] Nous investissons [...] pour avoir les meilleurs prestations possibles », avait-il affirmé.

Depuis, la transformation de la Direction générale de l'armement [DGA] a été amorcée. Il s'agit, entre autres, de revoir la façon dont sont conduits les programmes d'armement, en abandonnant la logique dite en « silo » au bénéfice d'un travail en « plateau ». L'objectif est ainsi de simplifier le cycle d'acquisition d'un équipement, tout en favorisant l'accélération et la réactivité des processus et en maîtrisant les coûts et les délais.

Article complet: http://www.opex360.com/2019/01/22/mme-parly-le-ministere-des-armees-nest-pas-un-client-vache-a-lait/

On the same subject

  • A compromise is needed on trans-Atlantic defense cooperation

    October 17, 2019 | International, Other Defence

    A compromise is needed on trans-Atlantic defense cooperation

    By: Hans Binnendijk and Jim Townsend The incoming European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, will need to work with Washington to defuse a quietly simmering trans-Atlantic defense cooperation issue that, if left unsettled, could do more long-term damage to the NATO alliance than U.S. President Donald Trump's divisive tweets. The United States for years has sought to stimulate increased European defense spending while minimizing wasteful duplication caused by Europe's fragmented defense industry. Europe has finally begun to deliver: Defense spending is up significantly, and the European Union has created several programs to strengthen its defense industries. But in the process, the EU has created a trans-Atlantic problem. These advances in Europe could come at the expense of non-EU defense industries, especially in the U.S. The European Defence Fund, or EDF, established in 2017, is designed to support the cooperative research and development efforts of European defense industries, especially small and mid-sized firms. Three eligible companies from at least three EU countries need to apply in a coordinated fashion to receive project research and development funding, which can be up to a 100 percent grant for the research phase. Plans call for spending about $15 billion between 2021 and 2027 to strengthen Europe's defense R&D and stimulate innovation. Model projects include the Eurodrone and ground-based precision strike weapons. A second related EU program, Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, also inaugurated in 2017, focuses more on efforts to foster defense cooperation among subsets of European states. Initially envisioned in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, PESCO is an effort to develop a more comprehensive European defense consistent with EU's common foreign and security policy needs. Thus far, 25 of 28 EU nations have signed up, with 34 modest cooperative projects agreed to by the European Council. The EU estimates that the inefficiency caused by the lack of adequate defense cooperation costs its members between $25 billion and $100 billion annually. These new EU programs, designed to pool and share scarce defense resources, are intended to help address that problem. But the exclusivity of these approaches favor the defense industries of EU members, and the hostile Trump administration rhetoric toward the EU is only supercharging this controversy. President Trump's negative attitude toward NATO and European leaders has undercut European confidence in American trans-Atlantic leadership and strengthened a call in some European capitals for European “strategic autonomy.” Part of this autonomy is developing a more capable and independent European military supported by a stronger European defense industry. A stronger European military capability is a goal shared on both sides of the Atlantic, but not at the expense of defense cooperation. While European leaders understand that they are probably decades away from real, strategic autonomy and military independence, they are shaping the EDF and PESCO approaches to protect European defense industry by being fairly exclusive of U.S. or other non-EU defense industries. This has U.S. defense officials worried. A May 2020 letter to the EU from two senior U.S. officials stated their “deep concern” about the programs' regulations. While current EDF and PESCO programs are small, U.S. officials are worried they will set precedents and will be a model for more ambitious European defense cooperation in the future. They fear not only that U.S. industry will be cut out, but that two separate defense industry tracks will be established that will undercut NATO interoperability and promote further duplication. Some U.S. officials have threatened U.S. retaliation unless changes are made. EU officials respond that these criticisms are excessive. They note that some American defense firms established in European countries will be eligible, that there is nothing comparable to the “Buy American Act” in Europe, that plenty of trans-Atlantic cooperative projects can take place outside of these two EU programs, that the PESCO projects will be guided by both EU and NATO requirements, and that over 80 percent of European international defense contracts go to U.S. firms anyway. They also note that a deterrent to U.S.-EU defense cooperation is that U.S. arms transfer control regulations create potential American restrictions on the sale to third countries of any U.S.-EU cooperative weapons systems that contain U.S. technology. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who seems caught in the middle, has supported both EDF and PESCO, so long as the results fill NATO capability gaps and do not lead to further duplication. Flexibility will be needed on both sides of the Atlantic to defuse this issue before it becomes too difficult to manage. Some opportunities for third-country participation will be needed. Possible approaches to level the playing field include focusing on modifying PESCO, which is still under development in the EU. One suggestion is to create a “white list” of NATO nations not in the EU (such as the U.S., Canada, Norway, post-Brexit United Kingdom and Turkey) that might be invited to participate in selected PESCO projects on a case-by-case basis. This would at least set a precedent that PESCO does not completely exclude third countries. And it would strengthen EU-NATO defense links. Additionally, formal procedures might be established for closer cooperation between the PESCO project selection process and NATO's defense planning process. This will help avoid duplication and identify at NATO those areas where NATO nations outside the EU could cooperate on PESCO projects, The U.S. might also consider amending its arms export control legislation to waive the third-country transfer review requirement for the export of U.S.-PESCO joint projects if the sale would be made to a country to which the U.S. would have made a similar sale. EU internal negotiations on EDF are finished, and changes will be hard to make. Plus, EDF provides R&D funding grants that use European financial resources. While some $118 million in U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds go to European firms, that is about 3 percent of DARPA's budget. So the U.S. might ask for some modest reciprocity from the EDF. But more constructively, DARPA and the EDF might co-fund R&D for joint U.S.-EU projects. The United States has much to gain from a strong European defense industry. Europe has much to gain from cooperation with the U.S. defense industry. All NATO allies need to stimulate defense innovation to compete effectively with Russia and China. Both sides of the Atlantic have much to lose if this issue further disrupts NATO's already shaky political equilibrium. Hopefully von der Leyen's experience as a former German defense minister will help her to understand the urgency and to find a solution to this problem. Hans Binnendijk is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and formerly served as the senior director for defense policy on the U.S. National Security Council. Jim Townsend is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/16/a-compromise-is-needed-on-trans-atlantic-defense-cooperation/

  • U.S. Army awards RTX's Raytheon TOW contracts for $676 million

    October 24, 2024 | International, Land

    U.S. Army awards RTX's Raytheon TOW contracts for $676 million

    The two separate awards comprise an annual production contract for $430 million in fiscal year 2023 and an additional $246 million award in 2024.

  • Military Technology Could Bolster Bell’s Commercial Helicopters

    November 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Military Technology Could Bolster Bell’s Commercial Helicopters

    Tony Osborne October 30, 2020 Bell is pondering how to incorporate advanced technologies developed for its future military platforms into its commercial rotorcraft. Since its rebranding as more of a technology company than a helicopter OEM, CEO Mitch Snyder has been pushing the company on a course of innovation, investing in autonomous flight and electric propulsion as well as advancing defense capabilities. But there appears to be little obvious gain for Bell's line of civil rotorcraft. In the last couple of years, its commercial helicopters have received only fairly minor upgrades. The Model 407GXi light single-engine platform had its avionics upgraded so that it can fly under instrument flight rules, while the Model 412 medium twin received new avionics and uprated power. Yet both upgrades were essentially spun off from modifications for military programs. The 407 update was developed for the U.S. Navy's rotary-wing trainer requirement, which Bell lost to Leonardo, and the 412EPi was born from the type's selection by Japan for its UH-X military utility requirement. Bell's restraint in further developing commercial rotorcraft likely is due to its prolonged effort to bring the new Model 525 to market. Nor is it a great time to bring a new aircraft to market. Sales remain stubbornly slow in the aftermath of a fall in energy prices that dramatically reduced orders from the lucrative oil-and-gas support market. Progress in bringing the fly-by-wire, 9.3-metric-ton 525 super-medium to market—it was launched in 2012 and flown for the first time in 2015—has been painfully slow, in part due to the fatal loss of one prototype but also due to the need to convince certification authorities of fly-by-wire technology benefits. “The hurdle is higher now to try and get [the 525] certified,” Snyder told Aviation Week during a virtual roundtable on Oct. 19. “This technology brings all these benefits and makes the aircraft safer. . . . You have to walk them through and give them time to understand it,” he said. Snyder believes things are on track. “We feel very good about getting certified in 2021,” he added, noting that the company is finishing up testing and preparing for the submission of certification documentation to the FAA. He said Bell is continuing to evaluate new commercial platforms, although the cost of development and certification is prohibitive. “We're always looking to see if there's a clean-sheet out there that we may want to do,” he said. “But I can tell you, at least right now, our focus has been around derivatives to our military products and more about adapting upgrades to our existing models.” The approach appears to be in line with his views at last year's Paris Air Show, where he suggested Bell may not develop a new clean-sheet commercial conventional rotorcraft beyond the 525. One area of opportunity could be development of a single-engine medium helicopter, he hinted, building on Bell's Model 360 Invictus prototype for the U.S. Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) requirement. “Bell's got a lot of single-mediums out there,” said Snyder, noting that hundreds of Model 204/205 Iroquois helicopters remain in service with militaries, civilian operators and government agencies. Operators have become reliant on twin-engine helicopters, particularly because in some parts of the world, notably Europe, single-engine rotorcraft are banned from flying over urban areas. But Snyder said the 360 Invictus also features a supplemental power unit that can act as an auxiliary power unit as well as provide additional performance or auto-rotation power, and could be an enabler for a single-engine medium. It is possible that Bell is looking at a military utility variant of the 360 Invictus, pairing the aircraft with the attack version in the same way that its UH-1Y Venom and AH-1Z Viper platforms have built on the Huey and Cobra. Such a platform could receive interest from the U.S. special operations community, which is looking to replace the Boeing AH-6/MH-6 Little Bird family. Officials have noted that they would like to be able to adapt a FARA platform to carry troops. Sikorsky's Raider X can do so, but the Bell FARA cannot, until a more utilitarian version emerges (AW&ST June 1-14, p. 28). The Army's selection of Bell's V-280 tiltrotor as the larger Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft could enable a commercial spinoff of the platform, Snyder suggests. Bell is also looking to make commercial use of its Electrically Distributed Anti-Torque (EDAT) technology, a ducted electric tailrotor system tested on a Bell 429 light-twin. Flight tests for it were only revealed in February, despite the aircraft's flights in plain sight from its Mirabel, Quebec, facility since May 2019. Testing showed that the EDAT reduced noise levels, but there were also benefits in terms of safety, enabling the option of switching off the anti-torque system while the engines and main rotor are still turning. The EDAT eliminates complex tailrotor gearboxes and shafts and requires less costly inspections and maintenance as well. “We pulled in off-the-shelf technologies to make the demo occur within one year,” said Snyder. “Now we're evaluating what the real technology needs to be as far as repackaging it in the weight and size that we require.” Snyder said the EDAT technology will be aimed at a commercial rotorcraft, but for which product line or when it might be commercially available has yet to be decided. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/aircraft-propulsion/military-technology-could-bolster-bells-commercial-helicopters

All news