Pentagon releases RFP for ‘optionally manned’ Bradley replacement

On the same subject

• 

  October 15, 2020 | International, Naval

  Outgoing Pakistan Navy chief reveals details of modernization programs

  Usman Ansari ISLAMABAD — Pakistan's Navy is racing to plug operational and technological gaps as part of an unprecedented modernization effort, according to the outgoing naval chief, but analysts are divided on whether the move will deter adversaries. Adm. Zafar Mahmood Abbasi was speaking during the an Oct. 6 change-of-command ceremony when he detailed measures he enacted, prioritizing “combat readiness and offensive capability” for the historically undersized force amid tension with India. In addition to reorganizing the Navy's force structure, he outlined acquisition and development programs, some of which were mentioned for the first time or had new details confirmed. These included: Expanding the Navy to more than 50 warships (more than doubling major surface combatants to 20, with plans for six additional large offshore patrol vessels). The apparent free transfer of a Chinese Yuan-class submarine to train Pakistani crews for its eight Hangor subs. Developing the hypersonic P282 ship-launched anti-ship/land-attack ballistic missile. Establishing the Naval Research and Development Institute to nurture indigenous design talent (it is presently engaged in programs such as the Jinnah-class frigate, Hangor-class subs, UAV jammers, directed-energy weapons, underwater sonar surveillance coastal defense systems, unmanned underwater vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles). Replacing of the P-3C Orion patrol aircraft with 10 converted commercial jets, the first of which has been ordered. Acquiring medium-altitude, long-endurance unmanned combat aerial vehicles as well as 20 indigenous gunboats, which are to be commissioned by 2025. The Navy would not provide more details when asked, though the gunboats were previously confirmed as undergoing design. Rivals However, analysts are divided on whether these programs will prove a sufficient deterrent against Pakistan's archrival India. Author, analyst and former Australian defense attache to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, claimed it is “quite impossible for Pakistan to achieve a naval structure that even approaches that of the Indian Navy.” “It cannot afford it. At best, its deterrence value would be entirely local," he said. Though he described India's aircraft carriers as “decidedly inferior in effectiveness in international terms, and present no threat to China,” they are a “major threat” to Pakistan's Navy when they are out of range of shore-based air power. In the event of a conflict involving India's Navy, Pakistan “would deploy all its assets to destroy it, and although the [Indian Navy] would suffer major losses, the attrition factor would be the decider,” he added. In contrast, expansion of the Pakistan Navy would “effectively neutralize India's growing naval capability,” according to Mansoor Ahmed, a senior research fellow at the Center for International Strategic Studies in Islamabad. He noted that India has “long enjoyed the most decisive numerical advantage; that is potentially destabilizing, as it could encourage belligerency and aggression, and fuel crisis instability.” However, Pakistan's modernization efforts would “help keep the nuclear threshold high,” “enhance Pakistan's second-strike capability by increasing survivability of its surface and submarine fleet,” and provide considerably increased capacity for attrition, Ahmed added. Similarly, Tom Waldwyn, a naval expert at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said there is merit in the expansion program. “Certainly the ship- and submarine-building plans, once realized, will be a significant boost to Pakistan's conventional maritime capability. By the end of this decade, the frigate fleet will grow by half and the submarine fleet will probably double in size. The planned gunboats could free up the new frigates to perform tasks the Pakistan Navy is currently not able to do as often,” he said. The Hangor program is probably the most noteworthy because of China's involvement, Waldwyn added. “Although local build of Hangor submarines is planned to be complete before the end of the decade, regenerating that industrial capability will be a big effort, and I expect that Chinese assistance in doing so will be crucial.” But one factor depends on whether Germany provides export clearance of diesel engines for the submarine. Pakistan's Ministry of Defence Production, the Navy's public relations department, the German embassy in Islamabad, and Germany's Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control all declined to respond to Defense News' inquiries about the engines. It is unknown whether the program is now proceeding with Chinese substitutes. Weapons and platforms Announcement of a contract for unmanned combat aerial vehicles, however, appears to be official confirmation the Chinese Wing Loong II deal first reported in October 2018. Though photographed undergoing testing in Pakistan, there was never official confirmation of a contract. Air power expert at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, Justin Bronk, said it “is probably one of the most effective options for armed UAV acquisition available to Pakistan.” “It has proven fairly satisfactory in service with the [United Arab Emirates] and others, and can carry a wide variety of cheap and effective Chinese munitions. Its sensor capabilities are not up to U.S. standards, especially in terms of stabilization. But given that sales of MQ-9 and other comparable U.S. systems are restricted, and Israeli UAVs are seldom exported with acknowledged weapons capabilities, Wing Loong II is probably the best option available,” Bronk explained. In regard to what aircraft Pakistan will choose to replace its P-3C Orion fleet, Defense News asked the Navy and the Ministry of Defence Production, but neither provided details by press time. A small number of business or regional jets from Brazil, Russia or Ukraine with non-Western systems (to avoid sanctions) could readily be converted to suit Pakistan's requirements. However, there is no official, publicly available notice or hint of sale to Pakistan from these countries' manufacturers, and there was no response to related queries. Such a conversion could be locally done, as wider naval modernization is underpinned by Pakistan's in-house research and development program. Still, the IISS analyst added, it's not essential the work be performed domestically. On the modernization effort as a whole, Waldwyn noted that “developing the local capability to design and build this equipment is not a prerequisite to providing conventional deterrence in the short term, and importing equipment from abroad can sometimes be less expensive.” “However, there is value to developing the defense industrial base and sovereign technological capabilities, as it can protect you against geopolitical changes going forward,” the IISS analyst added. For Ahmed, domestic work would demonstrate Pakistan “is determined to maintain the required level of modernization” — particularly with directed-energy weapons. Meanwhile, he said he's uncertain what new purpose the P282 missile will serve. He is unconvinced the P282 is a hypersonic cruise missile intended to replace the current ship- and submarine-launched Harbah cruise missile. However, if the P282 is a ballistic missile as claimed, “it would make sense only if deployed on a submarine” where it could serve as part of Pakistan's nuclear deterrent. Nevertheless, he added, the modernization program will still “greatly enhance the overall credibility of Pakistan's deterrent posture vis-a-vis India.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/10/14/outgoing-pakistan-navy-chief-reveals-details-of-modernization-programs/

• 

  March 19, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Special US fund to replace Russian equipment in Europe is shifting its strategy

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — A U.S. State Department fund to help European nations replace Russian-made weapons with American equipment has expanded to eight countries, but will be eschewing a second wave of funding in favor of targeted investments. In 2018, the State Department quietly launched a new effort known as the European Recapitalization Incentive Program, or ERIP, a new tool developed alongside U.S. European Command to speed up the process of getting allied nations off Russian gear. The U.S. benefits both strategically — getting partners and allies off Russian equipment to improve interoperability and deny Moscow funds for maintenance — and financially, thanks to the sale of American weapons abroad. ERIP funds, reprogrammed from unused dollars such as regional Foreign Military Financing, come in one-time bursts to help a country buy American-made alternatives to Russian kit. To get the money, the European nation must pledge to not buy Russian equipment in the future, while also at least matching the dollar value of the ERIP grant with domestic funding. The initial funding round consisted of six countries, totaling $190 million in reprogrammed fiscal 2017 dollars. As of last May, the State Department was considering a second round of ERIP grants and was at least in early discussions with Latvia about the funding. But in the time since, the department decided there won't be a second round, but rather ERIP will become a tool best used on a rolling basis. (Discussions with Latvia turned to different pots of money other than ERIP, according to a source.) “There was a lot of discussions about a second round, but the way it's kind of evolving is, rather than look at it as rounds is, look at it as opportunities,” a senior State Department official told Defense News on condition of anonymity. “It's a tool that we can use when opportunities arise for us to work with a partner to make a difference.” All told, the department has given out roughly $277 million in ERIP grants in the last two years — but, the official said, those relatively small dollars helped lock in roughly $2.5 billion in U.S. weapons sales. That's a win in “pure economic terms,” the official said, even before getting into the hard-to-quantify policy and political benefits. “It was a pretty bold decision in trying to help some of these countries acquire a pretty high capability capital intensive, and for some of them it's their first major [Foreign Military Sales] case, period.” Going forward, there may be tie-in money from EUCOM, which could kick in $1-3 million in small grants to nations that received ERIP dollars in order to help nations with maintenance costs on the newly bought American equipment. That money would likely come from DoD's Section 333 authority. Asked about that potential. DoD spokesman Lt. Col. Uriah Orland said the department "continues to work closely with the Department of State in the planning of security assistance with our European partner nations that enables them to reduce their dependencies on Russia's defense industry and build and/or sustain their own defense capabilities.” Targeted, ongoing funding Bulgaria presents a notable example for how the thinking on ERIP is evolving. The country spent several years debating what fighter jet to purchase, with the finalists coming down to new F-16s from Lockheed Martin, secondhand F-16s from Portugal, Eurofighter Typhoons from Italy and Saab Gripens from Sweden. As ERIP was envisioned, it would be used only for rotorcraft or ground vehicles. But with the government in Sofia teetering on the edge of rejecting the Lockheed deal, the U.S. State Department stepped in and used $56 million in ERIP dollars to push the F-16s over the edge and finalize a deal that could exceed $1.6 billion in costs. “For countries where it's a politically contentious issue, whether for economic or political reasons” the fund can help make a deal happen, the official said. “We were able to close that gap with an ERIP grant that enabled them to make the purchase and acquire the capability.” The second nation to get a targeted ERIP grant has been Lithuania, which in October announced plans to buy six UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters to replace its Soviet-made Mi-8 fleet. The State Department kicked in $30 million of ERIP funding to help complete that deal. In fact, no one piece of equipment has benefited from ERIP as much as the UH-60, of which three of the eight ERIP grants has helped procure. The eight projects to date are: Albania: $30 million for UH-60 procurement. The UH-60 is produced by Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary. Bosnia and Herzegovina: $30.7 million for the Bell Huey II. Croatia: $25 million for Bradley fighting vehicles, manufactured by BAE Systems. Croatia is also working to stand up local maintenance for the equipment. North Macedonia: $30 million for Stryker vehicles, produced by General Dynamics. Slovakia: $50 million for UH-60 procurement. Greece: $25 million earmarked, but the government is still debating what to buy. Likely to either be Bradley vehicles or the M1117 Armored Security Vehicle from Textron. Greece stands out because, as a higher-income nation, they are technically ineligible for Foreign Military Financing dollars, but a political decision was made to support them with ERIP anyway, the official said. Lithuania: $30 million for UH-60 procurement. Bulgaria: $56 million for eight Lockheed-produced F-16s. All of those deals except Greece and Lithuania are under contract, with a letter of request from Lithuania expected in the next few weeks. As to future opportunities, “we always kind of have our eye open, and we rely on the country teams out in the field to bring us these opportunities and think about them,” the official said. Although at the moment there are no potential ERIP projects in the works. “We continue to look at the Baltics, we look at the Balkans,” the official said, adding that “countries within Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Balkans moving towards a new ground mobility or rotorwing systems with something to divest would be our top candidates.” All of those deals except Greece and Lithuania are under contract, with a letter of request from Lithuania expected in the next few weeks. As to future opportunities, “we always kind of have our eye open, and we rely on the country teams out in the field to bring us these opportunities and think about them,” the official said. Although at the moment there are no potential ERIP projects in the works. “We continue to look at the Baltics, we look at the Balkans,” the official said, adding that “countries within Eastern Europe, the Baltics, the Balkans moving towards a new ground mobility or rotorwing systems with something to divest would be our top candidates.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/03/18/special-us-fund-to-replace-russian-equipment-in-europe-is-shifting-its-strategy

• 

  January 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Interservice rivalries: A force for good

  By: Susanna V. Blume and Molly Parrish It's no secret that the military services fight hard to protect their shares of the defense budget. Just last week, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday made his case for a greater share of the defense budget. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy quickly answered, making the same claim on behalf of his service. What if the Department of Defense were able to use these rivalries as a force for good? The secretary of defense should pit the services against each other in a healthy competition for solutions to real operational challenges. The reward? More funding in their budgets to implement the best solutions. It is by now old news that the 2018 National Defense Strategy solidified a shift in priorities from long-term counterinsurgency and stabilization operations in the Middle East to strategic competition with China and Russia. This shift represents a significant change in what the country will require of the joint force in the future. As a result, to fully embrace this shift in priorities, it follows that the services must accept additional risk in some areas in order to invest in the capabilities required to sustain U.S. military advantage over aspiring great powers. In other words, in order to implement the NDS, the DoD must shift resources. But shifting resource around with the defense budget is really hard. For the most part, defense budgets are built from the bottom up, with each program having strong institutional champions, regardless of how relevant that program is to the current strategy. In this environment, it's difficult to take money away from something to give it to something else. The result is budgets that largely reflect the status quo. While the DoD should of course avoid capricious and destabilizing swings in funding for defense programs, there are times when deliberate, strategy-driven shifts in resources are necessary. To make it a little easier to move money around the DoD in these cases, we recommend in our latest report that the secretary of defense harness interservice rivalry as a force for good. The secretary should give the services specific operational challenges to solve at the outset of the budget cycle, and reward the service or services with the best solutions at the end of the cycle with the funds to implement them. The DoD competition would start at the beginning of the budget cycle, with the operational challenge given alongside the usual strategic, planning and fiscal guidance. Over the course of the budget cycle, the services would each work to come up with solutions to the operational challenges posed by the secretary. During program review, the services would present their solutions to defense leadership. The service or services with the best solution to the secretary's challenges would then receive the funds to implement them. To fund this competition, the secretary would have to hold back some resources at the start of the process, effectively giving less to each of the services to begin with. This decision will be extremely unpopular with the services, but it will also ensure that the secretary has easily accessible funding available to him or her at the end of program review with which to ensure that the services are implementing his or her top priorities. The idea of spurring innovation through competition is not new. The DoD already uses competitions to drive innovative solutions to a wide variety of technical challenges. Take the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's Launch Challenge, which aims to improve resiliency in space by tasking participants to “launch payloads to orbit on extremely short notice.” DARPA will give the team who is able to complete both launches a prize of $10 million to continue their work. In addition, this past September, the DoD's Joint Artificial intelligence Center, along with the National Security Innovation Network, hosted a Hackathon at the University of Michigan. Participants came from both academia and the commercial industry to find artificial intelligence-enabled solutions. The hackers were given a specific problem and then tasked with finding a solution. The winners of the Hackathon are rewarded with — surprise — money! The services like money just as much as the average citizen, and the Department of Defense needs to take this concept and use these persistent and unavoidable interservice rivalries as a force for good. A healthy competition between the services, incentivized by funding, could be the next step toward implementing and addressing the challenges inherent in implementing the National Defense Strategy. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/21/interservice-rivalries-a-force-for-good/