Rheinmetall, Leonardo CEOs say deal paves way for EU defence consolidation

On the same subject

• 

  June 26, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Le Rafale toujours en lice pour le remplacement des F-16, malgré une offre "hors procédure"

  C'est toujours le flou autour des offres pour le remplacement des F-16. Pour rappel, trois avions sont sur la table du gouvernement : le F-35 américain, l'Eurofighter Typhoon européen et le Rafale français qui lui, est "hors procédure" — c'est-à-dire que l'offre n'a pas été faite dans le cadre de l'appel d'offres officiel. Une situation qui a déjà donné naissance à quelques cacophonies au sein du gouvernement, le ministre de la Défense voulant privilégier les offres rendues en bonne et due forme, et le Premier laissant entendre que l'offre française (plutôt alléchante) serait examinée, malgré le fait qu'elle n'ait pas respecté les procédures. Et quatre mois avant que le gouvernement ne doive rendre sa décision, rebelote. Le ministre de la Défense Steven Vandeput (N-VA) a déclaré dans dans les pages du Morgen que la proposition de la France pour le remplacement des F-16 était exclue, "On ne peut pas faire comme si les Français faisaient partie de la procédure", affirme Steven Vandeput , vendredi. La décision est bien entendu à prendre au sein du gouvernement et le ministre a toujours dit qu'il y présenterait les éléments concernant ce dossier, a indiqué vendredi le cabinet de Steven Vandeput (N-VA), tout en rappelant que les Français n'ont pas introduit leur offre dans le cadre de la procédure officielle. Paris toujours en lice Sa sortie dans le Morgen a rapidement conduit le Premier ministre Charles Michel à réagir en soulignant que l'offre de Paris était toujours en lice et que la décision finale serait "prise au sein du gouvernement et nulle part ailleurs". "L'offre des français est sur la table du gvt. Nous devons encore discuter. Les discussions ne sont pas closes. Il y a toujours trois candidats constructeurs, deux dans la procédure classique et une autre proposition émanent des français", a alors précisé Steven Vandeput à l'entrée du conseil des Ministres Interviewé sur Radio 1, M. Vandeput a précisé qu'il ne voulait pas envoyer un message au Premier ministre avec son intervention dans la presse, mais uniquement "mettre les points sur les i" après que le constructeur français Dassault - qui produit le Rafale - a lancé une large campagne de communication sur son offre. Sur la question d'un contexte géopolitique européen, avec le projet d'une Europe de la Défense qui pourrait influencer le choix du gouvernement, le ministre de l'Intérieur Jan Jambon répond : "Ce projet là est très important, mais il est pour l'horizon 2045. D'ici là, nous devons acheter de nouveaux avions et on ne peut pas attendre." "On n'achète pas des bicyclettes, il faut tout analyser : le prix, les éléments techniques... On doit maintenant envisager toutes les options, même celle du prolongement éventuel des F-16" a quant à lui déclaré le vice-Premier Didier Reynders. https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_remplacement-des-f-16-la-proposition-francaise-est-exclue-pour-steven-vandeput?id=9952799

• 

  February 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  The drive to advance missile defense is there, but there must be funding

  By: Richard Matlock Over the past five years, missile threats have evolved far more rapidly than conventional wisdom had predicted. Best known is North Korea's accelerated development and testing of sophisticated, road-mobile ballistic missiles. But the U.S. National Defense Strategy requires renewed focus on greater powers. China has adopted an anti-access strategy consisting of new offensive missiles, operational tactics and fortifications in the South China Sea. Russia, too, has developed highly maneuverable hypersonic missiles specifically designed to defeat today's defenses. Grappling with these sobering realities demands change. The 2019 Missile Defense Review called for a comprehensive approach to countering regional missiles of all kinds and from whatever source, as well as the increasingly complex intercontinental ballistic missiles from rogue states. But programs and budgets have not yet aligned with the policy. The upcoming defense budget submission presents an important opportunity to address these new and complex challenges. The Missile Defense Agency's current top three goals are sustaining the existing force, increasing capacity and capability, and addressing more advanced threats. The first two are necessary but insufficient. The third goal must be elevated to adapt U.S. missile defense efforts to the geopolitical and technological realities of our time. For the last decade, less than 2 percent of MDA's annual funding has been dedicated to developing advanced technology, during which time our adversaries have begun outpacing us. As President Donald Trump said last January, we “cannot simply build more of the same, or make incremental improvements.” Adapting our missile defense architecture will require rebalance, discipline and difficult choices. Realigning resources to develop advanced technologies and operational concepts means investing less in single-purpose systems incapable against the broader threat. It also requires we accept and manage new kinds of risk. Indeed, meeting the advanced threat may, in the short term, require accepting some strategic risk with North Korea. The beginning of this rebalance requires more distributed, elevated and survivable sensors capable of tracking advanced threats. The most important component here is a proliferated, globally persistent space layer in low-Earth orbit consisting of both passive and active sensors. MDA may be the missile defense-centric organization best suited to developing and integrating this capability into the architecture, but there is considerable opportunity for partnering with others to move out smartly, as recently urged by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten. Partnerships with the Space Development Agency and the Air Force can be supplemented by collaborative efforts with commercial space companies. We need not do this all at once. Space assets could be fielded in phases, with numbers, capability (sensors, interceptors, lasers), missions, and orbits evolving over time. MDA demonstrated a similar paradigm with the Delta experiments, Miniature Sensor Technology Integration series and the Near Field Infrared Experiment in the past. Meanwhile, other sensors could alleviate the cost of building new, billion-dollar radar on islands in the Pacific Ocean — efforts which continue to suffer delay. Adding infrared tracking sensors to high-altitude drones, for instance, has already been demonstrated experimentally in the Indo-Pacific theater with modified Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles. These need not be dedicated assets. Sensor pod kits could be stored in theater to be deployed aboard Reapers or other platforms during heightened tensions. We must revisit boost-phase defenses and directed energy. In 2010, the Airborne Laser program demonstrated that lasers could destroy missiles in the boost phase, but deploying toxic chemical lasers aboard large commercial aircraft was fiscally and operationally untenable. Fortunately, considerable operational promise exists with recently developed solid-state lasers (the cost of which is around $2 of electricity per shot). We must move these systems out of the laboratory and build and test operational prototypes. Near-term actions to better manage risk against the rogue-state ballistic missile threat must not overtake the pursuit of these larger goals. Although the Pentagon is currently considering a 10-year, $12 billion program for a next-generation interceptor, nearer-term, cheaper options are available. Replacing each existing kill vehicle on the Ground-Based Interceptors with several smaller kill vehicles would multiply each interceptor's effectiveness dramatically. The U.S. has been developing this technology since 2006, including a “hover” flight test in 2009. Affordable solutions like this must be found. Missile defense cannot do it all. Denying, degrading and destroying enemy missile systems prior to launch must be part of the mix. But left-of-launch activities can be expensive and difficult, and reliance on a cyber magic wand carries risk, too. We need to broaden our approach to attack all parts of our adversary's kill chain. The National Defense Strategy urges that we contend with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be — or as it previously was. To meet the threats of today and tomorrow, we must radically transform our U.S. missile defenses. It falls to the 2021 budget to do so. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/01/31/the-drive-to-advance-missile-defense-is-there-but-there-must-be-funding/

• 

  October 26, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  F-35 officially wins Belgian fighter contest

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Belgium has officially selected the F-35 as its next-generation fighter, becoming the 13th country to join the program, the Belgian government announced Thursday. With that decision, Lockheed Martin has defeated a bid by the governments of Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom for the Eurofighter Typhoon, as well as an informal offer by France for the Dassault Rafale and an option for Belgium to upgrade its existing F-16s. Belgium plans to buy 34 F-35As to replace F-16 inventory, which numbers about 54 jets. The U.S. State Department has already approved the deal, which has an estimated value of $6.5 billion. According to Reuters, Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput told reporters on Oct. 25 that the F-35 beat the other contenders in all seven selection criteria. “We are investing heavily in defense,” Vandeput tweeted, citing Belgium's decision to buy F-35s and new land vehicles. Meanwhile, U.S. stakeholders immediately began celebrating the outcome of the competition. “Lockheed Martin is honored by the Belgian government's selection of the F-35A Lightning II for their future national security needs,” the company said in a statement. “We look forward to supporting the U.S. government in delivering the F-35 program to meet the requirements of the Belgian government.” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, head of the the F-35 joint program executive office, said the decision to join the program will strengthen the U.S.-Belgian relationship. “We look forward to working closely with our Belgian teammates as they mature plans for purchasing their F-35s,” he said in a statement. The U.S. Embassy in Brussels tweeted a response to Vandeput, stressing how Belgium's F-35 selection would add to NATO interoperability. “Belgium will fly @thef35 alongside some of its closest @NATO allies & longtime partners in air defense. US is extremely proud of our enduring air partnership w/ Belgium,” it said. U.S. Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, who chairs the House Armed Services Committee's Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, said Belgium's F-35 buy “reaffirms Belgium's military and strategic partnership with the United States, as well as builds Belgium's defense capabilities as a strong NATO ally.” Turner had interfaced with Belgian officials over the past year, providing assurances that the U.S. Congress would support an F-35 sale to Brussels, he said in a statement. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/25/f-35-officially-wins-belgian-fighter-contest