Rheinmetall reinforcing NATO partner nation: Norway orders almost 300 more trucks worth over €150 million

On the same subject

• 

  December 31, 2018 | International, Aerospace

  Four big questions for the Air Force in 2019

  By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the Air Force leaves 2018 behind and flies into into a new year, the service may face some big changes to its organization and aircraft inventory. Expect to see a lot of these questions answered with the release of the fiscal year 2020 budget, which officials have said will be released in early February. Neither outgoing Defense Secretary Jim Mattis nor its acting head Patrick Shanahan has confirmed a topline budget for the department — the latest reports peg it at $750 billion, up from the $733 billion the Pentagon originally planned for and the $700 billion that President Donald Trump mandated afterward. However, much of this could be dependent on whether the Air Force sees a funding bump this year. What's going on with that F-15X buy? Rumors have swirled for more than a year about whether the Air Force could buy additional F-15s, but it appears that the service will begin purchasing more of Boeing's air superiority jet. On Dec. 21, Bloomberg reported that the Air Force will request 12 F-15Xs for about $1.2 billion as part of the FY20 budget request. The F-15X will be a new variant of the F-15 that includes a new electronic warfare suite, radar, cockpit and the ability to carry more missiles. Bloomberg reports that the decision to buy the new aircraft stems from top Pentagon leaders who want new F-15s to replace the aging models used by the Air National Guard — and pointedly not the Air Force, which has been resistant to buying new, fourth-generation planes. In September, when asked whether the service was considering the purchase of the F-15X, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said the service needed to use its purchasing power to buy more fifth-generation fighter jets like the F-35. "We are currently 80 percent fourth-gen aircraft and 20 percent fifth-generation aircraft,” she said. "In any of the fights that we have been asked to plan for, more fifth-gen aircraft make a huge difference, and we think that getting to 50-50 means not buying new fourth-gen aircraft, it means continuing to increase the fifth generation.” One thing to keep an eye on is how Wilson and her uniformed counterpart, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein, justify the purchase of new F-15s, and how they characterize their own levels of support for the initiative. A lack of enthusiasm could be seen as damning on Capitol Hill. The other big questions: Will the number for FY20 hold if there is more budget fluctuation following Mattis' departure? And what does the Air Force's five-year plan look like? That could provide a hint on just how big this investment ultimately may get. Does the Air Force buy light attack aircraft? The Air Force was supposed to put out a final request for proposals this year for new light attack aircraft. That has officially been pushed back until 2019, leaving two competitors in a state of purgatory. If the service moves forward with a competition, it will come down to Textron's AT-6 and the A-29 Super Tucano made by Embraer and Sierra Nevada Corp. But industry sources are still unsure whether the Air Force will commit to a formal program of record. Another major question is just how big the program will be. If fewer than 100 planes are purchased, those will likely be deployed exclusively by Air Force Special Operations Command for low-intensity combat, Maj. Gen. Scott Pleus, Air Combat Command's director of plans, programs, and requirements, told Air Force Magazine. A larger buy of hundreds of aircraft would allow the Air Force to spread its light attack planes more widely, through the United States, Europe and the Asia-Pacific. How do Air Force space operations change with the addition of a Space Force? The Pentagon's latest draft proposal would funnel the new military branch for space operations under the Department of the Air Force, a decision that would give the Air Force a continued voice on national security space pursuits. The service would be led by a Space Force chief of staff and an undersecretary of the Air Force for the Space Force, who would report to the Air Force secretary. This seemingly gives the service's top civilian a considerable amount of authority over the Space Force. Still yet to be seen is whether that solution will satisfy Congress. Rep. Adam Smith, the incoming head of the House Armed Services Committee, remains skeptical about the need for a separate military branch for space, but other lawmakers may be more bullish about the Space Force's need to remain separate from the Air Force. Another big question is what this means for the military's current space organization. Does Air Force Space Command and the Space and Missile Systems Center transfer over to the Space Force? Do the Navy and Army keep their own portions of the military space enterprise? And who is going to get named as the undersecretary of the Air Force for the Space Force, anyway? Will there be some restructuring of Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon? Earlier this month, Heidi Grant, the outgoing deputy secretary of the Air Force for international affairs, confirmed that the service is considering transferring some of her office's strategy development functions to the Air Staff's office for plans and requirements, also known as the A5. This, she said, was part of a larger reorganization currently being considered by service leadership. These internal decisions reportedly aren't tied to the budget, and Grant said the Air Force could come out with a decision as early as January. However, leaders have said little about what sort of changes have been proposed. Is this just the transfer of some responsibilities from one office to another, or might we see some consolidation or the creation of new offices as a result of the deliberations? https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/12/27/four-big-questions-for-the-air-force-in-2019/

• 

  October 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace

  Opinion: Why Finland Should Pay Close Attention To U.S. Fighter Bids

  Christopher Kojm Finland is coming up on a key decision in 2021: the selection of combat aircraft to replace its existing squadrons of F-18s. The acquisition will be the largest government procurement in Finland's history. Cost will be one factor; capability will be even more important. Yet the most important consideration will be its overall contribution to Finland's security. The decision is not just about buying aircraft, it is also about building partnerships. Last year Finland solicited aircraft bids, and this year it received them from five manufacturers. The proposed multirole fighters are the Dassault Rafale (France), Eurofighter Typhoon (Great Britain), Saab Gripen (Sweden) and the Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet (both from the U.S.). As the Finnish Air Force makes clear, it will aim for “the best comprehensive solution” to meet Finland's needs. It will examine security of supply, life-cycle costs, industrial participation and military capability, and the defense ministry will conduct a security and defense policy assessment. Finland will spend the next year in detailed negotiations with the manufacturers before they submit their final tenders next summer. Sophisticated companies in a competitive business will make every effort to meet Finland's requirements. It is highly likely that Finland will receive very good offers on excellent aircraft. So how should Finland choose? The country is making a decision about its security for decades to come. On this basis, it should give most careful attention to the offers from the U.S. Why? For three reasons: 1. Past performance. Finland made a bold move after the collapse of the Soviet Union, deciding for the first time to acquire advanced aircraft from the U.S. This dramatic turn to the West came two years before its decision to join the European Union. Finland's adoption of the F-18 aircraft opened the door to many security partnerships—with the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. writ large and NATO. Finland has conducted numerous operations with NATO and U.S. counterparts, and its defense forces are world-class. As noted by the U.S. Air Force chief of staff after he flew with Finnish F-18 pilots: “Finland is as good as anybody we've flown with; just exceptional quality. . . . What does that equal when we're added together?” 2. Present partnerships. Finland participates in over 60 international military exercises and training events per year on land, at sea and in the air. The most important exercises involve the U.S. and NATO. Given Russia's seizure of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, these exercises send exactly the right message. As Defense Minister Jussi Niinisto notes: “Today, the Finnish Defense Forces are more capable and more interoperable than they have ever been. That makes us effective in looking after our own security and a solid partner for other EU member states and NATO countries.” 3. Future risks. No one can spell out in detail what security challenges Finland will face in the coming decades. Crises can erupt suddenly. But Finland's strategy for managing risk is sound: a rock-solid commitment to territorial defense and domestic resilience, paired with international partnerships. Decisions in support of that strategy should aim at deepening Finland's ties with its most consequential security partner, the U.S. Decisions that would diminish those ties undermine Finland's strategy. Some will say you cannot trust U.S. President Donald Trump. His words offend. Yet look to America's actions: The previous administration signed a defense cooperation agreement with Finland, and the Trump administration is working with energy to implement it. Some say U.S. attention will drift. Yet America's global power rests on its network of alliances and partners. The more Russia looms as a threat, the more the U.S. needs its partners. Mutual security interests are driving Finland and the U.S. closer together. When the chips are down, Finland will provide for its own defense, as it always has. When it looks to partnerships to augment its self-defense and security, it should look first to the U.S. https://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/opinion-why-finland-should-pay-close-attention-us-fighter-bids

• 

  February 25, 2019 | International, Land, C4ISR

  Raytheon will participate in Army missile defense radar ‘sense-off’

  By: Jill Aitoro WASHINGTON — Raytheon will participate in a missile defense radar “sense-off” to test designs that could be included in the U.S. Army's Integrated Air and Missile Defense system under development. The Army announced plans for the sense-off in October, resetting the approach for the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor, or LTAMDS, program that has struggled to bring about a new radar for well over a decade. The sense-off is “separate and distinct” from contracts awarded to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin last fallto come up with design concepts for a new missile defense radar, according to Bob Kelly, Raytheon's director for integrated air and missile defense in the company's Integrated Defense Systems division, who spoke with reporters Thursday. According to an Oct. 29 notice posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website, the sense-off will take place this spring at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Each vendor with a radar will have roughly two weeks on the range to demonstrate capabilities. A down-select will happen by the end of the year. “We can meet the timeline for both the sense off and initial operational capability in fiscal year 2022,” Kelly said. However, it's unclear what this means for the prior technology development program. Kelly said that effort remains relevant, with the contract ongoing, but referred any further questions about its status to the Army. “Our developmental efforts — what we do for one, it serves the other as well,” he said. “We were both [Raytheon and Lockheed Martin] going to develop prototypes. But with the sense-off, we're doing it faster,” and with more competitors. The sense-off strategy accelerates the timeline by a couple of years, Kelly said. The other lingering question is whether the LTAMDS will include 360-degree coverage — a high priority for the Army, but seemingly one downsized in importance for the LTAMDS effort. “The threshold is not for a 360-degree radar,” Kelly said, adding that Raytheon's base design does include the capability. “We have a lot of scalability in our system, so if the Army decides they don't want [360-degree coverage], we can give them the opportunity in the future to upgrade.” The Raytheon-made Patriot air and missile defense radar was first fielded in the 1980s, and the Army attempted to replace the system with Lockheed Martin's Medium Extended Air Defense System through a co-development effort with Germany and Italy. But that program was canceled in the U.S. after closing out a proof-of-concept phase roughly six years ago. Since then, the Army has studied and debated how to replace the Patriot radar with one that has 360-degree detection capability, while Raytheon continues to upgrade its radar to keep pace with current threats. It is acknowledged that there will come a point where that radar will not be able to go up against future threats. “The Patriot remains exceptional” today, Kelly said. “LTAMDS is looking out beyond tomorrow.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/02/21/raytheon-will-participate-in-army-missile-defense-sense-off/