Textron, General Dynamics picked for Marines' light armored vehicle prototype

On the same subject

• 

  December 11, 2019 | International, Land

  Analysis: NATO's defence budget formula is flawed — and Canada isn't going to meet its target

  Trump is angry that a number of NATO nations haven't met an agreement, reached five years ago, to spend two per cent of their annual Gross Domestic Product on defence DAVID PUGLIESE, OTTAWA CITIZEN Another NATO summit brings another chance for U.S. President Donald Trump to browbeat America's allies for not spending enough on defence. Trump is angry that a number of NATO nations haven't met an agreement, reached five years ago, to spend two per cent of their annual Gross Domestic Product on defence. But that GDP yardstick has been rendered almost meaningless this year as the tiny nation of Bulgaria has joined the U.S. super power as being one of NATO's top military spenders. Bulgaria's GDP is so small that by purchasing eight F-16 fighter jets in a one-time outlay of $1.5 billion, the country will now be spending 3.25 per cent of its economic output on its military. Only the U.S., which spends 3.4 per cent of GDP on defence, is higher. Using the GDP measurement means that Estonia, which has one of the smallest navies in the world with four ships, has reached the NATO gold standard of two per cent. Canada, which spends more than 20 times the amount in actual dollars on its military, is viewed as a NATO deadbeat. For that reason, both Conservative and Liberal governments have pushed back on the GDP measurement, which was agreed to by NATO nations at a summit in Wales in 2014. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, arguably the most supportive leader of the Canadian military that the country had seen in decades, dismissed the notion of reaching that two per cent target, even though Canada signed on to the goal. At the Wales summit, Harper's staff pointed out that reaching the two per cent mark would have required the military's budget to almost double, something that was not fiscally or politically possible. Harper himself had come under fire from defence analysts who pointed out that under his government, the percentage of GDP spent on defence reached almost an all-time low of around 1 per cent. But Harper countered that it's the amount of actual spending and capability of a country's military that matters, not the GDP measurement. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was essentially using the same argument Tuesday when he met with Trump at the NATO summit. “I think it's important to look at what is actually being done,” with defence dollars, Trudeau said. Canada only spends about 1.3 per cent of GDP on defence. But tabulate the defence dollars actually being spent on the military and Canada ranks an impressive sixth among the 29 NATO nations. The Liberal government's defence policy has promised even more money in the future. Military spending is set to increase from the current $21.8 billion to $32.7 billion in 2026-2027. Trudeau also noted in his meeting with Trump on Tuesday the key role Canada is playing in NATO operations in both Latvia and Iraq. Germany has taken a similar approach to the one used by Canada's Conservative and Liberal governments. It believes the amount of money actually being spent on military forces is more important than measuring it as a percentage of the GDP. Germany has also pointed out it is the second largest provider of troops for NATO operations. Trump is expected to once again criticize Germany for its level of defence spending. But the country does not seem to be in a hurry to make the two per cent goal. Germany currently spends about 1.4 per cent or around $64 billion annually. Earlier this year it told NATO it would reach 1.5 per cent of GDP by 2024. The other issue facing the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces related to the two per cent goal is one of capacity. Even if the defence budget was boosted to meet two per cent, the department simply doesn't have the ability to spend that amount of money. Around half the defence budget is for salaries and while the senior military leadership would welcome an increase in the ranks the problem they face is that young Canadians aren't exactly rushing out to join the forces. The military could spend more money on acquiring additional equipment. But a lack of trained procurement staff has been an obstacle standing in the way of even getting approved programs underway. Trudeau's explanation Tuesday about Canada's military spending being on a steady increase seemed to placate Trump, at least for now. The U.S. president responded that he views Canada as “slightly delinquent” when it comes to defence spending. “But they'll be okay,” he told journalists. “I have confidence. They'll get there quickly, I think.” https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/analysis-natos-defence-budget-formula-is-flawed-and-canada-isnt-going-to-meet-its-target

• 

  February 11, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Pentagon science office launches program to develop manufacturing in space ... and on the moon

  Nathan Strout WASHINGTON — The Defense Department's emerging technology research arm will invest in new materials and processes that could enable manufacturing in space and on the moon's surface. To that end, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is launching the Novel Orbital and Moon Manufacturing, Materials and Mass-efficient Design program, or NOM4D. “NOM4D's vision is to develop foundational materials, processes and designs needed to realize in-space manufacturing of large, precise and resilient Defense Department systems,” said Bill Carter, program manager in DARPA's Defense Sciences Office, in a press release. DARPA is launching the program in response to the natural limitations of rocket launches in placing larger structures and systems in orbit, the agency said. While the launch industry has expanded significantly in recent years, with dozens of new providers entering the fray, rocket launches are inherently limited — even the largest rockets have weight and volume restrictions. The solution? Place smaller pieces of a structure on orbit with multiple launches, and then assemble them in space. Or better yet, collect materials from the moon to build with. “We will explore the unique advantages afforded by on-orbit manufacturing using advanced materials ferried from Earth,” Carter said. “Large structures such as antennas and solar panels can be substantially more weight efficient, and potentially much more precise. We will also explore the unique features of in-situ resources obtained from the moon's surface as they apply to future defense missions.” Manufacturing in space could also enable more flexibility in the design of space systems. Today, most satellites are designed to be as compact as possible in order to be integrated with and launched on rockets. But by assembling systems in space, systems could be designed without some of those volume restrictions, allowing them to be more mass efficient. “We're looking for proposers to come up with system designs that are so mass efficient that they can only be built off-earth, and with features that enable them to withstand maneuvers, eclipses, damage and thermal cycles typical of space and lunar environments,” Carter said. “Given the constraints of ground test, launch and deployment, the traditional approach to designing space structures is not likely to result in dramatic improvements in mass efficiency. In order to take the next step, we've got to go about materials, manufacturing and design in a completely new way.” The idea of assembling systems and structures in space isn't new. Famously, the International Space System was assembled in space using a number of components individually launched into space. “People have been thinking about on-orbit manufacturing for some time, so we expect to demonstrate new materials and manufacturing technologies by the program's end,” Carter added. With NOM4D, DARPA will work with participants over three 18-month phases to develop precise, mass efficient structures that could be used for on-orbit construction. Each phase will focus on one of three applications: large solar arrays, large radio frequency reflector antennas, and segmented infrared reflective optics. The agency will host a proposers day webinar on Feb. 26 and expects to release a broad agency announcement solicitation in February. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2021/02/09/darpa-launches-new-program-to-develop-manufacturing-in-spaceand-on-the-moon/

• 

  April 6, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Pentagon denies it seeks to hide future budget information

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is pushing back on reports that it seeks to classify previously public information about its future spending plans, with the department insisting that the transparency of this information that is public as part of the regular budget rollout process will not change. The Future Years Defense Program provides spending projections for how the Department of Defense plans to invest its money over the coming five-year period. While the numbers are not locked in and regularly change year by year, the projections can provide valuable information to the public and industry about what the department views as priorities and where programs might be going. Information about a legislative proposal from the Pentagon seeking to classify FYDP data was published Monday by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood wrote that the proposal would “make it even harder for Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget.” It is traditional for FYDP numbers to be included as part of the budget rollout, as well as be included in program-by-program breakdowns. However, Pentagon spokesman Chris Sherwood said that the legislative language is not aimed at information that is currently made public during the normal budget process. Instead, it is focused on a requirement in the fiscal 2018 National Defense Authorization Act on what is provided to Congress. “The 2018 NDAA required a formal unclassified version of the FYDP report,” Sherwood said in a statement. “The Department has not to date complied with that request because we are very concerned that providing that level of detail for the outyears might put critical information at risk and breach classification standards." “The DoD is exploring all possible paths forward, including requesting relief from the new requirement, as well as trying to determine how much information can safely be public in addition to all the budget information already made available,” he continued. “It is important to note that there is a difference between a formal Unclassified FYDP report and the unclassified outyear data for any given program that people often refer to as the FYDP for a program. We have and will continue to provide the classified FYDP as we have since 1989. There will be no reduction in any currently provided information,” he added. Asked specifically if that meant information about the FYDP that is usually included in public budget documents provided to media, Sherwood said: “The legislative proposal would not affect or change how DoD currently provides budget information.” Whether that assurance will satisfy advocates of keeping the FYDP open is uncertain, but the DoD appears behind the ball on convincing Congress that less transparency is a good idea. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas., the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said he had only learned of the proposal when reports emerged, but indicated that any attempt to limit information about the FYDP is unlikely to meet a warm reception on Capitol Hill. “Obviously my inclination is: That's a bad idea,” Thornberry said. “I have not heard the department's justification for it. But I would say they've got a pretty high evidentiary threshold to overcome, to get Congress [to] go along with classifying the five-year FYDP.” Thornberry said he understands the concern, elucidated in the DoD proposal, that modern computing techniques could allow a foreign competitor to gather information about American plans from the data. But taxpayers deserve to know how their money will be spent in the future, the former committee chairman said, and that outweighs such concerns at the moment. The House believes “that the greater good is the transparency with the American people. So that's our default position, I think in both parties,” Thornberry said. “They hadn't made their case to me yet, but I think it's going to be hard for them to overcome that default position.” The Pentagon ultimately benefits from more openness when it comes to discussions on the budget, said Tom Mahnken, a former Pentagon official who is now president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “It clearly is important to protect certain aspects of the U.S. defense budget from disclosure. The Defense Department has successfully met that challenge for decades,” Mahnken said. “But there is also a compelling case for disclosing how the Defense Department plans to spend its resources and whether its budget is aligned with its strategy. “Transparency ultimately helps the Defense Department make the case for the resources it needs in Congress as well as the public at large.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/04/03/pentagon-denies-it-seeks-to-hide-future-budget-information/