July 3, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR
WASHINGTON — President Trump has written sharply worded letters to the leaders of several NATO allies — including Germany, Belgium, Norway and Canada — taking them to task for spending too little on their own defense and warning that the United States is losing patience with what he said was their failure to meet security obligations shared by the alliance.
The letters, sent in June, are the latest sign of acrimony between Mr. Trump and American allies as he heads to a NATO summit meeting next week in Brussels that will be a closely watched test of the president's commitment to the alliance. Mr. Trump has repeatedly questioned its value and has claimed that its members are taking advantage of the United States.
Mr. Trump's criticism raised the prospect of another confrontation involving the president and American allies after a blowup by Mr. Trump at the Group of 7 gathering last month in Quebec, and increased concerns that far from projecting solidarity in the face of threats from Russia, the meeting will highlight divisions within the alliance. Such a result could play into the hands of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who is to meet with Mr. Trump in Helsinki, Finland, after the NATO meeting, and whose primary goal is sowing divisions within the alliance.
In his letters, the president hinted that after more than a year of public and private complaints that allies have not done enough to share the burden of collective defense, he may be considering a response, including adjusting the United States' military presence around the world.
“As we discussed during your visit in April, there is growing frustration in the United States that some allies have not stepped up as promised,” Mr. Trump wrote to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany in a particularly pointed letter, according to someone who saw it and shared excerpts with The New York Times. “The United States continues to devote more resources to the defense of Europe when the Continent's economy, including Germany's, are doing well and security challenges abound. This is no longer sustainable for us.”
“Growing frustration,” Mr. Trump wrote, “is not confined to our executive branch. The United States Congress is concerned, as well.”
The president's complaint is that many NATO allies are not living up to the commitment they made at their Wales summit meeting in 2014 to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on national defense. American presidents have long complained about the lack of burden-sharing by NATO member countries, but Mr. Trump has taken that criticism much further, claiming that some of the United States' closest allies are essentially deadbeats who have failed to pay debts to the organization, a fundamental misunderstanding of how it functions.
The Trump administration has already reportedly been analyzing a large-scale withdrawal of American forces from Germany, after Mr. Trump expressed surprise that 35,000 active-duty troops are stationed there and complained that NATO countries were not contributing enough to the alliance.
In the letter, Mr. Trump told Ms. Merkel that Germany also deserves blame for the failure of other NATO countries to spend enough: “Continued German underspending on defense undermines the security of the alliance and provides validation for other allies that also do not plan to meet their military spending commitments, because others see you as a role model.”
In language that is echoed in his letters to the leaders of other countries — including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway and Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium — Mr. Trump said he understands the “domestic political pressure” brought to bear by opponents of boosting military expenditures, noting that he has expended “considerable political capital to increase our own military spending.”
“It will, however, become increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO's collective security burden while American soldiers continue to sacrifice their lives overseas or come home gravely wounded,” Mr. Trump wrote to Ms. Merkel.
Mr. Michel reacted tartly last week to the letter, telling reporters at a European Union summit meeting in Brussels that he was “not very impressed” by it, according to a report by Deutsche Welle.
Mr. Trump has long complained about the alliance and routinely grouses that the United States is treated shabbily by multilateral organizations of which it is a member, be it the World Trade Organization or the North Atlantic alliance. But in Europe, the letters to NATO allies have been greeted with some degree of alarm because of their suggestion that Mr. Trump is prepared to impose consequences on the allies — as he has done in an escalating tariff fight with European trading partners — if they do not do what he is asking.
“Trump still seems to think that NATO is like a club that you owe dues to, or some sort of protection racket where the U.S. is doing all the work protecting all these deadbeat Europeans while they're sitting around on vacation, and now he is suggesting there are consequences,” said Derek Chollet, a former Defense Department official who is the executive vice president for security and defense policy at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
“Europeans have been watching Donald Trump begin to implement his rhetoric on trade in ways that are very combative,” he said, “and they're starting to contemplate whether he would do this regarding security issues, as well.”
Mr. Trump's letter to Mr. Trudeau was reported last month by iPolitics in Canada, and the existence of others was reported last week by Foreign Policy. It was not clear precisely how many Mr. Trump wrote, and the White House would not comment on presidential correspondence. But two diplomatic sources said they believed at least a dozen were sent, including to Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
A White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss the matter, said that Mr. Trump is committed to the NATO alliance and expects allies to shoulder “their fair share of our common defense burden, and to do more in areas that most affect them.”
John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump's national security adviser, said Sunday that it was NATO members who refused to spend more on defense — not the president — who were responsible for undercutting the alliance.
“The president wants a strong NATO,” Mr. Bolton said in an interview on CBS's “Face the Nation.” “If you think Russia's a threat, ask yourself this question: Why is Germany spending less than 1.2 percent of its G.N.P.? When people talk about undermining the NATO alliance, you should look at those who are carrying out steps that make NATO less effective militarily.”
But for diplomats hoping fervently to avoid another high-profile summit meeting collapse with Mr. Trump as the instigator, the letters were concerning.
“Europeans, like many folks in our Defense Department, think that there are many good things that could come out of this summit if only they can keep it from going off the rails,” Mr. Chollet said. “They are hoping to survive without irreparable damage, and so the fact that you have all these storm clouds surrounding NATO and Trump is really worrisome.”
Mr. Trump's disparagement of Europe and the alliance has become almost routine, leaving some veteran diplomats aghast. Last week, Jim Melville, the United States ambassador to Estonia, told friends and colleagues that he would resign at the end of this month after more than 30 years in the Foreign Service, in part because of the president's language.
“For the President to say the E.U. was ‘set up to take advantage of the United States, to attack our piggy bank,' or that ‘NATO is as bad as NAFTA' is not only factually wrong, but proves to me that it's time to go,” Mr. Melville wrote in a Facebook post. He was referring to remarks about Europe that the president made during a rally last week in Fargo, N.D., and comments about NATO that he is reported to have made privately during the Group of 7 gathering.
Still, the president is not alone in demanding more robust military spending by NATO allies.
Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense, wrote to Gavin Williamson, the British defense minister, last month saying he was “concerned” that the United Kingdom's military strength was “at risk of erosion” if it did not increase spending, and warned that France could eclipse Britain as the United States' “partner of choice” if it did not invest more. A United States official confirmed the contents of Mr. Mattis's letter, first reported by The Sun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/trump-nato.html
September 4, 2017 | International, Naval, C4ISR
Elbit Systems announced that it was awarded an approximately $11 million contract to supply an integrated maritime C4ISR system to an Asia-Pacific navy. http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Elbit-Systems-Awarded-an-Approximately-11-Million-Contract-to-Provide-an-Integrated-Maritime-C4ISR-System-to-an-Asia-Pacific-Navy-1002304953
October 22, 2019 | International, Land
By Matthew Beinart | The Army will release a prototype proposal request for the Robotic Combat Vehicle light and medium of variants before November and award contracts for test vehicles next spring, the lead official for the program told reporters on Monday. The push towards the next phase of the Army's effort to grow a robotic vehicle fleet arrives as vendors such as BAE Systems, Germany's Rheinmetall, as well as a team of Textron Systems [TXT], Howe & Howe and FLIR [FLR] all unveiled potential offerings at this week's Association of the United States Army conference in Washington, D.C. Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Army's Next-Generation Combat Vehicle cross-functional team, detailed plans this week for the next phase of the RCV program, which he said would “revolutionize the way [the Army] fights in the future.” The Army will begin to solicit proposals for RCV-Light and RCV-Medium prototypes before the end of the month, with plans to hold a demonstration next March to put the platforms through a platoon-level operations experiment. Following the demonstration, the Army will then select one vendor to build four RCV-Ls and one vendor to build four RCV-Ms, according to Coffman. Those vehicles will then participate in a 2021 experiment going through company-level operations, before ultimately informing a 2023 decision on how the Army wants to construct its robotic vehicle fleet including the addition of an RCV-Heavy. Coffman has said previously that RCV is intended to eventually replace soldiers in dangerous tactical situations on the future battlefield with vehicles that are payload agnostic, semi-autonomous and integrated with a range of sensors and weapon systems (Defense Daily, Aug. 22). BAE Systems unveiled its Robotic Technology Demonstrator at AUSA, which has already participated in a recent demonstration with the Army on an outdoor test track in Sterling Heights, Michigan. “RTD is our way to go after that leap-ahead technology. We've designed it as rolling lab. Our intent is to keep developing this thing. This is a test platform that allows us to keep moving ahead,” Jim Miller, BAE Systems' senior director of business development, told reporters. “This is probably not going to be an RCV-L. It's probably the medium and it may lead us to a heavy option if that's where the Army continues to go.” Miller noted RTD uses a hybrid-electric drive, is currently integrated with a 30mm gun, and contains a range of sensor suites, including a 360-degree situational awareness system and the company's RAVEN soft-kill active protection system. The vehicle also includes a tethered UAS and a legged ground robot developed by Ghost Robotics. Rheinmetall brought its Wiesel Wingman configured toward the RCV-L path, which combines technology from its digitized Weasel platform, in use with the German Army, and the Mission Master unmanned ground vehicle. “That platform already exists in a digitized version. So throw out the hydraulics, the electronic kits inside, the drive-by-wire steering and electric transmission, and you combine it with the sensor and autonomy kit of the Mission Master and then you basically get a new vehicle that we call the Weasel Wingman,” Florian Reisch, director of business development and sales for Rheinmetall's American business, told Defense Daily. Basically you combine the Weasel platform that is able to hold the autonomy kit and then you basically get what the Army is looking for with robotic combat vehicles.” Reisch added that Rheinmetall could be interested in exploring the heavier RCV variants, listing potential options with the company's Lynx or Marder infantry fighting vehicles. “Of course we would be interested in the medium as well because we have different platforms available. We did have different research and development programs where we were modifying these platforms to basically enable them to carry a medium-caliber remote controlled turret. So that would be possible and we are looking at that.” The team of Textron, Howe & Howe and FLIR showcased the Ripsaw 5 platform at AUSA. The companies said it could be scaled down for RCV-L or up to a heavier version for RCV-M. “It's capable for both the RCV light and the RCV medium mission sets that the Army has put forward. What this does is it optimizes the superior value, the logistics, the mission outcome. We've got extraordinary modularity of performance. It's scalable with its high degree of reuse between the light and medium variants, and that just brings unmatched value to the team,” Lisa Atherton, Textron's CEO, told reporters during a teleconference last week. Geoff Howe, senior vice president of Howe & Howe, said the company is continuing to pursue additional technology additions for Ripsaw to grow capability for the robotic vehicle while the Army assesses its needs for a future unmanned fleet. “We are running a parallel program. Our program, we don't stop for anything. We're pushing forward with this technology we've advanced, and our plan is to meet the Army down the road with that parallel program. We're not waiting for anybody. We're pushing this development as far as we can,” Howe said. QinetiQ and Pratt & Miller also announced at AUSA a new partnership to offer a variant of the Expeditionary Modular Autonomous Vehicle (EMAV) for RCV. https://www.defensedaily.com/industry-brings-robotic-vehicles-ausa-army-awarding-deals-initial-prototypes-next-spring/army/
March 12, 2019 | International, Land
By: Jen Judson Update: This story has been updated to reflect Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley's correct title. WASHINGTON — The Army is preparing to make what it deems as necessary, and major, organizational changes to its force structure within the next five years, according to the Futures and Concepts Center director. “There is going to be a fundamental change in the organizational structure to fight the way we are describing,” Lt. Gen. Eric Wesley told an audience at the Center for a New American Security in Washington on March 4. “The Army has relied on counterinsurgency operations over the past 15 years that depended greatly on the Brigade Combat Team. But now, with a new focus on large-scale ground combat operations anticipated in the future operating environment, “that will require echelons above brigade, all of which will solve unique and distinct problems that a given BCT can't solve by itself,” Wesley said. A new organizational structure is necessary, according to Wesley, to align better with the service's new warfighting doctrine under development — Multidomain Operations or MDO. The Army rolled out the first iteration of its new doctrine over a year ago and debuted a revised version — MDO 1.5 — shortly after the Association of the U.S. Army's annual convention in Washington last fall. The new doctrine addresses how the service plans to operate in the future against adversaries that have learned to engage in provocative behavior in a gray zone that doesn't quite classify as conflict, and who have gone to school on U.S. capabilities, developing equipment and operating concepts that threaten the U.S.'s long-standing capability overmatch. The Army is now focused on ensuring that its capabilities match its new doctrine, standing up a new four-star command in Austin, Texas — Army Futures Command — to accomplish such a goal and syncing its other major commands together to focus on six top modernization priorities. Wesley noted that the organizational realignment needed would “probably be even a bigger problem than the materiel requirements" to create a force designed for multidomain operations. “You will see us seek to build out echelons above brigade — the Division, the Corps, even potentially a field Army — to get into theater that can manage these theater problems that otherwise wouldn't be achieved,” he added. The Army will likely have to make trades across the active and reserve forces, Wesley said, “so we have the ability to have a force posture that can rapidly transition if necessary.” But with all of these other dramatic changes, it's inevitable that the force structure change with it, according to Wesley, and that is going to have to happen sooner rather than later, he stressed. The Army has to “dive in” and start putting plans in place in the next five-year budgeting cycle “because if you want to achieve what the secretary and the chief has said, to be an MDO capable force by 2028, you have to start doing some of these organizational changes early,” Wesley told a group of reporters following the event at CNAS. And organizational changes need to align with the service's plans to field first units with newly modernized equipment and in some cases, units are slated to receive this equipment in very short order, according to Wesley. “You need some place for that stuff to land,” he said. “When you talk about long-range precision fires, for example, having an appropriate theater fires command. When you talk about air-and-missile defense and first unit equipped, what kind of force structure do we have to enable that? And it can't just be at the brigade level ... It has to transcend echelons.” Wesley said while he couldn't discuss specifics yet, he believed evidence of major organizational changes will likely be seen toward the end of the next five-year budget period. The three-star also said he believed the Army would need to increase the level of units stationed abroad. “The National Defense Strategy talks about the contact and blunt forces,” Wesley said. “Contact are those that are in theater all the time — either rotational or permanent — and blunt [forces] are those that can rapidly move into theater as necessary.” Getting the right mix between contact and blunt forces will be necessary, Wesley said. "You have to have contact forces. What we are working on is how to optimize what that balance is. You have to have headquarters and fires commands and that can be a deterrent effect immediately.” Over the next few years, the Army plans to war-game the right mix, but “regardless, I think you are going to find that at some point there will have to be a debate on the degree to which we have forward presence, potentially increased, in the future,” Wesley said. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/03/06/major-army-force-structure-changes-afoot/