June 4, 2020 | International, Aerospace

US Should Pull Drones From Missile Control Regime: Mitchell Institute

"I have great hopes that this administration, with its bold unilateral actions on so many fronts, would take unilateral action with this regime on UAVs," says Keith Webster, former DoD head of defense cooperation.

By THERESA HITCHENSon June 03, 2020 at 12:48 PM

WASHINGTON: The Trump administration should unilaterally declare that it will no longer subject drone sales to export control restrictions under the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), says a new Mitchell Institute study.

And Congress should use the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to redefine unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as aircraft, which not only remove them from MTCR restrictions but also would ease US domestic export controls, asserts the paper, “”Modernizing UAV Export Policy for Effective Coalition Forces,”.

“The US Congress should craft language in the 2021 NDAA that defines UAVs as aircraft, not cruise missiles, but as aircraft, and subject to the same export considerations as any other military aircraft,” said Heather Penny, senior resident fellow at Mitchell and the paper's author, during a webinar today. “We believe that this language, a statute, would be sufficient to be able to remove UAVs from being subject to the MTCR guidelines.”

The 35-nation MTCR agreement requires a “strong presumption of denial” for sales of so-called Category 1 drones — those that can carry a 500 kilogram payload more than 300 kilometers. The Category 1 definition is considered as the minimum capability a missile needs to carry a nuclear warhead. Smaller unmanned aerial vehicles also are covered under MTCR's Category 2 rules, but those export restrictions are less stringent.

Even the treaty-hating Trump administration sees the MTCR — a political agreement rather than a treaty — as a key tool in preventing the proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles. This is despite its long-standing efforts to ease drone sales to allies, including through revamping US domestic law to allow “Direct Commercial Sales” by companies, rather than requiring all sales to go through the formal Foreign Military Sales process that requires approval by DoD, the State Department and Congress.

Indeed, over the past year the administration tried — and failed — to convince its MTCR partners to revamp the rules to allow drones flying less than 800 kilometers per hour to slip out from under the Category 1 rules, said Penny.

Washington is now expected to try again at the annual MTCR signatories meeting, she said, instead suggesting a 600 kph speed limit as the line of demarcation between the two categories of export restrictions. (The meetings are usually held in the fall, although there has yet to be an announcement of the 2020 dates.)

But, Penny argued, even if this new effort comes to fruition, it would fail to fix the underlying problem of allowing allies to buy high-end US combat drones — and preventing them from fully integrating with US operations. Secondly, she asserted, complying with MTCR rules “distort the market” in favor of Chinese sales, she said, since China is not a member of the MTCR and has few formal restrictions on arms exports.

“Continuing to adhere to and apply MTCR guidelines to UAVs facilitates Chinese strategic interests,” Penny said. “It's working against US interests.”

Keith Webster, former DoD head of defense cooperation, agreed — calling efforts to revise the MTCR as a “Band-Aid” that would soon loose viability because of the rapid pace of technology improvement.

“I wish we would act unilaterally,” he told the Mitchell Institute webinar. “We have the ability to act unilaterally. And I would like to see us do so very soon. I have great hopes that this administration, with its bold unilateral actions on so many fronts, would take unilateral action with this regime on UAVs.”

That doesn't mean, Webster hastened to add, pulling out of MTCR itself. “Stay in the MTCR,” he said. “It served its purpose.”

The experts acknowledged that a unilateral US move to exempt UAVs from MTCR could spur other nations to do the same for their own weapons systems that could exacerbate nuclear proliferation.

Penny stressed that it was key for the US to renew its commitment to nonproliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles, and support MTCR's rules for those systems.

Saying that “we need to be honest with ourselves about the implications” while seeking “creative solutions” to the UAV issue, Webster seemed to suggest that ultimately the US may decide the MTCR itself isn't worth the trade off. “There are challenges with compliance within the regime with at least one member,” he warned.

As Breaking D readers know, US military leaders and Congress have sounded the alarm on the proliferation of cruise missiles by Russia (an MTCR member) and China that can more easily slip through US ballistic missile defense systems. This is especially true for hypersonic missiles, which have speeds above Mach 5 and while visible on radar are extremely hard to target.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/us-should-pull-drones-from-missile-control-regime-mitchell-institute/

On the same subject

March 20, 2019 | International, Naval

Les français Naval Group et ECA Robotics fourniront 12 chasseurs de mines à la Belgique et aux Pays-Bas
PAR LAURENT LAGNEAU Après avoir, dans la foulée de l'accord de partenariat stratégique conclu entre Paris et Canberra, signé le contrat de design pour les 12 futurs sous-marins Shorfin Barracuda destinés à la Royal Australian Navy, le constructeur naval français Naval Group, associé ECA Robotics, vient de remporter l'important marché portant sur le renouvellement des capacités de lutte anti-mines des forces navales belges et néerlandaises. Lancé en 2016 sous la responsabilité de la Belgique, ce marché, pour lequel une enveloppe de 2 milliards d'euros était prévue, vise à remplacer les chasseurs de mines de type Tripartite [CMT, conçus à Lorient] qui, en service depuis plus de 30 ans au sein des forces navales belges et néerlandaises, arriveront en fin de vie en 2023. Concrètement, le consortium emmené par Naval Group et ECA Robotics aura à livrer 12 chasseurs de mines à la Belgique et aux Pays-Bas mais surtout à imaginer ce que sera la guerre des mines de demain. « La future capacité utilisera des systèmes non habités en surface, au-dessus du niveau de l'eau et sous l'eau afin de détecter puis neutraliser des mines. Gr'ce à cette nouvelle méthode de travail, le vaisseau-mère et son personnel pourront rester hors du champ de mines car seuls les drones y seront actifs », a ainsi résumé le ministère belge de la Défense. Deux autres concurrents étaient en lice pour ce marché, dont le néerlandais Damen, associé à l'allemand Atlas Elektronik et à Imtech België, ainsi que le français Thales [actionnaire de Naval Group à hauteur de 35%, ndlr] allié aux chantiers navals de Saint-Nazaire et à Socarenam. Selon la presse d'outre-Quiévrain, le tandem Naval Group et ECA Robotics s'est imposé en faisant l'offre la moins disante à 1,756 milliad d'euros tout en assurant qu'il y aurait des retombées pour les industriels belges et néerlandais. Ainsi, la production d'une cinquantaine de robots sous-marins devrait se faire à Zeebruges. Quoi qu'il en soit, en obtenant ce marché visant à équiper des forces navales qui passent pour être parmi les plus performantes dans le domaine de la lutte anti-mines, Naval Group et ECA Robotics ont fait un coup de maître. En outre, dans le cadre de l'Otan, et avec 11 autres alliés, la Belgique et les Pays-Bas ont signé une lettre d'intention en vue de coopérer à la création de systèmes maritimes sans pilote, notamment en vue de réduire les coûts en réalisant des économies d'échelle. Et sur ce point, les deux industriels français sont sans doute désormais bien placés pour obtenir d'autres contrats à l'avenir. « Les mines marines sont des armes relativement peu coûteuses et disponibles. Elles peuvent aisément empêcher l'accès aux ports et aux voies navigables. Un incident survenu sur l'Escaut ou dans la mer du Nord peut représenter une perte économique quotidienne de cinquante millions d'euros. Garantir la sécurité des voies navigables et des ports est donc crucial pour notre économie. Chaque semaine, nos navires sont engagés. Ils participent à des missions internationales », a par ailleurs fait valoir le ministère belge de la Défense, qui estime que ce contrat renforcera la position de la Belgique « au sein de l'Otan en tant qu'expert et pionnier dans le domaine ». http://www.opex360.com/2019/03/16/les-francais-naval-group-et-eca-robotics-fourniront-12-chasseurs-de-mines-a-la-belgique-et-aux-pays-bas/
January 20, 2022 | International, Naval

Navy, Lockheed Haven’t Reached Cost Deal on LCS Combining Gear - USNI News
The Navy and Lockheed Martin are still negotiating the cost breakdown for a fix to the Freedom variant Littoral Combat Ship that has restricted the operations of most ships in the class, a service official said last week. Capt. Andy Gold, the program manager for the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, told reporters at the annual …
March 23, 2020 | International, Aerospace

Editorial: Why Coronavirus Cannot Kill Aviation
Not long ago, the biggest concern facing commercial aviation was whether Airbus and Boeing could produce enough aircraft to keep up with demand. Industry leaders fretted about how quickly they could ramp up production and whether the supply chain could keep pace. Some airlines were equally bullish, with American Airlines CEO Doug Parker proclaiming: “I don't think we're ever going to lose money again.” After a run of unparalleled and seemingly unstoppable prosperity, aviation and aerospace have flown into a perfect storm. The temporary shutdown of Boeing's 737 MAX production line has waylaid aerospace suppliers. But that pales in comparison to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, which first crippled a crucial growth engine, China, and is now decimating air transport markets around the world. Each day brings a new round of fleet groundings, layoffs and order deferrals or cancellations, which in the coming months will rip through the manufacturing industry like a tornado. A new forecast from Europe projects Airbus will be forced to cut planned production nearly in half in 2021 and may not fully recover before 2027. Boeing is calling on the U.S. government to provide at least $60 billion in aid to aerospace manufacturers, U.S. airlines want another $58 billion, airports $10 billion and the maintenance, repair and overhaul industry $11 billion. It would not be hyperbole to call this the greatest crisis civil aviation has faced since the dawn of the commercial jet age more than six decades ago. But amid such panic, we need to take a deep breath and remember that this industry has survived many big challenges: oil price spikes; the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; and the 2008-09 global financial meltdown. Each time commercial aviation has recovered and grown stronger, resuming its long-held trend of outpacing global economic growth. In one way, the disruption to our lives and businesses caused by the travel restrictions imposed to control the spread of COVID-19 illustrates the degree to which the world has come to rely on air transportation, from enabling commerce to connecting families. This is a crisis on an unprecedented scale for aviation, and there are airlines and businesses that certainly will not survive. But the extent of the disruption gives hope that demand for air transportation will return unabated once the restrictions are lifted. It is vital for governments, lawmakers and industry leaders to recognize that aviation will need help getting through such destructive upheaval. But in some cases, the optics will invite legitimate criticism. For example, Boeing has returned nearly $50 billion to its shareholders over the past five years while investing far less. Now it wants taxpayers to cough up tens of billions for a bailout? U.S. airlines are no better: They have sent 96% of free cash flow to shareholders over the last five years. And what about those airlines in Europe that should have been allowed to die long ago? Will they use this crisis as leverage for yet another government rescue? Clearly, there are lessons to be learned from the crisis, and a return to business as usual will not suffice. But in the near term, this is not about partisan politics or competitive advantage. It is about helping a vital industry survive this calamity. Commercial aviation is a connective tissue that underpins global commerce, drives prosperity and supports many millions of jobs. Allowing it to wither is not a realistic option. The coming days will be dark, but rest assured the industry will recover and once again prosper. https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/editorial-why-coronavirus-cannot-kill-aviation

All news