US Space Force is urged to flag emerging humanitarian crises on Earth

On the same subject

• 

  February 17, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Plus forte hausse depuis dix ans pour les dépenses militaires mondiales

  (Munich) Les dépenses militaires mondiales ont connu l'an dernier leur hausse la plus élevée depuis dix ans, sur fond de rivalités croissantes et de ce que le chef de l'État allemand a qualifié de « dynamique destructrice » au plan mondial. La progression a atteint au total 4 %, selon le rapport annuel de l'institut IISS publié vendredi peu avant le début de la Conférence sur la sécurité de Munich. En ouverture de cette grand-messe annuelle internationale sur les questions de défense, le président allemand Frank-Walter Steinmeier a planté le décor. « Année après année, nous nous éloignons de l'objectif d'une coopération internationale visant à créer un monde pacifique », a-t-il regretté. La « compétition des grandes puissances » gagne « toute la planète », a dit le président allemand, en critiquant l'égoïsme national répandu à ses yeux par les États-Unis de Donald Trump qui refusent « l'idée même d'une communauté internationale » . «Course aux armements» « Le monde ne peut pas se permettre une course aux armements », lui a fait écho la présidente démocrate de la Chambre des représentants, Nancy Pelosi, parlant d'« érosion préoccupante des cadres pour le contrôle qui ont rendu le monde sûr pendant des décennies ». Les dépenses militaires « ont augmenté avec la sortie des économies de la crise financière (de 2008) et sous l'effet d'une perception accrue des menaces », a relevé le directeur général de l'Institut international d'études stratégiques (IISS, International Institute for Strategic Studies). La mort du traité FNI sur les forces nucléaires intermédiaires (portée de 500 à 5500 km) en 2019 et l'extinction potentielle du traité New Start sur les armes nucléaires intercontinentales en 2021 bouscule l'ordre international post-Guerre froide, tout comme la montée en puissance de la Chine ainsi qu'une série de crises régionales, de l'Ukraine à la Libye. Dans un tel contexte, les deux plus gros budgets militaires mondiaux, ceux des États-Unis (685 milliards de dollars) et de la Chine (181 milliards), poursuivent leur croissance exponentielle, avec une hausse de 6,6 % dans les deux pays en 2019 par rapport à 2018. Les dépenses américaines ont augmenté à elles seules de 53,4 milliards de dollars l'an dernier, soit l'équivalent du septième budget mondial de la défense, après ceux de l'Arabie saoudite (3e), de la Russie (4e), mais avant ceux de la France (8e). « En Europe, les inquiétudes liées à la Russie continuent d'alimenter la croissance des dépenses avec une hausse de 4,2 % par rapport à 2018 », pointe également John Chipman. L'accroissement massif des capacités militaires chinoises est une source majeure d'inquiétude aux États-Unis comme auprès de leurs partenaires en Asie-Pacifique. La Chine s'est aussi lancée, comme la Russie, dans le développement d'armes hypersoniques susceptibles de déjouer les défenses antimissiles adverses, met en garde l'institut londonien. L'armée russe a annoncé en décembre la mise en service de ses premiers missiles hypersoniques Avangard, l'une des nouvelles armes vantées par le président Vladimir Poutine comme « invincibles » et « indétectables ». Europe bousculée En Europe, les interrogations grandissent devant le risque de désengagement des États-Unis, de plus en plus centrés sur l'Asie-Pacifique, même si ces derniers ont renforcé pour l'heure leur présence militaire dans l'est du continent face à la Russie, tout comme dans le Golfe face aux menaces iraniennes. Les pays membres de l'OTAN, Allemagne en tête, sont aussi budgétairement sous la pression du président américain Donald Trump qui leur réclame un effort plus massif pour arriver à l'objectif de dépenses égales à 2 % du PIB. Après Donald Trump en 2018, le président français Emmanuel Macron a en outre « semblé jeter le doute » à son tour sur l'engagement de solidarité collective au sein de l'Alliance en cas d'agression de l'un de ses membres, rappelle l'ISS. Il a aussi ébranlé ses partenaires en estimant l'OTAN en état de « mort cérébrale ». « Deux des trois puissances nucléaires de l'Alliance (la troisième étant le Royaume-Uni) ont ainsi semé l'incertitude sur cette question clé de la sécurité collective », souligne John Chipman. https://www.lapresse.ca/international/202002/14/01-5261007-plus-forte-hausse-depuis-dix-ans-pour-les-depenses-militaires-mondiales.php

• 

  January 15, 2021 | International, Aerospace

  Indian government clears $6.5 billion deal for homemade Tejas fighter jets

  By: Vivek Raghuvanshi NEW DELHI — India on Wednesday cleared the country's largest-ever indigenous defense deal worth $6.5 billion for the purchase of 83 LCA MK1A Tejas light combat aircraft. The deal was approved by the government's apex security body, the Cabinet Committee on Security, which is chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The deal will see state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited manufacture 73 LCA MK1A Tejas fighter versions and 10 trainers versions, the Ministry of Defence said. “This deal will be a game-changer for self-reliance in Indian defence manufacturing. It would act as a catalyst for transforming the domestic aerospace ecosystem. The LCA-Tejas is going to be the backbone of the [Indian Air Force] fighter fleet in the years to come,” Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said. “Under the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan [Self-Reliant India Initiative], India is continuously growing in its power to indigenously design, develop and manufacture advanced cutting edge technologies and systems in the defence sector,” the MoD said in a statement. “About 500 Indian companies including MSMEs [micro, small and medium enterprises] in the design and manufacturing sectors will be working with HAL in this procurement. The programme would act as a catalyst for transforming the Indian aerospace manufacturing ecosystem into a vibrant self-sustaining ecosystem.” The MoD said this deal is the first “Buy (Indian-Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured)” category procurement of combat aircraft with indigenous content of at least 50 percent — and it's expected that will increase to 60 percent by the end of the program. HAL Chairman Ramakrishnan Madhavan said the Tejas program will involve the highest level of local work in comparison to any Indian program of this scale. According to a senior HAL executive, the private defense companies that will support assembly include Larsen & Toubro for the wings, Dynamatic Technologies for the front fuselage, Alpha Tokal for the rear fuselage, and VEM Technologies for the center fuselage. The LCA MK1A fighters will have new capabilities including midair refueling; improvement in operational roles; enhanced combat capability; maintainability improvements; and active electronically scanned array radar, an electronic warfare suite and beyond-visual-range missile capabilities, a company executive said. The Indian Air Force will sign a formal contract with HAL during the Aero India air show in Bengaluru next month, according to an MoD official. Each LCA MK1A fighter is powered by a single F404-GE-IN20 engine, and each jet will cost about $78.5 million, another HAL executive said, adding that the program is expected to generate 5,000 jobs in India. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/01/14/indian-government-clears-65-billion-deal-for-homemade-tejas-fighter-jets

• 

  January 14, 2019 | International, Land, C4ISR

  What to look for in the upcoming Missile Defense Review

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon's Missile Defense Review is in the final stages of pre-release, sources tell Defense News, after more than a year of release delays. The review, a congressionally mandated document looking at the status of America's missile defense capabilities, could be unveiled as soon as the next week, although it has yet to be briefed to Congress, sources say. And while there appears to be significant momentum to actually releasing the document soon, the release has seemed imminent in the past, only to be pulled back at the last minute. The document has been the focus of intense speculation from both the missile defense and nonproliferation communities, with a wide expectation that the document will call for investments in new missile defense technologies and, potentially, a notable change in America's missile defense posture toward Russia and China. For years, America has maintained that missile defense systems capable of defeating major strategic systems are being designed and deployed not at another great power, but only at rogue actors — chiefly Iran and North Korea — who might seek to strike at the U.S. or its allies. The National Security Strategy — the overall security guidance released by the Trump administration in late 2017 — underlines this thinking, stating that “the United States is deploying a layered missile defense system focused on North Korea and Iran to defend our homeland against missile attacks. This system will include the ability to defeat missile threats prior to launch. Enhanced missile defense is not intended to undermine strategic stability or disrupt longstanding strategic relationships with Russia or China.” But analysts, such as Thomas Karako of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, have argued that in an era of great power competition, as illustrated in the National Defense Strategy, it's foolish to lack a plan for defending American assets and allies against China and Russia. “For so many decades we've been standing there like Samson, pushing apart Russia and China on the one hand and missile defenses on the other, saying they're not related,” Karako said. “So in some ways, that implicit connection [from previous reviews] could become much more explicit and pursued more aggressively, and really it should be.” Citing a need to defend against Russian and Chinese weapons is simply stating a need to defend against a major challenger. But China particularly seems to grow as a concern year over year for the U.S. government; it's notable that acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan's message to his staff upon taking over the top job at the Pentagon was to focus on “China, China, China.” Members of the nonproliferation community, such as Laura Grego of the Union of Concerned Scientists, argue that the technology needed to ensure America can defeat a major nation's use of strategic weapons is so expensive and technically challenging that getting to that point will divert funding from better projects. That spending decision would also encourage potential adversaries to invest more, not less, in nuclear weapons to counter America's perceived missile defense improvements, the argument goes. “Even absent a specific policy to take on Russia and China more explicitly, planned missile defense plans continue to be made in patterns that Russia and particularly China will not be able to ignore,” she said. “Trying to counter China and Russia's strategic deterrent with missile defense is of course a fool's errand and gets us further from reducing nuclear weapons, not closer. I hope that wiser heads prevail.” It is important to differentiate between regional missile defense systems being placed to defend allies against Russia or China, and the bigger homeland defense mission, said Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association. For example, based on congressional guidance, it is expected the review will include ideas for countering hypersonic weapons, a threat currently originating from only Russia and China. “If the review goes so far as to broaden the role of missile defense to defend the U.S. homeland against Russian and Chinese missile attack[s], that would mark a major and radical change in U.S. policy,” Reif said. “The United States, Russia and China aren't taking into account the concerns the others have about their offensive and defensive developments sufficiently seriously to avoid increased risks of instability.” Technical capabilities While the great power competition may be a key driver, it is unlikely to be the only new aspect of the report. Karako hopes to see a layout for how missile defense capabilities fit into America's overall deterrence strategy, noting: “All capabilities are finite. So how is it that finite active missile defenses can contribute to deterring a Russia or China?" “Everyone knows if they want to, they could overwhelm a given defense. But it really comes down to how do certain capabilities deter aggression, opportunism, limited strikes, all these kind of things,” he said. “So I'll be looking for the articulation of how it contributes to overall deterrence for ourselves and our allies.” He's also keeping an eye out for how the document defines “integrated” missile defense systems, and whether planners can avoid stovepiping capabilities. Reif, for his part, is looking to see if there are increases in the Ground-Based Interceptor force in Alaska and California, or the creation of an East Coast missile defense site. Technologically, the report is expected to push for so-called left-of-launch technologies — capabilities that can take out a potential missile threat before it even leaves the launcher. “If you can see it early, you can kill it early,” Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command, said in August. “Driving that equation to the left has huge operational advantages because to actually shoot down a missile that somebody launched that comes back down on their head, do you think they are going to shoot another one? I don't think so. They are not going to shoot another one because it's just going to come right back down on their head, and so they stop shooting. Isn't that the whole point?” It's also expected the MDR will call for investment in laser systems, with Michael Griffin, the Pentagon's research and engineering head, saying in November that “you're going to see in upcoming budgets for missile defense a renewed emphasis on laser scaling across several” technology areas. In addition, expect talk of a space-based layer for missile defense, although that may be primarily focused on sensors rather than intercept capabilities — at least for now. Asked about space-based interceptors, Reif said: “Like a zombie that can't be killed, the idea keeps coming back. Pursuing space-based interceptors would be unaffordable, technically dubious and highly destabilizing.” The document, as ordered by Congress, must include milestone targets for developing new capabilities. It requires statements of five- and 10-year programmatic goals for developing capabilities, “as well as desired end states and milestones for integration and interoperability with allies, and a statement on the role of international cooperation,” per congressional guidance. Getting the MDR published has proven to be a nearly Sisyphean task for the Trump administration. Pentagon officials originally said the document would be released in late 2017 — then February, then mid-May and then late in the summer. In September, John Rood, who as undersecretary of defense for policy is the point man for the MDR, indicated the report could come out in a matter of weeks. And in October, Shanahan, then the deputy secretary of defense, said the document had been done “for some time.” There is also widespread speculation in the missile defense community that the review has been delayed, at least in part because of the warmed relations between the Trump administration and North Korea. Notably, the mid-May time frame for release, which was floated by Shanahan in April, lined up President Donald Trump's planned meeting in Singapore with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. While that meeting was canceled and then eventually happened in June, there was a sense the Pentagon did not want to do anything that could jeopardize those talks, such as releasing a report discussing how the U.S. could counter North Korean capabilities. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/01/11/what-to-look-for-in-the-upcoming-missile-defense-review