US State Department approves potential sale of F-16 munitions to Taiwan- Pentagon

On the same subject

• 

  January 27, 2021 | International, Land

  Raytheon Expects Biden to Block $500M Bomb Sale to Saudi Arabia

  Yet industry executives believe foreign arms sales will remain a priority of the new administration. BY MARCUS WEISGERBER GLOBAL BUSINESS EDITOR JANUARY 26, 2021 02:51 PM ET Raytheon Technologies executives told investors Tuesday that it expects the Biden administration to block at least one arms deal to a Middle Eastern ally as the U.S. shifts its weapons export policy. Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes, speaking on the company's quarterly earnings call, said Raytheon has removed from its books a $519 million projected sale of an “offensive weapon system” to a “customer in the Middle East...we can't talk about.” On the same call, CFO Toby O'Brien said the sale involves an “offensive munition.” The scale of the deal indicates that the execs were referring to the planned sale of some 7,500 Paveway bombs to Saudi Arabia. Last April, Raytheon said in a regulatory filing that its arms sales could be hurt by lawmakers' concerns about Riyadh's role in Yemen's civil war and about the Saudi crown prince's involvement in the murder of a U.S.-based Saudi journalist. Still, in December, Bloomberg reported that the Trump administration was moving ahead with the sale. “We had assumed that we were going to get a license to provide these offensive weapon systems to our customer,” Hayes said. “With the change in administration, it becomes less likely that we're going to be able to get a license for this. And so we appropriately decided that we could no longer support the booking of that contract.” During his Senate confirmation hearing last week, now-confirmed Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the Biden administration would “end our support for the military campaign led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.” Still, Hayes said the company does not anticipate issues selling defensive weapons, like Patriot missile interceptors, and other types of arms in the region. “Look...peace is not going to break out in the Middle East anytime soon,” Hayes said. “I think it remains an area where we'll continue to see solid growth.” Similarly, Lockheed Martin CEO Jim Taiclet expected foreign arms sales to remain a priority in the Biden administration. “As far as international business, including foreign military sales, the tendency of the people in the Biden administration [and] in the president's own statements, reiterate his view that alliances are important that they need to be cultivated, and that they have real value in deterrence and national defense,” Taiclet said. “I do think that we'll have a more open environment for [foreign military sales] and direct commercial sales to our international partners.” Taiclet said foreign weapon sales are a way to generate American jobs and stimulate the U.S. economy. “If jobs and the economy are important, the promotion of international defense sales, one would surmise, would also be important,” Taiclet said Tuesday morning on Lockheed's quarterly earnings call. While arms sales create jobs growth, a 2019 Center for International Policy report said those claims, particularly during the Trump administration, were greatly exaggerated. Still Taiclet, a former U.S. Air Force pilot, said arms sales are a way to deepen relationships with an ally. “I can tell you that there's no better way to get a tighter bond with an ally than sell them jet fighter aircraft,” he said. “All the way back in the mid-[19]80s, when I was in pilot training, we had Saudis in our class, for example.” https://www.defenseone.com/business/2021/01/raytheon-expects-biden-block-500m-bomb-sale-saudi-arabia/171645/

• 

  May 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Study sees British defense sector hurting after Brexit

  By: Martin Banks   BRUSSELS – A report predicts that Brexit will be “more harmful and long-lasting” for the British army and U.K.'s defense sector than for the European Union. The exhaustive study by the Warsaw Institute, a leading European think tank, warns that the U.K.'s exit from the EU means existing arrangements and defense cooperation agreements “will need to be reassessed, completely changing the defense landscape of Europe.” It says, however, that an extension to the current transition period, set to end on Dec. 31, would “mitigate damage” caused by the split. Conversely for the EU side, it suggests that the British departure may have a “healing result,” as both France and Germany will be able to pursue “more comprehensive” defense policies for the remaining member countries. Such moves, it adds, was often blocked by the UK, “which believed that NATO would be sufficient as European peacekeeper.” Publication of the report by the Polish Institute is timely as the 1 July deadline set by both the EU and U.K. for deciding if there will be an extension to the talks is fast approaching. The document paints a largely grim picture for the post-Brexit defense sector, pointing out that companies from across Europe buy or sell parts to various British companies. A no-deal Brexit, which, given the lack of progress in the ongoing trade talks, most analysts currently say is by far the most likely outcome at the end of the year, “would mean price hikes and possible delays in European projects relying on British parts or know-how.” Companies likely to be impacted include industry giants like Airbus and products as “complex and important” for European security as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The independent institute, which specializes in geopolitics and international affairs, notes, “The expected crisis can be averted either by a free trade agreement or, should this option not be possible, a bilateral trade agreement between UK and several if not all EU27 states abolishing tariffs and border checks. “Should these measures not be in place, many projects run by European companies may be hit with delays or even cancellations.” The predicted consequences of Brexit for the British army and U.K.'s defense sector are more harmful and long-lasting than those expected to be felt by the EU. This, the non-profit Institute argues, is because Brexit “will strip the U.K. from valuable training opportunities and will take away some of its international power-projection abilities.” “The U.K. will no longer be able to affect the policies that are agreed upon as the part of the Common Security and Defence Policy," or CSDP. But the “biggest downside” of the divorce will be that fewer resources will be available to make up the future peacekeeping and advisory operations run by the EU worldwide. “There will also be less finances available for these operations coming from the CSDP as there will be less contribution paid towards it.” The third round of talks between the two sides concluded last Friday with little progress being made. The UK government has ruled out an extension to the transition period. David McAllister, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament, said, “From the very beginning, it was to be expected that the negotiations would not be easy. But we started them from a position of certainty, goodwill, shared interests and purpose.” The German MEP, also chair of the UK Coordination Group in the Parliament, added, “In my opinion, there is still a strong, shared interest of both the EU and the U.K. to sign an ambitious and comprehensive new partnership governing their future relations.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/19/study-sees-british-defense-sector-hurting-after-brexit

• 

  June 11, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  We prepared for war, but should have spent our money elsewhere

  By: Laicie Heeley As the host of a national security podcast literally named “Things That Go Boom,” I spend a lot of my time thinking about what keeps us safe. And usually these thoughts are pretty focused on big, obvious threats — things like bombs. But with the world seemingly imploding, a global pandemic spreading, nationwide protests against police brutality erupting and world economies tanking, it's clearer than ever that we've been preparing for the wrong crisis. You could say we were preparing for World War III, when we got hammered by World War C. Staying safe means recognizing what threats we're facing — the ones we're expecting and the ones that might catch us off guard. But we didn't do that. Instead we invested hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and wars while the coronavirus slipped silently and invisibly across our borders, into our homes and even onto our military aircraft carriers. The greatest threats of the past decade have come in the form of a deadly virus, climate-related natural disasters, economic meltdowns, and attacks on free and fair elections. So why are expensive weapons systems and massive military installations still a foregone conclusion? America spends over $700 billion a year on our national defense. That's about a sixth of our overall budget and more than health care, education and all the rest of our discretionary spending combined. And the money is solid, meaning that most of the time, it's not subject to normal swings in the economy. Things are bad? We can't let the military feel the pain. Things are good? The military has to prepare for the next big threat. Bad or good, it's always a great time to invest. You can't put a price tag on security, they say. And they don't. According to the Watson Institute's Costs of War Project, America's war on terror — which now spans more than 80 countries — has cost taxpayers over $6 trillion since 2001, with no signs of slowing down. And in its latest budget proposal, the Trump administration proposed spending $20 billion more on military programs than on all other federal programs combined. Conversely, in 2018, the Trump administration cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's budget by 80 percent, forcing it to scale back its efforts to prevent epidemics in 39 of 49 countries, including China. These and other major cuts to global health spending left the U.S. unprepared for the crisis we're facing now. As vital American businesses — from my son's preschool to our friends' farm — struggle to survive, the defense industry has unsurprisingly had no such problem. In late April, for example, some contractors received a windfall of business when the State Department approved over $2 billion in weapons sales to repressive regimes like India, Morocco and the Philippines, with more supposedly on the way. The defense industry is doing so well in fact that it is showing up on investment lists as an example of one of the best places to “hedge in hard times.” Despite their already deep financial pockets, Congress decided to give these huge contractors billions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds. This comes as a bit of a surprise when you consider that the Pentagon just recently diverted $13.3 billion in unused funds for the construction of the president's border wall. And the first-ever audit of the Department of Defense revealed that it failed to spend almost $28 billion from 2013-2018, all the while asking for more funding. Unfortunately, experts believe this money, which is supposed to be used to help keep workers safe and employed, will instead only help make the companies' executives richer. We're already seeing this play out. Deemed “essential workers” due to the pending arms sales, workers in these manufacturing plants recently went on strike after they were forced to go to work even as a number of their colleagues tested positive for coronavirus. Flush with additional resources from a growing military budget, and as other departments' budgets have been cut, the Pentagon has also become deeply embedded in domestic affairs. Last year, Defense Secretary Mark Esper went so far as to proclaim election security a core part of the Pentagon's mission, despite the hesitance of past officials to allow such forms of military creep. The separation of the civilian and the military is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. The breakdown of these norms isn't good for our country, and it isn't good for the Pentagon, which has already sounded the alarm on what the military can — and cannot — do to deal with the pandemic. What's more, the migration of funds to the Pentagon saps other agencies of vital and limited resources. By many accounts, it also makes us worse at winning wars, as the Pentagon foregoes more focused and essential strategic planning in favor of a do-it-all, buy-it-all reality. Consider that some estimates put the annual cost of eradicating homelessness in the United States at about $20 billion, and the cost of eradicating hunger in America at about $26 billion. And consider, in the midst of an outbreak, that we could buy 2,200 ventilators for the price of one F-35. It doesn't have to be this way. While some may see the Pentagon budget as a sacred cow, it's not. Reconsidering our spending to invest more heavily in the programs that really keep us safe is not only possible, but long overdue. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/10/we-prepared-for-war-but-should-have-spent-our-money-elsewhere/