News

Sikorsky [LMT] is upgrading the U.S. military's fleet of UH-60 Black Hawks to fight corrosion, increase the number of available flight days for the rotorcraft in Afghanistan and other deployed areas, and reduce operations and maintenance costs. http://www.defensedaily.com/sikorsky-upgrading-uh-60-black-hawks-prevent-corrosion

BORDEAUX, 13 janvier (Reuters) - La ministre des Armées Florence Parly indique dans un entretien à paraître lundi dans Sud-Ouest qu'elle annoncera le lancement d'un nouveau programme de Rafale pour un montant de près de 2 milliards d'euros pour les forces aériennes françaises. La commande, qui sera annoncée lundi lors de sa visite aux usines Dassault Aviation de Mérignac (Gironde), porte sur des Rafale au standard F4 dont les premiers exemplaires seront livrés dès 2023. “Le Rafale F4 bénéficiera d'une connectivité, d'une fiabilité et d'une capacité à contrer les menaces renforcées. Ces améliorations amèneront cet appareil au niveau des avions de dernière génération et permettront à nos forces aériennes de maintenir leur supériorité dans des espaces de plus en plus contestés”, précise Florence Parly. Le contrat de près de 2 milliards d'euros est une bonne nouvelle pour le constructeur aéronautique français qui emploie à Mérignac 1.400 personnes et pour ses sous-traitants. “La loi de programmation militaire prévoit également, en 2023, une commande de 30 nouveaux avions pour des livraisons qui s'échelonneront entre 2027 et 2030. Entre-temps, l'usine Dassault sera bien occupée puisqu'elle livrera à l'armée de l'air des Rafale en version 3 à hauteur de 28 exemplaires entre 2022 et 2024. Nous en avons déjà reçu trois en 2018”, indique la ministre. Florence Parly rappelle les grands contrats déjà signés pour la vente de Rafale à l'Inde, le Qatar et l'Egypte, permettant à l'usine Dassault de tourner à plein régime jusqu'en 2021 et que “plusieurs appels d'offres vont être lancés, en particulier en Suisse et en Finlande”. “Il y a de nouvelles possibilités. Nous y travaillons activement”, dit-elle. (Claude Canellas, édité par Julie Carriat) https://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRKCN1P81H5-OFRTP

Renewed emphasis on stealth, sensor fusion, MUM-T, and active protection systems will ignite new growth opportunities, finds Frost & Sullivan LONDON, Jan. 14, 2019 /CNW/ -- The global combat aircraft market is set for rapid growth. Geographical instability, territorial and border disputes, and the need to replace ageing fleets with modern fourth-/fifth-generation multirole fighters that have longer ferry range, higher payload capacity, and better survivability against integrated air defence networks are key factors fuelling a phenomenal CAGR of 39.0% to 2026. Frost & Sullivan anticipates planned and perceived modernisation and procurement opportunities in the market to exceed $101 billion and revenues to reach $493.14 billion by 2026. "Geopolitics aside, the combat fleet in many countries such as India, Vietnam, and Malaysia are reaching obsolescence fast and replacements must be procured to ensure that power projection capabilities of these countries are maintained. There is a global renewed emphasis on stealth, sensor fusion, manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) capability, and active protection system upgrades," said Arjun Sreekumar, Industry Analyst, Defence at Frost & Sullivan. "To harness lucrative growth opportunities, players should offer a combination of low-cost platforms, aggressive marketing, and flexible payment mechanisms." For further information on this analysis, please visit: http://frost.ly/331 Growth opportunities from a regional perspective include: Geopolitical issues necessitate new procurement and modernisation in the Middle East in countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates Modernisation of existing systems or procurement of second-hand aircraft rather than pursuing expensive acquisition programs in former Soviet bloc countries and other developing countries with smaller economies or low economic growth Collaborative new platforms planned in Europe (Franco-German next-generation fighter) and the Asia-Pacificregion (Japan and Indonesia) Russia and China modernising quickly and phasing out outdated inventory The United States seeking several upgrade programs for its current combat aircraft inventory to extend service lives into the 2030s, until the F-35 and new fifth-/sixth-generation multirole fighters can be procured "Older generation combat aircraft will find future air combat environments challenging in the face of new air and ground-based sensors and weapons capabilities, increased digitalisation of battlespace, and forces moving towards collaborative network-centric operations," noted Sreekumar. "The installation of new generation electronic countermeasures will be a minimum survival requirement in a rapidly evolving environment." Frost & Sullivan's recent analysis, Global Combat Aircraft Market, Forecast to 2026, covers the global market for new aircraft and upgrades specific to combat aircraft. It lists the key aircraft fielded by different countries based on their mission and types and traces their upgrade evolution. Segments such as strike, fighter, and multirole fighter across fixed-wing aircraft types are assessed with market share and the competitive environment discussed for players such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Dassault Aviation, Saab, Eurofighter Jadflugzeug GMBH, Mikoyan MiG, and Sukho. Revenues are broken down by new procurements, upgrades, regions, and combat aircraft types. About Frost & Sullivan For over five decades, Frost & Sullivan has become world-renowned for its role in helping investors, corporate leaders and governments navigate economic changes and identify disruptive technologies, Mega Trends, new business models and companies to action, resulting in a continuous flow of growth opportunities to drive future success. Contact us: Start the discussion. Global Combat Aircraft Market, Forecast to 2026 MD43_16 Contact: Jacqui Holmes Corporate Communications Consultant E: jacqui.holmes@frost.com Twitter: @FrostADS LinkedIn: Frost & Sullivan's Aerospace, Defence and Security Forum Website: http://www.frost.com/ADS SOURCE Frost & Sullivan https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/modernisation-and-procurement-opportunities-in-the-global-combat-aircraft-market-to-exceed-101-billion-by-2026-855358362.html

by Michael Peck “The Navy continues to struggle with rebuilding the readiness of the existing fleet due to enduring maintenance and manning challenges,” the report finds. “As the Navy seeks to expand its fleet by 25 percent, these challenges will likely be further exacerbated and the Navy will likely face additional affordability challenges.” The Navy must fix the teething troubles of a new and complicated aircraft that lacks sufficient spare parts: in 2017, only 15 percent of Marine F-35Bs were rated fully mission-capable. “The Navy and the Marine Corps may have to decide whether they are willing to accept less reliable and maintainable aircraft than originally planned,” GAO warned. How can the U.S. Navy buy more ships and planes when it can't maintain the ones it has? That's the question posed by a new Government Accountability Office report . “The Navy continues to struggle with rebuilding the readiness of the existing fleet due to enduring maintenance and manning challenges,” the report finds. “As the Navy seeks to expand its fleet by 25 percent, these challenges will likely be further exacerbated and the Navy will likely face additional affordability challenges.” Auditors point to seven problems that GAO, Congress's watchdog agency, have highlighted over the past several years, but which have yet to solved: Training: After a series of embarrassing collisions at sea in 2017, which led to fears that Navy has forgotten basic ship-handling skills, training was revamped along with fewer waivers for required training. Still, “while the Navy has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that crews are certified prior to deploying, training for amphibious operations and higher-level collective training may not be fully implemented for several years.” Maintenance backlogs: Between 2012 and 2018, only 30 percent of maintenance was completed on schedule. In particular, most Navy attack submarines have suffered maintenance delays. The backlog is caused by insufficient capacity in public shipyards as well as shortages of shipyard workers. Overworked sailors: In 2017, GAO concluded that the Navy was underestimating how many sailors were needed to man ships, leading to undersized crews and overworked sailors. The Navy says it is aiming for surface ships based overseas to have a minimum of 95 percent of their complement, but GAO auditors who interviewed crews in Japan were told that “the Navy's methods for tracking fit and fill do not account for sailor experience and may be inaccurately capturing the actual presence of sailors onboard and available for duty on its ships. Moreover, sailors consistently told us that ship workload has not decreased, and it is still extremely challenging to complete all required workload while getting enough sleep.” Unrealistic budgeting: The Navy wants to boost the number of ships by 25 percent, and is planning to buy 301 new ships between now and 2048 as well as extending the life of older destroyers and submarines. But GAO and the Congressional Budget Office have calculated that the Navy “has consistently and significantly underestimated the cost and timeframes for delivering new ships to the fleet. For example, the Navy estimates that buying the new ships specified in the fiscal year 2019 plan would cost $631 billion over 30 years while the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that those new ships would cost $801 billion—a difference of 27 percent.” Aging aircraft: Numerous aircraft models across the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps have been plagued by low availability rates due to aging aircraft, lack of spare parts for older planes, and too few mechanics. Too few pilots: The shortage of Marine Corps fighter pilots quadrupled to 24 percent between 2006 and 2017, while the Navy has been scrambling to fill pilot vacancies. “Further compounding their pilot shortages, we also found that the services have not recently reevaluated squadron requirements to reflect an increased fighter pilot workload,” said GAO. “As a result, the reported shortage actually could be greater.” The F-35: The Navy must fix the teething troubles of a new and complicated aircraft that lacks sufficient spare parts: in 2017, only 15 percent of Marine F-35Bs were rated fully mission-capable. “The Navy and the Marine Corps may have to decide whether they are willing to accept less reliable and maintainable aircraft than originally planned,” GAO warned. Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/sink-feeling-navys-7-big-problems-one-f-35-41502

by Milton Ezrati Tokyo will begin to alter the security equation in the Western Pacific in the not-too-distant future. Long pacifist, Japan has decided to accelerate its military spending and effectively begin to gear up. It should hardly come as a surprise. Though Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has long sought to shift Japan from pacifism to what he calls a “normal country,” North Korea's missiles and China's aggressiveness in the Pacific would have left Tokyo little choice anyway. Spending has stepped up dramatically, as has planning. The nature of the buildup responds to other pressures from its great ally, the United States, which wants Japan to buy more U.S. equipment, as well as from the demographic and technological imperatives facing that nation. Even now, some seventy-two years after Douglas MacArthur directed the writing of the then defeated Japan's constitution, the document still limits the country's room to maneuver. Spending cannot exceed 1.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Though clever accounting allows wiggle room, this rule nonetheless imposes a severe constraint especially next to China and the United States, each of which spend more than 3.0 percent of their much larger GDPs on defense. Because the constitution stresses defense exclusively, it naturally questions any preparation to project power, not the least the Ministry of Defense's (MoD) intention to construct two aircraft carriers and possibly base Japanese ground forces outside the country. The constitution also forbids Japan entering any mutual defense pact. Despite Japan's long-term alliance with the United States, it cannot go to America's aid if, for instance, a U.S. base in Asia was attacked. Prime Minister Abe has strived to change the constitution and has won concessions, but it remains a constraint. The MoD budget requests for 2019 nonetheless make clear the new military emphasis. According to documents published in September, the MoD is asking for ¥5.3 trillion ($48 billion) in overall defense outlays, which is 7.2 percent above the 2018 budgeted amount. A jump like that would be noteworthy in any country, but especially so in Japan, where heretofore defense spending grows by fractions of a percent per year. Five-year plans would sustain this heightened level of spending. Still more interesting is the proposed allocation of these funds. Here, each point reflects the various pressures on Japan. North Korea's presence is probably most evident. The budget document emphasizes on “deterrence,” which no doubt lies behind the decision to upgrade the electronic warfare capability of Japan's existing F-15 fighter jets and purchase six F-35A fighters from Lockheed Martin. New plans call for purchases of 147 of these new fighters over the next few years, well above the original plan to buy forty-two of them. U.S. pressure is also clearly evident in this decision, as it will preclude purchase of the domestically developed F-2 fighter. In the words of one Japanese security analyst, Masahiro Matsumura, Japan's “defense industry is being sacrificed for the political goal of maintaining good Japan-U.S. relations.” Less controversial but also clearly aimed at the North Korean threat, the budget calls for Japan to upgrade its airborne early warning capability and spend nearly ¥300 billion ($2.7 billion) to deploy two land-based Aegis missile defense systems (“Aegis Ashore”) and other U.S. manufactured missile interceptors. Measures to counter China, at sea mostly, make a longer list. Of course, the F-15 upgrades and the new F-35s constitute something of an answer to China. More pointed are MoD plans to procure RQ-40 Global Hawk long distance drones, fund research to develop a long-distance undersea unmanned surveillance device, and otherwise enhance naval heft by procuring more anti-air missile and anti-torpedo ammunition as well as more standoff missiles. Plans also call for the construction of a new submarine, aimed, in the words of MoD budget documents, at “detections, etc.” (The etcetera no doubt refers to offensive capabilities that might raise constitutional questions.) Japan also has plans to construct two new multipurpose, compact destroyers that can also sweep mines. They will bring the fleet escort force to a total of fifty-four vessels—a considerable upgrade from the past. More controversial from a constitutional standpoint are other efforts that would: 1) enable the military to project power and 2) obligate Japan to its allies. The MoD seeks to procure a tanker to support the navy at sea, a clear statement that Japanese naval power has gone beyond coastal defense. The ministry also seeks two new C-2 transport aircraft and six more UH-X helicopters specifically aimed at rapid deployments. Also, it seeks a training budget to ready Japanese ground forces for more distant deployments. The ministry also seeks to refit an existing helicopter carrier over the next few years to carry some of the new F-35 fighters and then build a second carrier. In some interpretations, this clearly violates the self-defense strictures in Japan's constitution, though the prime minister and the MoD have couched the requests in defensive terms. In what also might constitute a further violation of the constitution, the ministry has asked for concessions to allow greater integration of Japanese command, control, and planning with allies, the United States, obviously, but also India, Australia, and ASEAN, in other words those nations trying to check Chinese expansion. Beyond these obvious countermeasures to North Korea and China, the MoD has also emphasized the need for modernization. It has set aside funds to establish what in the United States might describe as a cyber-defense command and to investigate the military use of artificial intelligence (AI). In a similar vein, the ministry has dedicated development funds to eventually install protections for Japan's satellites, including an optical telescope with which to identify objects flying nearby. It has further dedicated a not insignificant ¥2.7 billion ($24 million) to work with the United States on what it calls “deep space international awareness.” Not only do these efforts capture further needs, but the budget document emphasizes that the military will help Japan cope with its long-prevailing low birth rate and the resulting shortfall in people who meet the military's age requirements. One other aspect of this effort is the ministry's remarkably un-Japanese push to put more women into uniform. Even if not every yen makes it to its designated place, it is apparent that Japan will begin to alter the security equation in the Western Pacific in the not-too-distant future. If Abe manages to alter the constitution as planned, then the change will no doubt occur at an accelerated pace. It will alter Washington's calculations. Beijing surely will also take note. Milton Ezrati is a contributing editor at the National Interest , an affiliate of the Center for the Study of Human Capital at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), and chief economist for Vested, the New York based communications firm. His latest book is Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live . https://nationalinterest.org/feature/japan-accelerates-its-defense-buildup-41277

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

By: Todd South By the end of this summer, the Army plans to pick three vendors to build prototypes of the weapons that will replace the M16/M4 and the Squad Automatic Weapon for both soldiers and Marines, both in a new, common cartridge. In the coming weeks, officials will release the official “prototype opportunity notice” with detailed expectations of the new weapons family, including not only the new caliber but also what it wants from the weapons' fire control system. Companies will then have between two and four months to submit their samples for Army officials at Program Executive Office Soldier, Crew Served Weapons to evaluate. At the same time, submissions for a SAW replacement, which was part of an earlier effort that helped lead to this approach, will undergo test-firings in July. That will then close the previous prototyping. Once officials select the three vendors in late summer, officials said, they are expected to have 27 months to mature and finalize the weapon. That means the long-awaited replacement for the basic weapons at the core of Army and Marine squad firepower could be ready for troops by 2021. That far outpaces what used to be the norm for acquiring new weapons, Lt. Col. Jason Bohannon, head of PEO Soldier, Crew Served Weapons, told Military Times in a recent interview. That was because the program was approved last year for rapid prototyping. Bohannon said that allowed the program to “jumpstart” weapon and fire control development. Otherwise, the simple requirements approval portion would have taken at least two years. The testing on the first initiative from last year, the SAW replacement, allowed for what Bohannon called an “unprecedented dialogue with the small arms industrial base.” For more than a decade, researchers and industry experts have advocated for an intermediate caliber replacement for the 5.56mm round. Some advocated for simply converting existing 5.56mm rifles to a 6mm caliber with upper receiver swaps. The Army as a whole received a lot of criticism from experts in those areas for continuing on with the 5.56mm, even with enhanced round versions of the caliber. But, Bohannon said that the Army had squeezed out advances not only in the round but also in the weapons platform of the M16/M4, which has seen hundreds of modifications since it first hit units more than half a century ago. For true “leap-ahead” changes, Bohannon said, “You really had to take a systems approach.” Less than a year ago, the search for a replacement caliber was being kept within the intermediate range, anything from 5.56mm to 7.62mm, the existing calibers used in small units. Most saw something in the 6mm range as ideal, based on decades of ballistics research and advocacy. The service narrowed in on the 6.8mm round, but it has kept how that round is delivered up to industry submissions — they're looking for weight savings so polymer, cased telescope, and hybrid materials such as stainless steel, are all on the table. But while it doesn't get as much attention as the new round, the fire control system is likely as important to the new system. For that, officials are expecting the submission to have three fire control capabilities built into one device — a laser range finder, ballistic computer and disturbed reticle. Those are advancements that put basic infantry shooting on par with sniper equipment. And they're not the end of development. The fire control will have to be compatible with the upcoming Enhanced Night Vision Goggle-Binocular, expected to field near the end of the year and with the Family Weapons Sights-Individual system, which includes thermal capabilities and Rapid Target Acquisition that allows troops to shoot around corners and fire quickly from the hip, if necessary. Those capabilities are on a longer timeline, as tech evolves, mostly to avoid strapping too many accessories onto the weapon. To that end, they've built an open architecture system requirement into the fire control so that future features and hardware can work together, Bohannon said. Originally, the Army was looking to start with a SAW replacement and work the rifle/carbine replacement afterward, but that changed with the most recent prototype notice. Following that notice, Brig. Gen. Anthony Potts, who leads PEO Soldier, told Military Times that the new approach is to develop both along the same path, with the same round, so that designers can find the best fit for ammo in both weapons, much like existing M4s and Squad Automatic Weapons both fire the 5.56mm. The first prototype, which will see test firings of weapons systems in July, resulted in five companies being selected. Those companies are: AAI Corporation Textron Systems FN America LLC (two prototypes) General Dynamics-OTS Inc. PCP Tactical, LLC Sig Sauer, Inc. Though they won the right to participate in that first set of submissions and testing, it doesn't mean any of them has a free pass into this next effort. According to the draft prototype notice from October, once production begins, companies will be expected to build at least 200 weapons per month. Within six months of the award, they need to pump out 2,000 weapons a month within three years for a potential total order of 250,000 weapons systems, both NGSW-R and NGSAR, over a 10-year period. That cashes out to $10 million the first year and an estimated $150 million a year for the higher production rate years. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/01/11/heres-when-the-army-will-pick-three-companies-to-build-the-m16m4-and-saw-replacements-for-soldiers-and-marines

By JOHN VANDIVER | STARS AND STRIPES The Army is testing new combat boots at select boot camps in a push to better compete with the more comfortable commercial brands favored by many soldiers for their lightness. The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command Soldier Center in Natick, Mass., has developed prototypes that soldiers will wear at three different basic training and active duty sites during the next four months. “Soldiers live in their boots and many will tell you that there is no piece of equipment more important to their lethality and readiness,” said Al Adams, a team leader at the Army's soldier center, in a statement. “A bad pair of boots will ruin a Soldier's day and possibly result in injuries, so we really believe that each of these prototype boots have the potential to improve the lives of Soldiers.” The prototypes, which utilize more flexible types of leather and lighter outsoles, will be fielded to 800 new recruits at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., and Fort Jackson, S.C. Another 900 pairs will go to infantry soldiers at Fort Bliss, Texas. The Army's soldier center team will custom-fit each pair and collect solider surveys on boot performance in the spring. The prototypes are up to 1.5 pounds lighter per pair than those issued today. “In terms of energy expenditure or calories burned, 1-pound of weight at the feet is equivalent to 4-pounds in your rucksack,” Adams said in a statement. The prototypes in their current design would be the first significant change to the basic Army combat boot in years. While there have been improvements to the Army's special footwear for jungle, mountain and cold weather locations, there is room for improvement in general-purpose boots issued to new recruits, the Army said. “Most components of these combat boots have not been updated in almost 30 years,” Army footwear engineer Anita Perkins said in a statement. Army surveys have found that satisfaction with the Army combat boot is lower than with commercial varieties. In a poll of 14,000 soldiers, the Army said it found that nearly 50 percent choose comfortable sneaker-like commercial boots over Army-issued ones. The problem confronting Army officials is that commercial comfort can come with trade-offs. The Army said its ultimate aim is to bridge the comfort gap while maintaining durability and protection. vandiver.john@stripes.com Twitter: @john_vandiver https://www.stripes.com/news/army-looks-to-give-its-old-combat-boot-the-boot-1.563985

By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — The German Cabinet has approved a new, high-level pact with France that calls for a common approach to weapons exports in all joint programs. The objective is included in the so-called Aachener Vertrag, slated to be signed by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the German city of Aachen on Jan. 22. The document is meant to be a milestone agreement complementary of the Élysée Treaty, signed 56 years ago, further cementing ties on all levels between the former World War II foes. Berlin and France previously clashed over the question of export limitations for the Future Combat Air System, a sixth-generation warplane envisioned to take flight sometime around 2040, Germany's Der Spiegel reported last fall. France generally is open to exporting arms to many governments willing to pay for them. German leaders profess to take a more cautious approach when human rights concerns crop up, though the government has a history of making arms deals through the back door anyway. The different philosophies came to a head following the death of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi on Oct. 2, which some have alleged was orchestrated by Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudi ruling family has denied the allegations, buoyed by the Trump administration's decision to play down the matter. The allegations led Merkel to publicly call for halting weapons exports to Saudi Arabia, a move that drew a sharp rebuke from Paris, where officials fumed about what they perceived as German sanctimoniousness. France and Germany's diverging export policies are based on their respective “strategic cultures,” said Wolfgang Rudischhauser, vice president of the Federal Academy for Security Policy in Berlin. Germany considers itself a “peace power,” whereas France models its policies on the premise of an “intervention army,” he said. Asked whether the section on harmonizing export policies in the Aachener Vertrag was aimed at least in part at the future combat aircraft program, a spokesman for the German foreign ministry pointed out that no projects were explicitly mentioned in the draft treaty text. That program, together with a future main battle tank and a future combat drone, forms the backbone of Franco-German defense ambitions, with tens of billions of dollars at stake. With a concrete objective toward harmonizing arms-export rules now on the books between Paris and Berlin, Rudischhauser argued that a European Union-wide regime would be needed in the end. “That would require ceding certain authorities to the EU, for which neither Germany nor France have shown an appetite,” he told Defense News. To oversee the the new treaty's defense provisions, the pact establishes a bilateral defense and security council, which would “convene regularly at the highest level.” https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/11/france-germany-aim-to-unify-their-clashing-weapons-export-rules