News

By: Daniel Cebul WASHINGTON — To reach its acquisition goals, the Navy wants to make it easier to partner with small businesses. Speaking from the Sea-Air-Space Exposition to a Facebook Live audience, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition James Geurts outlined his views on the important role small businesses play in Navy acquisition programs. “Small business is an incredible source for innovation, for adaptability, for agility, and resilience,” Geurts said. “My main goal [is to figure out], how do we leverage small business for things they are really good at?” Geurts emphasized the importance of small business in achieving U.S. security goals. Looking at the National Defense Strategy for guidance, Geurtz summarized the document to be one focused on how the United States will continue to compete and win as a nation. “Winning teams figure out how to use all the players available, use them for what their strengths are, continue to grow them, and expand,” he said. “Small business is a big piece of that equation for us.” One way small businesses can get connected to the right program is by clearly communicating their technological capabilities and ability to execute awarded contracts. “If you're a small business you've got to let us know what your capabilities are,” Geurts said. By clearly communicating capability, businesses “make it easy for [the Navy] to know what capabilities you have so we can be fully informed in putting a program together,” he added. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/12/are-you-a-small-business-the-navy-wants-to-work-with-you/

By: Mark Pomerleau With a relative dearth of cyber expertise in the military, Congress mandated last year the services begin direct commissioning pilot programs. The Navy, however has been doing direct commissioning for highly skilled software engineers for a few years, albeit on a small scale. The cyber warfare engineer (CWE) program is a highly competitive program with officers on five year rotations performing software or tool development for cyber operators. CWEs serve as members of the cyber mission force, the Navy's cyber mission force teams that serve as the cyber warriors for U.S. Cyber Command, producing cyber tools, but can also conduct target analysis, vulnerability research, and counter-measure development against malicious cyber activities. Since 2011, the Navy has only recruited 25 of these commissioned officers to its ranks. “Twenty-five developers in the Navy as military officers is definitely not enough,” Lt. Christopher Liu, the most senior cyber warfare engineer told Fifth Domain in an interview at the Navy League's Sea Air Space conference April 9. With a relative dearth of cyber expertise in the military, Congress mandated last year the services begin direct commissioning pilot programs. The Navy, however has been doing direct commissioning for highly skilled software engineers for a few years, albeit on a small scale. The cyber warfare engineer (CWE) program is a highly competitive program with officers on five year rotations performing software or tool development for cyber operators. CWEs serve as members of the cyber mission force, the Navy's cyber mission force teams that serve as the cyber warriors for U.S. Cyber Command, producing cyber tools, but can also conduct target analysis, vulnerability research, and counter-measure development against malicious cyber activities. Since 2011, the Navy has only recruited 25 of these commissioned officers to its ranks. “Twenty-five developers in the Navy as military officers is definitely not enough,” Lt. Christopher Liu, the most senior cyber warfare engineer told Fifth Domain in an interview at the Navy League's Sea Air Space conference April 9. “We definitely need to increase the billets and increase the amount that we can hire ... to have more talents to be able to work on the cyber mission,” he said. “As soon as the number increases, we'll be able to expand the program rather than just five years to eight years, hopefully make it into a 20 year career so people can get trained up and work on missions and not be forced into different fields.” The Pentagon has been besieged by concerns about the DoD's ability to both retain and attract cyber talent among its ranks when similar jobs in the private sector pay significantly more. Vice Adm. Michael Gilday, commander of 10th Fleet/Fleet Cyber Command, acknowledged in recent congressional testimony that the military is not competitive with the private sector and noted that the base pay for the CWE position is around $37,000 a year. “That's what we pay somebody to answer the phones around here,” Senator Claire McCaskill, responded to Gilday interrupting him in frustration. “We're asking them to have incredible expertise. That seems to me totally unrealistic.” Some current CWEs feel the work they're doing inside the Navy has greater meaning than similar work they did in the private sector. “I find that this is a lot more fulfilling,” Ensign Jordan Acedera, the most junior CWE told Fifth Domain. “You finish a project, you're given something that's a lot more challenging and that really tests you.” For Lt. (j.g.) George John, who was formerly writing software at a stock trading company, work with the CWE provides a better environment that's not driven so much by profit margins and hitting quarterly revenue targets. “We don't have to worry about profitability or bringing to market,” he said. “We can pursue a little more ... what's possible. Throw stuff against the wall, see what sticks, take our time to figure out a plan of action.” One of the biggest challenges, however, is lack of knowledge of the program, even inside the Navy. “You still walk across captains and commander who say 'CWE, what in god's name is that,” John said. With more CWE personnel in the force, the Navy could build a more informed and skilled software engineering cadre, the group said. “There's tons of software. Everybody has some type of software pet project,” John said. “To be able to get more CWEs on those things and coordinate with one another and say here's what [Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services] is doing with their communications and their infrastructure. How are we doing that differently on the base side? You can talk and address security concerns with one another. Just within the cyber operations realm, Liu said, as the headcount increases, the CWEs could work on the requirements the operational community within the cyber mission force rather than having to prioritize projects. They could even start to look at developing capability prior to a specific requirement coming in as a means of staying ahead of the game as opposed to waiting for and reacting on requirements from operators. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/11/why-the-navy-wants-more-of-these-hard-to-find-software-developers/

By: Jen Judson NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Several major players in the helicopter industry pitched possible solutions at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space conference for the Navy's next initial-entry, rotary-wing training helicopter as the service signals stronger intentions to replace its aging TH-57 Sea Ranger fleet. The Navy has announced during recent congressional hearings that it plans to buy a new training helicopter in fiscal 2020. For years, the service has put out requests for information asking industry for training helicopter options with the latest coming out in October 2017. That RFI left some requirements open-ended such as whether the aircraft should have one or two engines, but has asked for the helicopter to be Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) certified, an obvious requirement when flying over sea or in reduced visibility environments. It's also assumed the Navy wants a commercial off-the-shelf aircraft. The TH-57 is more than reaching the end of its life, having first been fielded to the Navy's training fleet in the 1970s. So three companies — Airbus, Bell and Leonardo — all brought examples of possible training helicopters to the Navy's biggest trade show. Airbus H135 Airbus is keeping all of its options on the table for a Navy trainer because the service has yet to define all of its requirements, according to John Roth, senior director of business development for Airbus Helicopters Inc. “We have a broad product range that goes from light, single-engine into light, twin-engine to medium and heavy twin-engine platforms,” Roth told Defense News at Sea-Air-Space. “Our approach is we will evaluate those requirements and offer based on those requirements. However, given the nature of training and how the complexity of training has evolved over time, we do have recommendations for the Navy as it relates to having the best possible solution to accomplish all of their missions.” And one recommendation is the H135 light, twin-engine helicopter Airbus had on display at the show. “We believe this is certainly a very capable potential solution that meets all the Navy requirements as a commercial off-the-shelf product,” Roth said. The H135 is similar to the EC-145 helicopter that the Army now uses for its trainer, replacing its TH-67 Creek helicopters with LUH-72A Lakota light utility helicopters already in the service's inventory beginning in 2014. The Army's decision to retire the TH-67s and replace them with Lakotas was met with much debate as to whether it made sense to teach helicopter pilots basic skills in a more complex digital glass cockpit helicopter with twin engines. And the decision was even met with a lawsuit. Leonardo — then known as AgustaWestland — sued the Army over its decision not to compete for a new trainer but to instead sole-source a helicopter already fielded by the service. Leonardo initially won the lawsuit but the decision was overturned in the appellate court. The Army is still filling out its Lakota training fleet, but, Roth said, “from a qualitative perspective, we've got some very positive feedback that talks to capability of the aviators when they complete the training and having them more prepared for the advanced aircraft once they arrive at their advanced training stations.” The fact that both the Lakota and the H135 have advanced digital glass cockpits, four-axis autopilot and twin-engine capability with Full Authority Digital Engine (FADEC) controls “all prepared them for the type of vehicle that they are going to get in when they get into their advanced training,” Roth said. The Army has taken tasks normally taught in the more expensive advanced aircraft and brought those down to basic training, he added. “There has been a lot of advantages realized from that decision that we think the Navy will be able to take advantage of as well,” Roth said. The H135s, if purchased by the Navy, would be built at its Columbus, Mississippi, production line where commercial EC135s and Lakotas are built. The helicopter pitched to the Navy is also used by approximately a dozen countries with nearly 130 aircraft serving as a primary trainer worldwide, Roth said. Bell 407 GXi Bell would be the incumbent in a competition for a new Navy trainer, being the current manufacturer of the TH-57. The company plans to offer up its 407 GXi, according to Steve Mathias, Bell's vice president for Global Military Business Development. Bell has already built and sold 1,500 407s worldwide which have flown over 4.75 million hours, he said, so the helicopter is “very reliable, sustainable, maintainable glass cockpit, just a great overall aircraft,” Mathias said. And from a programmatic perspective, he said, choosing Bell's trainer offers “a lot less risk because it's very similar to the TH-57 that the Navy currently has, so a transition from a Bell product to a Bell product would be a lower risk, I would think, to the customer.” Bell also provides many of the helicopters the Navy and Marine Corps fly today such as the UH-1Y Venom, the AH-1Z Viper and the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor and therefore has a high level of experience working with the services on a day-to-day basis “so we very closely understand what the Navy requirements are,” Mathias argued. The company is hoping the Navy chooses to go with a single-engine aircraft because it would “be less costly to operate” and less complex to train, according to Mathias. He added that he believes the choice would offer the best value to the service. Leonardo TH-119 Italian company Leonardo is making a play for the trainer with plans to submit its TH-119, which puts them, like Bell, into the single-engine camp, according to Andrew Gappy, who is in charge of the company's government sales and programs. The helicopter is a variant of the AW119Kx, a single-engine, full-spectrum training aircraft and can be used for training from the basics like learning how to hover above the ground all the way to advanced tactics. And while Leonardo is a foreign company, all of the 119s worldwide are manufactured in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The 119 is also IFR certified to meet that Navy requirement. The helicopter is known for its significant power, which means the aircraft's training mission sets can grow and change over time without affecting its performance, Gappy said. It's important for the Navy to buy a new trainer now because, Gappy said, he trained on the TH-57 “a long time ago.” The aircraft averages roughly 70,000 flight hours a year and will become more and more costly to operate as it continues to age. “When I went through, the TH-57 had a lot in common with combat aircraft, how the aircraft flew and instrumentation training was really relevant,” he said. “It's so disparate now with glass cockpits and all of them are multi-bladed rotor systems that fly differently than the twin rotor system, so it's really resetting the baseline,” which allows the service to incorporate more advanced training into the basic courses that has migrated away from that training due to the loss in power margin, Gappy said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/11/major-players-pitch-solutions-for-navys-next-training-helicopter/

By: Victoria Leoni NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Bright yellow underwater drones were a visible highlight on the exhibition floor here at the Sea-Air-Space Exposition. Among the autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) featured: a new high-speed, micro-sized vehicle by Hydroid and a subsea drone refueling station by Teledyne Energy. Hydroid's Remus M3V is substantially smaller than previous models. With a compact, A-size (36-inch long, 4.875-inch diameter) envelope and no fins or appendages, the vehicle can achieve speeds of more than 10 knots and dive up to 300 meters. It can be used in search and survey; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); and multivehicle missions. With its variable center of gravity, the Remus M3V can also operate in buoy mode. Its key marketing points are its small size, low cost and compatibility with existing AUV operating systems. “The Navy always wants more with less,” said Justin S. Reid, business development manager at Hydroid. “They want a smaller vehicle that can do the same things as a larger vehicle, and also the price point to match it.” Teledyne Energy featured its untethered subsea power station at the exposition, along with its Gavia AUV. The Gavia can perform side-scan sonar operations to capture images of the sea floor. It is intended to travel ahead of Navy fleets and transmit oceanographic data back to the vessels. Teledyne's subsea power station can remotely refuel the Gavia and other underwater vehicles. Deployable via ship or helicopter, the fuel cell system has an energy storage of 200 kilowatt-hours and an operating depth of 3,000 meters. Teledyne will demonstrate the subsea power station at the Navy's Advanced Naval Technology Exercise in August. Get more news from the expo here. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/navy-league/2018/04/10/new-undersea-drones-are-smaller-cheaper-and-can-be-refueled-deep-under-water/

News release From: National Defence April 9, 2018 – Ottawa, Ontario – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces Problem solving, creativity and knowledge are critical to meet and mitigate evolving defence and security threats. Through innovation we will develop and maintain capabilities that address the challenges of today's global security environment. To transform the way we generate solutions to complex defence and security challenges, today, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan launched the new Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program. Originally announced in June 2017 with the release of Canada's defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged, IDEaS will invest $1.6 billion into Canada's innovation community over the next 20 years. Through IDEaS, DND will reach out to Canada's most innovative and creative minds, whether they are inventors, academics in university labs, or scientists in small and major corporations. These innovative thinkers will provide the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and Canada's safety and security communities with unique solutions to today's challenges. IDEaS will stimulate innovation through a range of activities including competitions, networks, and sandboxes to field test concepts. Today, Minister Sajjan announced the first call for proposals under the IDEaS Competitive Projects element, in which sixteen defence and security challenges have been identified. Interested parties have six weeks to submit their proposed solutions, which must be received by May 24, 2018. This call for proposals addresses challenges in domains such as surveillance, cyber tools for defence, space, artificial intelligence, remotely pilot systems, data analytics, and human performance. Proposals will be reviewed and undergo a rigorous evaluation process. The first contracts are anticipated to be awarded in Fall 2018. Innovators are encouraged to consult the IDEaS website for more information on this and subsequent calls as the IDEaS program continues to take shape. Quotes “The IDEaS Program will provide unique opportunities for Canadians to put forward their best solutions on defence and security challenges, and will help put those solutions into the hands of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. This investment will support the growth and expansion of Canada's innovation community for the next 20 years.” – Minister of National Defence, Harjit S. Sajjan Quick facts Through IDEaS, National Defence will: Create networks of innovators (academia, industry, individuals, and other partners) to conduct leading-edge research and development in areas critical to future defence and security needs; Hold competitions and invite innovators to present viable solutions to specific defence and security challenges; and Implement new procurement mechanisms that allow Defence to develop and test concepts and to follow through on the most promising ideas. IDEaS will help innovators by supporting analysis, funding research, and developing processes that facilitate access to knowledge. It will also support testing, integration, adoption, and acquisition of creative solutions for Canada's defence and security communities. Associated links Backgrounder –Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) Program Backgrounder - Government of Canada calls on innovative thinkers to solve defence and security challenges IDEaS Strong, Secure, Engaged Contacts Byrne Furlough Press Secretary Office of the Minister of National Defence Phone: 613-996-3100 Email: Byrne.Furlong@forces.gc.ca Media Relations Department of National Defence Phone: 613-996-2353 Email: mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca

Through multiple Freedom of Information requests, Military Times obtained data for every Class A through Class C aviation mishap that has occurred since fiscal year 2011. More than 7,500 records were obtained. An analysis of the data shows manned warplane accidents have spiked nearly 40 percent since 2013, the year the mandated budget cuts known as sequestration took effect. The records can be searched by aircraft type, base, fiscal year and location. Military Times has published a searchable database that includes more than 7,500 individual records for military aviation mishap reports for the fiscal years 2011 through 2017. An analysis of the data shows that manned warplane accidents have spiked nearly 40 percent since 2013, the year the mandated budget cuts known as sequestration took effect. The data was obtained through multiple Freedom of Information requests and includes every Class A through Class C aviation mishap. The records can be searched by aircraft type, base, fiscal year and location. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/04/06/military-times-aviation-database/

By: Sebastian Sprenger COLOGNE, Germany — The Netherlands would be welcome to join a German-Norwegian submarine acquisition program, even as the door is closing for final design work on the boats, the Norwegian defense ministry said. The statement comes as German defense industry officials have talked for weeks about what they believe is an impending move to reshuffle big-ticket shipbuilding programs by way of a new naval cooperation umbrella with the Dutch. In that telling, The Hague would join the purchase of 212CD-class submarines, built by Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems' undersea division, and gain a say in the fate of Germany's Mehrzweck-Kampfschiff 180 frigate program, from which the surface division of TKMS was excluded last month. While Berlin and The Hague have officially kept mum about details, several German industry officials and analysts surveyed for this article believe the prospect of a Dutch move is keeping the MKS-180 program's fate unpredictable. When asked about the Netherlands' interest in the German combat ship effort, Dutch defense ministry spokesman Peter Valstar only wrote in an email to Defense News that senior acquisition officials from both countries had met recently to discuss “various topics like possible cooperations on all kinds of defense projects.” As for submarines, “We're currently in the B-phase (research) of our so-called ‘Defence Material Process,‘” Valstar wrote. “The ‘need' (A-phase) of a submarine purchase is clear. The C-phase (further research) and D-phase (product and supplier) are still to come.” Norway has always considered the door open for additional submarine buyers since Oslo teamed with Berlin last year. The joint acquisition would see Norway buy four boats and Germany two. Buying and maintaining identical submarines would keep cost down for both countries, the argument goes. “Norway and Germany would like to see additional partners joining the cooperation, and it would be very welcome if the Netherlands should decide to join,” Norwegian defense ministry spokeswoman Ann Kristin Salbuvik wrote in an email to Defense News. “We are working together towards several potential nations, and we have a good dialogue with potential partners,” Salbuvik added when asked if the Dutch had formally expressed an interest. But the door is closing for would-be partners to have a say in the boats' configurations. “The design of the German-Norwegian submarines will soon be frozen in order for the supplier, TKMS, to be able to provide a binding offer in July 2018,” the spokeswoman wrote. “After this point in time, design changes will be costly, and will also have a negative impact on time and delivery schedules for the German-Norwegian submarine building program,” she added. “If additional partners join the cooperation, it will be beneficial for them to strive for as identical a design as possible.” It is unclear how far discussions for a Dutch-German naval armaments pact have bubbled up toward the defense ministries' leaders. But the issue is “very much a topic of conversation in political Berlin,” one source noted. If given the chance to tweak the MKS-180 configuration, the Dutch would push for a smaller ship design than is currently envisioned, one industry source predicted. With Damen Shipyards, the Dutch already have local industry in the running for the program, teaming with Germany's Blohm &Voss, which is now part of the German Lürssen group. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/04/04/netherlands-very-welcome-to-join-european-sub-program-with-a-caveat/

5 AVR 2018 BITDE, Fonds européen de la défense, Livre blanc, OTAN-UE (B2) Eurodéfense, une association qui regroupe de nombreuses personnalités militant en faveur d'une autonomie européenne de défense, estime que l'Europe doit changer de braquet, passer à la vitesse supérieure, affirmer réellement une politique de défense européenne, l'assumer et s'attaquer aux questions non résolues depuis des années. Dans cette tribune, signée par plusieurs officiers supérieurs dont les lecteurs de B2 reconnaitront certainement plusieurs noms, différents principes sont posés dont, en tant qu'observateur, nous pouvons partager plusieurs des constats. Une Europe de la défense, parent pauvre de la construction européenne L'époque enthousiaste des pères fondateurs, au lendemain de la Guerre, a posé les bases de l'Union européenne. Si l'Europe économique est devenue une réalité, même imparfaite, l'Europe de la défense a vécu plusieurs échecs. Le traité instituant la Communauté européenne de défense en 1950 n'a jamais été ratifié. L'Union de l'Europe occidentale, de 1954 à 2011, est restée une coquille vide. Ce n'est qu'en 1999, après le sommet franco-britannique de Saint Malo, que furent posées les bases d'une politique de défense au plan européen, avec de premiers fruits en 2003, où deux opérations militaires furent lancées sous la bannière bleue étoilée. Des résultats positifs mais à l'échelle d'un laboratoire La politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC), bras armé de la Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune (PESC), était née. Elle a donné des résultats plus que positifs, malheureusement insuffisamment connus. En 15 ans, près de 80 000 hommes ont été engagés avec succès dans les opérations de l'Union européenne. Nous avons ainsi célébré le 30 mars les 15 ans de la PSDC opérationnelle, avec l'anniversaire du lancement de la première opération, Concordia, dans l'Ancienne République yougoslave de Macédoine (FYROM). Toutefois, à l'échelle européenne et au regard des besoins, c'est peu. Nous restons à un degré d'engagement de portée limitée, que l'on peut qualifier de « niveau de laboratoire ». De plus, les actions du haut du spectre, envisagées parmi les types de missions élaborées à Petersberg en 1992, n'ont été que très rarement menées. Ces missions, dont l'objectif est le rétablissement de la paix, comportent des modes d'action robustes, incluant l'usage de la force. Continuer ainsi ne suffira pas. Pire, le modèle s'épuisera. Un monde plus dangereux... ou juste différent Les besoins ont évolué, face à un monde plus dangereux. Il devient difficile de dissocier action extérieure et sécurité intérieure dans la lutte anti-terroriste. Une défense européenne digne de ce nom se doit de garantir la sécurité de ses citoyens où qu'ils se trouvent, de protéger ses infrastructures et de défendre ses intérêts partout dans le monde. Elle doit pouvoir s'appuyer sur une « base industrielle et technologique de défense européenne » (BITDE) qui soit apte à garantir l'autonomie stratégique européenne, en particulier l'emploi des matériels sans contrainte venant de l'extérieur de l'Europe. Cette BITDE est hélas insuffisante aujourd'hui, en raison notamment du périmètre réduit de la PSDC, maints domaines capacitaires n'étant pas couverts par celle-ci. Il y a là une véritable incohérence. La complémentarité nécessaire même pour les petits pays Peu d'États ont la capacité de répondre seuls à l'ensemble des besoins de défense. La complémentarité au niveau européen s'impose. Même la France, qui, en théorie, dispose des moyens d'assurer son autonomie stratégique, fait régulièrement appel à des soutiens extérieurs pour combler ses lacunes, principalement dans les domaines du renseignement et du transport stratégique. Les limites de la politique des petits pas La politique des petits pas a montré ses limites, malgré les récentes avancées concrètes que sont le fonds européen de défense, le processus annuel de revue coordonnée des plans nationaux de défense et la coopération structurée permanente. Il faut élever le niveau d'ambition inutilement censuré lors de la création de la PSDC et passer la vitesse supérieure. Une approche globale et collective de la sécurité de l'Europe par les pays européens est désormais indispensable, une approche qui englobe les aspects intérieurs et extérieurs, et qui soit partagée si possible par l'ensemble des États membres de l'UE et à défaut par le plus grand nombre. Revoir la complémentarité OTAN-UE Cela implique notamment une réflexion sur la complémentarité entre l'OTAN et l'UE. L'actuelle répartition des rôles entre une OTAN garante de la sécurité collective et une PSDC tournée exclusivement vers l'action extérieure n'est à l'évidence plus pertinente : elle ne permet pas aux Européens d'exercer collectivement leurs responsabilités de défense, en dépit des dispositions volontaristes prises récemment par ceux-ci pour resserrer leur coopération. Même la mesure phare de la complémentarité entre les deux organisations, l'accord dit de Berlin Plus, signé en 2003, qui donnait à l'Union un accès aux moyens de commandement de l'OTAN, n'est plus opérante en raison notamment du différent turco-chypriote. Assumer une défense européenne Il est temps de s'engager dans une défense européenne vraiment assumée. La simple relecture des documents européens – le traité de Lisbonne de 2007, la Stratégie européenne de sécurité intérieure 2015-2020, la Stratégie globale pour la politique étrangère et de sécurité de l'UE de 2016 – fournit suffisamment d'éléments pour faire émerger une telle défense. La capacité d'agir sur l'ensemble du spectre des opérations, de l'assistance humanitaire à l'engagement de haute intensité, comprend, avec les opérations de projection, des opérations de solidarité et d'assistance mutuelle sur le thé'tre européen. Ces dernières qui font partie de la défense collective, sont menées en cohérence avec les engagements pris au sein de l'Alliance Atlantique par les États qui en sont membres. Par ailleurs, les textes autorisent un niveau de flexibilité original : l'article 44 du traité de Lisbonne donne aux instances européennes la possibilité de déléguer la conduite d'une opération à un groupe d'États membres. Et la Coopération structurée permanente, récemment décidée, est le support adapté pour le développement de capacités nouvelles. Rééquilibrer le pacte atlantique C'est une politique de défense européenne complète, affirmée, active et opérationnelle qui peut alors se mettre en place. Gr'ce à des Européens stratégiquement plus autonomes, elle devrait avoir pour première conséquence une évolution du lien transatlantique qui, tenant compte de l'histoire et de nos valeurs communes, devra être rénové. Rééquilibré et assumé, le nouveau pacte atlantique devra permettre à l'Europe de devenir un partenaire fiable, crédible et écouté. Restent à définir les voies permettant cette évolution. Revoir les processus de décision nationale et le financement en commun Il faudra pour cela affronter les sujets de discordance ou de blocage entre Européens, plutôt que de les passer sous silence, de peur de détruire un hypothétique équilibre obtenu à force de concessions. Les règles d'engagement et les spécificités juridiques, notamment pour l'usage de la force, seront à harmoniser. Les processus décisionnels nationaux nécessiteront dans certains cas la définition de boucles courtes, permettant la réaction dans l'urgence, comme dans les catastrophes humanitaires. Il faudra travailler sur les contributions budgétaires des États pour les opérations, les rendre plus équitables et renforcer l'importance du fonds européen de défense. Avoir une politique claire vis-à-vis des citoyens Les principes suivants inspireraient la démarche. D'abord, les citoyens européens doivent recevoir des réponses simples et compréhensibles à leurs besoins de sécurité et de défense. Aujourd'hui, si, selon l'Eurobaromètre de l'automne 2017, les trois quarts d'entre eux continuent à plébisciter l'Europe de la Défense, ils n'ont pas une idée claire de sa réalisation, tant les discours sur les rôles partagés entre l'Alliance Atlantique, la PSDC et la défense nationale sont complexes et indigestes. Quand nos dirigeants se seront engagés résolument pour une défense européenne souveraine, ils pourront apporter de telles réponses. Tenir compte des différences et de la souveraineté des États Le principe de la subsidiarité et de la complémentarité avec les États doit être préservé. La subsidiarité est incontournable, le domaine de la défense restant de la responsabilité des États et la souveraineté européenne ne pouvant s'exercer que gr'ce aux contributions de ceux-ci en troupes aguerries et en équipements. Si les menaces et les risques sont perçus avec un degré d'intensité différent selon les États, ils doivent conduire à la complémentarité des actions, basée sur les savoir-faire spécifiques de chacun. Par exemple, certains pays ont une culture de projection développée, comme la France ou l'Espagne, autorisant notamment l'intervention en Afrique. D'autres, comme l'Allemagne ou la Pologne, sont plus tournés vers la défense collective. Cela n'empêche pas chacun d'entre eux de participer aux missions, mais avec des degrés d'engagement différents. Les clauses de solidarité et d'assistance mutuelle entre les États, notamment en cas d'attaque terroriste, telles qu'elles sont décrites dans le traité de Lisbonne, ne doivent pas rester lettre morte ; elles doivent être assumées. Avoir réellement une autonomie stratégique C'est à ce titre que cette défense gagnera en souveraineté. Les initiatives lancées par le Président de la République dans son discours de la Sorbonne de septembre 2017, comme le développement d'une capacité d'action autonome, autoriseront la continuité entre les États et l'Europe, comme celle entre missions extérieures et intérieures. L'autonomie stratégique d'une défense aux contours élargis pourra alors être soutenue dans le même périmètre par une BITDE ayant des capacités de recherche et développement complètes et autonomes. Il s'agira de gagner alors la bataille des normes industrielles. Dernier principe, cette Europe de la défense souveraine devra multiplier les partenariats, notamment avec ses voisins immédiats. Elle renouvellera le lien transatlantique, rééquilibré gr'ce à un meilleur partage du fardeau. Un livre blanc européen nécessaire Pour tout cela, un Livre blanc, dont EuroDéfense-France est un ferme partisan, s'avère nécessaire, avec l'établissement d'une feuille de route ambitieuse. Ainsi, pourra être construite la défense d'une « Europe souveraine, unie, démocratique » pour reprendre les termes du Président de la République. Les membres du bureau de l'association EuroDéfense-France : Patrick Bellouard (président d'EuroDéfense-France, IGA 2S), Maurice de Langlois (général 2S, ancien directeur de recherche IRSEM), Jean-Didier Blanchet (ancien DG d'Air France), Jean-Charles Boulat (directeur des affaires UE et OTAN du groupe industriel Naval Group), François Bresson (général 2S, ancien directeur de l'Institut des hautes études de défense nationale-IHEDN), Patrick de Rousiers (général d'armée aérienne 2S, ancien président du comité militaire de l'Union européenne), Michel Desmoulin (président d'honneur de l'Union des associations d'auditeurs de l'IHEDN), Jacques Favin-Lévêque (général 2S, ancien délégué général du Groupement des industries de défense et de sécurité terrestres et aéroterrestres), Patrick Hébrard (vice-amiral d'escadre 2S), Jean-Loup Kuhn-Delforge (ancien ambassadeur), François Laumonier (ancien ambassadeur), Jean-Paul Palomeros (général d'armée aérienne 2S, ancien chef d'état-major de l'armée de l'air, ancien commandant allié transformation de l'OTAN), Jean-Paul Perruche (général 2S, ancien directeur général de l'état-major de l'Union européenne), Claude Roche (ancien directeur de la stratégie défense d'EADS, Vice-président de l'Académie de l'air et de l'espace), Philippe Roger (IGA 2S), Cyrille Schott (ancien directeur de l'Institut national des hautes études de la sécurité et de la justice) et Denis Verret (président, DV Conseil). Les propos ci-dessus n'engagent que leurs auteurs. Les intertitres sont de la rédaction. Cette opinion a été publiée également dans le quotidien français La tribune https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2018/04/05/depasser-la-politique-des-petits-pas-pour-une-defense-europeenne-vraiment-assumee/

19 mars 2018 | Par Justine BOQUET L'OTAN a publié le 15 mars son étude sur les dépenses de défense des pays membres de l'Alliance transatlantique. Ce document établit un comparatif et étudie l'évolution de ces investissements militaires sur la période 2010 – 2017. L'année 2017 a enregistré une hausse des dépenses de Défense au niveau de l'OTAN, à hauteur de 4,87%. Les investissements réalisés par les Alliés dans le domaine militaire s'établissent dès lors à 917 Md$ (sur la base des prix et des taux de change de 2010). Ce montant est largement atteint gr'ce à la participation américaine, qui représente 618 Md$. A l'inverse, les Etats de l'OTAN situés en Europe et le Canada ont investit ensemble à peine la moitié du montant américain, soit 300 Md$. Cette hiérarchie se retrouve également au niveau des cibles OTAN à atteindre. Ainsi, au regard de l'objectif des 2% du PIB, les Etats-Unis sont loin devant avec des dépenses équivalent à 3,57% de leur PIB. Au sein de l'Alliance, seuls quatre pays membres atteignent cette cible. Aux Etats-Unis s'ajoutent donc la Grèce (2,36% du PIB), le Royaume-Uni (2,12%) et l'Estonie (2,08%). La France n'est pas très loin de l'objectif et a investit en 2017 1,74% de son PIB dans sa défense. Enfin, loin derrière on retrouve le Luxembourg, dont l'armée reste de taille relative. Ainsi, en 2017, le Grand-Duché consacre 0,46% de son PIB aux dépenses militaires. Au niveau de l'ensemble de l'OTAN, on atteint 2,42% du PIB de la zone. En terme de dépenses d'équipements, la tendance évolue. En effet, l'OTAN prévoit que 20% du budget militaire des Etats Membres de l'Alliance soit consacré aux dépenses d'équipement. Douze Etats atteignent cet objectif. Roumanie : 33,20% Luxembourg : 32,99% Lituanie : 31,09% Turquie : 30,40% Bulgarie : 29,54% Etats-Unis : 28,43% Norvège : 25,52% France : 24,17% Pologne : 22,14% Royaume-Uni : 22,03% Italie : 20,94% Slovaquie : 20,42% Loin derrière on retrouve la Slovénie, qui avec 4,01% de son budget dédié aux dépenses d'équipement est encore loin de la cible. http://www.air-cosmos.com/otan-les-depenses-de-defense-en-hausse-108729