News

By: Joe Gould   WASHINGTON — Senate defense appropriators have advanced a proposed $675 billion Pentagon spending measure for 2019, touting its heavy investment in innovation and research to maintain America's military edge. Hewing to the bipartisan, two-year budget deal, the spending bill includes $607.1 billion in base budget funding and $67.9 billion in the war budget. It is $20.4 billion higher than the fiscal 2018-enacted level. The bill contains $95 billion for research and development, the largest R&D budget in the Pentagon's history, adjusted for inflation, according to Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Dick Durbin, D-Ill. The bill also includes $2.8 billion in added basic research funding the president's budget did not request. The bill also seems to surpass the Senate-passed policy bill's emphasis on future warfare, with $929 million for hypersonics, $564 million to develop advanced offensive and defensive space capabilities, $317 million to develop a directed-energy weapon, and $308 million for artificial intelligence, according to a summary released Tuesday. “This bill sustains U.S. force structure and improves military readiness. It also recommends investments in future technologies needed to defend our nation in an increasingly complex and competitive national security environment,” said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who also leads the sub-panel. “Our military must maintain its technological superiority. I am pleased that our subcommittee has identified the resources needed to make that happen ― investing in basic research, hypersonics, directed energy, missile defense, cybersecurity, and our test and evaluation infrastructure,” he said. Aviation programs would get $42 billion, to include $1.2 billion for eight F-35 carrier variants and four short takeoff and vertical landing Joint Strike Fighters, and it includes $375 million for the Air Force's Advanced Battle Management System — as well as sustainment of the legacy fleet of JSTARS aircraft. The bill allocates $24 billion toward shipbuilding, which includes two Virginia-class summaries, three DDG-51 destroyers and two littoral combat ships. There's $250 in advance procurement funding for one more DDG-51 in 2020 and $250 million for submarine industrial-base expansion. Munitions would get $18.5 billion, with $125 million to expand procurement for the anti-ship cruise missile LRASM for the Navy, and the JASSM long-range, conventional, air-to-ground, precision-standoff missile for the Air Force and Navy, as well as $57 million for Army industrial facilities. For personnel, the bill supports a military pay raise of 2.6 percent and includes $974 million for defense medical research. The bill's end-strength boost of 6,961 falls below the president's request for 25,900 more troops. The spending bill is several steps from becoming law. The House is due to take up its version of the legislation this week, and the Senate must pass its version of the bill before the two versions are reconciled. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is set to hold its markup on Thursday. The Senate this week passed a “minibus,” which merged funding for energy and water programs, the legislative branch, military construction, and Veterans Affairs. The strategy is meant to ensure passage for domestic spending priorities that Democrats have demanded in recent years. Democrats seem to favor merging the proposed defense spending bill with the coming spending bill for labor, health and human services, education, and related agencies. Durbin said as much Tuesday: “We have a confident path to conclusion for both.” “I believe in this bill, I think its a good bill and I could easily support it, defend it,” Durbin said of the defense spending bill, calling a merger helpful to “the best ending for the appropriations process.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/06/26/pentagon-money-bill-with-heavy-rampd-accent-passes-senate-subpanel/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON ― As a border state with Russia, Estonia is well aware it is ground zero for any potential conflict between Moscow and NATO. The country is hitting the target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense, as requested by the alliance, and it is trying to modernize and build up its military capabilities. But like many nations in Europe, Estonia faces tough budgetary realities. Jonatan Vseviov, the permanent secretary of the Estonian Ministry of Defence, serves as the point man in directing those investments ― and per local news reports, he is on the short list to be the next ambassador to the United States. He talked to Defense News about those issues, as well as cyber challenges, during a June visit to Washington. I want to start with the big picture. Estonia is going to the summit in a couple of weeks. What are some of the priorities you are looking at? NATO is the cornerstone of our security. We expect a lot, not only from this summit but from NATO in general. NATO has been doing a lot of good work on defense and deterrence, bolstering up its presence in the Baltic states as well as in other regions in the eastern part of the alliance. I think that work needs to continue, and we expect a good number of decisions from the summit regarding the readiness of alliance forces, regarding reinforcement, the ability of the alliance to reinforce different regions. Obviously burden-sharing is going to be a key topic for NATO. We, as you might know, are one of the nations that contribute more than 2 percent of our GDP towards national defense. That is going to be a topic that will be discussed, I'm sure at length, at the summit. We are obviously aware of the fact that output is as important as input. And what I mean by that is that what you actually get for your defense dollars or euros is what, at the end of the day, matters. But there is no output without sufficient input. So both input and output are important. We need to be impatient. We need to ask for more and faster results. And we've been doing that for the past few years, and I think we are on the right track. One of the things that is expected to come out of the summit is standing up a new Atlantic Command. There's been a lot of talk about something along those lines for the Baltic. Where is Estonia on the idea of a Baltic command? And can it happen, given how NATO resources are always constrained? When it comes to, for instance, reinforcement, there are several key elements to that. One is the readiness of all forces. Military mobility, which has become a very famous topic, which is obviously crucially important not only for the Baltic states but for the alliance in general. Discussion on pre-positioning, for instance, as part of the overall military mobility issue. Planning and exercise: It's something that we often talk about in the context of defense and deterrence and then obviously also command structure. The NATO command structure has been and will be adapted to make it more fit for the time we're in right now. There is also NATO force structure, which is crucially important. We do expect to see a divisional level or two-star HQ that would concentrate on the Baltic states. Discussions are underway between us and the Latvians and Danes to set up what is known as a Multinational Division North to complement what Multinational Division North East in Poland is already doing, to complement what the NATO force structure in general, as well as the command structure, is doing. So I think our command structure needs to evolve as the challenges evolve, and as the forces that we have available for our defense evolve. I think we're on the right path; and the Multinational Division North ― not only is it necessary, it is also a decision that will come at a very, very right time. There are no silver bullets when it comes to security in general ― no silver bullets in policy and no silver bullets and capability. It's a complex picture, so we need to concentrate on alliance relationships. Part of your job is to figure out investments for the money you're spending ― the best way to build Estonian forces. What are some of the key investments that Estonia is making in the next couple years? And what are the areas that you're hoping to start investing in the next couple of years? Most of our procurement, a good portion of procurement, is relatively small stuff, but more than 20 percent [of defense spending] is major equipment. Some of the examples: We're mechanizing one of our battalions, which is a lengthy process. It started back in 2013 [and] will continue for the next few years. We are investing heavily in infrastructure not only for our own purposes but for the purposes of hosting allies. We are investing in ammunition. All of our acquisitions are targeted at making sure that we are not creating a hollow force. And the most important element of making sure that you don't have a hollow force is ammunition, whether you have it or you don't. So we're spending a lot out of our procurement budget on making sure that we actually have the ammunition for the weapon systems that we have in the armed forces. Self-propelled howitzers, one of the latest developments that we are about to procure together with Finland, which is a good example of a joint procurement. We spent a lot of money on intelligence early warning both within the military as well as within the civilian sector, and we're setting up a cyber command within the armed forces. We've been talking about cyber for a long time, we've been working on cyber. We are a very internet-dependent society, but only now are we creating a separate cyber command within the armed forces, so that will require additional investments. These are probably some of the key areas where we intend to spend our money on in the next few years. Since you mentioned it, let's talk cyber. If Estonia is known for anything worldwide, it might well be cyber capabilities. You're also home to the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence. Where is NATO on cyber? Is it getting where it needs to be or lagging behind? How concerned should the allies be about where they stand on cyber? I think we should always be concerned when it comes to cyber, and this is a very fast, developing domain. During the summit in Warsaw, for instance, the heads of state and government declared cyber to be one of the domains in security. I think that was a very important decision. In theory, it could trigger Article 5 now. Well, there is a good level of what I would call “constructive ambiguity“ built into the wording of the Washington Treaty and also Article 5. So Article 5 is what we decide to be Article 5, and that is very useful. We don't want to give anybody a list of attacks that would trigger Article 5 because that would obviously mean that we automatically also create a list of potential attacks that would not trigger Article 5. Cyber is certainly a new domain. We are, I think, still scratching the surface of what it all means. It took us several years, perhaps even several decades, to think through, for instance, the air domain after airplanes arrived on the horizon and were used in major conflicts. We still didn't have an air force until, in most cases, in the late 1940s or 1950s. So it will take us time to figure out how best to operate, how best to organize ourselves in the cyber domain. What is certain, though, is that the government alone cannot defend the cyber society, if you will. And will require not only a whole-of-government but really a whole-of-society approach. And secondly, obviously, the physical borders do not matter in cyber. So national initiatives are important, but they are nothing if there is no international component to our efforts. So figuring out all of this, thinking through the legal aspects, the policy aspects, is one of the things that the center of excellence in Tallinn does. We're certain that we are again on the right path, in both NATO and the European Union, but I think it will take time for us to fully comprehend the best way to operate in this new domain. But how well, in your estimation, are the NATO allies integrating with cyber? I think there's still a long way to go. Cyber tends to be a very sensitive area for obvious reasons, oftentimes also harnessed within intelligence organizations. But we're making progress. There is more sharing, information sharing in NATO as well as between allies bilaterally, than there was a few years ago. So I think people are realizing that we need international cooperation; and without international cooperation, we simply cannot succeed in this new domain. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/26/we-need-to-be-impatient-estonias-no-2-defense-official-dives-into-nato-priorities/

LONDON — Britain needs to raise defense spending by over £8 billion a year, or U.S. $10.59 billion, to not undermine the military relationship with the U.S. says a report by the parliamentary defence committee. The report, which looks at the U.K.'s defense relations with the U.S. and NATO, recommends Britain increases the percentage of gross domestic product being allocated to the military first to 2.5 percent and eventually 3 percent if the country is to maintain the military relationship with the U.S. and keep its leading role in NATO. “The U.K. armed forces and the Treasury benefit from our close relationship with the U.S. However, that will continue to be true only while the U.K. military retains both the capacity and capability to maintain interoperability with the U.S. military and to relieve U.S. burdens. For this to be the case the U.K. armed forces must be funded appropriately,” said the report released June 26. The lawmakers urged a significant rise in a defense budget which currently just manages to squeeze above the 2 percent of gross domestic product demanded by NATO for defense spending. “We calculate that raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would result in a forecast spend of £50 billion per annum and raising it to 3% of GDP would take this to £60 billion per annum,” said the lawmakers. The defense budget this year is set at £37 billion with small real term increases expected annually up to 2022. A rise to 3 percent would see defence spending return to a level — in GDP percentage terms —that has not been seen since 1995. The release of the document comes at a bad time for anyone advocating increases in defense spending here. Last week Chancellor Philip Hammond, an ex-defense secretary, revealed plans to spend an additional £20 billion a year on health care and made it clear that there was little or nothing left to bolster the finances of other departments, including defense. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been battling for months to secure additional funding to fill a black hole that the National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, has previously estimated could be anything between £4.8 billion and £20 billion in equipment spending alone over the next decade. The exact amount depends to some degree on how much the military can save in efficiency improvements and reprioritizing and cutting capabilities and programs. The headline outcomes of a Minstry of Defence review into the future size and shape of British forces, officially called the Modernising Defence Programme, could come at the NATO summit scheduled for Brussels starting July 11. Media reports Sunday on the defense funding battle highlighted the seemingly growing rift between Williamson and senior government figures over the issue. The reports followed strong denials from Prime Minister Theresa May last week that the government here was considering a watering down of Britain's ‘tier-one' status as a military power after the Financial Times reported that May asked Williamson to justify continuance of that position. The U.S, Britain, China, Russia and France are the only nations with a tier one status — which basically means they are able to fight nuclear, conventional and other conflicts around the world. The committee said military-to-military engagement between the U.K. and the U.S. was one of the linchpins of the bilateral relationship between the two nations. The report said the U.K. benefits greatly from the width and depth of the U.K.-U.S. defense and security relationship, but such a relationship requires a degree of interoperability that can be sustained only through investment in U.K. armed forces. The importance of the military relationship between the U.S. and Europe's leading military power also extends into NATO. Lawmakers said the relationship is vital to the functioning of NATO while the U.K.'s leading contribution to the alliance helps to sustain the relationship between London and Washington. Julian Lewis, the Defence Committee chairman, said in a statement: “Defence spending is an area where a strong message needs to be sent to our allies and adversaries alike. The Government has consistently talked about increasing the U.K.'s commitment to NATO after our departure from the European Union. An increased commitment, in the face of new and intensified threats, means that further investment is essential,” said Lewis. The warning in the report over the risks to the military relationship between London and Washington follows a similar warning in February by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis that Britain had to retain a credible military if the relationship between the two nations was to endure and strengthen. Williamson said that in financial terms alone the U.K. benefits to the tune of £3 billion a year from the U.K.-U.S. defense relationship. John Spellar MP, the Defence Committee's senior Labour Party member and former armed forces minister said the inquiry has “underlined the importance of the U.K.-U.S. relationship in the area of defense and security and emphasizes the benefit which the U.K. receives as a result.” “We have heard that there are perceptions in the U.S. that the U.K.'s defense capabilities have slipped and that concerns have been raised about the U.K.'s ability to operate independently. We need to challenge this perception and the Modernising Defence Programme is an excellent opportunity to do so,” said Spellar. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/26/maintaining-uk-and-us-military-relationship-could-cost-britain-more-than-10-billion-a-year/

By: Jen Judson and Sebastian Sprenger PARIS, France — The U.S. Army has honed in on six modernization priorities, none of which can afford to linger in a sluggish acquisition process as threats grow in sophistication and the battlefield grows more complex, which has piqued the interest of many foreign companies, who are banking on having an increased chance at playing in the U.S. market due to the pace at which the Army wants to prototype and procure capabilities. At European defense conference Eurosatory, several companies unveiled not just paper or miniature model concepts but actual capabilities targeting the top two priorities: The Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) and Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF). The Army announced last fall that it would establish a four-star command to tackle its modernization priorities in short order. They are LRPF, NGCV, Future Vertical Lift, the Network,Air-and-Missile Defense and Soldier Lethality, in that order. And since that announcement, the service has set up cross-functional teams to focus on each priority. Many leaders of the CFTs said earlier this year that they planned to prototype capabilities within just a few years and get them into the hands of soldiers. Next-gen combat vehicles The U.S. Army's first stab at building prototypes for what it intends to be an innovative, leap-ahead NGCV and its robotic wingman will be ready for soldier evaluations in fiscal 2020 with a follow-on prototypes expected in 2022 and 2024. Germany's Rheinmetall Defence revealed its new Lynx KF41 infantry fighting vehicle at Eurosatory on June 12 with an eye toward the U.S. market. The company pulled out all the stops including a 10:00 a.m. champagne toast to christen the vehicle. It's sometimes the case, at a unveiling, for the vehicle to just be a non-functioning, life-size model to convey the concept, but Rheinmetall made it clear the vehicle being shown is real. The company has publicly available footage of the vehicle's rigorous test campaigns. Executives at Rheinmetall told Defense News it believes the stars could be aligned for a successful pitch of the Lynx vehicle to the U.S. Army. Due to its modular design, a few hours of work can turn the Lynx into anything from a medium tank to a battlefield ambulance. Ben Hudson, head of the company's vehicle systems division, hopes the feature will be an interesting proposition for the U.S. Army's NGCV. “We are highly interested in it, and we have been below the radar for a little for the last couple of years while we've delivered this,” Hudson told Defense News following the unveiling. “We don't want to deliver a PowerPoint, we want to deliver a real vehicle, and we have shown this to some people in the U.S. Army and I think it is fair to say there is some genuine interest for the U.S. to look at this vehicle as a serious competitor for the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle.” When asked how Rheinmetall might become involved in that collaboration, Hudson said there have been a lot of changes over the past several months as the Army's new cross-functional team under its new Futures Command moves forward with efforts to bring an NGCV capability online. “All I can say is the next six months for that program are going to be very interesting, and we look forward to things that may occur early next year. That's all I can really say about that for now,” he said. What's still missing, however, is an official U.S. partner company that could give the bid an American face and manage domestic production. Such teaming is practically mandatory these days, and Hudson said there is no shortage of suitors. “We've had significant interest from U.S. companies at Eurosatory over the last couple of days,” he said. “We've had a lot of people interested in partnering with us because we don't only have a concept, we've got a real vehicle and turret for the program.” Israeli company Rafael didn't have a dramatic unveiling at the show, but told Defense News that it was developing and testing a 30mm weapon station outfitted with its Trophy active protection system as an all-in-one system. The Army is outfitting several brigades worth of Trophy APS on its Abrams tanks. The turret can be purchase with our without the Trophy system, Rafael's Michael L. told Defense News at the show. Michael's last name has been withheld for security reasons. One customer is buying more than a hundred 30mm weapon stations, he said. And while Rafael is envisioning the possibility of its 30mm turret and APS system being a good option for outfitting upgunned Strykers going forward, it's also setting its sights on becoming involved in NGCV prototyping with its work in flexible turret design as well as in its long history fielding APS capability. But not every leading tank manufacturer outside of the U.S. is clamoring to get involved in the U.S. combat vehicles market. In the case of Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and its French partner Nexter, executives believe the odds of selling entire vehicles to the American armed forces are dim. “We play a role in the U.S., we are selling in the U.S., but not on a system level,” KMW boss Frank Haun said during an interview at Eurosatory. Mayer, his Nexter counterpart, added that “political reasons” and the “industry landscape” make it difficult for outsiders to break into a market tightly controlled by domestic players. In Haun's experience, arms sales to the U.S. have the highest chance of succeeding when there is little money at stake. “Whatever is under the radar of senators and congressmen will work,” he said. U.S. defense contractors have significant influence in Congress thanks to traditional lobbying campaigns targeting both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, many large companies employ workers in plants across the United States, which means lawmakers from those areas are eager to ensure a continued flow of defense money to the contractors. Long-range precision fires The U.S. Army will demonstrate LRPF technology from a precision-strike missile to hypersonics and ramjet capabilities within the next couple of years, according to the service's LRPF CFT. In the near future, the service is looking at how it will evolve its current M109A7 self-propelled howitzer — or the Paladin Integrated Management — into extended-range cannon artillery. At the same time, a competition is ongoing to build a new LRPF capability that replaces and surpasses the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). Norwegian ammunition company Nammo unveiled what it's calling an “extreme range” artillery concept using ramjet propulsion that it hopes will meet the emerging LRPF requirements for a variety of countries, including the United States. Nammo has combined its experience in both ammunition and rocket-propulsion technology, and it's merging those capabilities to create an artillery shell capable of reaching more than 100 kilometers in range without changing the gun on a standard 155mm howitzer, according to Thomas Danbolt, company vice president of large caliber ammunition, who spoke at Eurosatory, one of the largest land warfare conferences in Europe. The company displayed a model of the artillery shell at the exposition and plans to test several LRPF capabilities in the coming years, particularly its new extreme-range artillery projectile. The projectile will go through a flight demonstration in the 2019 or 2020 time frame, according to Erland Orbekk, company vice president for ramjet technology, which coincides with the Army's LRPF CFTs tentative plans to test ramjet and hypersonics capabilities as early as 2019. Swedish company Saab has also teamed up with Boeing to develop a Ground-Launched Small-Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) and announced at the show that the pair had demonstrated — in cooperation with the U.S. Army Aviation & Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) — its capabilities for ground forces during a test fire where the laser-enabled weapon launched and then tracked and engaged a moving target at a distance of 100 kilometers. The range ultimately will be closer to 150 kilometers. The partnership allows for the team to easily tap the U.S. market as well as international customers interested in improving rocket artillery capability, according to Boeing's Jon Milner, within the company's direct attack weapons international programs division. Milner said Boeing and Saab would continue to assess what customers want. The U.S. Army has made it clear it needs longer range artillery in order to avoid being out-gunned and out-ranged by adversaries, but also a lot of NATO countries are interested in the capability because of NATO mandates which creates a significant international market for the weapon. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/26/foreign-defense-companies-want-in-on-us-army-modernization-efforts/

Gabriel Dominguez BAE Systems has been awarded a USD83.6 million contract to provide to Taiwan the “necessary material and technical engineering to build, integrate, test, and deliver” 36 AAV7A1 Assault Amphibious Vehicles. The contract is for 30 AAVP7A1 personnel carriers, four AAVC7A1 command post vehicles and two AAVR7A1 recovery vehicles, according to a 22 June announcement by the US Department of Defense (DoD). This deal, which involves Foreign Military Sales (FMS) under the Taipei Economic Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) – FMS case TW-P-SEQ – also includes support and test equipment, spares, publications, training, engineering services, logistics, and other technical support required. All work will be performed in York, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by 22 July, 2020, said the DoD, adding that this contract “was not competitively procured in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) - only one responsible source and no other supplies or services that will satisfy agency requirements”. The contracting authority is the US Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Virginia. Once delivered, the AAV7A1s are very likely to be used by the Republic of China Marine Corps (RoCMC), but will not be the first ones to be operated by the Corps. In 2003 Taiwan signed a contract for 54 ex-US Marine Corps AAV7A1-series vehicles that have begun replacing the LVTP5 series of amphibious fighting vehicles used by the RoCMC. The latest contract announcement comes a few weeks after Taiwan said it welcomed a potential shift in policy by the United States' government to facilitate military sales to the island on a case-by-case basis as opposed to the current approach of ‘bundling' several defence deals together, as Jane's reported. The Ministry of National Defense (MND) in Taipei said in comments reported by the state-owned Central News Agency on 5 June that any US transition to approving FMS requests separately would improve its ability to plan and budget military modernisation requirements. http://www.janes.com/article/81335/bae-systems-to-supply-assault-amphibious-vehicles-to-taiwan

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - Neuf pays européens dont l'Allemagne, la Belgique et le Royaume-Uni ont signé lundi la lettre d'intention de l'initiative européenne d'intervention (IEI) prônée par Paris pour porter une approche novatrice de la défense hors des dispositifs de l'UE. Par l'IEI, la France ambitionne de doter les Européens d'une capacité d'action et de prévention autonome de l'UE, pour des conflits mais aussi des crises humanitaires ou environnementales, en mutualisant la planification militaire, le soutien aux opérations, l'anticipation et le renseignement. “Face aux doutes éventuels, il faut affirmer ses convictions”, a déclaré la ministre des Armées Florence Parly à l'issue de la signature. “Les Européens doivent être forts, les Européens doivent être capables, de plus en plus, d'assurer leur protection et leur souveraineté et donc cette initiative est en faveur de la souveraineté européenne”, a-t-elle ajouté. L'Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, les Pays-Bas, l'Estonie, la France, le Portugal, l'Espagne et le Royaume-Uni ont signé lundi à Luxembourg le premier acte de l'initiative. La ministre des Armées, qui a porté le projet qu'Emmanuel Macron avait appelé de ses voeux en septembre lors d'un discours à la Sorbonne, a estimé qu'il répondait en outre aux appels américains pour une Europe qui assume plus sa sécurité. “Cette étape va permettre de commencer très vite des travaux communs qui impliqueront les états-majors des différentes forces armées”, a-t-elle précisé dans un entretien au Figaro. “Une première rencontre aura lieu mi-septembre à Paris pour mettre en place un programme de travail concernant l'anticipation, la planification et l'organisation d'exercice”, poursuit-elle, évoquant l'étude de scénarios concrets, “par exemple pour préparer l'exfiltration de ressortissants”. Absente de la liste des signataires, l'Italie “réfléchit à la possibilité de rejoindre cette initiative, mais n'a pas pris de décision définitive”, a précisé Florence Parly. Dans un communiqué, elle ajoute que “d'autres pays européens, capables, volontaires et partageant les objectifs de l'IEI, pourront rejoindre l'Initiative européenne d'intervention”. MOBILISATION PLUS RAPIDE L'accord à neuf a ménagé des concessions à l'Allemagne sur le maintien d'un lien fort entre l'IEI et la Coopération structurée permanente (Pesco ou CSP), le pacte de défense entériné en décembre dernier par 25 pays de l'Union européenne (excluant un Royaume-Uni sur le départ). “L'Allemagne ne souhaitait pas que l'Initiative européenne d'intervention soit détachée de la CSP. C'est parce que nous maintiendrons entre les deux mécanismes un lien fort qu'elle a décidé d'adhérer”, a précisé Florence Parly. En dépit d'inquiétudes quant à l'accumulation de dispositifs, le secrétaire général de l'Otan Jens Stoltenberg a salué la décision, jugeant que l'initiative faciliterait la modernisation des armées européennes et leur rapidité de mobilisation. “Je pense que cela peut renforcer la disponibilité des forces, car nous avons besoin d'une disponibilité élevée”, a-t-il déclaré à la presse en marge de la réunion des ministres de la Défense et des Affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne. Paris, qui entend stimuler des réponses européennes plus promptes face aux crises, se place au centre d'une réorganisation des structures européennes de défense post-Brexit, en incluant la puissance militaire britannique au sein de cette nouvelle initiative. Le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères, Heiko Mass, a paru lundi partager l'impatience française et a dit souhaiter que la politique étrangère européenne soit décidée par un vote à la majorité à l'avenir, et non par une décision à l'unanimité. Londres entend conclure un traité avec l'Union européenne en matière de sécurité d'ici 2019, en vue notamment de garder après le Brexit accès aux bases de données, contrats d'armement et au partage d'informations au sein de l'Union, un projet soutenu par plusieurs Etats membres mais dont d'autres ne veulent pas. “Notre engagement dans la sécurité de ce continent est sans conditions”, a déclaré lundi un diplomate britannique, qui déplore la vision idéologique de certains pays pour lesquels le départ du Royaume-Uni de l'Union doit être total. https://fr.reuters.com/article/topNews/idFRKBN1JL1S2-OFRTP

Today, foreign affairs ministers and defence ministers discussed the implementation of the EU Global Strategy in the area of security and defence. The Council then adopted conclusions which highlight the significant progress in strengthening cooperation in the area of security and defence and provide further guidance on next steps. Permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) The Council adopted today a common set of governance rules for projects within the PESCO framework. The sequencing of the more binding commitments undertaken by member states participating in PESCO is expected to be defined through a Council recommendation, in principle in July 2018. An updated list of PESCO projects and their participants, including a second wave of projects, is expected by November 2018. The general conditions for third state participation in PESCO projects are expected to be set out in a Council decision in principle also in November. Capability development plan and coordinated annual review on defence (CARD) The Council approved the progress catalogue 2018, which provides a military assessment of the prioritised capability shortfalls and high impact capability goals to be achieved in a phased approach. It forms a key contribution to the EU capability development priorities. These priorities are recognised by the Council as a key reference for both member states' and EU defence capability development initiatives. The aim of CARD, for which a trial run is being conducted by the European Defence Agency, is to establish a process which will provide a better overview of national defence spending plans. This would make it easier to address European capability shortfalls and identify new collaborative opportunities, ensuring the most effective and coherent use of defence spending plans. European defence fund The European Defence Fund is one of the key security and defence initiatives by the Commission, reaffirmed in its proposal for the future multiannual financial framework (2021-2027), with a proposed envelope of €13 billion. The European Defence Fund aims to foster innovation and allow economies of scale in defence research and in the industrial development phase by supporting collaborative projects in line with capability priorities identified by Member States within the CFSP framework. This will strengthen the competitiveness of the Union's defence industry. Under the current financial framework, with the same objectives, the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) was agreed by the representatives of the co-legislators on 22 May 2018. The Council welcomes this agreement. The EDIDP should aim at incentivising collaborative development programmes in line with defence capability priorities commonly agreed by EU member states, in particular in the context of the capability development plan. European peace facility The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the creation of a European Peace Facility in the context of the future multiannual financial framework, an off-EU budget fund devoted to security and defence. The aim of the facility would be: funding the common costs of military operations under the Common Security and Defence Policy (currently covered by the Athena mechanism); contributing to the financing of military peace support operations led by other international actors (currently covered by, for example, the African Peace Facility); and providing support to third states' armed forces to prevent conflicts, build peace and strengthen international security. The Council takes note of the proposal and invites the relevant Council preparatory bodies to take the work forward and present concrete recommendations on the proposed facility. Military mobility The aim of improving military mobility is to address those obstacles which hinder the movement of military equipment and personnel across the EU. The High Representative and the Commission presented a joint communication on improving military mobility in the EU on 10 November 2017 and an action plan on 28 March 2018. The Council welcomes this action plan and calls for its swift implementation. As a first step in this direction, the Council approves the overarching high-level part of the military requirements for military mobility within and beyond the EU. The Council also stresses that improvement in military mobility can only be achieved with the full involvement and commitment of all member states, fully respecting their national sovereignty. The conclusions also touch on other strands of work in the field of EU security and defence, including strengthening civilian CSDP, developing a more strategic approach for EU partnerships on security and defence with third countries, and increasing resilience and bolstering capabilities to counter hybrid threats, including further developing the EU's strategic communication approach together with member states. Background On 14 November 2016, the Council adopted conclusions on implementing the EU Global Strategy in the area of security and defence. These conclusions set out three strategic priorities in this regard: responding to external conflicts and crises, building the capacities of partners, and protecting the European Union and its citizens. Since then, the EU has significantly increased its efforts in the area of security and defence. Progress was noted and further guidance provided through Council conclusions on 6 March 2017, on 18 May 2017 and 13 November 2017. Council conclusions on strengthening civilian Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) were adopted on 28 May 2018. At the same time, the EU has also increased its cooperation with NATO, on the basis of the joint declaration on EU-NATO cooperation signed by the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission and NATO Secretary-General on 8 July 2016 in the margins of the Warsaw summit. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/06/25/security-and-defence-cooperation-eu-will-enhance-its-capacity-to-act-as-a-security-provider-its-strategic-autonomy-and-its-ability-to-cooperate-with-partners/

Tim Fish, London Plans to upgrade the Norwegian Army's Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks (MBTs) have been abandoned following the publication of the government's revised budget in May, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed. “Through the examination of the Land Power Proposition in the autumn of 2017, it was decided to suspend the planned and approved upgrade project for existing tanks (Project 5050) based on the recommendations in the National Power Assessment,” the MoD told Jane's. The MBTs “would not provide sufficiently capable tanks to meet developments in the threat of modern weapons and ammunition types”, the ministry explained. A reduced MBT capability will be retained until 2025, when a new tank or an interim solution will be introduced. Only 30 of the 52 tanks in the Norwegian Army inventory are operational. Upgrade proposals have included adopting Germany's Leopard 2A7V or a development of the CV90 infantry fighting vehicle, but the latter was rejected. The 2A7 option remains under consideration for 2025 and measures to maintain the Leopard 2A4s until then “are being investigated”, the MoD added, while admitting that the Norwegian tank fleet's operational capabilities will be gradually reduced and its numbers may be slightly reduced. http://www.janes.com/article/81336/update-norway-cancels-tank-upgrade

Sebastian Sprenger PARIS ― European manufacturers of armored vehicles are jockeying for position in what looks to be the most expensive land program for the continent in decades. The industry activity follows plans by France and Germany, reiterated this month, to build a Main Ground Combat System that would replace the current fleet of Leopard 2 and Leclerc tanks. While conceived as a two-country project for now, the hope is to develop a weapon that other European land forces will also pick up. Details remain murky about exactly what the new vehicles must be able to do, though the job description includes something about manned-unmanned teaming. Perhaps that's why officials chose an amorphous name for the project, as it could be anything from a nimble, autonomous fighter to the type of human-driven steel beast of today's armies. The target date for introducing the new platform is set at 2035, and Germany has picked up the lead role for the project both on the government and the industry side. KNDS, the Franco-German joint venture of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Nexter, put the program on the radar of visitors of the Eurosatory trade show in Paris earlier this month. The companies mated the chassis of a Leopard 2 tank to a Leclerc turret ― and voila, a European Main Battle Tank was born. Company officials stressed that the hybrid behemoth is only a stepping stone on the way toward a full-blown European tank offering under the Main Ground Combat System banner. But the product might interest Eastern European nations looking to divest their Russian legacy fleets for a good-enough, Western-made tank that ― presumably ― doesn't break the bank. The marriage of KMW and Nexter saves the two companies from having to compete against one another for the next-generation tank. It also creates the appearance that Paris' and Berlin's love for a future tank is happily echoed by their industries. “Let's assume we wouldn't have joined forces,” said Frank Haun, the CEO of KMW. Both he and his Nexter counterpart, Stephane Mayer, would have had to lobby their respective governments for a purely national solution, pulling the old argument of keeping jobs in the country, Haun said. The two companies hailed an announcement last week about a new Franco-German deal aimed at examining possible program options for the future tank. “The Letter Of Intent signed yesterday is a significant step forward in the defense cooperation between the two countries and in Europe,” reads a June 20 statement. “This close cooperation was the key motivation for the foundation of KNDS in 2015, where Nexter and KMW cooperate as national system houses for land systems.” But the binational industry team is far from the only game in town. Take Rheinmetall, for example, which is KMW's partner in the Leopard program. Company executives at the Paris weapons expo were tight-lipped about their strategy toward the Main Ground Combat System, or MGCS. But it's probably a safe bet to presume the Düsseldorf, Germany-based firm won't cede a market of tens of billions of dollars without a fight. “Come back and see me in December in Unterlüß,” Ben Hudson, head of the company's vehicle systems division, told Defense News during an interview in Paris. He was referring to a small German town one hour south of Hamburg where Rheinmetall runs a manufacturing plant. Hudson declined to say more about what the company would roll out at that time. “I can't mention it just yet,” he said. “Expect more surprises in the future. We're already working on some other things in the secret laboratories of Rheinmetall.” Either way, officials were eager to note that KNDS, despite its industrial alignment alongside the two governments in charge, is only one bidder in a field that has to fully emerge. “I think there is still a lot of water to flow under the bridge on this program, as it is only in its early days. However, with the technology in the Rheinmetall Group, we have a significant interest in playing a key role in MGCS,” Hudson said. He argued that developing the next-generation tank must begin with considering the “threat” out there, namely the Russian T-14 and T-15 tanks, which are based on a common chassis dubbed Armata. Those vehicles' characteristics, or at least what is known about them, dictate “high lethality” be built into the future European tank, according to Hudson. “How do you defeat a tank that has four active defense systems on it?” he asked. And then there is General Dynamics European Land Systems, the Old World's offspring of the U.S. maker of the Abrams tank and Stryker vehicle. The company is careful to note its European roots: a consolidated mishmash of formerly independent armored-vehicle makers from across the continent. Manuel Lineros, vice president of engineering, told Defense News that the company's Ascot vehicle will be the GDELS offering for the European next-gen tank. Advertised for its mobility and weighing in at roughly 45 tons, the tracked vehicle falls in the class of infantry fighting vehicles, putting it one notch below the heaviest battle tank category. “I understand the battlefield has changed,” Lineros said in an interview at Eurosatory. “We have to abandon the ideas of a combat vehicle versus a classic main battle tank. Everything is so mixed up now.” Whatever the Ascot lacks in sheer mass against projectiles aimed at its shell could be compensated with an active protection system and the ability to move quickly on the battlefield, argued Lineros. “We have to be flexible in this way of interpreting the requirements.” That includes defending against drone swarms, which could become the peer-to-peer equivalent of improvised explosive devices designed to rip open the underbellies of vehicles, he said. Unlike the recent countermine vehicle architecture, that type of aerial threat could mean the top surface of future vehicles will be a weak point requiring special protection, he added. Though adding armor plates remains the industry's first instinct in responding to new threats, Lineros said there is a limit to what he called an “addiction” to steel. “More and more we'll be moving out of this sport.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/25/tank-makers-steel-themselves-for-europes-next-big-land-weapon-contest/