News

By: Mark Pomerleau The Army is upgrading how it tracks friendly forces to increase readiness. During the fiscal 2019 budget roll out in February, Army officials at the Pentagon indicated that the service would be accelerating its Joint Battle Command-Platform, which provides friendly forces awareness information known as blue force tracking, as well as encrypted data and faster satellite network connectivity. The change is intended to solve mounted mission command problems across all formations. The new budget request shows the service is serious about the issue. The Army asked for $431 million for the program in FY2019. That's up from a total of $283 million during the FY2018 budget. Moreover, the Army plans to procure 26,355 systems as opposed to 16,552 from the FY2018 budget. However, officials in the program office were careful to note this was not a “plus-up, so to speak,” but an effort to accelerate the fielding of the tracking systems. C4ISRNET's Mark Pomerleau recently spoke about the program's modernization efforts with Col. Troy Crosby, project manager for Mission Command, alongside Lt. Col. Shane Sims, product manager for JBC-P, assigned to Project Mission Command. C4ISRNET: How should we interpret the FY2019 budget request for this program? COL. TROY CROSBY: It's important to understand that there wasn't necessarily a plus-up. Really what happened is we shifted already approved authorizations to the left. We're just expediting sooner. The Army asked us what we could do to modernize faster ... essentially, we went back to them and said give us the funding and the resources to move a lot of those units to the left because every year the G-3/5/7 comes out with this priority list and we weren't able to get down to that priority list because of funding. That's really what you're seeing with that movement of money from the out years closer in to the left. C4ISRNET: What led to the decision to baseline the program across formations? CROSBY: The Army's looking to standardize their baselines not only on the platforms like JBC-P, but also a similar effort in the command post with software baseline reduction. Moving to the standard baseline on the platform-side helps with training, readiness and the physical constraints as we can depreciate the older versions of FBCB2/BFT [Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracking] out of sustainment. C4ISRNET: How does standardization help the Army? CROSBY: Any time you're greatly standardized in a organization the size of the Army, you're going to get easier interoperability down at the tactical level. If Lt. Col. Sims is Sgt. Sims and he is in a unit at Fort Stewart and we were trained on the current systems in the force and then he gets [a permanent change of station] out to Fort Riley, he already has a base of knowledge when he hits the ground on what those systems are because they're the same across the force. So, the training burden for his new units greatly reduced. I think it also helps in readiness as units and soldiers move around the battlespace. The other reason the Army really wants to standardize on JBC-P is, like with all systems in the tactical network, we're always looking to improve cyber posture, and there were multiple improvements in our cyber posturing that the department felt were relevant to try to accelerate so we could get that capability to the entire force as quickly as possible. C4ISRNET: In terms of cyber, what are some modernization efforts you're undertaking to help this platform perform in the more dynamic environments? CROSBY: I think the best way that we can characterize it is looking to ... achieve a cyber posture that allows us to operate both in a counter-insurgency/counterterrorism role and a near-peer adversary role. We're looking to answer both sides of that coin. Yes, current fight, but we're also looking to make sure we're cyber postured for a near-peer. LT. COL. SHANE SIMS: You can probably draw some conclusions from what you know on the commercial side. Imagine having a computer that's over 20 years old — that's where some of our platforms are right now when you're talking about the FBCB2 that was fielded almost two decades ago. C4ISRNET: In terms of your FY19 funding, could it be characterized as investing in standards to help increase readiness and lethality? CROSBY: Very much so. The plus-up kind of touched a couple of areas. On the research and development side, the plus-up helps us in looking at ways to modernize and bring new capability for the blue force tracking network side. We're really looking to expedite that fielding for better cyber posture. C4ISRNET: It sounds like standardization is very important from an Army readiness and lethality perspective. SIMS: When talking JBC-P, there are really three components: the software, the hardware and then the network. Really, what we're doing on a couple fronts [is] we're expediting the fielding to get the hardware out there but that's going to set the conditions for what we're doing in the command post with the infrastructure. That same infrastructure is going to reside on our hardware that's in the platform. The commanders are in environments where they experience something completely different in the command post than you experience on the platforms. You hear repeatedly from the commanders, “Can I have the same type of user experience?” Data's really what we're addressing with the modernization of the command post and the mounted computing environment. That user experience is going to be one and the same for the commander when he or she is in the command post and then when they get in the vehicle. That is really what we're doing with modernization for JBC-P. C4ISRNET: The National Defense Strategy has stressed prioritization on great power competition. How does JBC-P modernization and standardization fit into that strategy? CROSBY: The first one is looking to modernize JBC-P mission command on the move at the platform level. How we continue to modernize and field as fast as we can so that we can maintain both that counter-insurgency/counterterrorism fight and near-peer adversaries is one piece of this. https://www.c4isrnet.com/thought-leadership/2018/04/13/how-the-army-plans-to-improve-its-friendly-force-tracking/

Canada positioned to lead globally in five emerging technology areas while building on its strengths April 23, 2018, Ottawa Canada has a strong and innovative defence industry with over 650 companies that employ more than 60,000 Canadians. One way the Government of Canada supports this industry is the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy, which requires that for every dollar it spends on big defence purchases, the winning contractor must put a dollar back into Canada's economy. In the past 30 years, the ITB Policy has generated investments of $30 billion in Canada's economy, and generates around 40,000 jobs annually. Through Canada's defence policy, Strong Secure, Engaged, defence purchases are being used to unlock billions of dollars in economic benefits and create middle-class jobs. To maximize these opportunities, the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, today announced that the government will use the ITB Policy to motivate defence contractors to invest in Key Industrial Capabilities (KIC). These are five areas of Canadian industrial strength in emerging technologies, which have the potential to grow quickly, and 11 established industrial capabilities where Canada is globally competitive or where domestic capacity is essential to national security: Emerging technologies Advanced materials Artificial intelligence Cyber resilience Remotely piloted systems and autonomous technologies Space systems Leading competencies and critical industrial services Aerospace systems and components Armour Defence systems integration Electro-optical and infrared systems Ground vehicle solutions In-service support Marine ship-borne mission and platform systems Munitions Shipbuilding, design and engineering services Sonar and acoustic systems Training and simulation Key Industrial Capabilities align with the government's Innovation and Skills Plan by supporting the development of skills and fostering innovation in Canada's defence sector. Quotes “Our defence industry asked for a list of Key Industrial Capabilities, and we delivered. As a result of promoting investment in areas with potential for rapid growth, our armed forces will be better equipped, we will have a stronger economy and we will create thousands of middle-class jobs.” – The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development “Canada's defence industry welcomes Key Industrial Capabilities as an important policy tool to strengthen our government-industry partnership. KICs will incentivize strategic investments in existing and emerging defence and security capability where Canada has leading-edge and globally competitive technologies. The capabilities identified today demonstrate the world-class, innovation-led nature of the defence and security industry here in Canada.” – Christyn Cianfarani, President and CEO, Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries “By defining its Key Industrial Capabilities, the government has provided another significant instrument for leveraging public procurements to increase investment in areas of Canadian industrial strength and opportunity. The strong aerospace presence in the KICs identified by the government today illustrates the strength of our industry, as well as its potential to continue building its competitive advantage in the years ahead. We are very pleased that the government has identified its KICs, and congratulate Minister Bains on the successful launch of this important procurement tool.” – Jim Quick, President and CEO, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada Quick facts The list of Key Industrial Capabilities will evolve over time to reflect technological advances and changing defence requirements and will be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Adoption of these Key Industrial Capabilities was first recommended in the 2013 report, Canada First: Leveraging Defence Procurement Through Key Industrial Capabilities (also known as “The Jenkins Report”). The defence industry is both innovative, with an R&D intensity 4.5 times the Canadian manufacturing average, and export-oriented, with 60 percent of its sales in 2016 taking place in the global market. From 1986 to 2016, the overall portfolio of ITB obligations included 137 contracts valued at $41.5 billion, with $28.3 billion in business activities already completed, $9.4 billion of activities in progress and $3.8 billion in unidentified future work opportunities. Associated links Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy Key Industrial Capabilities Defence Acquisition Guide 2016 Strong Secure, Engaged Innovation and Skills Plan Canada First: Leveraging Defence Procurement Through Key Industrial Capabilities Contacts Follow the department on Twitter: @ISED_CA Karl W. Sasseville Press Secretary Office of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development 343-291-2500 Media Relations Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada 343-291-1777 ic.mediarelations-mediasrelations.ic@canada.ca https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2018/04/driving-job-creation-and-innovation-in-canada-through-defence-spending.html

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

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration's review of America's missile defense capabilities is now expected to be released in May. The Missile Defense Review, a strategy document designed to take a holistic view of America's missile defense posture, was expected to be released in February. But finally, it appears the document is nearing completion. Pentagon spokesman Tom Crosson, in response to an inquiry by Defense News, said that the review is “currently in development” and that “we expect to release the review sometime next month.” The review is expected to be unclassified. The review is part of a series of big-picture strategic documents that started with the December release of the National Security Strategy, followed by the January release of the National Defense Strategy, and continued with February's Nuclear Posture Review. Notably, the review was originally positioned as a “ballistic missile defense review,” but the term ballistic has since been dropped by the Trump administration ― something Tom Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said was a wise choice. “The fact that the administration has dropped ‘ballistic' from the review's title indicates the document will probably employ a wider lens,” Karako wrote in a CSIS analysis Friday. “This could include a robust effort to better defend against Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, other maneuvering endo-atmospheric threats like hypersonic boost-glide vehicles (HGVs), and advanced short-range ballistic missiles.” Although no one has spelled out the direction of the review, there have been some hints given about where the administration intends to take missile defense. The FY19 budget request for the Missile Defense Agency, for instance, increased by $2 billion from previous funding levels, with an express focus on defeating a missile threat from North Korea. And Michael Griffin, the Pentagon's new head of research and engineering, has expressed support for investing in airborne missile defense capabilities. Jen Judson in Washington contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/04/06/missile-defense-review-expected-in-may

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/

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

Military.com 7 Mar 2018 By Oriana Pawlyk Keep it small, keep it simple, make it work. It's what Marine Corps leaders want industry leaders and research and development agencies to keep in mind when making the latest and greatest tech for grunts on the battlefield, a top general said Tuesday. Gen. Glenn Walters, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, said the service was interested in high-end electronics and robotics, but said he didn't want to increase the load of ground combat Marines by adding on advanced gear. "Technology is great, until you have to carry it, and you have to carry the power that drives it," said Gen. Glenn Walters, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps. Walters said members of 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, the service's experimental infantry battalion, has been the first to test and field small tech and weapons. The service is interested in the new technology, but continues to keep the size and weight of new systems in mind, he said. "Reorganizing for the future is what's happening right now and robotics is clearly someplace where we're investing," Walters told audiences during the annual "Defense Programs" conference hosted by defense consulting firm McAleese & Associates. In a few months, 3/5 will debut its latest report on findings and lessons learned from using the newer tech, such as handheld drones and quadcopters, he said. "But we're not waiting," Walters said at the event in Washington, D.C. New, powerful equipment needs to be leveraged even more so than it is now, Walters said, adding, "they need to be more consumable." "We have 69 3D printers out and about throughout a mix of battalions," Walters said. This added gear, he said, has made Marines more agile when they need to replace a broken part or create an entirely new solution for an old design. "We have to have the speed of trust in our young people to seize and hold the technological high ground," Walters said. Amid the push for new tech, officials have been working to lessen the load for Marines who have been inundated with more equipment in recent years even as the service grows more advanced with streamlined resources. For example, program managers have said they're looking for a lighter, more practical alternative to the Corps' iconic ammunition can. Scott Rideout, program manager for ammunition at Marine Corps Systems Command, told industry leaders in 2016 that the rectangular can may be due for an upgrade. Rideout at the time made the case during the Equipping the Infantry Challenge at Quantico that emerging technologies -- such as the logistics drones that Walters mentioned Tuesday -- may also put limits on how much a future delivery of ammunition can weigh. The calculus is simple, Rideout said: "Ounces equal pounds, and pounds equal pain." -- Oriana Pawlyk can be reached at oriana.pawlyk@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @oriana0214. https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/03/06/marine-leaders-dont-want-new-tech-weigh-grunts-down.html

By Murray Brewster, CBC News The new federal budget focuses on ones and zeros over tanks and troops by pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into new and improved cyber and national security defences. Several federal departments will not only see upfront cash but promises of long-term spending to counter both the threat of hackers — state-sponsored and otherwise — and cyber-criminals. National Defence, by comparison, is seeing virtually nothing in terms of new spending on the nuts and bolts of the military, other than initiatives outlined in the recently tabled national defence policy. The 2018 budget is, on the surface, a tacit acknowledgement that the nature of threats to national security — the nature of modern warfare itself — is changing. The budget recycles the government's $3.6 billion pledge last December to provide veterans with the option of a pension for life and better services. But cyber-security was, by far, the headline national security measure in the budget. Finance Minister Bill Morneau's fiscal plan sets aside $750 million in different envelopes — much of it to be spent over five years — to improve cyber security and better prepare the federal government to fend off online attacks and track down cyber-criminals. More for CSE It also promises an additional $225 million, beginning in 2020-21, to improve the capacity of the country's lead electronic intelligence agency, the Communications Security Establishment, to gather foreign signals intelligence. The Liberals will soon pass new national security legislation — C-59 — and CSE will receive important new powers and responsibilities to disrupt global cyber threats. "These are brand new tools. They're going to need lots of resources — technological resources, personnel resources — to engage in those kinds of operations," said Wesley Wark, a University of Ottawa professor and one of the country's leading experts on cybersecurity and intelligence, in an interview prior to the budget. The sense of urgency about getting the country's cyber-security house in order is being driven in part by the fallout from Russian hacking and meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said a former assistant parliamentary budget officer. "With what we've seen south of the border, I think cyber-security and cyber-threat has been elevated in this budget to a high-priority item," said Sahir Khan, now the executive vice president of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy. The budget creates two new entities to deal with online threats. The first, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, will assemble all of the federal government's cyber expertise under one roof — a plan that will require new legislation. The second organization will be run by the RCMP and be known as the National Cybercrime Coordination Unit. It will coordinate all cybercrime investigations and act as a central agency to which the public can report incidents. The budget also includes cash for Public Safety's National Cyber Strategy, which not only aims to protect federal government networks but is meant to collaborate with the corporate financial and energy sectors to boost their defences. Military procurement a work in progress The budget's dearth of new spending on the real-world military — at a time of significant global insecurity — is due to reasons that are partly political and partly organizational, said Khan. The former Conservative government's inability to deliver on promises of new equipment during its nine-year tenure was a political "albatross around its neck," he said. The Liberals may have produced a clear defence policy but they have yet to straighten out the procurement system, he added. The Trudeau government has promised a lot of military capital spending down the road. Khan said it seems determined to keep the issue out of the spotlight in the meantime. What's missing from the new budget is a clear commitment that National Defence will get the cash it needs as those needs arise. "I think there was a lot of clarity in the policy direction coming out of the government [defence] white paper," said Khan. "What a lot of us are trying to understand is whether the money ... is accompanying that change in direction ... so that DND has a stable footing to meet its needs." He said he still has questions about whether promised future spending on fighter jets and warships has been baked into the federal government's long-term fiscal plans. A senior federal official, speaking on background prior to the release of the budget, insisted that military capital spending is welded into fiscal plans going forward into the 2030s. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan has said repeatedly, since the strategy was released last June, that the defence plan was "fully costed" into the future. Up until 2016, National Defence produced an annual list of planned defence purchases. The Liberals promised to produce their own list of planned acquisitions and table it this year. Khan said it "needs to be presented to Parliament and the public." Training and retaining? The cyber initiatives in Monday's budget drew a mixed response from the high-tech sector. On the one hand, the Council of Canadian Innovators praised budget signals that suggest the Liberals are open to dealing with home-grown companies rather than buying off-the-shelf from major U.S. firms. "The imperative to build domestic cyber capacity is not just economic. It's existential," said Benjamin Bergen, the council's executive director. "Without a domestic capacity in cyber we risk becoming a client state. Innovators welcome the announcement of a new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, which will allow for information sharing between the public and private sector." What the budget didn't offer was a clear commitment to training and retaining highly-skilled software engineers and IT professionals. "We would have liked to have seen a retention strategy. There wasn't one," said Bergen. "We know Canada produces amazing graduates but we're struggling to keep that talent here." The council estimates there will be up to 200,000 job openings in high-tech by 2020, which will put pressure on the industry and on the federal government as it bulks up its cyber capability. Adam Froman, CEO of the Toronto-based data collection firm Delvinia, was blunt when asked if the federal government will be able to fill all of the cyber-security job openings created by this budget. "They're not going to be able to. Plain and simple," he said. "Or they're going to have to outsource those jobs to foreign companies." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-budget-2018-cybersecurity-1.4552967