News

By: Jeffrey A. Stacey After the successful 2011 Libya operation, it appeared the U.S. and European allies were on the cusp of a new era of working together on international crises, only to stall out thanks to economic austerity and populist elections. Now that the refugee crisis in Europe is subsiding and allied troops and equipment have deployed to Poland and the Baltics, the window of opportunity has once again opened for deepening relations between the European Union and NATO. By setting up an EU-NATO informal track, regularizing operational transitions and embarking on expanded coordination in out-of-area operations — all of which are more crucial, given a potential Brexit and the 2020 U.S. election — these two crucial, overlapping alliances can step into a new era. There are two logical diplomatic tracks to be pursued: a formal track centered on implementation of EU and NATO ministerials/summits, as well as an informal track centered on working through difficult issues and preparing them for decision-makers. Senior officials from both organizations have commented recently that the informal track would be particularly useful for the kind of deep-dive, “peer around the corner” strategizing that busy officials are rarely afforded an opportunity to engage in. The EU is a global leader in what it calls “crisis management,” and what NATO refers to as “stabilization and reconstruction.” Joint planning ahead of such operations, aligning civil/military planning in advance, will allow for improved outcomes in theater. In general, NATO would gain a new capability to act in the immediate aftermath of its military operations when a crisis occurs, and the EU would gain the opportunity to spearhead joint Western crisis management as a matter of course. Taking a cue from the so-called changing of berets in the 2004 NATO mission in Bosnia — when European soldiers involved in the terminating NATO mission simply changed their uniforms out for EU uniforms and remained in place to take part in the EU follow-on mission — there is a strong likelihood that a similar arrangement can be made for deployed civilians. The EU and NATO have ample reasons to agree to regularize operational leadership transitions in moving from the military phase of a conflict to the post-conflict stabilization phase. Here's how it could work: The EU would be designated to spearhead the stabilization phase, having jointly planned this phase of the operation with NATO civilian planners at Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. NATO would commit to always selecting a European as the head of the NATO temporary civilian operation, and would call up a modest number of civilian experts from the nations, who would deploy to theater and engage in a delimited number of core stabilization tasks with the plan for a larger EU-led civilian deployment to absorb the NATO operation. NATO civilian operators would focus on a discrete set of core stabilization tasks awaiting the follow-on EU mission to become more comprehensive. Once a decision to deploy a civilian mission occurs in Brussels, the NATO stabilization mission would devolve to the EU. Most of the civilian experts will already be from EU countries, with the mission head also European. The rest of the NATO civilians can be seconded to the civilian operation mission via framework agreements such as the extant one between the U.S. and the EU that already has seconded Americans to EU missions in Africa. This operational compromise would prevent either alliance from playing second fiddle, ushering in a new era of co-planning and cooperating for both. Why can't both sides “just do it,” i.e., simply enact a leadership transition in theater whenever the need arises? Pragmatism can work in the moment, but it doesn't set precedents, as proven by the fact this is not already happening; past “impromptu” experiences of working together on the ground have not led to any pattern or even expectation of repeat or improved cooperating since. This proposal is firmly in the EU's interests, as it will put it fully in the driver's seat of crisis management and bring the EU the recognition it deserves for its existing capabilities and substantial operational experience. This proposal is also firmly in NATO's interests, for the alliance that almost split over its ongoing Afghanistan operation has no interest in further prolonged field deployments. There is also an additional strategic opportunity for both, as closer EU-NATO cooperation would be an important means for keeping the U.K. connected with its EU partners in the security and defense field following Brexit. But with crises around the world proliferating, in more pressing terms these two critical overlapping alliances among Western allies need to jointly become more operationally ready. Despite the political challenges in numerous Western countries, an agreement to overcome the EU-NATO operational impasse is on the cards. Prior to the negative impact of U.S. President Donald Trump's arrival, NATO-EU relations had been at their pinnacle. With an EU-NATO informal track and a means for overcoming the operational hurdle in hand, substantial progress can still be made prior to the next U.S. administration. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/12/03/how-to-take-eu-nato-relations-from-words-to-action/

By: Sen. Jim Inhofe Since World War II, the American people have believed our military has had the best of everything, but the technological superiority that kept us 20 years ahead of our competitors has rapidly diminished. In some cases, we're already behind. By 2030, unless we pursue “urgent change at significant scale,” as former Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis put it, it's likely the U.S. will face an enemy with superior weapons, superior equipment and superior capabilities. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in our strategic competition with China. China used to just steal our technology. Now, through heavy investment, they are improving it. The result? China is outpacing the U.S. in key areas like hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence and biotechnologies — not to mention conventional capabilities. China isn't the only one. Technological development is accelerating across the globe, expanding to more actors and changing the very nature of war. We can't afford to let our advantage erode further. It is up to the Department of Defense and Congress to make sure that the defense-industrial base becomes, as the National Defense Strategy demands, an “unmatched 21st century National Security Innovation Base.” If we want to “sustain security and solvency,” we need to consider wholesale change to industry culture and its interface with the Department of Defense, shed outdated management processes, and reimagine a resilient supply chain that mitigates 21st century risks. This begins with software, which is foundational to military capability. The DoD and its traditional hardware-dominant industry partners have been behind on software in almost every way — talent, tools, development and delivery processes. Software innovation has failed in countless DoD programs, including the Ford-class carrier, the F-35′s Autonomic Logistics Information System and the GPS next-generation operational control system. Instead of taking the Pentagon for granted as an endless source of cash flow, partners must refocus their attention on delivering secure capability that actually works. Next, the Department of Defense needs to continue to expand capacity — prioritizing speed of delivery and adapting its systems to maximize value and output. For too long we have been slow to expand our stockpiles of fifth-generation weapons required to fight peer adversaries. The second production line for JASSM-ER cruise missiles is a good start toward building the capacity needed to retain advantages that will make any enemy think twice before attacking. We must do the same for other fifth-generation weapons, including air-to-air missiles. Shipbuilding, including aircraft carriers, surface ships, submarines and our logistics fleet, is another area where our capacity is severely limited. The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy, which recently surpassed ours in size, is on track to reach 400 ships in 2025 and is nearly self-sufficient for all components. Size of the fleet isn't a sole consideration. We've focused on ensuring the capability of our fleet remains unmatched and bolstering suppliers of critical components, but we must also improve the construction performance of lead ships in new classes to maintain and build upon our capability advantage. The last thing we want is a fair fight. Innovation is best done at the subsystem level through a rigorous engineering-based process centered on building knowledge through full-scale prototypes, which can then inform ship design. We are eager to work with the Navy to identify and fund more of these prototypes, which will serve as the building blocks of the future fleet. We also must accelerate innovation. Recent defense authorization legislation encourages the DoD to streamline acquisition, take a business-minded approach to contracting, and tap into nontraditional suppliers and public-private partnerships. This must continue. Dilapidated testing infrastructure is holding us back from catching up to our enemies. Just look at hypersonic weapons: Beijing is parading around dozens of its newest weapons, and we have yet to build one. The DoD has looked to Silicon Valley, but we are competing with Chinese influence there as well, and the Pentagon has often proven an impossible customer due to its antiquated bureaucracy. Any technological improvements will be meaningless if vulnerable to being infiltrated or stolen. Recent legislation continues support for the DoD as it assesses and mitigates risks to its supply chains posed by adversaries. Both the government and contractors need to cooperate on and use modern verification tools to identify trusted suppliers and manufacturers, as well as fix vulnerabilities. To make these tools useful, the DoD must first establish a working digital model of its suppliers. Lastly, while we must continue to invest in the domestic, organic industrial base, it's important to remember that we can't take on China and Russia alone — which is why the National Defense Strategy emphasizes our network of allies and partners. We must remove unnecessary barriers to industrial cooperation that degrade our collective competitive edge. We do not have to make a false choice between investing domestically and in our allies — we can do both. Under our National Technology and Industrial Base partnership with Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, we can develop a more diverse, resilient industrial base, secure our supply chains, and become a “five eyes for defense procurement.” It's in our best interest to ensure our allies can leverage our technological advantages and we can leverage theirs. Without a strong national security innovation base, the Pentagon cannot implement the National Defense Strategy. Congress' job is to put the appropriate, tailored policy in place and provide sufficient, predictable resources to help the industrial base meet these challenges. Together, we can harness the power of American innovation to ensure that we are able to win the wars of the future. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/sasc-chairman-we-must-build-the-national-security-innovation-base-our-defense-strategy-requires/

By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — The British government will conduct an extensive review integrating defense, security and foreign policy if the Conservative Party wins the upcoming general election, Prime Minister Boris Johnson says. The Conservatives are offering what appears to be a fundamental review of Britain's armed forces, with Johnson saying the initiative will lead to a “huge technological upgrade of security forces to keep Britain safe and strengthen NATO.” The review is scheduled to get underway next year and be led by the Prime Minister's office, said Johnson. Johnson's promise of a strategy shift in policy comes as London prepares to host NATO's 70th anniversary summit on Dec. 4, dubbed by alliance officials as a “leaders' meeting.” National media here reported Johnson as saying it would be the “deepest review of Britain's defense, security and foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. “It will extend from the armed forces to the intelligence services, counter-terrorism forces and serious organized crime. It will also consider Britain's foreign policy, how we can best use our huge expenditure on international development, and the role of technology,” he said. “We must use money better, undertake a huge technological upgrade of all our security forces so they are ahead of hostile powers, terrorists and organized crime — and unlike previous exercises, we must develop an integrated plan for all forces engaged in security,” he is reported as saying. Investment in space capabilities for the Royal Air Force appears to one of the big items on Johnsons agenda according to the reports. Creating a space command was one of just a small handful of defense policy initiatives announced in the Conservative manifesto released just over a week ago. Britain has held two full strategic defense and security reviews and a mini review, known as the defence modernization program, since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. The precedent now is to hold a review every five years. The last review, in 2015, restored capabilities like equipping the Royal Air Force with maritime patrol aircraft but failed to fund the uptick in equipment programs adequately. A review was expected next year whoever wins the election. The rival Labour Party has promised the same in their election manifesto. John Louth, the director of the defense, industry and society program at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said Johnson's proposed review appears to lay the ground for a far more radical rethink than previous strategic defense and security proposals. “He's talking about a once-in-a-generation review with everything on the table. Ideas on re-rolling the RAF more toward space, that sounds like something quite profound. Whether that becomes a reality – who knows, but for the moment everything could be in the mix. From what we know they are almost talking about a zero-based budgeting exercise with everything up for grabs,” said Louth. “Whether it is political rhetoric which will be quickly forgotten is difficult to say, but what will be interesting is to see who is actually undertaking the review and what are their terms of reference,” he said. The RUSI analyst reckons a comprehensive review will need to take the long view. “What does technology look like over the next 15-20 years, how do we fund and how do we access those technologies? Also, if we are going to be potentially short of thousands of personnel, how might initiatives like sponsored reserves help fill the gap?” said Louth. Johnson's review announcement comes against a background of rising tensions in the Ministry of Defence where service chiefs are already said to be fighting amongst themselves over future funding levels for the military. One government relations consultant, who asked not to be named, said there was nothing unusual about infighting among the services for funds but the backstabbing was fiercer and earlier in the budget cycle than usual. Louth said what was challenging now is the “funding doesn't allow everything on the shopping list, and the personnel numbers in the armed forces don't allow them to man the equipment they are already committed to, so something will have to give.” https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-2020-defined/2019/12/02/uk-conservatives-propose-far-reaching-defense-review-if-elected/

By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Air Force looks increasingly toward virtual reality for speeding up and cutting the cost of pilot training, Canadian defense firm CAE is stepping forward with own courseware and virtual reality system with the hopes of attracting interest from the U.S. and international militaries. CAE will debut its CAE TRAX Academy curriculum and Sprint Virtual Reality trainer this week at the Interservice/Industry, Training, Simulation and Education Conference. Throughout the show, the company plans to conduct T-6 flight demonstrations using both products. CAE was inspired by the U.S. Air Force's Pilot Training Next program, which uses virtual reality and other cutting-edge simulation technologies to immerse new pilots in flight training, allowing airment to move more quickly and effectively through training. But CAE is hoping to build on the principles of Pilot Training Next and package it to be purchased by the U.S. Air Force and international militaries, said Phillipe Perey, the head of technology for CAE's defense business. “With Pilot Training Next, everyone is looking with big eyes saying, ‘Wow, oh wow,' but [some generals] are sort of like, ‘Would you really embrace this and do that for your entire air force?'” he said. “So perhaps this is a way of taking the great mission of Pilot Training Next and bringing into that environment with many of the key capabilities that customers have been used to, [such as] true aircraft simulation and many other aspects like a force-feedback stick.” All of the Sprint virtual reality trainer's hardware — including the Varjo VR-2 headset — are commercial off-the-shelf products and can be modified or swapped with a different device to meet the customer's needs. The real value, Perey said, is the software and courseware of TRAXX Academy, in which students progress from mobile apps and VR trainers to a higher fidelity flight simulator. “I think it really drives efficiencies at two levels. One, it reduces costs because the students in there are able to progress at their own pace. Them being alpha personalities; they don't want to be average. They want to be top of class, and they will see how other students are performing and they will be able to pick up their pace,” he said, adding that a six month class could take four months or less to complete if students are driven to complete the coursework. Secondly, the use of self-paced tools and virtual instructors decreases the need for human instructors that could be filling other needed functions within an air force, Perey said. In developing the Sprint VR trainer, CAE started with same kit as used in the Pilot Training Next program, and tweaked it to create “a better self-paced learning environment," he said. CAE made a number of adjustments: Using the same software on the virtual reality trainer as the full flight simulator, substituting a joystick that better simulates G forces, and adding haptics so that pilots can feel vibration or other sensory feedback that they would normally expect while operating the aircraft. Perey said CAE is looking forward to briefing the U.S. Air Force on TRAXX Academy and the Sprint VR trainer during I/ITSEC and getting officials' feedback. “That's really the priority now in the next coming months, is to build out these devices, get them in the customer's hands, get their feedback and develop a solution that is tailored to their particular training needs,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/itsec/2019/12/02/cae-launches-new-virtual-reality-trainer

NAVY General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. (GDEB), Groton, Connecticut, is awarded a $22,209,893,409 fixed-price-incentive, multi-year modification to previously-awarded contract N00024-17-C-2100 for construction of nine Virginia-class submarines, eight with Virginia Payload Module (VPM), from fiscal 2019 to fiscal 2023. The contract modification includes spare material and an option for one additional submarine with VPM. If the option is exercised, the cumulative value of this contract will increase to $24,097,439,556. The awarded amounts include previously-announced material awards (including long-lead-time material and economic ordering quantity material) totaling $3,197,633,908. This contract modification is for the construction of the fifth block of Virginia-class submarines by GDEB and major subcontractor Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division, inclusive of design support and all efforts necessary to test and deliver each submarine. GDEB will continue to subcontract with Huntington Ingalls Industries' Newport News Shipbuilding division. Work will be performed in Newport News, Virginia (25%); Quonset Point, Rhode Island (21%); Groton, Connecticut (20%); Sunnyvale, California (8%); Norfolk, Virginia (1%); Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (1%); and Annapolis, Maryland (1%), with other efforts performed at various places throughout the U.S. below one percent (22%), and other places outside of U.S. below one percent (1%). Work is expected to be completed by August 2029. If the option is exercised, work is expected to be completed by February 2030. Fiscal 2017 and 2019 shipbuilding and conversion, Navy (SCN) funding in the amount of $3,155,793,018 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year - funding: fiscal 2019 SCN (95%); fiscal 2017 SCN (5%). The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Kellogg Brown and Root Services Inc., Houston, Texas, is awarded a $14,070,093 for modification of the second option under an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for base operations support services at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Kingdom of Bahrain. After award of this option, the total cumulative contract value will be $44,363,284. The work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, all management, supervision, tools, materials, supplies, labor and transportation services necessary to perform security operations, galley services, unaccompanied housing, facility management, emergency service requests, urgent service, routing service, facilities investment, custodial, pest control service, integrated solid waste, grounds maintenance, utility management, wastewater, operate reverse osmosis water treatment system, chiller and transportation at NSA Kingdom of Bahrain. Work will be performed in NSA Kingdom of Bahrain. This option period is from December 2019 to November 2020. No funds will be obligated at time of award. Fiscal 2020 operation and maintenance (Navy) contract funds for $4,159,063 for non-recurring work will be obligated on individual task orders issued during the option period. Naval Facilities Engineering Command Europe Africa Central, Naples, Italy, is the contracting activity (N62470-17-D-4007). L-3 Technologies Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah, is awarded a $9,999,144 firm-fixed-price modification (P00012) to a previously-awarded firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00019-18-C-1030) to procure eight Common Data Link Hawklink AN/SRQ-4 systems for the MH-60R aircraft. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is expected to be completed in December 2022. Fiscal 2020 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $9,999,144 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. AIR FORCE Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control, Orlando, Florida, has been awarded a $988,832,126 definitization modification (PZ0010) to previously-awarded contract FA8681-18-C-0021 for Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon critical design review, test and production readiness support. The contract modification will definitize the contract terms, specifications and price. Work will be performed at Orlando, Florida, and is expected to be completed Dec. 31, 2022. The total cumulative face value of the contract is $988,832,126. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds are being obligated in the amount of $23,000,000 at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity. GTA Containers Inc., South Bend, Indiana, has been awarded a $9,404,953 delivery order (FA8534-20-F-0003) against previously-awarded contract FA8533-16-D-0001 for collapsible fuel tank production. Work will be performed at South Bend, Indiana, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2022. The total cumulative face value of the contract is $24,507,563. Fiscal 2019 other procurement funds in the amount of $9,404,953 are being obligated at the time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. ARMY Fisher Sand and Gravel Co., Dickinson, North Dakota, was awarded a $399,962,000 firm-fixed-price contract to design-build border infrastructure along the southern perimeter of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge in Yuma County, Arizona. Five bids were solicited with three bids received. Work will be performed in Yuma, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2018 military construction, defense-wide funds in the amount of $268,072,900 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, Portland, Oregon, is the contracting activity (W912PL-20-C-0004). InSap Services Inc.,* Marlton, New Jersey, was awarded a $41,636,459 modification (BA02 44) to contract W91QUZ-11-D-0017 to provide personnel with technical experience to sustain the Army's Logistics Modernization Program. Work will be performed at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2020 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $7,961,225 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Rock Island, Illinois, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY Unisys Corp., Reston, Virginia, was awarded a single award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity firm-fixed-price contract for Unisys Operating System 2200 capacity services. The place of performance will be at current Defense Information Systems Agency data centers. The contract ceiling is $80,457,160. The solicitation was issued as an other-than-full-and-open-competition action pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S. Code §2304(c)(1) and Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1, with only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. Proposals were solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov), now known as beta.SAM.gov website (www.beta.sam.gov). Only one proposal was received. The period of performance (PoP) consists of a one-year base period and two one-year options. The PoP for the base year is Dec. 1, 2019, through Nov. 30, 2020, and the option years follow consecutively through Nov. 30, 2022. The Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, is the contracting activity (HC1084-20-D-0002). (Awarded Dec. 1, 2019) DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY AvKare Inc., Pulaski, Tennessee, has been awarded a maximum $11,727,127 firm-fixed-price requirements contract for potassium chloride tablets. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a one-year base contract with four one-year option periods. Locations of performance are Tennessee and Minnesota with a Dec. 1, 2020, performance completion date. Using customers are Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, Indian Health Services and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE2D2-20-D-0081). UPDATE: ADS Inc.,* Virginia Beach, Virginia (SPE8EH-20-D-0001), has been added as an awardee to the multiple award contract for fire and emergency services equipment, issued against solicitation SPE8EH-16-R-0001, and announced March 21, 2019. *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2030017/source/GovDelivery/

Murray Brewster · Reports of human rights violations are pushing trading countries like Canada into a corner In both war and diplomacy, language matters. And if one thing was evident from the flood of words coming out of the Halifax International Security Forum last weekend, it's that Western democracies, despite their vows to uphold human rights, have no common language to define their view of — and relationship with — China. The world is rapidly approaching a crossroads with Beijing, a point where nations will have to decide whether to treat the burgeoning superpower as a trading partner, a rival — or an active threat. Secret Chinese documents were released to media outlets recently which show how the Muslim minority Uighur population is being locked up in mass detention camps and subjected to "systematic brainwashing." Beijing's violent response to pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong revived grim memories of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. So is China a competitor or an adversary? 'Naive' about China's motives The answer to that question seems to depend on which country's leaders are answering it — how heavily Beijing has invested in their nations' markets, how badly their businesses want access to that vast Chinese market. "For many years, folks were naive about Chinese motivations," U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien told journalists during an on-the-record briefing in Halifax over the weekend. "In the past, the relationship with China was driven solely by trade, driven solely by economics." O'Brien describes China, rather antiseptically, as a "near-peer competitor," not as an adversary. Still, there were points during the briefing when O'Brien's language became decidedly adversarial — even dystopian — as he described the high-tech incarceration and forced re-education of as many as one million Uighurs. In the context of the dispute over allowing Chinese telecom giant Huawei into Western 5G wireless systems, O'Brien asked whether Western Europe would have allowed the Soviet Union into their countries to build railroads at the height of the Cold War. A new Cold War? On the record, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also was not prepared to describe China as an adversary — but he was decidedly mushy when asked how we should describe it. The confusion on display in Halifax over the question of whether the West has arrived at the threshold of a new Cold War was widespread. U.S. Admiral Phillip Davidson, the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, would not describe the current moment as "a new Cold War" but warned that the West needs to be prepared to continually "call out" China when it crosses internationally accepted lines. Many say some of those lines have been crossed already — through the arbitrary detention of the Uighurs (which China attempts to justify with the claim that it's fighting Islamic extremism) and through its program of constructing artificial islands in the South China Sea, which has been condemned by an international tribunal at the Hague. So, again ... rival or adversary? 'Feeding ... a monster' Lady Pauline Neville-Jones, a former top British diplomat and adviser to ex-U.K. prime minister David Cameron, said China has signalled it intends to become an "unequalled" high-tech nation. Beijing has said it's prepared to pour real money into achieving that goal — with Western nations supplying the world-class post secondary institutions that are training the next generation of Chinese engineers. "We are feeding something that could be a monster," she told the Halifax forum. "So what do we do about it? As long as we pursue our relations with China, largely separately on the basis of short-term national interest, I think we are giving away the game." It took Western allies several years to come with up a comprehensive Cold War strategy following the Second World War, she pointed out. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-u-s-sajjan-uighur-halifax-international-security-forum-1.5372856

By: Jill Aitoro The strategy for reading tea leaves of the year to come is naturally anchored in the lasting events of the year just passed. So then let us consider 2019. The year was, in many respects, one of messiness. The already tense relationship between Turkey and NATO allies got worse, leading to the decision by the U.S. to kick the country out of the F-35 program. High-profile program struggles plagued some of the largest defense companies in the world. Political turmoil led to leadership shakeups both in the U.S. and across the pond. Instability in the industrial base made advancements in technology by adversaries all the more troubling. But there were also some signs of progress. Modern warfare capabilities — from hypersonics to artificial intelligence — transitioned from a footnote for only some to the everyday vernacular of most. More experimentation emerged in techiques for system development and acquisition. And around the world, countries from various regions grew more earnest in their desires to expand their influence and investment in global defense. What can we predict, then, based upon this, for 2020? Global relations will continue to shift, no longer defined by existing alliances but rather by individual behavior and more self-serving demands. Elections stand to turn the current state of political affairs on its ear, whether it be for better or for worse. And competition will grow more fierce, driven by a shrinking industrial base and the fact that defense companies will need to look beyond the U.S. to find the most sought-after programs with the biggest potential payout. Obviously, there is a lot we don't know. Will NATO flounder or regain its footing? Will election results drive allies closer together or farther apart? Will defense budgets go up or down? And will the increasing use of hybrid tactics reshape both the forces of today and the systems of tomorrow? We asked leaders from around the world to provide their perspective. See what's on their minds here in Outlook 2020. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/

By: Dirk Hoke The year 2020 will become one of truth for Europe's defense industry — especially in the sector of military aviation. For years, European nations are discussing efforts to jointly develop defense assets that should ensure better security into the 21st century. Progress has been made — mainly on the development of a European drone and the Future Combat Air System. Next year will show how serious the nations take the projects, as for the first time big contractual and financing milestones will have to be achieved. Security never comes for free. Everybody acknowledges that fact, but practical decisions need to underpin this. Same applies to the promise to meet the NATO target of spending 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense. We can only show a credible line of defence if enemies of the alliance are afraid of feeling the strong military power NATO is able to provide in the worst case. Procrastination and post-Cold War recession in several countries need to come to an end. I acknowledge that, for example, Germany is moving in the right direction. But is it fast enough while security is evermore volatile in certain parts of the world? The defense industry, especially that in Europe with its decades of experience in working in collaborative programs, can help. We are on standby, but political decisions need to be taken first. Modern threats sometimes require modern answers. But we shouldn't forget that these answers are often two- or threefold and inherit also a large pack of traditional approaches — and sometimes the old ways are still the best. Nations and industry must not wait for the next big thing, but they also need to consider constantly refining their existing equipment. A perfect example for this is the military aircraft fleet of Airbus. Be it our transport, mission or combat segment: By adding more sensors and connectivity into the existing fleets, we will see in 2020 good things becoming better and enable them to play a vital role in the Future Combat Air Systems scenarios. Special attention will also need to be devoted to the novel situation in space as a serious area of engagement for defense. As Europe's largest space company, we know what we are talking about here. Let's be frank: Without our assets in space — all communications nods and observation assets — what the Western world calls “normal” life is no longer possible. And with this goes the well-being of our societies. So it is only fair that nations are starting now to make up their minds on space defense, and NATO recently decided to declare space the fifth dimension of defense next to land, sea, air and cyber. This adds another layer to an already extremely complex scenario. How does that translate into the defense industry? The importance of the few large companies will rise. With their huge integration, capabilities and portfolio that is spread over all five threat dimensions, they will have to play a key role in mastering technologies, integrating smaller, specialized companies, and ensuring that government and military users can focus their decision-making on the bits and pieces that really matter. This is a challenge we will passionately continue working on in 2020 and the years beyond. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/ceo-of-airbus-defence-and-space-on-what-will-be-vital-in-2020/

By: Alessandro Profumo Rapid changes are taking place around the world, both at the geopolitical and technological level, which are having an extremely disruptive impact on the defense industry and its customers, namely governments. For its part, technological innovation has reached a pace never seen before. Growing digitalization, big-data processing, robotics, autonomous systems, biotechnology, hypersonics, directed energy: These are just a few examples of innovations that revolutionize industry and governments' approaches to defense and security issues. In some cases, innovations on the commercial side are driving the technological evolution in the defense sector, with increasingly wider applications from a dual-use perspective. There is a real two-way street. The role of government is crucial in developing a long-term investment strategy and identifying the sovereign technologies necessary to maintain a technological advantage over new peers and emerging actors, in symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. Threats to peace and global stability do not solely originate in traditional domains (air, land, sea), but materialize in space and cyberspace, more difficult to protect, as they both lack precise boundaries. Increasing defense spending is a positive signal, especially when coupled with a strong vision and clear objectives aimed at the development of the right capabilities in an international cooperation framework. The national defense industry, as a strategic asset of its own country, must be able to capture technological innovation where it is produced, finding effective ways of accessing new ideas and solutions. Secondly, it must be able to manage the dynamics between long development and production cycles that characterize this sector, and technological innovation's fast pace. The sense of urgency must regard delivering what is needed, when needed, providing the end user with the maximum benefit and anticipating and adapting to changes, while triggering an ever-growing contamination across industries, governments, startups and academia. A deep interconnection between the defense industry and its customers, working in close synergy, facilitates flexible and adaptable structures capable of responding quickly to new and complex emergencies. In this perspective, the closer one works with the customer — throughout the entire product life cycle — the more this reverberates positively at the industry level. The shared awareness rising from this cooperation will enable industry to make wise and focused investment decisions in order to develop products and solutions that best fit future market requirements. Bearing in mind that technology alone is not enough, true success in creating a resilient defense industry also lies in the ability to attract and retain highly specialized human capital as well as involving the supplier base in innovation processes. A shared road map is, therefore, a priority — industry and governments, working together, side by side, committed to building a safer world. Alessandro Profumo is the CEO of Leonardo. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/ceo-of-leonardo-a-twoway-street-benefits-everyone