News

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK German officials have reportedly asked their American counterparts about whether it would be possible to turn the Eurofighter Typhoon into a nuclear strike aircraft. The answer to this question could have serious ramifications on Germany's effort to replace its aging Panavia Tornado combat jets, which are certified to carry U.S. B61 nuclear bombs during a crisis as part of an inter-NATO agreement, and reinforces previous reports that the European fighter jet is the German Air Force's preferred option. In April 2018, the German Federal Ministry of Defense sent a formal letter to U.S. officials asking about whether it would be feasible to configure Typhoons for the nuclear mission, how expensive it would be, and how long the process might take, according to Reuters. The German Air Force's ability to fly nuclear strikes has become an increasingly important issue even though the country is not a nuclear power itself. During the Cold War, Germany, as well as other NATO allies, agreed to host American nuclear bombs with the understanding that their aircraft could be called upon to employ them if a major conflict with the Soviet Union broke out. After the Cold War, this arrangement has persisted and the Germans continue to keep an unspecified number of B61 bombs at Büchel Air Base near the borders with Belgium and Luxembourg. The problem is that the only German aircraft that can carry these weapons are the Tornados, which are in desperate need of replacement. Availability rates for the Cold War-era swing wing jets have dramatically dropped in recent years. In 2015, state broadcaster Deutsche Welle reported that only 30 of the approximately 85 remaining aircraft were airworthy at any one time. The aircraft also lack cockpits that will work with night vision goggles, which limits the jet's ability to perform missions at night. In March 2018, German magazine Der Spiegel also obtained a report calling into question the security of the Tornado's data links. “This could in the worst case mean that the demand for an encrypted communication system for the Tornado weapons system can't be achieved,” the document stated according to the report. “That means the Tornado weapons system may not take part in NATO missions.” The German Air Force disputed the story, saying that all of the Tornados set aside to support the alliance's requirements had the equipment necessary to perform their missions. Regardless, the service has made no effort to hide the importance of replacing the jets. The Germans will need to certify whatever aircraft replaces the Tornado as a nuclear-capable platform in order to continue performing the mission. In addition to Eurofighter, the Germans are considering an unspecified variant of Boeing's F-15 Eagle or that company's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, and Lockheed Martin's stealthy F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The process to make sure any of those planes could carry the B61 would likely include ensuring they could safely drop the bombs at all, as well as developing appropriate mission systems and software to enable this capability under various different attack parameters. In addition, engineers would have to find ways to install the necessary systems and linkages so that the pilot can arm the weapon in flight. Each one of the bombs has a so-called “Permissive Action Link,” or PAL, that prevents the warhead from functioning until an individual puts in a specific code. You can read more about these safety features and other components of the bombs in this past feature. The U.S. military has not certified any variants of the Joint Strike Fighter to carry the B61, but Air Force is in the process of doing so with regards to the F-35A. The aircraft types that Boeing is offering are the only ones in the running that have already gone through this process. But the German Air Force's top preference is reportedly the Eurofighter. Germany already has nearly 130 of the jets in service and recently began adding a robust air-to-ground capability to some of them. “A possible purchase of the Eurofighter would ensure the retention of military aircraft expertise in Germany and Europe, and value creation in our own country,” Germany's Deputy Defense Minister Ralf Brauksiepe told the Green Party's Tobias Lindner in a letter earlier in 2018, according to Reuters. “The weapons system has already been introduced to the Bundeswehr [the German Armed Forces] and is being successfully used.” Replacing the Tornados with Eurofighters does make good sense, something we at The War Zone have noted in the past. As I wrote in December 2017: “Eurofighter, a consortium that includes portions of Airbus Defense in Germany and Spain, BAE Systems in the United Kingdom, and Leonardo in Italy, manage the development and production of the fighter jets. A major sale to the Luftwaffe could be worth billions to the group and help keep the production line running and its employees at work, an important domestic consideration for the Germans. On Dec. 11, 2017, Qatar signed a deal for 24 of its own Eurofighters, making it the ninth country to buy the type. This alone could mean significantly lower training and maintenance costs, not to mention saving on large infrastructure needs, compared to acquiring an entirely new type of aircraft, and especially one with high secondary cost demands like the F-35. It also could make it easier for the Luftwaffe to quickly absorb the new aircraft into its inventory. Existing Typhoon variants are already compatible with the targeting and reconnaissance pods the Luftwaffe uses on the Tornado, as well as many of its weapons. Saab has already tested the Taurus KEPD 350 cruise missile on one of the fourth generation fighter jets, as well, giving it a relatively long-range standoff attack capability." There is a growing concern, however, that the Eurofighter won't be survivable enough to perform the nuclear mission in the future. One source told Reuters that the United States would consider this factor in its response about whether it would certify the jets to carry the B61s. The implication is that the fifth generation F-35 could be the only realistic option. But German authorities reportedly forced the German Air Force's previous head, Lieutenant General Karl Müllner, into retirement over his support for the F-35 option, though it's not clear whether that was over his preference for the jet itself or his public comments on the matter. It is important to note that the United States has been working to make sure the forthcoming improved B61-12 bombs will be compatible with existing NATO platforms, including Tornado, since 2015. Eurofighter, as well as Boeing, also both insist that their aircraft would be able to carry out nuclear strikes in any high-threat environment in cooperation with electronic warfare aircraft and other supporting assets. NATO members regularly train to do just this as part of what is known as Support of Nuclear Operations With Conventional Air Tactics, or SNOWCAT. At the same time, Germany and the rest of the alliance are increasingly worried about Russia's steadily more aggressive foreign policy. This has included veiled and outright threats against member states and non-NATO partners in Europe. Earlier in June 2018, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova implied that increased U.S. military presence in Norway was an implicit threat toward her country. The Kremlin has also deployed advanced air defenses and other weapons systems, including the S-400 surface-to-air missile system and Iskander nuclear-capable short-range ballistic missiles, along NATO's eastern flanks and within its Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic Sea. The latter position means that Russian weapons already have the range to engage aircraft flying over Germany proper. Lieutenant General Müllner and other supporters of buying the F-35 had argued that this reality made a stealthy fifth-generation aircraft a necessity. Germany has joined with France to develop a new low-observable combat jetfor both countries. The Joint Strike Fighter program and other stealth fighter development efforts elsewhere make it clear that this process will be long and potentially exorbitantly expensive. There's no guarantee that it will produce a working design any time soon, if at all. For all of its very real issues, the F-35 is in production now. If the German Air Force does decide to replace the Tornados with more Typhoons, it could take up to a decade to certify the latter type for the nuclear mission, according to Reuters. It's not clear when that process might begin, but Germany wants to have all of the older Tornado jets out of service by 2030. This means there is a distinct potential for a gap in capability to occur between when the replacement aircraft arrive and when they're deemed nuclear capable. Domestic and international politics are almost certain to have an impact on the final decision, too. Germany itself is in the midst of a political crisis that traces back the last federal elections in September 2017. A poor showing for Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) part, as well as its allies in the Christian Social Union (CSU), led to six months of deliberations on the future of their bloc. This was the longest the country had been without a government since the end of World War II. Any further upheaval could impact attempts to increase the country's defense spending overall and to address systematic readiness issuesplaguing the German Armed Forces as a whole. Perhaps more importantly, German relations with the United States have plummeted amid a largely personal feud between Merkel and President Donald Trump. Richard Grenell, the new U.S. Ambassador to Germany and a Trump appointee, has suggested he could engage with opposition parties looking to unseat the CDU-CSU alliance. In May 2018, Merkel reiterated comments she had made in 2017 that it was increasingly clear Germany could not rely on the United States for protection. “It's no longer the case that the United States will simply just protect us,” Merkel said in the 2018 speech, which also lauded French President Emmanuel Macron who was on hand to receive an award. “Rather, Europe needs to take its fate into its own hands. That's the task for the future.” This could make the idea of buying any type of American aircraft increasingly politically untenable. It could also potentially raise new questions about whether Germany should be hosting American nuclear weapons in the first place, which is a controversial issue that left-leaning political parties in the country typically oppose on principle. In the meantime, the Tornados are only getting older and are steadily less capable of performing any missions, nuclear or otherwise. As such, Germany and the United States will have to come to some agreement on certifying any future planes soon if the German Air Force intends to continue having a nuclear role at all. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21679/the-german-air-force-wants-to-know-if-its-eurofighters-can-carry-u-s-nuclear-bombs

OTTAWA, June 28, 2018 /CNW/ - UTC Aerospace Systems (UTAS) Landing Systems site in Oakville, Ontario, is Airbus' sole supplier for the main landing gear of the A350-1000, the world's newest long range widebody airliner. With 168 A350-1000s ordered by airlines around the world, the cooperation is expected to bring long-term, sustainable and high-quality work to Canada, this also resulting through the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) associated with the Airbus C295 FWSAR program. The program looks to provide business even beyond the duration of the current FWSAR ITB achievement period. "I am pleased to see that UTC Aerospace Systems' expertise is being recognized through this important contract with government suppliers. Our government is leveraging its purchasing power to bring economic benefits and jobs to Canadian firms, enabling them to grow and innovate, which is creating highly-skilled jobs and economic growth in Oakville and across the country," said the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED). UTC Aerospace Systems celebrated an important milestone earlier this year with the entry into service of its first Airbus A350-1000 landing gear, flying today with two operators. "At UTC Aerospace Systems, our Landing Systems business has a long history of operating in Canada and partnering with Airbus," said the company's Oakville Vice President Frank Karakas. "We're proud of that legacy, and look forward to building on it in the years to come." The manufacturing of the landing gear also incorporates a sizeable element of Canadian Small Medium Business (SMB) volumes, thus benefitting the local supply chain. The project also supports numerous ISED goals, such as world product mandates, export enhancement, sustainable business and SMB involvement. "Airbus and UTAS have been partners for many years and this new technology incorporated into the A350-1000 widebody airliner is just another example of how we continue to support Canadian innovation," said Simon Jacques, President, Airbus Defence and Space Canada. The A350-1000 is the latest member of Airbus' leading widebody family, showing high level of commonality with the A350-900 with 95% common systems part numbers and Same Type Rating. As well as having a longer fuselage to accommodate 40% larger premium area (compared to the A350-900), the A350-1000 also features a modified wing trailing-edge, new six-wheel main landing gears and more powerful Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engines. Along with the A350-900, the A350-1000 is shaping the future of air travel by offering unprecedented levels of efficiency and unrivalled comfort in its 'Airspace' cabin. With its additional capacity the A350-1000 is perfectly tailored for some of the busiest long-haul routes. The FWSAR programme is supporting approximately $2.5 billion (CAD) in ITB value return to Canada, through high-volume, long-term partnerships with companies, such as UTC Aerospace Systems. About Airbus Airbus is a global leader in aeronautics, space and related services. In 2017 it generated revenues of € 59 billion restated for IFRS 15 and employed a workforce of around 129,000. Airbus offers the most comprehensive range of passenger airliners from 100 to more than 600 seats. Airbus is also a European leader providing tanker, combat, transport and mission aircraft, as well as one of the world's leading space companies. In helicopters, Airbus provides the most efficient civil and military rotorcraft solutions worldwide. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/airbus-delivers-on-industrial-and-technological-benefits-for-fixed-wing-search--rescue-aircraft-fwsar-program-with-utas-landing-gear-on-a350-1000-686854821.html

By: Nigel Pittaway MELBOURNE, Australia — Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced on June 26 that the Australian government will purchase six Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton unmanned surveillance aircraft. The initial investment in the Triton capability is AU$1.4 billion (U.S. $1.03 billion), which includes AU$200 million to enter into a cooperative development program with the U.S. Navy; and AU$364 million for major infrastructure works at two Royal Australian Air Force bases. The total cost of the deal, including whole of life sustainment costs, is estimated to be AU$6.9 billion Australian dollars (U.S. $5.1 billion). The first aircraft will be delivered in 2023 and the last in 2025. They will be based at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia and at Tindal in the Northern Territory, but are also likely to be forward-deployed to other airfields around the continent, including a string of bare bases to the north and north-west. The announcement marks the Gate 2 milestone in the Australian Defence's Force's Air 7000 Phase 1B program, which seeks to acquire a high altitude, long endurance maritime surveillance platform to complement its eventual fleet of 12 Boeing P-8A Poseidon manned maritime patrol aircraft. Australia's Triton program earlier achieved Gate 1 approval in 2014, and the 2016 Defence White Paper affirmed the government's commitment to the acquisition of the capability, subject to the successful completion of the U.S. Navy's Triton development program. At that time the requirement was for seven Tritons , one less than the six announced yesterday, and was initially capped at AU$4 billion, although this did not include through-life sustainment costs. “The Triton will complement the surveillance role of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft through sustained operations at long ranges as well as being able to undertake a range of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) tasks,” according to a joint statement by Prime Minister Turnbull, Minister for Defence Marise Payne and Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne. “Together these aircraft will significantly enhance our anti-submarine warfare and maritime strike capability, as well as our search and rescue capability.” Minister Pyne said that the Triton will be responsible for surveillance of Australia's areas of maritime responsibility, which represents over 10 percent of the world's surface. “They will provide surveillance and reconnaissance across the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Southern Ocean as far as Antarctica,” he said. “Triton provides unprecedented endurance and 360-degree coverage through its unique sensor suite,” commented Doug Shaffer, Northrop Grumman's vice president of Triton programs. “Australia has one of the largest sea zones in the world over which it has rights to use marine resources, also known as an Economic Exclusion Zone. As a flexible platform, Triton can serve in missions as varied as maritime domain awareness, target acquisition, fisheries protection, oil field monitoring and humanitarian relief.” The Australian Defence Force estimates Triton is capable of establishing a ten-hour orbit in the Southern Ocean, south of Heard Island, or similar efforts to the north of Guam and to the East of Fiji in the Pacific Ocean, from bases around the country. Australia is interested in the multi-intelligence (MULTI-INT), also known as integration functional capability 4 version of the Triton. This features several enhancements over the baseline aircraft and includes a signals intelligence payload which, in U.S. Navy service, is intended to replace the Lockheed EP-3E Aries surveillance platform. The cooperative development program Australia has signed with the U.S. Navy is similar to the agreement it has with the Navy regarding P-8A spiral development and will seek to influence the further development of the MULTI-INT Triton to meet Australia's specific needs. Items of interest are understood to include the integration of a weather radar system, for prolonged operations in tropical conditions where daily thunderstorms are a fact of life, and a ground moving target indicator to facilitate overland ISR missions in addition to the blue water maritime surveillance role. “This cooperative program will strengthen our ability to develop advanced capability and conduct joint military operations,” Prime Minister Turnbull said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/06/27/australia-commits-to-triton-in-5-billion-deal/

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/

By: Andrew Chuter LONDON ― Expectations are growing among industry executives and analysts that the British government will use a huge gathering of international air force chiefs in the U.K. in mid-July to outline a strategy leading to development of a new generation of fighter jets for the post-2040 era. Left out in the cold by a joint Franco-German plan to develop a new fighter, Ministry of Defence officials ― supported by industry ― have been working for months on a combat air strategy to sustain Britain's capabilities beyond the Eurofighter Typhoon, and they are determined to figure out a way forward this summer. With more than 50 air force chiefs from around the world expected to attend the Royal International Air Tattoo at Fairford, southern England, as part of the Royal Air Force's centenary celebrations, it is likely the British will use the event to kick-start plans to develop an eventual replacement for the Typhoons, which form the backbone of the country's fighter fleet. “We are definitely hoping that between the NATO summit, the Royal International Air Tattoo and the Farnborough air show in mid-July, something gets announced to get the combat air strategy underway,” said Paul Everitt, the CEO at ADS, a U.K. defense and aerospace trade organization. Consultant Howard Wheeldon, of Wheeldon Strategic, who is very much plugged into MoD and industry circles, said nothing was set in stone yet, but he expects some kind of announcement, possibly at the Royal International Air Tattoo , which starts July 13. “I do get the impression they will go for something big in the way of an announcement. It could be something along the lines of ‘this is what we would like to do, and we want to do it with partners.' In part it's meant to be a bit of a shock to France and Germany,” Wheeldon said. An MoD spokesman told Defense News that the U.K.'s air combat strategy “will aim to set the policy goals that will maximize the national strategic value in combat air, including operational capability; technological advantage; economic benefits; industrial capability, capacity and skills; prosperity; and export outcomes, and will set clear parameters for industry to drive long-term, sustainable improvements in productivity and efficiency to ensure the U.K. combat air sector remains world-leading and internationally competitive.” “It will signal to international partners the U.K.'s approach to combat air capability development, encouraging a wider dialogue with partners and allies over future cooperation,” the MoD spokesman added. Everitt said any announcement would fall short of a program go-ahead, but expects a significant step forward by the British. “I think it will be a commitment to a strategy rather than a strategy itself. It will cover some of the key elements they will need to address rather than a commitment to build. Nevertheless, in terms of making progress I see it as a big step forward,” he said. Everitt said the jointly funded government-industry UK Defence Solutions Centre has already been tasked with looking at potential international partners and future customers for a sixth-generation jet. The ADS boss said the “politics of the situation are if we want to interest potential partners or even customers, we are going to have to demonstrate we have something that's real.” “If we want to be taken seriously, we have to put something on the table. Time pressures mean while we would not necessarily like to do it in this environment, we have to put something out there to say we have the capability and political intent to do this,” Everitt said. What the British don't have, however, is the money to go it alone in developing a new fighter. So a partner, or two, is essential if the country's air combat-dominated defense industry is to remain a leading player. “We will still have sufficient time over the course of the next five years that if we begin to make progress with this we will be able to combine with other players, be it France and Germany, or others around the world. But to meet any kind of timetable we have to start doing something now,” Everitt said. Jon Louth, the director of defense, industries and society at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London, said it's a big ask to see the U.K. joining the nascent program now being touted by France and Germany. “The Germans and the French want to go it alone on this and almost have it as a European Union exemplar,” Louth said. “Politics aside, I think U.K. will likely want to move quicker than Franco-German partners, even if we were let in.” France has suggested Britain could be brought into the program at a later date, but Everitt questioned the value of any deal that didn't give the defense sector in Britain a leading role. “As we look beyond Europe, it's a bit tricky who we might establish a partnership with. With us having difficult conversations with colleagues in the European Union, we need the strategic vision and political preparedness to make some quite challenging decisions about who might be a potential partner in this project,” he added. Wheeldon reckons a combat air strategy will emphasize partnerships at the international and domestic levels. “I think the signals put out from the strategy will be very positive, particularly in terms of looking for a partnership with another country. It could be Italy, Turkey, Sweden, Japan or whoever. It will also likely [emphasize] Britain's defense-industrial base and its importance, so any government partnership will be with them as well,” Wheeldon said. Louth said the U.S. might provide another partnering option, although there looks to be a gap between the likely requirements of the two countries. “The U.S. seems to be talking about a larger platform than we want, so there could be some interesting options around new partners that would fit the British Brexit narrative of global markets,” he said, referring to Britain's exit from the European Union. “I sense that we will start to hear about an emerging combat air replacement program in July, and there might even be some early money from the government to start thinking about capabilities and, longer term, a demonstrator,” he added. BAE Systems already has a deal with Turkey to help develop the TF-X fighter program being pursued by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government, while the British and Japanese governments announced last year they were looking at options for collaborating on a new generation of fighters. However, The Financial Times has reported the British deal with Turkey is running into trouble over issues surrounding the passing of intellectual property related to sensitive aircraft and engine technology to Ankara. BAE continues to lead in the development of technologies for the Typhoon and is Lockheed Martin's main international partner in the F-35 program. It is also part of a stalled Anglo-French partnership to investigate unmanned combat vehicle technologies. In a statement, the company said it is working closely with the Royal Air Force and industry partners to further develop “Britain's work-leading combat air capability” and envisions a future combat air system developed with international partners that is flexible, affordable and customizable for export. But for such a vision to move forward, Everett said, the role of Britain must be clear. “The industrial question is would we have sufficient lead in any joint program to make it worthwhile. That perhaps is a more serious question in any U.K.-French-German mix.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/farnborough/2018/06/25/excluded-from-cooperative-plans-in-europe-uk-sets-groundwork-for-future-fighters/

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/

Written by Wings Staff General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. plans to make the first-ever transatlantic flight of a Medium-altitude, Long-endurance (MALE) Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA). GA-ASI's company-owned MQ-9B SkyGuardian RPA is scheduled to fly from the company's Flight Test and Training Center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, to Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford in Gloucestershire, UK. The aircraft will then be on static display July 13 to 15 for the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) airshow being held at RAF Fairford. The flight and display will help commemorate the RAF's centenary celebration (RAF100). “GA-ASI is proud to have supported the RAF over the past decade with our MQ-9 Reaper. In honour of the RAF100 celebration, and to demonstrate a new standard in RPA flight endurance, we will fly SkyGuardian across the Atlantic,” said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI. “Given the distinguished 100-year history of the RAF, we believe that this flight is an appropriate way to celebrate the RAF's position as a leader in innovation.” In 2017, GA-ASI and the RAF marked the 10-year anniversary of RAF MQ-9 operations, which coincided with the RAF completing 100,000 flight hours with its Reaper force. The entire Reaper fleet has completed over two million flight hours to date and is comprised of over 300 aircraft within the NATO alliance. The RAF is acquiring MQ-9B SkyGuardian as part of its PROTECTOR RG Mk1 program. MQ-9B is the latest evolution of GA-ASI's multi-mission Predator B fleet. GA-ASI named its baseline MQ-9B aircraft SkyGuardian, and the maritime surveillance variant SeaGuardian. MQ-9B is a certifiable (STANAG 4671-compliant) version of the MQ-9 Predator B product line. The company explains its development is the result of a five-year, company-funded effort to deliver a RPA that can meet the airworthiness type-certification requirements of various military and civil authorities, including the UK Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) and the U.S. FAA. GA-ASI explains type-certification, together with an extensively tested collision avoidance system, will allow unrestricted operations in all classes of civil airspace. Several important MQ-9B milestones were achieved in recent months, explains the company, including the first FAA-approved flight for a company-owned RPA through non-segregated civil airspace without a chase aircraft, and an endurance record of more than 48 hours of continuous flight. As part of the transatlantic flight, GA-ASI has partnered with Inmarsat, a provider of global mobile satellite communications (SATCOM) services. Inmarsat's SwiftBroadband SATCOM will be used by the MQ-9B's ground control station to communicate and control the aircraft and also will be used in the RPA's final configuration for capabilities such as automatic takeoff and landing. https://www.wingsmagazine.com/news/general-atomics-15726