News

Kevin Dougherty Shipbuilding firm will start work on icebreaker conversion this summer Chantier Davie Canada Inc., the country's largest shipbuilding firm, is gunning for contracts to build new icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. "Given the age of the Canadian Coast Guard fleet, the entire icebreaker fleet will need to be replaced in the near future," says Alex Vicefield, CEO of Inocea Group, which has owned Davie since 2012. "We have every intention of submitting a world-class proposal together with global leaders in icebreaker design." Until then, Davie, located across the river from Quebec City in Lévis, is in the home stretch of negotiations with the federal government to convert three surplus commercial icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. Under its new management, Davie has made its mark in the industry by turning surplus ships into lower-cost solutions. The first converted icebreaker will be ready in time for the 2018-2019 ice season on the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes. However, when it comes to building new ships, there remain doubts about Davie's ability to deliver at a competitive cost. Canadian ships cost 'twice as much' Marc Gagnon is director, government affairs and regulatory compliance for the Montreal-based Fednav, which operates a fleet of nearly 100 ships. Fednav buys its ships in Japan because, Gagnon says, Canadian-built ships cost "at least twice as much." "Davie no longer has the capacity to build an icebreaker or a frigate," Gagnon said. "To do so, they would have to re-equip their shipyard." Vicefield said Davie is aware of the challenges ahead and has invested $60 million to upgrade its steel-cutting and IT infrastructure. The University of British Columbia's Michael Byers, who argues that Ottawa's current shipbuilding strategy is too costly and needlessly slow, says building government ships in Canada makes sense and Davie is definitely up to the task. "For every $100 million that is spent on building a ship in Canada, you would get several times more than that in terms of knock-on economic activity," Byers said. "And Davie is the logical place to do it. They have a very large shipyard. They have a very capable workforce. The labour costs are relatively low and it's an active shipyard." Asterix 'very impressive' Last year, before Ottawa agreed to sit down with Davie to discuss the icebreaker conversions, Davie delivered the Asterix — a container ship converted into a supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy — on time and on budget. ​In 2015, when the navy's existing two supply ships were no longer seaworthy, Vicefield and his team proposed converting the Asterix to a naval supply ship for about $600 million. "What they did with the Asterix was very impressive," Byers said. "There is no other shipyard in Canada that could have done that." In comparison, Vancouver-based ​Seaspan was chosen to build two new navy supply ships for $2.6 billion. But the first new supply ship will only be ready in 2020. "This is a cutthroat business and there is a lot of money involved and a lot of politics involved," Byers said. "Davie has the capacity and the experience to build icebreakers, plus they have the lowest costs in terms of labour of any shipyard in the country," he said. The Canadian Coast Guard has an aging fleet of 13 ice-breaking vessels and two hovercraft. Ice still a hazard to navigation Canada's oldest and largest icebreaker, the CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, was commissioned in 1969. It was to be replaced in 2017 by the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker. But from the initial estimate of $720 million, the Diefenbaker is now expected to cost over $1.4 billion, with delivery in 2022. To meet Ottawa's need for "interim icebreakers," Davie found four icebreakers built for oil and gas drilling off the coast of Alaska that were idled when oil prices fell, putting an end of Shell's Arctic venture. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agreed to negotiations with Davie to acquire the three smaller ice-breaking vessels, leaving aside the larger Aiviq. With no other shipyard matching Davie's proposal, the conversion work will begin this summer. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/davie-coast-guard-icebreakers-canada-vicefield-byers-gagnon-1.4730332

By: Nigel Pittaway MELBOURNE, Australia ― Australia will acquire nine high-end anti-submarine warfare frigates from the end of the next decade under a deal with BAE Systems worth AU$35 billion (U.S. $26 billion). The announcement was formally made Friday at the ASC shipyard in Osborne, South Australia, by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Defence Marise Payne and Minister for Defence Industry Christopher Pyne. A version of BAE Systems' City-class Type 26 ASW frigate, now under construction for the British Royal Navy, will be acquired under Australia's SEA 5000 Phase 1 project, also known as the Future Frigate Project. Referred to as the Global Combat Ship―Australia, or GCS-A, during the competition, the design will be known as the Hunter-class in Royal Australian Navy service and will replace the Navy's existing Anzac-class frigates. There has been speculation in the media that the decision to go with BAE may be driven, in part, by Australia's desire to secure strong terms with the U.K. as it negotiates a series of new trade agreements after Britain leaves the European Union. Payne noted Friday that the GCS-A design was selected because it was the most capable ASW platform. “This is a decision entirely based on capability, the best capability to equip the Navy in anti-submarine warfare,” she said. Regardless, news of BAE's win was welcomed in the United Kingdom, with Secretary of State for Defence Gavin Williamson referring to it as the “biggest maritime defence deal of the decade.” “This £20 billion ‘deal of the decade' demonstrates how British defence plays a huge role in creating jobs and prosperity and is ‘Global Britain' in action,” he commented on social media. “Great to see our military and industrial links strengthen with Australia.” The ships will be built by ASC Shipbuilding in South Australia, using local workers and Australian steel, under the Turnbull government's continuous naval shipbuilding program. “What we are doing here is announcing our commitment to build the nine Future Frigates,” Prime Minister Turnbull said. “The Hunter-class frigates will be the most advanced anti-submarine warships in the world.” The Hunter-class frigates will be equipped with CEA Technologies-built CEAFAR phased array radar currently fitted to the Navy's post-anti-ship missile defense Anzac frigates, together with Lockheed Martin's Aegis combat system and an interface provided by Saab Australia. The Aegis combat system was mandated for all of Australia's major surface combatants by the Turnbull government in October 2017. The GCS-A design was selected in preference to Fincantieri's Australian FREMM, dubbed FREMM-A, a variant of the ASW-optimized FREMM frigate now in service with the Italian Navy; and the F-5000 from Navantia, based on an evolution of the Royal Australian Navy's Hobart-class air warfare destroyer, which in turn is a derivative of the Spanish Navy's F-100 Álvaro de Bazán class. An ASW capability was the highest priority for the Royal Australian Navy, according to Chief of Navy Vice Adm. Tim Barrett. “I spoke as recently as last night to the First Sea Lord, my equivalent in the [British] Royal Navy, and I am assured by his comments on just how successful this platform will be as the world's most advanced anti-submarine warfare frigate,” he said Friday. The first steel is due to be cut on prototyping activities for the build at Osborne in late 2020, with full production following in 2022. The first ship of the class will be delivered to the Royal Australian Navy in the late 2020s. Under the deal, the government-owned shipbuilder ASC will become a subsidiary of BAE Systems during the build, with the government retaining a sovereign share in the entity. The shipyard will revert to government ownership at the end of the project. Turnbull said the arrangement ensures BAE Systems is fully responsible and accountable for the delivery of the frigates, noting that Australia retains the intellectual property and a highly skilled workforce at the end of the program. “My expectation is that the next generation of frigates that comes after the ones we're about to start building at ASC will be designed and built in Australia,” he said. BAE System's global maritime systems business development director, Nigel Stewart, told Defense News that he welcomes the build strategy. “We were really pleased with that as an outcome because ASC has great capability. We always wanted to use the workforce, but this allows us to join ASC and BAE together much earlier, and we think that will be really positive,” he said. Stewart said the plan was for the Hunter-class build to follow the Type 26 activity in the U.K. by around five years, which will serve to de-risk the Australian program. BAE is due to deliver the first ship, HMS Glasgow, to the British Royal Navy in 2025, with entry into service in the 2027 time frame. “We cut steel for the first Type 26 in the U.K. in June 2017, and we'll cut steel for full production of the Hunter class in South Australia in 2022,” he said. “We'll run at an 18-month drumbeat in the U.K., and somewhere between 18 months and two years in Australia. That will keep a five-year gap, which is almost perfect. You are de-risking the Australian program in the U.K. and you don't get the obsolescence issues you would if there was a longer gap, so it's a really good program overlap.” In other news Friday, the Turnbull government announced it will set up a AU$670 million training and capability center for the Hunter-class frigates in Western Australia. Known as Ship Zero, the initiative will be established at HMAS Stirling, the Navy's Fleet Base West, at the shipbuilding facility in Henderson. Much of the training traditionally performed at sea will be transferred into the land-based facility. The capital works project will be considered by the Australian Parliament early next year, and construction is expected to commence in 2019. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/29/australia-officially-announces-26b-frigate-contract-here-are-the-build-details/

By: David B. Larter and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON ― In a move that could send shock waves through the global frigate market, Australia appears poised to announce that it has selected BAE Systems' Type 26 design for its new future frigate design. The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that on June 29, the Australian military will make the formal announcement that BAE has won the AU$35 billion (U.S. $26 billion) contest to build nine frigates, which are being designed with anti-submarine warfare in mind. Under the competition guidelines, construction on the ship is scheduled to begin at the shipyards at Osborne in 2020. The design beat out two strong challenges from ships that, unlike the Type 26, already exist. The move is a major blow to Fincantieri, which had been pushing its anti-submarine warfare FREMM for the requirement. The Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, which already has a major operation in Australia, was also a strong competitor for the contract with its F-100 frigate design. In 2007, Navantia was selected to build the Australian air warfare destroyer. The competition also has implications for the Canadian frigate program, which is expected to announce a winner later this year, said Byron Callan, an defense analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “The win is a positive for BAE because it's the first international order for the Type 26 and it may help position that ship type for Canada's Surface Combatant program that should be decided in late 2018,” Callan said. Canada has a 15-ship requirement. The unit price for the hull is about $850 million to $1 billion, which does not include some government-furnished systems. The U.K. has already agreed to buy eight of the Type 26 designs, with the goal of fielding them in the mid-2020s. BAE started building the first of three Type 26s it has under contract last year. The first warship is currently scheduled to enter service with the British Royal Navy in 2027 to start replacing the Type 23 fleet. Rolls-Royce with its MT30 gas turbine engine and MBDA with the Sea Ceptor anti-air missile are among the Type 26 subcontractors who could be significant beneficiaries from the Australian order. There has been speculation in the media that the decision to go with BAE may be driven, in part, by Australia's desire to secure strong terms with the U.K. as it negotiates a series of new trade agreements after Britain leaves the European Union. The announcement came just hours after the U.S. State Department announced it had clearedthe sale of $185 million in parts to help Australia connect its CEAFAR 2 phased array radar system with Lockheed Martin's Aegis combat system, with the goal of having both pieces of equipment aboard the future frigates. Andrew Chuter from London contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/06/28/report-australia-selects-bae-for-frigate-design/

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON – The U.S. State Department has cleared Spain to purchase five Aegis weapon systems, potentially worth $860.4 million. The systems would be placed aboard Spanish frigates, which are interoperable with NATO allies such as the U.S. Spain currently operates five existing Aegis-equipped frigates. Adding the systems to Spain's fleet will “afford more flexibility and capability to counter regional threats and continue to enhance stability in the region,” according to an announcement posted by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. In addition to the five systems, the package includes six shipsets Digital Signal Processing, five shipsets AWS Computing Infrastructure MARK 1 MOD 0, five shipsets Operational Readiness Test Systems (ORTS), five shipsets MK 99 MOD 14 Fire Control System, five shipsets MK 41 Baseline VII Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), two All-Up-Round MK 54 Mod 0 lightweight torpedoes, twenty SM-2 Block IIIB missiles and MK 13 canisters with AN/DKT-71 warhead compatible telemeter, as well as other equipment. Being cleared by the State Department does not guarantee a sale will be completed. Congress can still intervene, and final price and quantity are often altered during negotiations. The proposed sale is being handled under a Foreign Military Sales vehicle. Should the sale clear, it primary work would be done by Lockheed Martin in Moorestown, NJ, and Manassas, VA; Raytheon in Waltham, MA; and General Dynamics in Williston, VT. There are also a “significant number of companies under contract with the U.S. Navy that will provide components and systems as well as engineering services” to support the sale, the DSCA notes. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/26/spain-cleared-to-buy-five-aegis-systems

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

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

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

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

From: Public Services and Procurement Canada News release Helping Keep Canada's Waters Safe June 22, 2018 – Gatineau (Quebec) – Public Services and Procurement Canada The Government of Canada is committed to providing the women and men of the Canadian Coast Guard with the equipment they need to keep Canadian waters safe, while supporting economic growth. On behalf of the Canadian Coast Guard, Public Services and Procurement Canada has issued an Advanced Contract Award Notice (ACAN) to Chantier Davie of Lévis, Quebec, for the acquisition and conversion of three medium commercial icebreakers. This ensures a fair, competitive process allowing any supplier with a comparable option to also submit a proposal before a contract is awarded. The ACAN confirms Canada's intention to enter into a contract with Chantier Davie. Other interested suppliers have 15 calendar days to signal their interest in bidding for this contract, by submitting a “statement of capabilities” that meets the requirements laid out in the ACAN. These ships would provide interim capability for the Canadian Coast Guard, while replacement vessels are being built under the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Icebreakers are essential to ensuring that Canadian ports remain open during Canada's ice seasons, ensuring goods such as fresh produce and fuel are delivered safely. Quotes “Our Government is committed to supporting the Coast Guard in carrying out its crucial work on behalf of all Canadians. We are one step closer to acquiring supplementary capacity that will support interim icebreaking capability in time for the upcoming icebreaking season.” The Honourable Carla Qualtrough Minister of Public Services and Procurement “The Canadian Coast Guard has unique requirements given Canada's wide range of challenging ice conditions in both our southern waters and the Arctic. We are making sure they have the equipment and tools they need to keep Canadian waters safe and commercial routes open during Canada's ice seasons.” The Honourable Lawrence MacAulay Minister of Agriculture Quick facts This acquisition will consist of purchasing a class of three existing Anchor Handling Tug Supply icebreakers. These ships will be used to backfill for Canadian Coast Guard vessels while they are undergoing maintenance, refit and vessel life extension. These ships will conduct critical icebreaking duties for the Southern wintertime program and are to be deployed as needed in support of Arctic summertime programs. The first ship will be put to immediate use for icebreaking during the upcoming 2018-2019 season. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/06/canada-to-acquire-three-interim-icebreakers.html