News

BY KAIT BOLONGARO / BLOOMBERG JUNE 17, 2020 11:42 PM EDT Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his top diplomat sought to put a brave face on their failure to secure a spot on the United Nations Security Council in one of the Canadian leader's biggest defeats yet on the world stage. Trudeau waged a four-year campaign for a council seat in what he hoped would represent a vindication of his foreign policy — a staunch defense of pluralism and multilateralism at a time of global upheaval. But his brand of progressive politics sometimes fell flat and he's been criticized as being preachy on liberal values. “We listened and learned from other countries, which opened new doors for cooperation to address global challenges, and we created new partnerships that increased Canada's place in the world,” Trudeau said in a statement Wednesday after the vote. Foreign Affairs Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne said at a press conference the country's campaign allowed Canada to renew and strengthen bilateral connections across the world. The latest setback is just one of many recent struggles for Trudeau globally, including a deterioration of relations with China and Saudi Arabia and a disastrous state visit to India. Not Back But none, perhaps, are as big a personal setback for the prime minister as Wednesday's defeat. The government had seen a return to the security council as a fulfillment of the Canadian leader's promise — the day after he took power in 2015 — to bring the country “back” on the world stage. “Many of you have worried that Canada has lost its compassionate and constructive voice in the world over the past 10 years,” Trudeau said at the time. “Well, I have a simple message for you: on behalf of 35 million Canadians, we're back.” Canada received the support of 108 countries of a total 192 that voted Wednesday afternoon at UN Headquarters in New York. Norway and Ireland, Canada's two rivals, received 130 and 128 votes, passing the required two-thirds majority of 128 ballots. “It's really the biggest embarrassment he will suffer in his prime minister-ship in Canada, particularly on international affairs,” said Shuvaloy Majumdar, a senior fellow at the MacDonald Laurier Institute and former adviser on foreign policy in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government. Canada has now been overlooked for the second time in the past decade to become a non-permanent member on the agency's decision-making body. https://time.com/5855483/canada-un-security-council-seat/

By: Vivek Raghuvanshi NEW DELHI — Indian defense companies may have lost $3 billion in potential revenue during March 24-May 31 amid a nationwide lockdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic, according to a Ministry of Defence official. Those affected include more than 100 large defense firms and some 4,000 small and medium aerospace and defense businesses. The lockdown has also impacted the supply of local and foreign material for 50 major defense projects. Currently, every Indian-made weapon and platform is designed to use 10-20 percent of imported components. The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to disrupt the supply of such components for at least a year, which could cause delays and cost overruns for major defense programs, according to a senior executive with the Society of Indian Defence Manufacturers, a defense industry advocacy body. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said local defense industry factories are operating at 30-50 percent capacity and that the outlook is grim. “This will lead to a direct hit in the first-quarter revenue of all defense companies operating in India, which will also seemingly struggle for cash flows for operation costs,” he said, adding that those costs could increase in the second quarter of the current fiscal year. Another MoD official told Defense News that some of the ongoing major defense projects — such as licence production of French Scorpene submarines, Project 17A destroyers, Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missiles and license production of Russian T-90MS main battle tanks — will take a major hit because foreign engineers are unwilling to come to India to supervise the projects. Due to disruption in the supply chain, the SIDM exec warned, the cost of material and components will increase sharply — possibly an extra 10-15 percent — and Indian defense companies will have to spend more if fluctuations in the exchange rate between the Indian rupee and the euro or U.S. dollar harms India's purchasing power. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2020/06/17/indias-defense-industry-is-set-to-lose-3-billion-from-nationwide-lockdown/

AIR FORCE Accenture Federal Services LLC, Arlington, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0006); Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., Arlington, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0007); Deloitte Consulting LLP, Arlington, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0008); Digital Mobilizations Inc., Warrenton, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0010); KMPG LLP, McLean, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0009); BCG Federal Corp., Bethesda, Maryland (FA7014-20-D-0005); Grant Thornton Public Sector LLC, Arlington, Virginia (FA7014-20-D-0004); and McKinsey & Co. Inc., Washington, D.C. (FA7014-20-D-0003), has been awarded a ceiling $990,000,000 multiple-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, firm-fixed-price contract to provide advisory and assistance services to support the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Office of Business Transformation and Deputy Chief Management Officer in managing and improving strategic transformation initiatives at the enterprise level. Work will be performed at various locations and is expected to be completed June 16, 2027. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition and seven offers were received. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $500 for each contract are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force District of Washington, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, is the contracting activity. NORTHCON Inc., Hayden, Indiana (FA4814-20-D-0005); Pro-Mark Services Inc., West Fargo, North Dakota (FA4814-20-D-0006); Danner Construction Co. Inc., Tampa, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0007); ABBA Construction Inc., Jacksonville, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0008); Bay Area Building Solutions, Tampa, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0009); HCR Construction Inc., Norcross, Georgia (FA4814-20-D-0010); OAC Action Construction Corp., Miami, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0011); Frazier Engineering, Melbourne, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0012); Benaka Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey (FA4814-20-D-0013); RELYANT Global LLC, Maryville, Tennessee (FA4814-20-D-0014); Polu Kai Services LLC, Falls Church, Virginia (FA4814-20-D-0015); Nisou LGC JV LLC, Detroit, Michigan (FA4814-20-D-0016); KMK Construction Inc., Jacksonville, Florida (FA4814-20-D-0017); Burgos Group LLC, Medford, New Jersey (FA4814-20-D-0018); A&H-Ambica JV LLC, Livonia, Michigan (FA4814-20-D-0019); P&S Construction Inc., Chelmsfor, Massachusetts (FA4814-20-D-0020); Northstar Contracting Inc., Cleveland, Ohio (FA4814-20-D-0021); ESA South Inc., Cantonment, Florida (FA4814-D-20-0022); and RUSH Construction Inc., Titusville, Florida (FA4814-D-20-0023), have been awarded a $500,000,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for execution of a broad range of maintenance, repair and minor construction projects affecting real property at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; and Avon Park Air Force Range, Florida. Work is expected to be completed June 16, 2027. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $9,500 will be obligated at the time of award. The 6th Contracting Squadron, Tampa, Florida, is the contracting activity. Northrop Grumman Systems Corp., Linthicum Heights, Maryland, has been awarded an $18,733,197 firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00026) to contract FA8615-17-C-6047 for active electronically scanned array radars of Air Force F-16 aircraft. The contract modification is for definitization of the radio frequency target generator, additional support equipment and software development to support Phase Two. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, Maryland, and is expected to be completed by April 2023. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement funds in the amount of $3,510,172; and fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,103,436 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract is $1,027,044,025. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. NAVY Huntington Ingalls Industries, Pascagoula, Mississippi, is awarded $145,598,728 for a not-to-exceed, undefinitized contract action for long lead time material in support of one Amphibious Assault Ship (General Purpose) Replacement (LHA(R)) and Flight 1 Ship (LHA 9). Work will be performed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (42%); Baltimore, Maryland (24%); Pascagoula, Mississippi (17%); Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania (10%); Fairfield, Ohio (6%); and Warminster, Pennsylvania (1%). Work to be performed is the procurement of long lead-time material for LHA 9, the fourth (LHA(R)) America Class and the second LHA(R) Flight 1 variant. Work is expected to be complete by February 2024. Fiscal 2019 shipbuilding and conversion (Navy) advance procurement funding in the amount of $145,598,728 will be obligated at award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. In accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1), this contract was not competitively procured with only one responsible source. No other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-20-C-2437). Barnhart-Reese Construction Inc.,* San Diego, California (N62473-17-D-4635); Bristol Design Build Services LLC,* Anchorage, Alaska (N62473-17-D-4636); I.E.-Pacific Inc.,* Escondido, California (N62473-17-D-4637); and R.A. Burch Construction Co. Inc.,* Ramona, California (N62473-17-D-4638), are awarded $92,000,000 to increase the aggregate capacity of the previously awarded suite of firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award construction contracts. The maximum dollar value, including the base year and four option years for all four contracts combined, has increased from $99,000,000 to $191,000,000. The contracts are for new construction, renovation and repair, primarily by design-build or secondarily by design-bid-build, of general building construction at various federal sites and government installation locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of operations. Work will be performed in various locations, including but not limited to, California (90%); Arizona (6%); Nevada (1%); Utah (1%); Colorado (1%); and New Mexico (1%). No funds are being obligated on this award, and no funds will expire. Future task orders will be primarily funded by military construction (Navy); operations and maintenance (O&M), Navy; O&M, Marine Corps; and Navy working capital funds. The original contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website. The NAVFAC Southwest, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity. L3 Technologies Inc. KEO, Northampton, Massachusetts, is awarded a $17,275,863 firm-fixed-price modification to previously awarded contract N00024-15-C-6250 for options to procure spare parts for the photonics mast program. Work will be performed in Northampton, Massachusetts, and is expected to be complete by February 2022. Fiscal 2020 other procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $2,831,502 will be obligated at time of award. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity. Epsilon Systems Solutions Inc.,* San Diego, California, is awarded a $17,175,335 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Southwest Regional Maintenance Center (SWRMC) support services. Work will be performed in San Diego, California. The SWRMC production department Code 900 is responsible for providing intermediate-level (I-Level) maintenance and repair support and selective maintenance training to over 100 surface ships, submarines, shore activities and other commands of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. SWRMC Production Department is broken into four product families, and each contains multiple product lines and shops. The SWRMC production department product families currently consist of corrosion control products, engine products, machine products and combat systems product family. Within the SWRMC production department, there are also production control division, I-Level planning division and an off-site facility. Work is expected to be complete by September 2021. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $106,240,249. Fiscal 2020 operations and maintenance (Navy) funding in the amount of $1,431,278 will be obligated at the time of award, and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities website, and four offers were received. The Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, San Diego, California, is the contracting activity (N55236-20-C-0003). Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $16,026,098 modification (P00001) to cost-plus-fixed-fee order N00019-20-F-0817 against previously issued basic ordering agreement N00019-19-G-0008. This order procures support to manage diminishing manufacturing sources in support of the F-35 Program for the Air Force, Navy and non-Department of Defense (DOD) participants. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be complete by June 2021. Fiscal 2018 aircraft procurement (Air Force) funds in the amount of $6,586,406; fiscal 2020 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $6,586,406; and non-DOD participant funds in the amount of $2,853,286 will be obligated at time of award, of which $6,586,406 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Phillips Corp., Hanover, Maryland, is awarded a $12,790,000 fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. This contract procures equipment related services necessary for the inspection, evaluation, repair, upgrade, training and rebuild for the sustainment of industrial plant equipment that is required to adequately support overhauling and repairing fleet aircraft, engines and components in support of the Commander Fleet Readiness Centers. Work will be performed in North Island, California (50%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (35%); and Jacksonville, Florida (15%), and is expected to be complete by June 2023. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was not competitively procured, pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (N68335-20-D-0017). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Federal Prison Industries Inc., Washington, D.C., has been awarded a maximum $17,548,000 modification (P00007) exercising the first one-year option period of one-year base contract SPE1C1-19-D-F027 with four one-year option periods for coveralls. This is a firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract. Locations of performance are Georgia, Arizona, Washington, D.C., and Mississippi, with a June 20, 2021, ordering period end date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 through 2021 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Entwistle Co., Hudson, Massachusetts, has been awarded a maximum $8,135,400 firm-fixed-price contract for air launch and recovery equipment shuttle assemblies. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a 42-month contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Massachusetts, with a Dec. 31, 2023, performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2020 Navy working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Aviation, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPRPA1-20-C-Z043). DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY PAR Government Systems Corp., Rome, New York, was awarded an $11,920,160 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for a research project under the Semantic Forensics (SemaFor) program. The SemaFor program will develop methods that exploit semantic inconsistencies in falsified media to perform tasks across media modalities and at scale. Work will be performed in Rome, New York, with an expected completion date of June 2024. Fiscal 2020 research, development, test and evaluation funding in the amount of $1,500,000 are being obligated at time of award. This contract was a competitive acquisition under a full and open broad agency announcement and 37 proposals were received. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia, is the contracting activity (HR0011-20-C-0126). ARMY ControlPoint Surveying Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W9128A-20-D-0002); Masa Fujioka & Associates,* Aiea, Hawaii (W9128A-20-D-0003); and Sam O. Hirota Inc.,* Honolulu, Hawaii (W9128A-20-D-0004), will compete for each order of the $9,900,000 firm-fixed-price contract for indefinite-delivery architect-engineer services for miscellaneous projects in the Pacific region. Bids were solicited via the internet with four received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of June 16, 2025. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Honolulu, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. Honeywell International Inc., Phoenix, Arizona, was awarded a $7,738,247 modification (P00101) to contract W56HZV-12-C-0344 for hardware and services exercise of options for the Total Integrated Engine Revitalization Automated Gas Turbine 1500 program for the Abrams tank and family of vehicles. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2020. Fiscal 2020 Army working capital funds; and weapons and tracked combat vehicle procurement (Army) funds in the amount of $7,738,247 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, is the contracting activity. *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2223800/source/GovDelivery/

“Replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic," Marine Commandant Gen. David Berger writes in a forthcoming paper. "Our industrial base has shrunk while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity. In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race.” By PAUL MCLEARYon June 17, 2020 at 4:44 PM WASHINGTON: The Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. David Berger, dismisses current Marine and Navy plans for amphibious ships as “obsolete,” and worries that in any conflict, China could replace damaged ships faster than the US in a draft operating concept obtained by Breaking Defense. The warnings are the latest in a campaign waged by the reform-minded Berger to overhaul how the Marine Corps trains and equips to meet the challenges of China and other advanced nations, while working more closely with the other armed services and allies around the globe. In the sharply-worded 22-page document, Berger rejects war plans anticipating a Cold War-style confrontation in which huge ships can creep close to shore free from the threat of precision-guided munitions being launched from batteries deep inland. He calls the current configuration of amphibious ships “the most obvious manifestation of this obsolete paradigm” in a draft document obtained by Breaking Defense. In an unsigned draft of the unreleased report, “Naval Campaigning: The 2020 Marine Corps Capstone Operating Concept,” Berger underlines the need for new thinking about how the Marine Corps and Navy will fight an advanced Chinese military that can control islands, coastlines, and vast swaths of the sea with aircraft carriers, a swelling blue ocean fleet and long-distance precision munitions. The old way of thinking “is also exemplified by our current amphibious warships and maritime prepositioning ships, which are large and built for deployment efficiency rather than warfighting effectiveness,” he writes. “These superb, multipurpose ships are extremely expensive—meaning we've never had the desired number.” Berger also raises significant concerns about the United States' ability to replace any combat losses, even in a short, sharp conflict. “Replacing ships lost in combat will be problematic, inasmuch as our industrial base has shrunk, while peer adversaries have expanded their shipbuilding capacity. In an extended conflict, the United States will be on the losing end of a production race—reversing the advantage we had in World War II when we last fought a peer competitor.” The stark admission comes as the Navy's shipyards struggle under the disruptions caused by COVID-19, leading the service to order an emergency call up over 1,600 Reservists to fill labor shortages to do repair work on aircraft carriers and submarines in a desperate effort to get them back out to sea as soon as possible. Berger takes care not to blame the Navy for building expensive, relatively slow amphibious ships to carry Marines across the globe. “These issues should not be construed as a criticism of our Navy partners who built the fleet—to include the types of amphibious warfare and maritime prepositioning ships the Marine Corps asked for—that was appropriate to the security era within the constraints of finite resources.” But that era is now over the Corps wants to build a more dynamic “inside force” of smaller ships that can operate within range of Chinese and Russian weapons and pack a potent offensive punch while offering more and smaller targets than the current amphibious fleet. But these small ships won't replace their bigger cousins — they'll come in addition to them, creating new issues for both Navy budgets and the limited number of shipbuilders who can produce hulls for the sea service. The ships will also need ports to call home. “One can think of basing forces and lots of smaller vessels in theater, but this raises the issue of where to put everything and doesn't seem to be a ready solution that replaces divestiture of large ships,” said Dakota Wood, senior research fellow for defense programs at The Heritage Foundation. In recent weeks, the Navy met with shipbuilders to talk about plans for a new class of logistics ship that can operate under fire and resupply Marines deep within the range of enemy precision weapons. The Next Generation Medium Logistics Ship would resupply both ships at sea, as well as small, ad hoc bases ashore. The ship fits within plans Berger has made to stand up several Marine Littoral Regiments designed to move fast and have their own integrated anti-air and possibly anti-ship weapons. The Corps and Navy are also looking to buy as many as 30 Light Amphibious Warships in coming years, which would be much smaller than the current amphibious ships. The draft document doesn't include any those specifics. But Berger has already done that work in previous statements and documents, where he outlined plans: to rethink the role that large amphibious ships play in future; divest of M1 Abrams tanks; cut artillery units; slash helicopter squadrons; and reassess the role F-35s might play in future operations. Berger has admitted he realizes he needs to undertake this transition within existing budgets, leading him to call for cutting tanks, helicopters, and even some end strength. But for the Navy, Wood said, “I think much of this will be added cost because it must maintain current capabilities (types of ships) while developing new capabilities. It does not have the luxury of getting rid of current before new replacements are ready.” A significant omission in all of these plans is the absence of a larger, coherent naval strategy. The 30-year shipbuilding plan, due to Congress in February, continues to be missing in action. A major Navy force structure review was rejected by Defense Secretary Mark Esper earlier this year. The force structure review, currently being taken apart by Deputy Defense Secretary David Norquist, is expected this fall. The Navy's plans are in such a fluid state that Vice Adm. Stuart Munsch, head of the service's Warfighting Development office, cited Chinese attention as a reason to decline to give a progress report in a call with reporters earlier this month. “I'm not going to divulge our intentions,” he said. “I'm very conscious that, if I say anything public, I'm an authoritative source and the Chinese will key on what I say, and likewise any kind of public-facing document that we put out as well.” Pressed to explain what the Navy's strategy for operating in a world with competing great powers looks like, Munsch said, “I'm not sure how you would see that keeping our intentions for warfighting classified is something you would want as an American citizen.” While Berger continues to push out papers and strategies for pushing the Marines into the future, the Navy, which will provide much of the lift he needs, is still at the drawing board. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/in-war-chinese-shipyards-can-outpace-us-in-replacing-losses

While at least two of six competitors have dropped out, the Army says it will still have plenty of 30mm turret options to choose from as it starts testing this fall. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 17, 2020 at 2:43 PM WASHINGTON: “This is a healthy competition,” the head of the Army Stryker program, Col. Bill Venable, reassured reporters. “My No. 1 mandate as the overall program manager was to protect the competition in this first phase.” Venable was allaying anxieties yesterday about the five-year-old effort to upgun the infantry transport version of the Stryker, an 8×8 armored vehicle that's become an Army workhorse worldwide since its controversial introduction in 2003. The wheeled Stryker was criticized for having lighter armor than the tracked M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, although it's far better protected than Humvees. It often struggled over Afghan terrain. But its ability to move rapidly by road – with fewer stops for gas and maintenance than heavy armored vehicles – made it a favorite of US commanders from Iraq to Estonia. So, while overshadowed by high-tech prototypes from hypersonic missiles to high-speed helicopters to robotic tanks, the Army is doubling down on the proven Stryker in several ways: Two light infantry brigades are being converted into Stryker units, which increases the number of active-duty Stryker brigades from five to seven. (There are two more part-time units in the National Guard). Original manufacturer General Dynamics has a $2.4 billion contract to rebuild hundreds of existing Strykers as DVHA1 models with bigger engines, upgraded electronics, and mine-resistant “double-V” hulls. Leonardo DRS is developing a new anti-aircraft variant called IM-SHORAD. It is several months behind schedule due to COVID disruptions and software issues. And the Army is upgunning the basic infantry-carrier variant from an exposed 12.7mm (0.50 cal) machinegun, viable against infantry and unarmored trucks, to a turret-mounted Medium Caliber Weapon System (MCWS), a 30mm autocannon capable of killing light armored vehicles widely used by Russia General Dynamics urgently built 83 upgunned Strykers to reequip a single Europe-based brigade. Now the Army is holding an open competition for an official Program of Record (POR) to upgrade at least three more brigades with a more refined 30mm turret design – but we've heard some anxiety over whether any other vendor can really unseat the incumbent. Out of six companies awarded $150,000 design contracts last summer, Venable confirmed that at least two have dropped out. At the current — sensitive — stage of the competition, the program manager said after a quick consultation with his staff, he isn't allowed to disclose how many companies remain and how many have quit. But Venable did tell reporters that one vendor dropped out because it wasn't making adequate progress to meet the technical requirements, while another decided it didn't have a good enough chance of winning to justify the investment. While the Army gave competitors free Strykers and 30mm guns, they must provide their own turrets, electronics and other components to integrate the weapon and the vehicle into a functional fighting system, to be delivered to the Army for testing by August 10. “We're not funding their development,” Venable said, “[which is] in some cases millions of dollars they're going to invest.” While he won't second-guess any company's cost-benefit calculus, he's been working with all of them to try to keep them in the running, despite disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. “We have adjusted the evaluation strategy in order to maintain the competition as robust as we can,” he said. “This isn't the first competitive selection effort that I've run, and I will say we have more [viable competitors] than the incumbent, significantly more than the incumbent,” Venable told reporters. “We're going to present a variety of choices to the source selection authority to evaluate starting on 10 August.” Once the vehicles arrive in August, the Army will live-fire the 30 mm guns, check out the armor, and conduct a host of other tests. By January, Venable expects to have that data ready for the evaluation board, which aims to announce a winner by the end of April, 2021. After that, the winning company will start mass production, with the first vehicles scheduled for delivery to a Stryker unit in August or September 2022. That meets the Army's previously announced deadline to start fielding by the end of fiscal '22, Venable said. But the brigade will spend months more taking possession of the vehicles and training on them – a “Rubik's Cube” of logistics and scheduling, Venable said — before it's officially declared the “First Unit Equipped,” probably around March 2023. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-rebuffs-anxiety-over-stryker-cannon-competition

NDO/VNA - Deputy Minister of National Defence Sen. Lt. Gen. Nguyen Chi Vinh on June 16 engaged in two online talks with Jody Thomas, Deputy Minister of Canada's Department of National Defence, and Peter Tesch, Deputy Secretary for Strategic Policy & Intelligence at Australia's Department of Defence. Canadian and Australian ambassadors and military attaches to Vietnam also took part in the talks. During the talks, Vinh informed the Australian and Canadian officials on the COVID-19 situation in Vietnam, attributing the good outcomes in controlling the disease to concerted efforts of the entire political system, with the Vietnam People's Army serving as the core and vanguard force. Highlighting the importance of international collaboration in the fight against the pandemic, he thanked Australian and Canadian defence bodies' cooperation in sharing information on COVID-19 prevention, control, research and treatment. He hoped the joint work will last for long given the COVID-19 complexities. On the occasion, Vinh and his counterparts reviewed outcomes of Vietnam-Australia and Vietnam-Canada defence ties in the past time and sought agreement on future orientations with a stress on military medical coordination in disease prevention and control. All sides vowed that they will not allow the pandemic to hinder their thriving cooperation. The Vietnamese and Canadian officials expressed their delight at breakthroughs in the relations of the sides after their defence ministers exchanged visits, particularly in human resources training and UN peace keeping mission. The Canadian side said it plans to set up a military attaché office in Vietnam this year, and the two sides agreed to push for the establishment of a bilateral defence policy dialogue mechanism toward building a three-year cooperation scheme for the two defence ministries. Meanwhile, Vietnam and Australia took note of outstanding joint work, such as Australian military aircraft, for the second time, transporting personnel of Vietnam's level-2 field hospital to South Sudan for peacekeeping mission. The sides also began teaming up to organise activities in searching for Vietnamese soldiers going missing during wartime, shooting skills exchanges; and discussions on women, peace and security. Vinh stated Vietnam's Defence Ministry is committed to the effective implementation of defence cooperation with Australia and Canada based on signed documents and agreements for the benefit of the sides involved and of the region. The official also informed his counterparts on the schedule of activities during the year Vietnam serves as Chair of ASEAN 2020 and its tenure as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for 2020-2021. He highlighted Vietnam's determination in strengthening collaboration within the framework of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Meeting (ADMM) and ADMM Plus. He stressed Vietnam backs Canada's responsible participation in the region in line with ASEAN's consensus principle and praised Australia's success in hosting the first informal ASEAN – Australia defence ministers' meeting. https://en.nhandan.org.vn/politics/item/8778302-vietnam-boosts-defence-cooperation-with-canada-australia.html

San Diego, June 16, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: KTOS), a leading National Security Solutions provider, announced today that the Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services (KDRSS) Division has been awarded a $46 million Other Transaction for Prototype Agreement (pOTA) to support the U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO). The new award has a three year period of performance. The prototype project is to establish a Directed Energy (DE) Testbed to accelerate military development capability in the focus areas of High Energy Laser (HEL) and/or High Power Microwave (HPM) systems. Air and Missile Defense (AMD) military utility will be demonstrated with a concentration on countering Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) using HEL and/or HPM on ground-based and airborne platforms. Additionally, this pOTA will perform research and experimentation related to DE test infrastructure and methodologies to improve the efficiency and accuracy of DE test programs. The project improves the ability to deploy HEL and HPM systems by providing test beds for evaluation of emerging, reduced Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP) HEL and HPM systems. Work under this pOTA is anticipated to be performed at Kratos facilities and at government locations in Huntsville, AL. Dave Carter, President of the Kratos Defense & Rocket Support Services (KDRSS) Division, said, "This recent award is another important milestone in our commitment to continue providing superior advanced technology solutions that is in keeping with our long term strategic goals supporting the U.S. Army in advancing and developing improved Directed Energy Technologies. We are very pleased the U.S. Army has chosen Kratos to serve in this capacity." About Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ:KTOS) develops and fields transformative, affordable technology, platforms and systems for United States National Security related customers, allies and commercial enterprises. Kratos is changing the way breakthrough technology for these industries are rapidly brought to market through proven commercial and venture capital backed approaches, including proactive research and streamlined development processes. Kratos specializes in unmanned systems, satellite communications, cyber security/warfare, microwave electronics, missile defense, hypersonic systems, training and combat systems, and next-generation turbojet and turbo-fan engine development. For more information, go to www.KratosDefense.com. Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Certain statements in this press release may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are made on the basis of the current beliefs, expectations and assumptions of the management of Kratos and are subject to significant risks and uncertainty. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements. All such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and Kratos undertakes no obligation to update or revise these statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Although Kratos believes that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable, these statements involve many risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from what may be expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements. For a further discussion of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ from those expressed in these forward-looking statements, as well as risks relating to the business of Kratos in general, see the risk disclosures in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Kratos for the year ended December 29, 2019, and in subsequent reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K and other filings made with the SEC by Kratos. Press Contact: Yolanda White 858-812-7302 Direct Investor Information: 877-934-4687 investor@kratosdefense.com View source version on GlobeNewswire: http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/06/16/2049122/0/en/Kratos-Receives-46-Million-Directed-Energy-Award-in-Support-of-U-S-Army.html

La réunion des ministres de la Défense de l'UE ce mardi (16 juin) le prouve. La litanie des 25 paragraphes balayant tous les sujets met sous le tapis cinq sujets d'incohérences, non résolus depuis des années. Ce qui est assez incongru alors que tous les signaux sont au vert (cf. encadré). Les Européens sont aujourd'hui face à leurs contradictions, leurs incohérences (1), forts dans le verbe, faibles dans l'action. Première incohérence : aucune responsabilité stratégique clairement identifiée L'Europe manque d'une chaine de décision clairement identifiée, surtout au plus au haut niveau. Ce devrait être le rôle du Conseil européen. Mais celui-ci a peu à peu délaissé ce rôle, encombré par les affaires intérieures de l'UE : crise économique, renouvellement institutionnel, Brexit, etc. Quelques discussions de politique extérieure ont bien eu lieu, mais peu nombreuses, pas assez fréquentes, et parfois tournées vers le sommet de l'iceberg, non vers la profondeur stratégique. Ainsi quand la Russie a été évoquée, c'était surtout pour examiner s'il fallait prendre des sanctions après l'invasion de la Crimée et la guerre dans l'Est de l'Ukraine et quelles sanctions prendre, pas vraiment pour voir quelles relations de voisinage entretenir. Et quand on aborde la Turquie, c'est en extrême urgence pour tisser des liens avec Ankara afin d'éviter une vague migratoire. Il y a eu assez peu de discussions au fond sur les relations avec les pays du Golfe, avec l'Afrique, avec la Libye, durant la présidence de Donald Tusk. Charles Michel qui avait inauguré son mandat par une série de balades (lire : Quand Tintin Michel se balade, le Conseil européen trinque) pourrait changer la donne. Mais les dissensions internes sur le futur cadre budgétaire (MFF) risquent, encore une fois, de détourner l'attention. Les ministres de la Défense se réunissent, mais une seule fois par semestre, dans une formation qui est mineure, dépendant de celles des Affaires étrangères. Les sujets qu'ils abordent sont rarement les plus importants. Et la terminologie employée souvent très optimiste (progrès, félicitations, succès...) sert davantage à masquer les divergences qu'à les trancher. Idem au Parlement européen où la défense est confinée dans une sous-commission, sans capacité de décision autonome. En fait, il manque une instance stratégique. C'est le problème plus général de l'Union européenne en matière de diplomatie et de défense. Elle erre un peu parfois sans une logique totalement compréhensible et intelligible. Le Haut représentant reste avant tout un super ‘diplomate', chargé de mettre en œuvre une politique. Si les États ne sont pas d'accord, il en est réduit à broder. Or, la haute couture ne suffit pas à remplacer une décision. L'idée d'un Conseil européen de sécurité, proposée par l'Allemagne, est intéressante (lire : Mettre en place un Conseil de sécurité européen ? Une idée à travailler). Mais elle apparait plutôt comme une manœuvre de diversion et n'a jamais reçu de suite très concrète. Il faut que le Conseil européen fasse son travail... tout simplement. Deuxième incohérence : la fuite en avant L'autre défaut typique de l'Union européenne est de lancer sans cesse de nouveaux concepts, de nouveaux projets, sans avoir tiré auparavant le bilan de ce qui marche et ne marche pas. On empile ainsi les projets capacitaires les uns sur les autres, sans fermer des dossiers. Où en sont aujourd'hui les 11 projets opérationnels décidés en 2011 par exemple ? Et sur les 47 projets de la PESCO, chacun sait bien que certains sont « morts nés » pour reprendre une expression officieuse. Dans les couloirs européens, personne n'ose le dire publiquement. Mais sous le sceau de l'anonymat, les langues se délient. En bref, il faut élaguer. Au lieu de ça, on alourdit l'arbre. Cela n'a pas de logique. Du moins vraiment compréhensible au point de vue de l'opinion publique comme des experts. Idem en matière opérationnelle. Les battlegroups sont toujours inemployés. Et notre analyse passée (2) reste (malheureusement) exacte. On ne voit rien aujourd'hui qui puisse les faire mieux fonctionner. Sur les seize missions extérieures de l'UE, on sait très bien — y compris dans les rangs européens les plus convaincus — qu'un petit tiers (estimation basse) ne remplit pas l'objectif primaire fixé par les traités à la PSDC : la stabilisation ou le maintien de la paix (lire : Opération Sophia, EUBAM Rafah et Libya... l'UE doit apprendre à fermer des missions devenues inutiles). Elles sont plutôt là pour mettre un point sur la carte, occuper le terrain. Leur suppression risque d'engendrer des grincements de dents, mais cette retructuration est nécessaire. Troisième incohérence : entre le dire et le faire un abyme Dans les missions et opérations de la PSDC, pourtant décidées en commun (l'unanimité étant toujours la règle), les moyens font souvent défaut. C'est une autre incohérence et non des moindres de la politique européenne de défense. Certaines lacunes sont récurrentes. Ainsi, depuis plusieurs années, le soutien médical dans les missions de la PSDC est souvent délégué à un pays tiers (ou au privé), faute de moyens européens. D'autres apparaissent de façon criante. L'exemple de l'opération de contrôle des armes au large de la Libye (EUNAVFOR Med Irini) en est un (dernier) exemple criant. Les États sont (à peu près tous) d'accord : le désordre libyen est un des pires facteurs d'instabilité pour l'Europe, il faut contrôler l'embargo sur les armes et aboutir à un processus politique... Mais quand il s'agit de fournir des moyens opérationnels pour mettre en œuvre cette volonté, il y a beaucoup moins de monde. (lire : Une opération Irini bien à la peine. Les États membres chiches en moyens). Quatrième incohérence : une structure héritée du passé Toutes les structures actuelles sont issues de la réflexion sur l'état de l'Europe il y a vingt ans, voire trente ans. L'élaboration du Traité de Maastricht date des années 1990. Soit la réalisation du marché unique. Une autre époque ! À chaque nouvelle phase (tous les dix ans), on rajoute une couche institutionnelle, sans vraiment chercher à simplifier ou réorganiser le système. Aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas tant le manque institutionnel que le surpoids qui l'emporte. On a ainsi un noyau d'état-major de l'UE en train d'évoluer (lentement), à côté des état-majors de force (Eurocorps, Euromarfor) largement sous-employés. Au niveau capacitaire, trois structures sont en place : l'agence européenne de défense et OCCAR qui s'occupent de la gestion des projets, et la nouvelle DG Défense et Espace (DEFIS) de la Commission européenne, sans oublier les structures au sein du service diplomatique européen (SEAE) qui s'occupent de gestion de crises. Et je ne parle pas de celles de l'Alliance atlantique. Chacune a sa propre logique et sa justification. La question n'est peut-être pas tant de les supprimer, mais d'avoir une logique d'ensemble, partagée par tous les acteurs, une saine répartition des t'ches, compréhensible, organisée. Quitte à couper les ‘branches mortes'. Cinquième incohérence : la coopération OTAN-UE Ce lien est célébré partout. On le retrouve à toutes les sauces dès qu'il s'agit d'une réunion consacrée à la défense d'un côté comme de l'autre du rond point Schuman. Si les relations entre les deux organisations sont fluides (elles l'étaient déjà du temps de Javier Solana ;-), dans les faits, la relation entre les deux organisations reste faussée par une géopolitique fort différente qui se résume à deux mots : USA et Turquie. L'OTAN reste, en effet, très dépendante à la fois de la volonté américaine (son actionnaire principal) et de la politique turque (élément clé de sa présence au Sud-Est). Vissée à ces deux éléments, elle obéit à un équilibre précaire et reste bien en peine de fixer sa politique, devant sa survie au durcissement russe entamé depuis 2014 avec la guerre en Ukraine et l'annexion de la Crimée. Les deux (autres) guerres actives aux bordures du territoire de l'Alliance (la Syrie et la Libye) se déroulent avec un cavalier seul de la Turquie, plus que troublant. La violation délibérée par Ankara de l'embargo sur les armes en Libye est une (grosse) épine dans le pied, douloureuse pour la solidarité de l'Alliance. L'Alliance, en fait, n'est pas très en forme. Encore moins pourrait-on dire que l'Union européenne, même si cela apparait moins clairement. Elle est à la recherche d'un nouveau point d'équilibre qu'elle n'a pas vraiment trouvé. Ses deux missions de formation en Irak et en Afghanistan sont proches de la fin. Elle se cherche de nouveaux terrains d'action... Elle ne dispose pas de moyens d'actions juridiques et financiers propres et en est réduite, aujourd'hui, à quémander à l'Union européenne de lui prêter ses moyens pour mener ses propres projets (cf. pour la mobilité militaire). Très clairement, les deux organisations n'ont ni la même stratégie ni la même tactique. La pandémie du coronavirus a montré comment leur coopération restait aléatoire, surtout en cas de crise grave. Chacun a tenté très vite de tirer la couverture à soi, multipliant des réunions de coordination là où il n'y avait plus grand chose à coordonner. Parler de coopération est donc plus qu'hasardeux. On serait plus proche de la parabole de l'aveugle et du paralytique. (Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the National Defense Authorization Act recommends increasing funding for the future long-range assault aircraft and to buy additional drones, according to a summary report released Thursday. On the whole, the senators seem to have focused more on programs from the Air Force and Navy, largely leaving the Army untouched, per the summary. However, full language has yet to be released. The Army requested $178 billion for fiscal 2021, down slightly from its fiscal 2020 request of $182 billion. The FLRAA program, which seeks a new long-range assault aircraft by 2030, is receiving $5 million more than was requested. It is the second year in a row Congress has increased funding for the program above what the Pentagon asked for, following a $76 million increase in FY20 to drive down technical risk and speed up delivery. FLRAA is one of two key programs for modernizing Army aviation. The Bell V-280 Valor tilt rotor and the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant coaxial are both contending for the FLRAA contract. The competition for the program of record will begin in 2022, with a plan to field the first unit equipped in 2030. The Senate is also adding $165 million for the purchase of additional MQ-1 unmanned aircraft for the Army to “meet state requirements for unmanned fixed wing ISR.” Additional language requires the secretary of the Army “submit a plan to operationally deploy or forward station in an operational theater or theaters” two batteries of interim cruise missile defense capability. On the cyber front, another $5 million is slated for Army operation and maintenance to “provide Cyber Mission Forces with more resources to access, operate, and train as required by increased operational demand.” Although not Army-specific, the NDAA language emphasizes the importance of the overall cyber posture, including an analysis of the Cyber Mission Force and an “evaluation of cyber reserve force options, which could provide capable surge capability and enable [the Department of Defense] to draw on cyber talent in the department sector.” Overall recruitment targets for the service is set at 485,000, adjusted own slightly from what the Army predicted in its FY21 budget request. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/06/11/senate-bill-adds-funding-to-army-helicopter-program-drones