23 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité, Autre défense

A consensus-driven joint concept for all-domain warfare will fall short

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten recently announced a new U.S. Department of Defense joint war-fighting concept will summarize capabilities needed for future all-domain operations and eliminate artificial lines on the battlefield used to deconflict U.S. operations in the past.

Hyten also noted the concept will seamlessly integrate “fires from all domains, including space and cyber,” to overwhelm an enemy.

While these aspirations are laudable, there are indications the concept could fall short of what is needed to inform cross-service trade-offs that must be made in an era of flat or declining defense budgets.

The DoD creates operating concepts to define preferred approaches to perform specific missions or execute a campaign to defeat an enemy. They also provide a foundation for the services to assess new technologies, force alternatives and resource priorities. Said another way, they are the tissue that connects top-level National Defense Strategy guidance to actual plans and programs.

While a joint all-domain war-fighting concept is urgently needed, Hyten has not made it clear the one in development will lead to trade-offs that maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. For instance, Hyten has said it will call for every service to conduct long-range strikes: “A naval force can defend itself or strike deep. An air force can defend itself or strike deep. The Marines can defend itself or strike deep. ... Everybody.”

This could mean the concept will support a degree of redundancy across the services that has never existed. Setting aside tough trade-offs that eliminate excessively redundant programs will waste defense dollars and reduce capabilities available to U.S. commanders.

More specifically, the concept might endorse the Army's plan to buy 1,000-mile-plus, surface-to-surface missiles that cost millions of dollars each. Doing so would ignore analyses that have determined using large numbers of these weapons would be far more expensive than employing bombers that can strike any target on the planet for a fraction of the cost, then regenerate and fly more sorties. Furthermore, the Army's long-range missile investments could be at the expense of its ability to defend U.S. theater air bases against missile attacks.

Not only has air base missile defense long been an Army mission — it has long neglected and underfunded the mission. Chinese or Russian strikes against under-defended air bases could cripple the United States' primary combat sortie-generation operations.

If the concept does not consider these kinds of trade-offs, it could be due to the approach used to create it. The Joint Staff's doctrine development process is notorious for seeking consensus instead of making cross-service trade-offs necessary to maximize the DoD's war-fighting potential. Assuring bureaucratic service equities versus optimizing combat lethality can lead to operating concepts that fail to create clear priorities or — worse yet — declare everything a priority. If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority.

Moreover, each service was asked to develop a subordinate concept that will be integrated into the whole. This piece-part approach could result in the services ladening their subordinate concepts with their own equities instead of working together to develop the most effective, decisive options.

In short, a bottom-up, consensus-driven concept for all-domain warfare would not be an effective baseline to compare the DoD's force structure and capability alternatives. Three things could help to avoid this mistake.

First, the secretary of defense should approve a new all-domain war-fighting concept, and the secretary's staff should be deeply involved in its development. Some say the latter is inappropriate, believing the military, not DoD civilians, should create war-fighting concepts. However, it is entirely appropriate for the secretary's staff to be part of the concept's creation if its purpose is to shape the DoD's plans and programs.

Second, DoD leaders should rigorously examine the services' existing roles and missions during the concept's development, and make changes to reduce excessively redundant responsibilities, forces and capabilities. This may need to be driven by congressional language.

Finally, the DoD should jettison the word “joint” as part of the concept's title. This would stress the concept is focused on integrating operations across all domains, not on the services that provide forces to combatant commanders. The point is not for all to participate, but instead for all options to be considered, and those that provide best combat value be prioritized. Otherwise, it becomes a case analogous to all the kids chasing a soccer ball.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy was the beginning of the effort to shift the DoD toward preparing for peer conflict. Given that dollars and time are short, the DoD must now get a concept for all-domain warfare right. Like the National Defense Strategy, the concept must be top-down driven, not a bottom-up, consensus-driven product that fails to make trade-offs across the services and provides a rationale that supports what each service desires to buy. Rather, its ultimate objective should be to seek best-value capabilities and expand theater commander options to defeat peer adversaries.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/09/22/a-consensus-driven-joint-concept-for-all-domain-warfare-will-fall-short/

Sur le même sujet

14 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

Navy Inks Deal For New Unmanned Fleet
The $34 million deal marks the service's first real thrust to get unmanned ships into the water, despite Congressional worries the service is moving too fast. By PAUL MCLEARYon July 13, 2020 at 5:37 PM WASHINGTON: Despite deep and bipartisan skepticism from Capitol Hill over its plans to build three new classes of unmanned warships, the Navy went ahead today with its plans to begin building as many as 40 Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels. The service awarded L3 Technologies Inc. a $34.9 million contract for a prototype MUSV, along with an option for up to eight additional ships. If the company builds those eight unmanned ships, the contract will be worth $281 million through June 2027. Overall, the Navy wants to build about 40 MUSVs in coming years, which will clock in at between 45 to 190 feet long, with displacements of roughly 500 tons. The medium ships are thought to skew more toward mission modules revolving around intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance payloads and electronic warfare systems. In their versions of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, however, both the House and Senate told the Navy to slow down on its acquisition of some unmanned ships, specifically the Large Unmanned Surface Vessel. Both documents boost Congressional oversight over the LUSV, an ambitious new ship the Navy hoped to begin building in 2023. While the MUSV will focus on gathering intelligence, the LUSV will act as a forward-deployed missile launcher, bristling with missile tubes and other weapons, Navy planners have said. Lawmakers are looking to ensure the Navy finalizes its design and operational plans before building the larger ship, something the service has struggled with as it built other classes such as the Littoral Combat Ship, the Ford class of aircraft carriers, and the Zumwalt destroyers, all of which fell behind schedule, went over budget and struggled with new technologies. “USVs are one of the centerpieces of distributed maritime operations,” Rear Adm. Casey Moton, head of the Unmanned and Small Combatants office, said last month at a U.S. Naval Institute event. The ships will act as platforms to enable the fleet to spread out and counter China's ambitions in the Pacific either as a forward screen for a carrier strike group or as vessels pressed forward with an acceptable risk of attrition. The Navy hasn't yet fully prepared to deploy or sustain a new fleet of unmanned vessels, Capt. Pete Small, program manager for unmanned maritime systems said in May. “Our infrastructure right now is optimized around manned warships,” Small said. “We're gonna have to shift that infrastructure for how we prepare, deploy, and transit” over large bodies of water before the navy begins churning out unmanned ships in greater numbers, he added. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/07/navy-inks-deal-for-new-unmanned-fleet
1 avril 2021 | International, Aérospatial

MBDA : forte résilience en 2020
DÉFENSE MBDA : forte résilience en 2020 MBDA a fait preuve d'une forte résilience en 2020. Le chiffre d'affaires a atteint 3,6 milliards d'euros, avec une répartition à 50/50 entre les clients nationaux et export. Les prises de commandes ont atteint 3,3 milliards d'euros, le carnet de commandes s'établissant désormais à 16,6 milliards d'euros. Éric Béranger, PDG de MBDA, a déclaré : « Ces résultats soutiennent nos perspectives de croissance. MBDA est au cœur de la souveraineté de nos nations domestiques et de leurs alliés, et nous continuerons de leur proposer des solutions au meilleur niveau mondial, indispensables à la défense de leur sécurité nationale et à la préservation de leur autonomie stratégique ». Parmi les principales nouvelles commandes remportées en 2020, figurent le contrat d'amélioration des capacités du missile Brimstone 3 et la commande de production du missile Spear pour la Royal Air Force, la rénovation mi-vie de l'Aster pour la France ainsi que le lancement du développement du nouveau missile de combat MHT pour l'hélicoptère Tigre, le contrat pour le nouveau missile anti-navire Teseo MK2/E pour l'Italie et le contrat avec Rheinmetall portant sur un nouveau démonstrateur d'effecteur laser à haute énergie pour la marine allemande. Les principales commandes à l'exportation comprennent un package armement naval pour un client étranger, ainsi que pour le Sénégal. La France et l'Italie viennent de notifier à MBDA la conception de la nouvelle génération du SAMP/T, le seul système de défense antimissile balistique réalisé en Europe. Autre échéance importante, le lancement attendu cet été du programme de missiles anti-navire et de croisière, baptisés FMAN/FMC, destinés à remplacer les missiles anti-navires Exocet (France) et Harpoon (Grande-Bretagne) et de croisière Scalp/Storm Shadow. Enfin, MBDA est en charge avec Airbus de concevoir les effecteurs (drones, missiles, objets volants) du Système aérien de combat du futur (SCAF). Ensemble de la presse du 1er avril
28 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

Collapse of Boeing-Embraer deal could have major impact on C-390 Millennium’s future
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Boeing's termination of a $4.2 billion deal for a majority stake in Embraer's commercial aviation business could have widespread implications on the Brazilian firm's flagship military aircraft. Boeing on Saturday announced that it would walk away from a joint venture that would give it an 80 percent stake in Embraer's commercial business, as well as a 49 percent stake in the company's C-390 Millennium cargo plane. Although Boeing said that the company would maintain previous teaming agreements to support Embraer with marketing the C-390 internationally, analysts told Defense News that the vitriol between the two companies could portend a wider collapse of their collaboration in the military sphere. “The future of the KC-390 without Boeing — or without a U.S. defense prime helping — isn't all that great,” said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. “It just seems like cooler heads should probably prevail.” At Dubai Air Show last November, the companies announced the formation of a new entity known as Boeing-Embraer Defense set up specifically to proactively market the C-390 around the world — a step up from previous agreements that had Boeing in more of a hands-off role. The agreement gave Boeing a new plane that could compete head-to-head against Lockheed Martin's C-130, and gave Embraer the resources to match. The big question now is whether Embraer seeks out partnerships elsewhere for either the KC-390 or its commercial business, said Byron Callan, an analyst with Capital Alpha Partners. “I just wonder, is there something else or someone else that emerges in 2021 or 2022 that ties up with Embraer. Could that be Chinese? Indian? Another country, company or entity outside of the United States?” he said. “That would be a more interesting broader change for aerospace, that has military implications as well, too.” It's even possible that Airbus could try to usurp Boeing's role as Embraer's partner on the C-390, said Callan, who noted that Airbus — like Boeing — does not offer a medium cargo transport aircraft that directly competes against the C-130. A good relationship gone bad On Monday morning, Embraer announced that it had filed arbitration proceedings against Boeing, capping off an angry back-and-forth between both companies that spanned the weekend. When Boeing announced it was walking away from the deal on Saturday, the company claimed it had “worked diligently over more than two years” to finalize the transaction, but that Embraer left some conditions of the master transaction agreement, or MTA, unresolved. "It is deeply disappointing,” said Marc Allen, Boeing's president of Embraer Partnership & Group Operations. “But we have reached a point where continued negotiation within the framework of the MTA is not going to resolve the outstanding issues." Embraer, however, issued a scathing statement of its own, asserting that it had fulfilled all contractual obligations and blaming the failure of the deal on Boeing's continued financial problems and the fallout from two fatal 737 MAX crashes. “Embraer believes strongly that Boeing has wrongfully terminated the MTA, that it has manufactured false claims as a pretext to seek to avoid its commitments to close the transaction and pay Embraer the US$4.2 billion purchase price,” the company said. “We believe Boeing has engaged in a systematic pattern of delay and repeated violations of the MTA, because of its unwillingness to complete the transaction in light of its own financial condition and 737 MAX and other business and reputational problems.” Boeing's decision to break its agreement with Embraer makes sense from a financial standpoint, Cai Von Rumohr, a defense analyst with Cowen, wrote in an email to investors. Because of COVID-19's impact on the aerospace industry, $4.2 billion seems an inflated price for Boeing to pay to acquire a controlling stake in Embraer's commercial business, and terminating the deal may help to free up cash that Boeing needs in the near-term. But while Von Rumohr said he believes Boeing and Embraer will continue to collaborate on the C-390, it will depend on whether the relationship can be salvaged. “This issue is, how pissed off is Embraer now, and is this something they're likely to get over to continue with what was a teaming agreement that made a whole lot of sense for both parties?” Von Rumohr told Defense News. Another major question is how the COVID-19 crisis effects worldwide defense spending, with implications for nations' domestic industries as well the international defense industrial base. Callan noted that some countries who have ordered the aircraft such as Brazil or Portugal “are probably looking at different defense budget projections. Aboulafia added that the dissolution of the partnership increases the likelihood that Embraer will need stimulus funds from the government of the Brazil to help fortify its commercial sector during the COVID-19 pandemic. “That money could easily come out of defense spending, which would impact Embraer defense programs, particularly Gripen or C-390,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/04/27/collapse-of-boeing-embraer-deal-could-have-major-impact-on-c-390-millenniums-future

Toutes les nouvelles