Danish radars on French aircraft carrier

Sur le même sujet

• 

  24 avril 2023 | International, Terrestre

  Germany drops $400 million on additional all-terrain vehicles from BAE

  The new order brings Germany's envisioned inventory to almost 370 BvS10 vehicles, which are optimized for operations in harsh conditions.

• 

  19 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Defense firm advocates for ‘hybrid procurement system’ to save billions in the UK

  By: Andrew Chuter LONDON – Adopting a new hybrid procurement system could save Britain's Ministry of Defence billions of pounds and get cutting edge technology in the hands of troops faster, a top American satellite communications company argued to the parliamentary Defence Committee. Written evidence from Viasat's U.K. arm advocating a shake-up in British procurement processes was published by the committee May 13 as part of its inquiry into the procurement and prosperity aspects of the country's defense industrial policy. Top of the list of proposals submitted by the company is a hybrid approach to procurement that saves money and leads to experimentation to deliver missions faster, said Viasat UK Managing Director Steve Beeching in an interview with Defense News following publication of the evidence. “We need a hyrid process with a platform-centric approach for very long lead, complex structural equipment elements," said Beeching, adding that more agile,, adaptive procurement for technology is required to meet the mission threat. "At the end of the day buying outdated technology doesn't deliver the mission,” Beeching said. The hybrid idea is among a raft of potential procurement changes proposed by Viasat. The company also advocated for ‘test before you buy' solutions from industry to reduce MoD costs and risk; building trusted partnerships between government and the private sector to drive information advantage; sharing risk and design obligations, thereby alleviating the burden on existing program processes; and executing an outcomes-based assessment program. The proposals come as the company is considering a potentially significant investment in the U.K. From a U.K. base near Farnborough, southern England, Viasat has a growing presence in the defense and security sector providing UHF satellite communications, tactical data system, sovereign information assurance and other services. It is currently considering investing about £300 million, or $366 million, in the U.K. and doubling its workforce of some 80 people with additional network and cyber personnel. Viasat, which is headquartered in Carlsbad, California, said a change of direction on procurement in the upcoming integrated review of defense and security could bring big rewards for government, the military and the domestic defense industry. “The 2020 strategic defense and security review will, if carried out correctly, give the MoD an opportunity to save billions of pounds, end complex procurement procedures and ensure that U.K. armed forces have available the most up-to-date equipment,” Viasat said in its evidence. “This will help to meet the rapidly changing adversarial environment the U.K. is facing. The review must provide a process to deliver a stronger industrial base, with more UK jobs at higher skill levels, achieving greater foreign investment and opportunity for exports,” the company told the committee. “To improve, the MoD needs to simplify the complexity of its huge defense organization into elements that can deliver change for the benefit of the nation, troops and way of life. Behavioral challenges occur where the MoD manages risk and outcomes as the primary objective [to keep the nation safe], but to move forward requires risk-taking,” said the evidence. The MoD's performance has been heavily criticized over many years for late delivery and cost overruns; although often the fault lays with government or the military rather than procurement officials. Despite several efforts to reform procurement, most recently through the Levene and Gray reviews, the right remedy to the problem has been elusive, despite some performance gains. Now, the new integrated defense review, virtually paused for the next few months as a result of the COVID-19 crisis, is likely to have another go at getting it right. Beeching, said that the present procurement policy was failing to produce the required results. “Current procurement procedures have yielded program delays, overspending and higher risks to the MoD. We feel very strongly that a more agile, fused-hybrid approach is needed to procure the appropriate systems and services required to keep pace with technology advancement. By modernizing the procurement process, MoD can work toward better processes to keep the nation safer,” said Beeching. “Its about approach and behaviors. We are not advocating stripping everything apart,” he said. With the COVID-19 crisis grabbing most of the government's attention, a major overhaul of defense procurement may not be on the list of priorities. Beeching, though, said if you wait for the perfect time it will never exist. “The lessons we are learning through things like COVID-19, through other things that are happening in the world, make more imperative that an achievable plan like the one we are proposing moves forward. It will give us more options to get the required capabilities to our service men and women, the government and the cabinet office much quicker than we do today,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/05/14/defense-firm-advocates-hybrid-procurement-system-to-save-billions-in-the-uk/

• 

  11 juin 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  We prepared for war, but should have spent our money elsewhere

  By: Laicie Heeley As the host of a national security podcast literally named “Things That Go Boom,” I spend a lot of my time thinking about what keeps us safe. And usually these thoughts are pretty focused on big, obvious threats — things like bombs. But with the world seemingly imploding, a global pandemic spreading, nationwide protests against police brutality erupting and world economies tanking, it's clearer than ever that we've been preparing for the wrong crisis. You could say we were preparing for World War III, when we got hammered by World War C. Staying safe means recognizing what threats we're facing — the ones we're expecting and the ones that might catch us off guard. But we didn't do that. Instead we invested hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and wars while the coronavirus slipped silently and invisibly across our borders, into our homes and even onto our military aircraft carriers. The greatest threats of the past decade have come in the form of a deadly virus, climate-related natural disasters, economic meltdowns, and attacks on free and fair elections. So why are expensive weapons systems and massive military installations still a foregone conclusion? America spends over $700 billion a year on our national defense. That's about a sixth of our overall budget and more than health care, education and all the rest of our discretionary spending combined. And the money is solid, meaning that most of the time, it's not subject to normal swings in the economy. Things are bad? We can't let the military feel the pain. Things are good? The military has to prepare for the next big threat. Bad or good, it's always a great time to invest. You can't put a price tag on security, they say. And they don't. According to the Watson Institute's Costs of War Project, America's war on terror — which now spans more than 80 countries — has cost taxpayers over $6 trillion since 2001, with no signs of slowing down. And in its latest budget proposal, the Trump administration proposed spending $20 billion more on military programs than on all other federal programs combined. Conversely, in 2018, the Trump administration cut the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's budget by 80 percent, forcing it to scale back its efforts to prevent epidemics in 39 of 49 countries, including China. These and other major cuts to global health spending left the U.S. unprepared for the crisis we're facing now. As vital American businesses — from my son's preschool to our friends' farm — struggle to survive, the defense industry has unsurprisingly had no such problem. In late April, for example, some contractors received a windfall of business when the State Department approved over $2 billion in weapons sales to repressive regimes like India, Morocco and the Philippines, with more supposedly on the way. The defense industry is doing so well in fact that it is showing up on investment lists as an example of one of the best places to “hedge in hard times.” Despite their already deep financial pockets, Congress decided to give these huge contractors billions of dollars in coronavirus relief funds. This comes as a bit of a surprise when you consider that the Pentagon just recently diverted $13.3 billion in unused funds for the construction of the president's border wall. And the first-ever audit of the Department of Defense revealed that it failed to spend almost $28 billion from 2013-2018, all the while asking for more funding. Unfortunately, experts believe this money, which is supposed to be used to help keep workers safe and employed, will instead only help make the companies' executives richer. We're already seeing this play out. Deemed “essential workers” due to the pending arms sales, workers in these manufacturing plants recently went on strike after they were forced to go to work even as a number of their colleagues tested positive for coronavirus. Flush with additional resources from a growing military budget, and as other departments' budgets have been cut, the Pentagon has also become deeply embedded in domestic affairs. Last year, Defense Secretary Mark Esper went so far as to proclaim election security a core part of the Pentagon's mission, despite the hesitance of past officials to allow such forms of military creep. The separation of the civilian and the military is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. The breakdown of these norms isn't good for our country, and it isn't good for the Pentagon, which has already sounded the alarm on what the military can — and cannot — do to deal with the pandemic. What's more, the migration of funds to the Pentagon saps other agencies of vital and limited resources. By many accounts, it also makes us worse at winning wars, as the Pentagon foregoes more focused and essential strategic planning in favor of a do-it-all, buy-it-all reality. Consider that some estimates put the annual cost of eradicating homelessness in the United States at about $20 billion, and the cost of eradicating hunger in America at about $26 billion. And consider, in the midst of an outbreak, that we could buy 2,200 ventilators for the price of one F-35. It doesn't have to be this way. While some may see the Pentagon budget as a sacred cow, it's not. Reconsidering our spending to invest more heavily in the programs that really keep us safe is not only possible, but long overdue. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/06/10/we-prepared-for-war-but-should-have-spent-our-money-elsewhere/