Defense Department study calls for cutting 2 of the US Navy’s aircraft carriers

Sur le même sujet

• 

  17 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Budget and pandemic present challenges to Russia’s defense industrial base

  By: Fenella McGerty The two Russian defense companies in this year's Top 100 list — air defense missile systems manufacturer Almaz-Antey and weapons developer Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC — have again fallen in rank. Almaz-Antey has fallen to 17th place from 8th and 15th in 2018 and 2019 respectively. Similarly, Tactical Missiles Corporation JSC has fallen to 35th place from 25th and 32nd in 2018 and 2019 respectively. The falling revenues of the companies this year reflect the difficult market conditions these enterprises are operating in as a result of the impact of COVID-19 on government budgets. Even before the pandemic and the consequent contraction in economic output emerged, the outlook for Russian defense spending was already subdued in light of persistently low oil prices in 2019. Domestic spending was further constrained this year as the oil price fell below $20 per barrel in April, with the projected average price for the year reaching just $40 per barrel. The International Monetary Fund forecasts a 6.6 percent contraction in Russia's real gross domestic product this year as lockdown measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 subdued domestic and international economic activity, the latter further weakening global energy demand. The 4.1 percent growth projected for 2021 means the Russian economy will only return to pre-pandemic output in 2022. Last month, as part of wider measures to offset the bleaker fiscal setting, the Russian Ministry of Finance proposed a 5 percent reduction in financing for the state armament program over the next three years. Under the new plans, the 20 trillion rouble (U.S. $271 billion), 10-year military appropriations program (known as GPV 2027) that runs to 2027 covering defense procurement, repairs, research and development, and infrastructure investment will be reduced by a total of 225 billion roubles between 2021 and 2023. Wider defense funding could be reduced by as much 323 billion roubles. The previous state armament program (GPV 2020) saw significant increases enacted to defense investment between 2011 and 2016 as the country pursued ambitious modernization targets. As a proportion of GDP, the official Russian defense budget peaked in 2015 at 3.8 percent. If one includes wider defense spending items such as military pensions, social support and housing, total Russia expenditure accounted for as much at 4.8 percent of GDP that year. This period of significant defense investment helped to recover some lost ground from the previous two decades. Progress was remarkable but by no means comprehensive, with strategic nuclear forces and defense aerospace surpassing modernization targets, while maritime and land forces fared less well. Pockets of advanced capability — e.g., air defense, weapons, combat aircraft — evolved alongside less efficient entities that failed to deliver against the ambitions of GPV 2020. Nonetheless, as Russia approached the overarching target of 70 percent “modern” equipment within the armed forces inventory, defense spending increases slowed and the country moved from a period of dramatic capability buildup toward a sustainment phase — a move further presaged by wider economic constraints at the time As such, GPV 2027 is less ambitious than GPV 2020, and annual defense budget allocations have reflected this. Russian defense spending has been stagnant in real terms since 2017, as sanctions impacted government finances, energy revenues remained subdued and modernization ambitions were deemed close to fulfillment. Official projections of the budget for national defense saw slightly stronger growth in 2021 and 2022, although this was proposed in the months before the full economic ramifications of the pandemic were realized. Russian companies therefore face a tighter domestic market — as indeed will most countries in the wake of the pandemic — while the burden of debt has stifled investment in new technologies and R&D. This lack of funds to invest in research has created a further challenge for companies facing increasing political pressure domestically to diversify production efforts toward the civil market. The reported moves to restructure defense industry debt will ease some of the stress on companies and provide some temporary bandwidth with which to focus on investment. However, such moves will further constrain domestic defense spending, as funds to absolve debt will inevitably squeeze investment elsewhere in the budget. Perhaps on the positive side, the further weakening of the rouble against the dollar in 2020 has the potential to provide Russian defense equipment with an added price advantage in global defense markets and to facilitate exports. The comparatively cheaper kit will appeal to countries that find they have less investment funds at their disposal than a year ago. As competition in export markets intensifies and funding tightens, buyers may find they can demand greater industrial participation, partnership and technology transfer in moves to bolster self-sufficiency and resilience. Markets which have previously shown preference for Western equipment may find such capabilities are no longer affordable with Russia's relative willingness to offer favorable exchange rate agreements and flexible financing terms, offering a further advantage in constrained export markets. Fenella McGerty is a senior fellow for defense economics at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/08/17/budget-and-pandemic-present-challenges-to-russias-defense-industrial-base

• 

  20 mars 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Lockheed Martin is Waging War on Boeing’s F-15EX

  BY MARCUS WEISGERBER The F-35 makers sees the Pentagon's plans to buy new F-15s for the first time in 19 years as a threat. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has reportedly been racking up kills against older warplanes during U.S. military drills in Nevada — even the F-15, whose record in real combat is a flawless 104 to zero. Now the two jets are heading into a fierce dogfight, one that doesn't involve missiles or guns. The battle between Lockheed Martin's F-35 and Boeing's F-15EX is being fought by lobbyists in and around Congress, which is beginning to review the Pentagon's fiscal 2020 budget request. Tens of billions of dollars are up for grabs over the coming decade. This week, Pentagon officials proposed buying new F-15s for the first time since 2001, even though top Air Force officials have said as recently as two weeks ago that they didn't necessarily want the the planes. For nearly two decades, Air Force officials have argued against buying so-called fourth-generation planes, preferring for stealthier fifth-generation planes with newer technology. The proposed F-15 purchase is rather small: eight jets in 2020 and a total of 80 through 2024. By comparison, the Pentagon wants to buy 78 F-35s in 2020, with 48 going to the Air Force. SUBSCRIBE Receive daily email updates: Subscribe to the Defense One daily. Be the first to receive updates. But Pentagon budget documents also signal that the Air Force could buy hundreds of F-15s over the next decade. A tranche of 144 planes would “initially refresh” squadrons that fly Cold War-era F-15C Eagles designed for air-to-air combat. And the plane has the “potential to refresh the remainder of the F-15C/D fleet and the F-15E fleet.” In all, that's more than 400 planes. That was enough to draw a full-court press from Lockheed. One day after that announcement, company officials began circulating a three-page white paper detailing the “F-35's decisive edge” over unnamed fourth-generation warplanes. Defense One reviewed the white paper. Lockheed's arguments boil down to bang-for-the-buck: The F-35 will cost about the same or less than the F-15 soon (the long-criticized price has in fact been coming down), its operating costs will be less than the F-15's within six years, and it can fly a more diverse set of missions. Boeing's argument: The F-35 was never intended to replace the air-to-air F-15C — but the F-15EXcould do so while expanding those squadrons' capabilities. Pilots would not need to extensive training to fly the jet, which could carry heavy loads of weapons, plus Eagle bases would not need major infrastructure upgrades. And the new F-15EX is multirole, similar to the F-15E Strike Eagle, meaning that it could strike targets in the air, on the ground or at sea. Boeing has been pitching new F-15s to the Air Force on and off for more than a decade, most recently offering a similar version of the plane it builds for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The latest effort started to pick up steam last summer. The idea was embraced within parts of the Air Force, but not by top Air Force leaders. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson acknowledged on Feb. 28 that the planes were not in the service's initial budget plans. But analysis by the Joint Staff and Pentagon Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office “on the kinds of capabilities that we require in the aviation realm” led officials to recommend buying the F-15EX, a senior defense official said. Elaine McCusker, the Pentagon deputy comptroller, said Tuesday that former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis made the decision to include the F-15EX in the Defense Department's budget request. “The F-35 remains a critical program for the joint force as we look to the future and the kinds of capabilities we require,” Lt. Gen. Anthony Ierardi, director of force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, said Tuesday. “The F-15EX provides additional capacity and readiness, especially in the near years to mid years, as we look at the threats and the kinds of combat potential that we needed to bring to bear.” Whether Congress agrees with that rationale is yet to be seen. In February, five Republican senators — all with ties to Lockheed F-35 manufacturing work or F-35 bases — sent a letter to President Trump in opposition of the F-15EX. “We are extremely concerned that, over the last few years, the DoD has underfunded the F-35 Program and relied on Congress to fund increases in production, sustainment, and modernization,” they group led by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, wrote. “In order to meet the overmatch and lethality goals laid out in the National Security Strategy, the DoD needs to make these investments in the F-35 to affordably deliver and operate this fifth-generation fighter fleet. The F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, and survivable air dominance fighter, and now is the time to double down on the program.” The 2020 budget request includes $11.2 billion to buy 78 F-35s — 48, which would be Air Force jets. That money would also go toward improving jets already built. Lawmakers have routinely added F-35s to the Pentagon's request. For instance, last year they added 16 planes to the 77 requested by the Defense Department. The 2020 budget request includes $1.1 billion for the eight F-15EX jets. Some of that money would go toward standing up the production line. About a month after Bloomberg first reported in December that eight F-15EX jets would be in the budget request, Marillyn Hewson, Lockheed's CEO, said Pentagon leaders told her that F-15 buys would not be at the expense of the F-35. “The combat proven F-35 is the National Defense Strategy in action and the program continues to see strong support throughout the Pentagon, the U.S. Services, Congress and the White House,” the company said in an emailed statement. Pentagon officials have been insisted that any F-15EX buys would not eat into planned F-35 buys. In all, the Pentagon plans to buy a total 2,443 jets over the coming decades. “If Congress changes that to all F-35s, they'll be all F-35s, we understand that,” Maj. Gen. David Krumm, director of strategic plans in the office of the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements at the Pentagon, said Thursday at the Mitchell Institute. “But based upon the resources we have and the ownership costs of the platforms, we think that this is the best way that we can present the nation's Air Force and the best way we can get to a capabilities and capacities that we have. “If we have more resources, I think we need to have a conversation about what it is we go for,” he said. “But based upon the resources that we have, we think that this is the right way to go.” https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/03/lockheed-martin-waging-war-boeings-f-15ex/155598

• 

  16 juillet 2020 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

  The key to securing the defense industrial base is collaboration

  Teresa Shea With cyber threats constantly evolving and increasing in sophistication, a strong national cybersecurity posture has never been more important. COVID-19 is causing an uncertainty across industry sectors, and criminals as well as adversaries are increasing their cyber-attacks and taking advantage of our increased digital work from home dependence. It is especially important to protect the organizations that comprise the U.S. Defense Industrial Base. Defined as the “worldwide industrial complex that enables research and development, as well as design, production, delivery, and maintenance of military weapons systems, subsystems, and components or parts, to meet U.S. military requirements,” Defense industrial base networks host mission-critical information and operational assets vital to national security. If infiltrated, the ramifications could plague the U.S. national security strategy, hamper our warfighting edge, create chaos within the critical infrastructure and ultimately undermine adversary deterrence. To effectively protect the Defense Industrial Base, the government and private sector must both work to secure the U.S. critical infrastructure. Organizations should prioritize collaboration to bolster the nation's cyber resiliency and collectively defend against malicious cyber actors' intent on doing us harm. Proactively defend networks It's widely known that, in an ideal world, organizations should stop threats before they reach their targets. However, to deter effectively, organizations need to have real-time situational awareness of their network infrastructure and supply chain, which can be a difficult undertaking. Threat intelligence information sharing between the government and the private sector companies that comprise the Defense Industrial Base is essential to achieving a strategic view of an advanced threat actor. Today, targets can only know what is happening to their own assets without insight into the attacker's intent. The Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Program allows both the DoD and private companies to share cyber threat information, mitigation and remediation strategies, which helps key players in both sectors increase cyber situational awareness and be more proactive in their security efforts. However, this program is currently voluntary, meaning that the crucial information uncovered within the program is only available to those who proactively join the program. Moving forward, both the public and private sectors must work to enact policies that require collaboration. It is no longer acceptable to rely on incident response protocols, performance assessments of existing systems and one-off reactions to threats without coordination. Increased information sharing is key to staying one step ahead of our adversaries. Follow government-suggested guidelines The U.S. government has dedicated time and resources to help secure the Defense Industrial Base, and organizations must act upon the recommendations provided. Earlier this year, the Cyberspace Solarium Commission released a report on the U.S. government's cyber readiness, which found that “the U.S. is currently not designed to act with the speed and agility necessary to defend the country in cyberspace.” The commission's findings place an emphasis on protecting the Defense Industrial Base's intellectual property, and called on Congress to require that these firms share threat data with the DoD and conduct threat hunting on their networks. Both sharing threat data and conducting threat hunting are proven to result in increased defense of our networks. A secure future As noted in a recent LawFare blog, “Cyber-enabled intellectual property theft from the DIB and adversary penetration of DIB networks and systems pose an existential threat to U.S. national security.” Given the abundance of cyber-attacks focused on Defense Industrial Base networks, penetrating them is high on our adversaries' target list. They're currently zeroing in on the U.S. critical infrastructure, attempting to poach the intellectual property that secures our very nation. Until we are willing to come together across sectors to share threat data, and commit to hiring strong talent, we will remain at a disadvantage. Fundamentally, it is about trust and our ability to put the greater defense above individual interests. If accomplished, the U.S. cybersecurity posture and resiliency will remain strong, deterring malicious cyberattacks against our Defense Industrial Base. https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/07/15/the-key-to-securing-the-defense-industrial-base-is-collaboration/