Europe : malgré l'aiguillon Trump, la défense commune n'avance qu'à petits pas

Sur le même sujet

• 

  23 juin 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Contracts for June 21, 2021

  Today

• 

  23 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  130 House members want 24 percent more F-35s procured in FY21

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — One hundred thirty members of the House of Representatives are asking key defense committees in Congress to increase the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters by 24 percent over the number requested by the Pentagon in fiscal 2021. “Our adversaries continue to advance surface-to-air missile systems and develop their own stealth fighters,” read the letter, released Wednesday. “It is essential that we continue to increase production of our nation's only 5th generation stealth fighter in order to ensure the United States maintains air dominance and to further reduce overall program costs.” The letter, addressed to the chairs of the Senate and House Armed Services committees and Appropriations Defense subcommittees, is authored by Reps. John Larson, D-Conn.; Marc. Veasey, D-Texas; Martha Roby, R-Ala.; and Michael Turner, R-Ohio — the four leaders of the bipartisan F-35 caucus. Last year, the four also joined forces to write a similar request, which garnered 103 signatories. The Defense Department's budget request asks for 79 F-35s, including 48 of the F-35A model used by the Air Force, 10 F-35Bs used by the Marines and 21 F-35C models used by the Navy. In the letter, the congressmen note that number is 19 less jets than Congress appropriated in FY20. However, that number creates “a capability gap that 4th Generation, or legacy, aircraft cannot fulfill,” the letter warned. “To reach the minimum 50% ratio of 5th Generation and 4th Generation fighters in the timeframe required to meet the threat, the U.S. must acquire F-35s in much larger quantities.” Instead, the members want a 24 percent increase in fighters procurement, going up to 98 total, including 12 more F-35As, two more F-35Bs and 26 more F-35Cs. Those numbers match the fighter increase listed by the Air Force in its unfunded requirements document sent to Congress earlier this year; the Navy requested only five more F-35C variants, while the Marines did not request more. The letter was first reported by Politico. In addition to the increase in planes bought, the members are seeking additional funding for “spare parts and depot level repair capability to meet the required availability rates and accelerate the stand-up of mandated, organic government repair capabilities.” Additionally, investments are sought for the program dedicated to the jet's reliability, maintainability and improvement, as well as a “long-term, outcome-based sustainment contract” that would guarantee performance metrics at a fixed price. The members then request the committees fully fund the budget request for the continuous capability development and delivery (C2D2) modernization effort and use existing funds to accelerate integration of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile onto the jet. Earlier this year, the Pentagon's independent weapons tester called the current schedule for C2D2 “high risk” and said the program office is struggling to stay on schedule. “C2D2 is critical to meeting the evolving threat in the mid-2020s and into the 2030s. Full funding is needed for the delivery of new weapons and critical capabilities necessary to keep the F-35 ahead of our adversaries,” the members wrote. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/03/19/130-house-members-want-24-percent-more-f-35s-procured-in-fy21/

• 

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

  Army Study Asks: How Much Modernization Can We Afford?

  The Army's drive to modernize by 2035 is too big for traditional five-year spending plans, acquisition chief Bruce Jette said. So he's reviving long-term economic forecasting used in the Cold War. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on June 09, 2020 at 12:37 PM WASHINGTON: The Army's acquisition chief says the service is sticking with its 34 top-priority programs – in the face of budget pressure from the pandemic. But most of those programs will only move from prototypes to mass production in the second half of the 2020s; then they stay in service for decades with repeated upgrades. So, assistant secretary Bruce Jette says, the Army needs to exploit new technologies like 3D printing and modular upgrades to reduce long-term costs – but also revive long-term economic forecasting techniques largely neglected since the Cold War. “At this point, we're remaining on schedule with the ‘31 plus 3,'” Jette said during an Association of the US Army webcast yesterday. (The Army divides the 34 programs this way because 31 of them, from intermediate-range missiles to smart rifles, are managed by Army Futures Command, but three of the most technologically challenging – hypersonic missiles and two types of missile defense lasers – belong to the independent Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technologies Office). But the service needs to do more planning: “A second thing in the background that we are doing is taking a look at a holistic model, an economic model of the Army.” “We are taking some steps to provide additional data in case there's a prioritization that does come down the road, due to changes in the budget profiles,” Jette said. “That business requires us to have this long-term full understanding of economics, which is what we're focused on trying to develop over the next year.” That study will help inform Army leaders if they have to make a hard choice on which of the 34 priority programs to put first – and, while Jette didn't say so aloud, which may be cut back or canceled entirely. Beyond 2026 The Pentagon normally builds its annual budget two years ahead of time. Congress is now considering the 2021 request, largely drafted in 2019. Those budgets include a less-detailed annex, called the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) that outlines the five years ahead. Now, some of the Army's new weapons will enter service in that timeframe, in limited numbers, including new hypersonic and intermediate-range missiles in 2023. But many, including some of the most expensive, will take longer. So new armored vehicles won't enter service until 2028, new high-speed aircraft not until 2030. Actually building enough to equip a sizable combat force takes even longer. The Army aims to build a decisive counter to Russian aggression by 2028, but expect a force adequate to counter China only by 2035. “I have to have a much longer view of the battlespace, the economic battle space,” Jette said. “The objective [is] to lay a foundation upon which we can take a serious look at what the long-term implications of owning a piece of equipment,” he said. So “I'm working with the G-8 [the Army's deputy chief of staff for resourcing]. In fact, we just had a meeting on this last week to pull out some models that were actually used more in the Cold War, that we sort of let wane [during] Iraq and Afghanistan.... Next week I go up to West Point to have ORSA [Operations Research/Systems Analysis] cell up there that specifically is focused on economics.” New Tricks Now, the Army doesn't plan to simply repeat its Cold War past. The Reagan-era “Big Five” – the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley armored vehicles, Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, and Patriot missile defense system – have been repeatedly upgraded since their inception. But these platforms are running out of room for more horsepower, armor protection, and firepower, and they were never designed to allow the constant upgrades required to keep pace with modern advances in electronics. The M1 Abrams, for instance, is literally hard-wired. “There are literally, in a tank, over a couple of tons of cabling, all tremendously expensive and all very, very structured,” said Jette, a former tanker himself. “So if you want to change something ... you have to re-cable large portions of it.” The Army must account not only for the up-front cost to research, develop, and build the new weapons, Jette emphasized, but also the much larger long-term bill to operate, maintain and upgrade them. “If we don't think about how it's going to be enhance-able, upgradable, and modified for different uses over a period of time,” he said, “we're missing things, because we do keep them for 30, 40 years. “For industry, if you have a good idea and a new component, how do we get them in a vehicle without having to replace half of the components?” he asked. That requires a new approach called modular open systems architecture that allows you to plug-and-play any new component as long as it meets certain technical standards. “By getting this much more open architecture in place on these vehicles,” he said, “we think that we're going to be able to keep them growing to the future over that 30 to 40 year period.” The Army is also eager to use digital designs, 3D printing, and other advanced manufacturing techniques so it can print out spare parts as needed, rather than stockpile vast quantities of everything it might need for every system. (Jette just visited the Army's 3-D printing hub at Rock Island Arsenal, he said enthusiastically). But this vision raises complex issues of not only managing the technical data but wrangling out the legal rights to use it. Many companies depend on the long-term revenue from selling spares and upgrades, and they're not It's a knotty intellectual property issue that Jette is keenly aware of, being a patent-holder and former small businessman himself. “I do understand ... what type of risk it is. I'll frankly admit that many of the people in the military who fundamentally only been in the military don't understand,” Jette said. “If the risk is totally on you, and it makes no economic sense, I recommend you not answering the RFP.” If too few companies respond to an official Request For Proposals, Jette said, that provides valuable feedback to the Army that maybe it's doing something wrong – feedback he can use in his own quest to educate the service. “Sometimes,” he said, “challenges to RFPs are a good way for you to help me to make sure that people understand that this is too much risk we're asking of industry.” https://breakingdefense.com/2020/06/army-study-asks-how-much-modernization-can-we-afford