France requests Switchblade loitering munition to fill 'urgent' capability gap

Sur le même sujet

• 

  4 septembre 2024 | International, Aérospatial

  Space Development Agency’s first satellites demo key capabilities

  This week’s test involved two satellites, built by SpaceX, exchanging data via a laser-communication link.

• 

  9 novembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  BAE, Boeing, Lockheed respond to new Japanese F-X RFI

  By Greg Waldron5 November 2020 BAE Systems, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin have replied to a request for information (RFI) related to work on Tokyo's F-X future fighter programme. Japan's Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA) confirms that the RFI was issued on 16 September, with seven companies showing initial interest. Only BAE, Boeing and Lockheed replied prior to the RFI's deadline – the Lockheed bid also involves Northrop Grumman. “MHI (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) will conduct conceptual design to look for the best fighter configuration to meet the requirement,” says ATLA. “Receiving the answers of the RFI from 3 companies, [the ministry of defence] will assess them and choose a candidate company by the end of the year.” News of the RFI responses follows the 30 October confirmation that the ministry had signed a contract with MHI to develop the F-X, which will succeed the Mitsubishi-produced F-2 in the 2030s. BAE, which is leading the international Tempest programme in Europe, says that its response to the RFI discusses the company's technical capabilities across a range of areas where BAE can support F-X development. “We are delighted to have submitted our response to the Japanese Ministry of Defence and we firmly believe that we can add significant value to the F-X programme,” says Andy Latham, campaign delivery director – Japan, for BAE Systems' Air business. “We have decades of experience of partnering with nations around the world to deliver sovereign capability. Our track record of collaborating on complex combat aircraft programmes has provided us with insight and understanding of the likely challenges and the range of capabilities, technologies and relationships required to successfully deliver the next generation of such programmes.” Boeing has extensive combat aircraft experience in Japan, including involvement in upgrading Tokyo's fleet of F-15J fighters to a new “Japanese Super Interceptor” standard. “We are honoured to have been invited to submit a proposal to support the design and production of Japan's next generation fighter,” says Boeing. “Our proposal is for a Japan-led, next-generation fighter with cutting-edge technology based on the best of Japanese industry and Boeing. We have a strong and rich history of partnering with Japan, and a proven track record in advanced fighters, which will ensure a low-cost, low-risk approach for the Government of Japan and Japanese industry, along with key Japan-US interoperability.” Lockheed also has a long history in Japan. The F-2 is a derivative of the F-16, and Tokyo is in the process of obtaining up to 147 F-35s, which would make it the second largest operator of the type. MHI operates a final assembly line for the F-35. “Lockheed Martin has responded to Japan's F-X request for information (RFI) with Northrop Grumman,” says the company. “Our comprehensive RFI response outlines potential areas of development support and participation that could significantly reduce F-X development costs and schedule by leveraging close industry cooperation with Japan's F-X integrator, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, and ensuring indigenous design and sovereignty.” The company points to its experience with stealth aircraft, and also touches on the importance of interoperability with assets such as the F-35. “We firmly believe that we are well positioned to partner with MHI to cost-effectively develop Japan's next fighter and continue supporting the evolution of Japan's technological capabilities.” https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/bae-boeing-lockheed-respond-to-new-japanese-f-x-rfi/140995.article?adredir=1

• 

  14 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let’s move to protect the alliance.

  By: Sophia Becker , Christian Mölling , and Torben Schütz The global fight against COVID-19 has devastating economic consequences which might soon be felt in the defense sector. First estimates by OECD and national institutions conclude that the initial economic impact of the measures to fight the virus will by far exceed that of the 2008 financial crisis. The severe socio-economic consequences may tempt European governments to prioritize immediate economic relief over long-term strategic security and defense considerations. The good news is: there is no automatism – it remains fundamentally a political decision. If European governments do decide to slash defense spending as a result of the current crisis, it would be the second major hit within a decade. Defense budgets have only just begun to recover towards pre-2008 crisis levels, though capabilities have not. Nationally, as well as on an EU and NATO level, significant gaps still exist. European armies have lost roughly one-third of their capabilities over the last two decades. At the same time, the threat environment has intensified with an openly hostile Russia and a rising China. With European defense budgets under pressure, the United States might see any effort to balance burden-sharing among allies fall apart. A militarily weak Europe would be no help against competitors either. The US should work with allies now to maintain NATO's capabilities. Improve coordination to avoid past mistakes Europe's cardinal mistake from the last crisis was uncoordinated national defense cuts instead of harmonized European decisions. In light of the looming budget crisis, governments could be tempted to react the same way. This would be the second round of cuts within a decade, leaving not many capabilities to pool within NATO. If domestic priorities trump considerations about procurement of equipment for the maintenance and generation of military capabilities the system-wide repercussions would be severe. NATO defense, as well as the tightly knit industrial network in Europe, will suffer. Capabilities that can only be generated or sustained multinationally – like effective air defense, strategic air transport or naval strike groups - could become even more fragile; some critical ones may even disappear. If Europeans cut back on capabilities like anti-submarine warfare, armored vehicles of all sorts and mine-warfare equipment again, they could endanger the military capacity of nearly all allies. Ten years ago, such capabilities for large-scale and conventional warfare seemed rather superfluous, but today NATO needs them more than ever. This outcome should be avoided at all costs, because rebuilding those critical forces would be a considerable resource investment and could take years. Europe would become an even less effective military actor and partner to the US, resulting in more discord about burden-sharing. Uncoordinated cuts would also affect the defense industry, as development and procurement programs would be delayed or cancelled altogether – hitting both European and American companies. Moreover, their ability to increase efficiency through transnational mergers and acquisitions and economies of scale is limited due to continued national sentiments in Europe. Companies might decide to either aggressively internationalize, including massive increase of defense exports, or leave the market as national armed forces as otherwise reliable clients drop out. Technological innovation would suffer from a shrinking defense industrial ecosystem and duplicated national research and development efforts, risking the foundation of security for the next generation of defense solutions. To safeguard NATO's strategic autonomy, lean on lead nations In order to prevent the loss of critical capabilities and infrastructure within NATO, the US should immediately start working with its European partners to preemptively plan for increasingly tight budgets. NATO should take stock of existing capabilities and offer alternatives for consolidation. Based on a coordinated effort to redefine NATO's level of ambition and priorities, it should offer plans for maintaining the military capacity to act while retiring unnecessary and outdated resources. Such a coordinated effort should include close cooperation with the European Union. Building on the NATO Framework Nations Concept, the United States should work with a network of larger member states, better equipped to weather the economic shock of the current crisis, to act as lead nations. These countries could safeguard critical defense capabilities and provide a foundation of essential forces, enabling smaller partners to attach their specialized capabilities. Such an arrangement allows for a comparatively good balance of financial strain and retention of military capacity. Additionally, NATO should look beyond the conventional military domain and build on lessons learned from hybrid warfare and foreign influence operations against Europe. The way ahead is clear: As ambitions for European strategic autonomy become wishful thinking in light of the current crisis, allies should focus on retaining NATO's strategic autonomy as a whole. For the foreseeable future, both sides of the Atlantic have to live by one motto: NATO first! The authors are analysts at the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/09/the-coronavirus-threatens-nato-lets-move-to-protect-the-alliance/