How the new acting Pentagon chief views cybersecurity

Sur le même sujet

• 

  9 décembre 2019 | International, Naval

  France orders six patrol ships, equipped with drones and able to secure prisoners

  By: Christina Mackenzie PARIS — France has ordered six 70-meter-long (230-feet-long) offshore patrol vessels from Socarenam, a shipyard in Boulogne-sur-Mer on the country's northern coast, to patrol its vast economic exclusive zone. The announcement was made earlier this week by French President Emmanuel Macron at the Maritime Economy Congress in Montpellier, southern France. These kinds of announcements are usually either made by the minister for the armed forces or by the DGA procurement agency. Following the president's announcement, the Armed Forces Ministry said in a statement that the ships had been ordered “in a context of increasing threats to our fishing resources, biodiversity and international maritime rules." "France intends to fully exercise her sovereignty and responsibilities both in her metropolitan and overseas territories,” the statement continued. France has the largest economic exclusive zone in the world, at about 4,514,000 square miles. By comparison, the United States's EEZ comes in at about 4,383,000 square miles. Each vessel's draft is no more than 3.8 meters, has a maximum speed of at least 22 knots that it can hold for 24 hours but with a normal cruising speed of between 12 to 14 knots, and has a range of 5,500 nautical miles. This enables the ships to stay at sea for a month. French media reports the ships are likely to carry a 20mm remotely controlled gun and machine guns, but no official weapons specifications have been published. The tender and the technical specifications, issued by the DGA in 2018, called for the ships to be able to deploy a 700-kilogram-class rotor-blade drone, and to be able to keep it under cover. The tender also said the ships should be able to deploy divers and two high-speed intervention boats, as well as keep six prisoners secure. The ships will be delivered to the French Navy between 2022 and 2025. That time frame is two years ahead of the schedule laid out in the 2019-2025 Military Program Law. The value of the order has not been disclosed. “I have decided, as is specified in the Military Program Law, to further strengthen the protection of our maritime spaces. The order for six new overseas patrol boats was officially launched last week by the armed forces minister,” Macron said. “With these ships we will acquire a capacity that we have never yet had on the maritime front to protect our spaces and take on this mantle as a balance of power in the maritime sector.” “We are building a European maritime capacity,” he added, noting that he assumed “responsibility for France taking the leadership.” The ships, known in France as POM (patrouilleur outre-mer), will be based in France's Pacific Ocean territories of New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and the French overseas department in the Indian Ocean, Réunion. Some of the ships will join the Pacific fleet at the Nouméa naval base in New Caledonia and at Fare Ute Papeete in Tahiti. Others will join the Indian Ocean fleet at Port Réunion. A naval spokesperson told Defense News that the exact destination for each ship had not yet been officially announced. The order for these six ships is a continuation of a program to bolster France's protection of its maritime regions. Three patrol vessels were delivered between 2016 and October 2019 to the Caribbean region and Guyana on South America's northeastern coast. The three vessels were also built by Socarenam, which has sites in Calais, Dunkirk, Étaples and Saint-Malo. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/12/06/france-orders-six-patrol-ships-equipped-with-drones-and-able-to-secure-prisoners

• 

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

  House progressives demand Pentagon cuts, citing pandemic

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― More than two dozen Democrats are demanding that House Armed Services Committee leaders cut defense spending in the 2021 defense policy bill, saying the money would be better spent combating the coronavirus pandemic. A May 19 letter, mostly from Congressional Progressive Caucus members, marked a prelude to what could be complicated efforts to pass the National Defense Authorization Act in the Democrat-led House. The panel is expected in the coming weeks to introduce and mark up a draft, in line with the $740 billion top line set by the 2019 budget deal. But 29 Democrats ― led by House Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Mark Pocan of Wisconsin and Rep. Barbara Lee, a senior appropriator and California progressive ― said the defense spending should be lower than last year's $738 billion top line. With Americans dying from COVID-19 by the thousands, tax dollars would be better spent on an expansion of testing, contact tracing, treatment and vaccine development, they said. “Congress must remain focused on responding to the coronavirus pandemic and distributing needed aid domestically,” the lawmakers wrote. “In order to do so, appropriators must have access to increased levels of non-defense spending which could be constrained by any increase to defense spending.” “Right now, the coronavirus is our greatest adversary. It has killed more than 90,000 Americans, far surpassing the number of casualties during the Vietnam War,” the letter read. “America needs a coronavirus cure, not more war. We need more testing, not more bombs." How the loss of support from 29 House Democrats will factor into passage of the NDAA remains to be seen. In a note accompanying the letter, the organizers noted that if Republicans held back support ― which they did last year ― only 19 Democrats would need to vote “no” this year for the bill to fail. Last year, House Republicans resisted an early version of the 2020 bill written by House Democrats, but even after many of their priorities were stripped out in negotiations with the Republican-controlled Senate, the compromise bill still passed the House without them, 377-48. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi found common ground with the White House on an eleventh hour paid parental leave provision that attracted most Democrats. This year, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., has spoken in favor of working to protect the defense-industrial base through stimulus funding. But with a stimulus bill caught in a partisan deadlock, it's unclear whether lawmakers will see the NDAA as a potential vehicle for defense industry aid. If so, that could be a sticking point. Last month, Smith told reporters that public health needs were more pressing and that within the Pentagon's existing $738 billion budget, defense officials "have a lot of money and ought to spend that money to meet those needs” before Congress considers more. HASC ranking member Mac Thornberry, who led early Republican opposition to last year's bill, has said he is hopeful this year's bill will be more bipartisan. Thornberry, R-Texas, also opposed the idea of cutting defense to fund health care needs. “I bristle a bit at the notion, ‘well, of course [the Department of Defense has] got to get their budget cut,' " he said, “because the world's not going to be safer on the other side of COVID.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/05/19/house-progressives-demand-pentagon-cuts-citing-pandemic/

• 

  29 octobre 2019 | International, Naval

  Submarines are poised to take on a major role in strike warfare, but is that a good idea?

  By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is preparing to ink one of the largest contracts in its history with General Dynamics Electric Boat and the firm's partner shipyard Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News that will make the new generation of attack submarines a major force in strike warfare. The Block V Virginia contract is expected to produce 11 boats with eight Virginia Payload Modules, and will triple the Virginia's Tomahawk Land Attack Missile capacity to 40 missiles per hull. Experts say that the new Virginia Payload Module will also be large enough to accommodate boost-glide hypersonic missiles like those the Navy is developing with the Army. But the logic for the Virginia Payload Module has always been about replacing the Ohio-class guided missile submarines retiring in the 2020s. Because submarines have been the Navy's go-to asset to penetrate areas threated by Chinese and Russian surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles, attack submarines loaded with strike missiles would have to be the ones to get close enough to be able to launch land-attack strikes. That model upends decades of the surface Navy's supremacy in the world of strike warfare from the sea, but experts are beginning to question the logic of giving the strike warfare mission to submariners in an era of great power competition. With Russia and, to an even greater extent, China investing heavily in anti-submarine technology, does it make sense to give a stealthy asset a mission that will blow its cover? Bryan Clark, a retired submariner and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, wonders if the surface fleet is the best place inside the force to house the strike mission. “I think the requirement may be changing,” he said in an Oct. 22 phone call with Defense News. “Over the past 10 years there has been a real emphasis on the submarine as the one tool we have that may be able to get into contested areas — the East and South China seas, up in the north Atlantic, etc. “That's changing now: These countries are investing in their own anti-submarine warfare systems. China has put a lot of money into ASW systems, they are installing surveillance systems akin to our SOSUS [sound surveillance system]. So the idea that our submarines are our go-to asset to gain access, that may not be true in the next few years as it was in the past 10, so there is a question as to whether we should be investing in submarines to maintain the undersea strike capacity.” ‘Increasingly vulnerable' The issue is not just that submarines run the risk of being detected, which is an ever-present risk anytime a submarine leaves the pier, but that it won't be able to create the volume of fires that the surface fleet could, especially with new concepts in development such as a large unmanned surface vessel that could act as a kind of arsenal ship. “The surface fleet is likely going to be our best strike capacity asset in the next decade,” Clark said. “Submarines are going to be increasingly vulnerable, so the question becomes: Do I want to take my [Virginia Payload Module]-equipped SSN, put it inside the South China Sea to launch strikes, get counter-detected and harassed for days afterward? I lose it from the fight for a long time just evading attacks. “Whereas if you used unmanned surface vessel[s], those can launch just as many cruise missiles as a Virginia class, many times cheaper; they can rotate, get reloaded and just keep launching strikes at a much higher rate of fire as you would ever get out of the SSN force.” Jerry Hendrix, a retired naval flight officer and analyst with The Telemus Group, agreed that the surface fleet is likely going to be the place to house a strike capability, especially in the era of mass hypersonic fires, because of the cost it would impose on the U.S. to try to match Chinese capabilities on subs. “I think there is a powerful argument to distribute these weapons across the surface force,” Hendrix said. “If you can create a strike weapon that allows the surface force to stand outside of DF-21 and DF-26 range and shoot three-pointers from outside, then yes. To create mass and volume in the submerged force is twice to three times as expensive as it is to create that volume from the surface force. “So there is a solid argument just from the standpoint of cost. If I was trying to create 2,000 tubes of hypersonics — which are much more massive than Tomahawks, wont fit into a Mark 41 vertical launch system and hence will have to go into a different configuration — to create that mass in the submerged force is going to be very expensive.” The Navy is looking at back-fitting destroyers with larger vertical launching system tubes to accommodate so-called prompt-strike weapons, Defense News reported in June. But some analysts say the mission is better suited for a large unmanned surface vessel. “I think this is going to one of the main things driving the design of the large unmanned surface combatant,” said Dan Gouré, an analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank. “We're back to arsenal ship: long-range, park it into a surface action group of carrier strike group — kind of like a surface version of the SSGN.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/10/28/submarines-are-poised-to-take-on-a-major-role-in-strike-warfare-but-is-that-a-good-idea/