27 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial

"L'achat des F18 et Eurofighter par l'Allemagne est plutôt une bonne chose pour la France" (Eric Trappier)

Par Michel Cabirol

Pour le PDG de Dassault Aviation la décision de l'Allemagne d'acheter 93 avions de combat Eurofighter et 45 F-18 américains est "paradoxalement plutôt une bonne chose pour la France. Au moins, l'Allemagne écarte le F35".

Le patron de Dassault Aviation Eric Trappier a été très clair sur la décision de l'Allemagne d'acheter 93 avions de combat Eurofighter (BAE Systems, Airbus et Leonardo) et 45 F-18 américains (Boeing) pour renouveler sa flotte de Tornado. "C'est paradoxalement plutôt une bonne chose pour la France. Au moins, l'Allemagne écarte le F35", a expliqué jeudi le président du GIFAS lors d'une audition par la commission de la défense de l'Assemblée nationale. Clairement, ce choix, s'il est confirmé par un vote du Bundestag, permettra de poursuivre les travaux sur le futur Système de combat aérien du futur (SCAF), lancés par l'Allemagne et la France, et rejoints par l'Espagne. Ce qui n'aurait pas été le cas si Berlin avait choisi le F-35.

"J'insiste sur la nécessité de prise en compte des différences de calendriers et d'organisation politique entre les deux pays. Les industriels doivent s'adapter aux calendriers politiques pour avancer. Un message peut être porté aux parlementaires allemands : il faut trouver un processus type LPM (Loi de programmation militaire, ndlr) pour cadencer avancement des projets communs.

La pression des États-Unis

Pour autant, pour diminuer l'appétence des pays européens à acheter américain, "il est nécessaire que l'on s'organise entre européens", a-t-il expliqué. Le chemin est très long encore en dépit de l'initiative commune entre trois grands pays européens sur le SCAF. Ainsi, la Bulgarie a signé des contrats pour des F16, la Belgique a signé des amendements pour des F35, a-t-il rappelé. "Il faut se poser la question du poids des européens face aux Etats-Unis dans l'OTAN", a-t-il également fait valoir. Et les États-Unis, qui n'ont qu'un objectif de vassaliser l'Europe en matière d'aviation de combat, ne l'chent vraiment pas les Européens.

Ainsi, pour Lockheed Martin, tous les coups sont permis. Le géant américain vient d'embaucher en Finlande, l'ancien chef d'état-major des armées (CEMA) finlandais, celui-là même qui avait lancé la compétition pour l'acquisition de nouveaux appareils, a expliqué Eric Trappier. Ce qui a provoqué une polémique en Finlande. Ce projet d'achat vise à remplacer la flotte actuelle de 64 avions de combat F/A-18C/D Hornet achetés au début des années 90. Le ministre finlandais de la Défense a déclaré que le nombre de nouveaux appareils à acheter pourrait être supérieur ou égal au niveau actuel et espérait qu'il ne serait pas inférieur.

Inquiétudes sur le Fonds européen de défense

En tant que patron également de l'ASD (AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe), le président du GIFAS (Groupement des industries françaises aéronautiques et spatiales) a fait part de ses inquiétudes sur l'avenir du Fonds européen de défense (FED). "L'Europe de la Défense ne semble pas la priorité de l'ensemble de nos partenaires. Il faut veiller à le préserver. Elle est notamment utile pour développer de nouvelles technologies et d'abonder les programmes qui sont définis par plusieurs États européens", a-t-il rappelé. Et selon lui, un deuxième danger menace le FED. C'est "la persistance des États-Unis à vouloir faire accéder leurs sociétés à ces financements. Certains pays européens à l'Est du continent sont attentifs et sensibles aux appels américains". On n'est jamais trahi que par les siens...

https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/l-achat-des-f18-et-eurofighter-par-l-allemagne-est-plutot-une-bonne-chose-pour-la-france-eric-trappier-846130.html

Sur le même sujet

  • Why Did Boeing Opt To Fully Redesign The KC-46 Remote Vision System?

    21 septembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

    Why Did Boeing Opt To Fully Redesign The KC-46 Remote Vision System?

    Lee Hudson Why did Boeing opt to fully redesign the vision system on the KC-46 instead of using the Royal Netherlands Air Force KDC-10's reliable and proven technology? Aviation Week Pentagon Editor Lee Hudson answers: The Netherlands' Organization for Applied Scientific Research, Physics and Electronics Laboratory designed the Tanker Remote Vision System in 2006 for the McDonnell Douglas KDC-10. It is used on two tankers that serve in both tanking and transporting missions. The technology supports inflight refueling operators by providing a picture of the air-to-air tanking process, even in bad visual conditions. Boeing was unable to use the KDC-10 Tanker Remote Vision System (TRVS) because the technology does not meet U.S. Air Force requirements for the KC-46. The 1980s design does not support covert aerial refueling missions or operate in all lighting and background conditions. Boeing says that is why it opted to build a system featuring high-resolution cameras, display and processing capability. Some critics believe the Air Force and Boeing would both be better off if the remote vision system outfitting the KC-46 adopted pieces of the TRVS, given the new aircraft has experienced years of delays and cost overruns. Boeing took a $551 million charge in the first quarter because of changes agreed to by both the company and the Air Force in April for the KC-46 Remote Vision System (RVS). The redesign includes high-definition color cameras, updated displays and computing systems. The problem with the initial RVS design is what the Air Force called a “rubber sheet” effect that distorts the image on the visual display used by the boom operator during refueling. To date, Boeing has taken more than $4 billion in charges for the problem-plagued tanker. This is roughly the same amount the company was willing to pay for Embraer's commercial aircraft division before it walked away from that deal. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/why-did-boeing-opt-fully-redesign-kc-46-remote-vision-system

  • Here’s the No. 1 rule for US Air Force’s new advanced battle management system

    10 juillet 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Autre défense

    Here’s the No. 1 rule for US Air Force’s new advanced battle management system

    By: Valerie Insinna LE BOURGET, France, and WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has started work on a data architecture for its Advanced Battle Management System, the family of platforms that will eventually replace the E-8C JSTARS surveillance planes. But the “biblical” rule for the program, according to the service's acquisition executive Will Roper, is that “we don't start talking platforms until the end,” he told Defense News at the Paris Air Show in June. “It is so easy to start talking about satellites and airplanes and forget what ABMS is going to have to uniquely champion, which is the data architecture that will connect them,” Roper explained. “I'm actually glad we don't have big money this year because we can't go build a drone or a satellite, so we've got to focus on the part that's less sexy, which is that data architecture,” he said. “We're going to have to do software development at multiple levels of classification and do it securely. All of those are things that are hard to get people energized about, but they're going to be the make-or-break [undertakings] for this program.” Some initial work has begun on identifying the requirements for ABMS data architecture. The service in March named Preston Dunlap, a national security analysis executive at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, as the program's “chief architect.” Dunlap will be responsible for developing the requirements for ABMS and ensuring they are met throughout the menu of systems that will comprise it. The Air Force Warfighter Integration Center, or AFWIC — the service's planning cell for future technologies and concepts of operation — provided feedback to Dunlap about how ABMS should work, Roper said. The Air Force is still deliberating what ABMS will look like in its final form, although officials have said it will include a mix of traditional manned aircraft, drones, space-based technologies and data links. The effort was devised as an alternative to a replacement for the E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System. While the service first considered a traditional recapitalization program where it would buy new JSTARS aircraft equipped with more sophisticated radars, leaders ultimately backed the more ambitious ABMS proposal, believing it to be a more survivable capability. But defense companies are hungry for more information about the platforms that will comprise ABMS, seeing the opportunity to develop new systems or upgrade legacy ones as a major potential moneymaker. Once the service has defined an ABMS data architecture — which Roper believes will occur before the fiscal 2021 budget is released — it will need to form requirements for the data that will run through and populate it as well as the artificial intelligence that automatically sorts important information and passes it to users. “Maybe one sensor needs to be able to fill a gap that others are creating,” he said. “We're going to have to look at requirements at a systems level and tell satellites that you need to be able to provide this level of data at this refresh rate. UAVs, you need to be able to do this rate and so on and so forth. Once we do that, then we'll be in the traditional part of the acquisition, which will be building those satellites, building those UAVs.” The Air Force intends to conduct yearly demonstrations throughout this process, the first of which will involve “ad hoc mesh networking,” which will allow platforms to automatically begin working together and sharing information without human interference. By FY21, full-scale prototyping could start, he said. In the commercial sector, where devices can be seamlessly linked and monitored over the internet, this concept is known as the internet of things. But that construct — where companies build technologies from the get-go with open software — is difficult to replicate in the defense world, where firms must meet strict security standards and are protective of sharing intellectual property that could give competitors an edge. “Openness in the internet of things makes sense because you can monetize the data,” Roper said. “That's not going to exist for us, so we're going to have to have a contracting incentive that replicates it. The best theory we have right now is some kind of royalty scheme that the more open you are and the more adaptation we do on top of your system, the more you benefit from it.” The service wants to hold a series of industry days to see whether such a construct would be appealing to defense companies, and how to structure it so that it will be fair and profitable. One unanswered is how to incentivize and compensate defense firms that build in new software capability. “If you create the system that allows us to put 100 apps on top of it, you benefit differently than if we can only put one. But the details are going to be difficult because maybe that one app is super important,” Roper said. “But if we can't replicate profit and cash flow on which their quarterlies depend, then they're going to have to go back to the old model of saying they are for open [architecture] but secretly giving you closed.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/paris-air-show/2019/07/09/rule-no1-for-air-forces-new-advanced-battle-management-system-we-dont-start-talking-platforms-until-the-end/

  • Expand missile defenses during the pandemic, don’t cut them

    6 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Expand missile defenses during the pandemic, don’t cut them

    By: Rebeccah L. Heinrichs Rogue states are taking advantage of the American preoccupation with the COVID-19 pandemic. North Korea may test another long-range missile according to the head of U.S. Northern Command, Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy. He warned Congress in March that the North Korean regime is still a serious threat and is improving its missile program. And last week, Iran's Revolutionary Guard successfully launched a satellite into space. This was the first for the terrorist paramilitary group, though not the first for the regime. The pandemic is likely to prompt Congress to reassess, cut and redirect spending, but safeguarding the American people from missile attack is an essential service the government cannot afford to scale back. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Rob Soofer said at a recent Hudson Institute event: “[T]oday we are in an advantageous position vis-a-vis North Korea. Forty-four ground-based interceptors. Gen. O'Shaughnessy has complete confidence that the system will work and we can address the threat. Then the question is: Can we wait until 2028?” The Trump administration intends to deploy in 2028 the Next Generation Interceptor, or NGI, meant to handle far more complicated missile threats than what the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, or GMD, system was initially designed to do. Still, as Dr. Soofer explained, threats develop at an unpredictable pace, and so the Pentagon is pushing for initiatives to bolster defense in the meantime. Those initiatives will require serious bipartisan cooperation while concurrently developing the NGI and pursuing other advanced capabilities meant to dramatically increase the ability of the missile defense architecture. It's a tall order, but critical, nonetheless. First, and to be clear, the Pentagon has not yet embraced this step due to its determination to focus on NGI. But Congress should invest in more than just sustaining the current GMD system; it should improve it by adding 20 GBIs to the already fielded 44. The silos will be prepared for the additional numbers since, in 2017, President Donald Trump called for adding more deployed GBIs considering the heightened North Korea missile threat. The Pentagon began work on preparing for their delivery but never emplaced GBIs into those silos because Pentagon officials canceled the Redesigned Kill Vehicle. The Pentagon had anticipated the Redesigned Kill Vehicle for the nation's new GBIs. After evaluating the resources and time it would take to restart the production line of the Capability Enhancement II interceptors or to rapidly develop an improved kill vehicle that leverages new technology, the Pentagon should choose the most cost-effective solution. Recall, the Capability Enhancement II was the kill vehicle that performed well in the last complex flight test, which was the first salvo engagement of a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile target by GBIs. Regardless of the option the Pentagon would choose, the result would be a near-term enhanced capability by either increased capacity at a minimum, or an increased capacity with improved kill vehicles on 20 of the 64 at best. Either would be a much better scenario than keeping the backbone of homeland defenses stagnant while we anticipate the NGI in 2028. But that is not all the country should do. It should also move forward with steps the Pentagon has embraced. Those steps include improving the discrimination radar capability in the next few years so GMD can better detect and characterize the evolving threat, and deploying other existing systems to bolster GMD. Utilizing current systems with impressive testing records against missiles shorter than ICBM range as part of a layered homeland defense is called the “underlay.” As a key component of the underlay, Congress has directed the Pentagon to test the Aegis SM-3 IIA interceptor against an ICBM target. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic, the Missile Defense Agency's planned flight tests will be delayed, including for the SM-3 IIA. The threats facing the country will not wait for the end of the pandemic, and the Pentagon should reconsider that delay. As soon as the country can test the system, and if it is a success, it would be wise to prepare to deploy Aegis SM-3 IIA as the threat requires. If there is an ICBM attack against the U.S. homeland, a GBI would have the first shot at the incoming missile while it's in its midcourse phase of flight; and if an enemy missile gets through, and the Aegis SM-3 IIA is positioned correctly, it could have another shot at the missile as it begins its descent. There has been some concern about whether Russia or China have legitimate claims that bolstering homeland defense in this way is destabilizing. But no evidence supports these claims, and, as Dr. Jim Miller, an Obama-era undersecretary of defense for policy, said at a recent Hudson event: “We cannot and must not give Russia or China a veto over the United States' ability to defend ourselves from North Korea and Iran. That is an absolute no-go for any administration.” Another system that is a natural candidate for the underlay is the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense air defense system. Embracing that concept as well, Dr. Miller said: “It makes sense for certain contexts. And if you're looking at a shorter-range missile and a relatively small footprint of coverage, THAAD has a real chance to contribute in that. To me, that's certainly the case for Guam and Hawaii.” But what about cost? That's the $10 billion question — a question that happens to be valued at more than the current president's budget requires for the Missile Defense Agency. The budget request that Congress is currently considering for the MDA is roughly $9.2 billion, noticeably less than previous years, even as the role of missile defense is supposed to be expanding in the country's National Security Strategy. There is no margin for cutting the budget. Congress should rally around this mission and budget, and it should increase funding to sufficiently make these necessary improvements in the near term without paying for them by sacrificing investments like NGI for the not-so-distant future. It can do that without tipping the scale much more than $10 billion this year. That is eminently reasonable given the pressure every government department will feel after the sudden spending splurge due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rebeccah L. Heinrichs is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where she specializes in nuclear deterrence and missile defense. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/05/expand-missile-defenses-during-the-pandemic-dont-cut-them/

Toutes les nouvelles