Le missilier MBDA appelle l’Europe à construire son autonomie stratégique

Sur le même sujet

• 

  1 décembre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  How the Biden administration is expected to approach tech research and development

  Andrew Eversden WASHINGTON — Experts expect President-elect Joe Biden's administration to build on the Trump administration's investments in emerging technologies, while adding to research and development budgets in the Defense Department and across the federal government. The incoming Biden administration signaled throughout the campaign that basic research and development funding would be a priority. Biden wrote in Foreign Affairs he would make research and development a “cornerstone” of his presidency and pointed to the United States having the “greatest research universities in the world.” “It's basic research that's the area where you get the breakthroughs, and you need long-term, sustained investments to build up a strong S&T base,” said Martijn Rasser, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security's technology and national security program. Biden's R&D investment is an expected change from the Trump administration's approach, which experts have noted is narrower in scope and focused on harnessing private sector innovation. “The reality is the U.S. private sector has eclipsed the government, which in some ways that can be good,” said Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities. “The private sector can move with greater agility than the government, but the private sector may not be focusing on developing those exquisite technologies that we need for the war fighter.” Experts told C4ISRNET they expect the Biden administration to invest more money in basic research areas and to reform immigration laws that slowed the innovation pipeline from abroad to the United States. “China is closing in. They are spending every year more and more on R&D. They will soon, if not already, be spending as much as we are, if not more on R&D,” Langevin said told C4ISRNET. “Congress has woken up to this problem.” Basic research Perhaps the most likely area the Biden administration is poised to change is basic research and development funding. According to annual reports from the Congressional Research Service, the Trump administration consistently proposed top-line cuts to federal research and development in yearly budget proposals. This included the fiscal 2021 budget proposal's $13.8 billion decrease in defense R&D over the fiscal 2020 funding enacted by Congress. While the Pentagon has often been spared from such cuts, the Trump administration has also suggested trimming the defense-related basic research budget line — money that is a “substantial source of federal funds for university R&D,” according to the Congressional Research Service. The White House's FY21 defense-related basic research budget line asked for a reduction of about 11 percent from FY20 enacted, or a $284.2 million decrease. Biden's campaign platform calls for a four-year investment of $300 billion in R&D for new technology such as 5G, artificial intelligence, advanced materials and electric cars. “A nation speaks to and identifies its priorities by where it puts its research dollars, where it puts its money,” Langevin said. “Basic research has to be more of a priority, and that's something I'm going to encourage the Biden administration to focus on.” Michèle Flournoy, thought to be a leading contender to become the next secretary of defense, has also written about the need to increase investment in emerging technologies to counter China. In Foreign Affairs in June, Flournoy wrote that “resilient battlefield networks, artificial intelligence to support faster decision-making, fleets of unmanned systems, and hypersonic and long-range precision missiles” will “ultimately determine military success.” “Continuing to underinvest in these emerging capabilities will ultimately have dire costs for U.S. deterrence,” she wrote. Congressional and think tank reports published during the Trump administration's tenure called for an increase in basic research funding. A report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence's strategic tech and advanced research subpanel, led by Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., recommended bumping up federal research and development funding from 0.7 percent to 1.1 percent of gross domestic product, or an increase of $146 billion to $230 billion. A report by the Council on Foreign Relations from 2019 applauded the Trump administration's requested increases in funding for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, now funded at $3.46 billion, and the Defense Innovation Unit, for which the Trump administration requested $164 million. Laying the groundwork Initiatives started under the Trump administration did provide a groundwork on which the Biden administration can build. Under the Trump administration, DARPA kicked off a $1.5 billion microelectronics effort. In artificial intelligence, the administration launched the American AI Initiative. However, the Council on Foreign Relations criticized that effort because it had no funding and left agencies to prioritize artificial intelligence R&D spending without metrics, while also drawing funds from other research areas. The administration also made an $1.2 billion investment in quantum information science. “The Trump administration started bringing national attention and federal focus to many of these technologies,” said Lindsey Sheppard, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “I hope to see from the Biden administration perhaps a more cohesive guiding strategy for all of these pieces.” While the Trump administration has started many initiatives, the Council on Foreign Relations report also criticized the Trump administration's innovation strategy as an “incremental and limited approach,” writing that “action does not match the language officials use to describe the importance of AI to U.S. economic and national security.” While investment in future technology is important, defense budgets are expected to stay flat or decrease in the coming years. In her Foreign Affairs article, Flournoy acknowledge that the budgetary reality will require “tough tradeoffs.” Experts agree. “R&D programs are going to have to start being able to consistently, clearly articulate justifications for their budgets and the returns on investment,” Sheppard said. But the coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need for increased investments in research and development, Himes and Langevin argued. Both lawmakers identified biothreats as something they fear for the future. Biological threats are one area that DARPA — an organization Langevin pointed to as a major federal R&D success story — has triumphantly address. Commercial partners from DARPA's 3-year-old pandemic prevention platform program announced they developed a COVID-19 therapeutic using new techniques. “There's absolutely going to be a rethink,” Himes told C4ISRNET in an interview. “Are we correctly allocating money between the possibility that there could be a pandemic that kills a million Americans, versus the possibility that we're going to have to fight the Russians in the Fulda Gap? I think there's going be a lot of thinking about that. And there should be thinking about that because our money should go to those areas where there's the highest probability of dead Americans.” Immigration innovation Another way to improve American innovation in critical future technologies is by allowing highly skilled foreigners to work in the United States. Biden has hinted at changes that will affect American innovation through the expected reversals of President Donald Trump's immigration policies, which limited high-skilled workers from legally working in the country. The Biden administration's platform states it wants to reform the H-1B visa process that the Trump administration restricted, much to the chagrin of American tech companies, which use the program to hire top talent from abroad. Think tanks have recommended reforming the current U.S. immigration policy to attract international students, entrepreneurs and high-skilled workers because of the innovative ideas they provide. For example, an analysis by Georgetown University's Center for Security and Technology found that 68 percent of the United States' top 50 artificial intelligence companies were co-founded by immigrants, most of whom came the U.S. as students. “A lot of the Trump administration's policies — we're shooting ourselves in the foot making it so much harder for people to come here,” said Rasser, who wrote a report for CNAS last year calling for H1-B caps to be increased. “Because of the fact that people want to come to the United States to live and work, that's one of our greatest competitive advantages. It's something I expect the Biden administration to reverse.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/transition/2020/11/29/how-the-biden-administration-is-expected-to-approach-tech-research-and-development/

• 

  27 mars 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Pourquoi le salon de défense Eurosatory a finalement été annulé

  Par Michel Cabirol Comment et pourquoi l'organisateur d'Eurosatory ont pris la décision d'annuler l'édition 2020 du plus grand salon d'armements terrestres au monde. Voici les coulisses de cette décision. C'est bien la mort dans l''me que le Coges a dû annuler l'édition 2020 d'Eurosatory, le plus grand salon international de défense et de sécurité terrestres et aéroterrestres. Car jusqu'à peu la ligne tenue par l'organisateur d'Eurosatory était le déroulement normal du salon, qui aurait été "à l'équilibre" en dépit de quelques annulations d'exposants et de réduction de la voilure (annulation des démonstrations dynamiques...). Toutefois, cette position "n'est plus tenable", estime le Coges dans une note datée du 23 mars que La Tribune s'est procurée. Et de conclure qu'il recommande au bureau exécutif du GICAT l'annulation d'Eurosatory 2020 sans report du salon. Au final, il y avait plus de risques que d'avantages à maintenir le salon. Son annulation ne devrait pas coûter de l'argent au Coges. Ce denrier a dépensé au 24 mars près de 11 millions d'euros dans la préparation du salon. L'organisateur "fait tout depuis un mois pour différer ses engagements de dépense et a cessé tout engagement depuis le passage au stade 3", explique-t-il dans cette note. Il a également souscrit avec une grande sagesse en décembre 2019 une assurance annulation du salon comprenant une extension "maladies infectieuses", à concurrence de 13 millions d'euros sur un budget de dépense estimé à 20,6 millions. Au 30 avril, les prévisions d'engagement pour la préparation du salon doivent d'élever à 14,3 millions. Cela montre "bien tout l'intérêt d'annuler aujourd'hui", estime le Coges, qui devrait s'en sortir relativement bien au contraire du GICAT, qui ne pourra pas percevoir de dividendes. Les raisons de l'annulation Pourquoi Eurosatory ne peut plus tenir ? Après plusieurs annulations de salons comme Dimdex au Qatar (16-18 mars), LAAD Security au Brésil (14-16 avril) et ILA Berlin (13-17 mai), les premières annulations de salons prévues en juin aux mêmes dates que celui d'Eurosatory ont commencé à mettre sous forte pression les organisateurs : Viva Technology (11-13 juin) et Interschutz (salon mondial des pompiers à Hanovre). Mais l'annulation du salon britannique de l'aéronautique de Farnborough, prévu pourtant du 20 au 24 juillet, a été le coup de gr'ce. Mais là n'est pas la seule raison. Au-delà des quelques annulations d'exposants déjà reçues, le Coges recevait de plus en plus d'appels de sociétés exposantes qui ne souhaitaient plus engager de frais de préparation de leur stand et qui s'interrogeaient sur la présence de visiteurs au salon. Par ailleurs, des sociétés étrangères, qui représentent 65% des exposants à Eurosatory, avaient déjà commencé à annuler le transit de leurs matériels. Par ailleurs, le Coges ne recevait plus de demande de badge de visiteurs depuis plusieurs jours. Et en même temps, les fournisseurs qui permettent de réaliser le salon sont "quasiment tous à l'arrêt et auront des difficultés à redémarrer fin avril pour un salon début juin", explique le Coges. Il faut à minima cinq semaines de montage. Enfin, et surtout, le ministère des Armées qui invite les hautes personnalités étrangères venant de tous les pays du monde (240 délégations en 2018 représentant près de 1.000 VIP), a d'autres chats à fouetter en ce moment avec la crise du Covid-19 et le lancement de l'opération Résilience. "Nous sommes en contact avec le ministère des armées qui ne pourra sans doute pas lancer ces invitations dans le contexte actuel", estime le Coges dans sa note. "La tenue du salon en juin 2020 n'est aujourd'hui plus envisageable", conclut-il. La piste d'un report a été écartée Le Coges a étudié un report du salon à la condition de retrouver la disponibilité des exposants et d'un parc d'exposition. Pas facile quand la majorité des exposants sont aussi présents sur d'autres salons de défense dans le monde et très peu sont capables de mener de front deux salons. Des études lancées par le Coges ont trouvé une seule et unique solution : reporter Eurosatory au parc des exposition du Bourget, pendant Euronaval (du 20 au 23 octobre 2020). Mais cette piste a été abandonnée. Car d'une part, les exposants américains qui participent au salon AUSA début octobre risque de faire défaut, selon le Coges. Surtout, une cinquantaine d'exposants, présents sur les deux salons (Euronaval et Eurosatory), ne réaliseront plus qu'un seul stand. Pas sûr que le Gican voyait cette opération d'un bon œil... D'autant que le Coges estime dans sa note que "sur le plan financier, les chiffres d'affaires des deux salons ne vont pas s'ajouter". https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/pourquoi-le-salon-de-defense-eurosatory-a-finalement-ete-annule-843347.html

• 

  7 août 2019 | International, Naval

  With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

  By: David B. Larter and Joe Gould WASHINGTON — The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he's expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins. The Navy's main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday's confirmation hearing, as they alternately raised the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles and berated the Navy's future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford. At one point during the July 31 hearing, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., told Gilday the Navy's arrogance on the carrier “ought to be criminal.” Later on, longtime friend of the Navy Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, warned that hypersonic missiles were a “nightmare weapon” that threatened to make carriers obsolete. And while the lawmakers differed on the future of aircraft carriers and their long-term viability, the hearing left no doubt that Gilday, a career surface warfare officer, has his work cut out for him in proving he can guide the service toward a more stable future for the Navy's most expensive and strategically invaluable assets. To be clear, Inhofe does not oppose carriers, and he has publicly reminded multiple Trump administration officials of the Navy's legal requirement to maintain 11 of them. Inhofe was in the bipartisan chorus of lawmakers who opposed Pentagon plans to cut costs by decommissioning the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman before the administration scuttledthose plans this year. When it comes to the Ford program, Inhofe plans to keep the Navy on a short leash and pressed Gilday to commit that he would work to prevent the kind of widespread “first-in-class” issues that have plagued the Ford. It's an issue with some urgency behind it, as the Navy prepares to tackle the new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine for nuclear deterrent patrols, as well as a next-generation frigate, new classes of unmanned warships and a new large surface combatant. “The Navy entered into this contract in 2008, which, combined with other contracts, have ballooned the cost of the ship more than $13 billion without understanding the technical risks, the costs or the schedules, and you know this ought to be criminal,” Inhofe said. The Navy had taken a gamble integrating immature dual-band radar, catapult, arresting gear and weapons elevators, and Inhofe expressed displeasure with the result. Tackling the first-in-class issue will be a priority, Gilday said. “I commit to that and complete transparency as well as taking what we learn from the Ford and ensuring that we don't commit those same mistakes again in the Columbia class and other ships that we need to field in the next few years,” Gilday told Inhofe. ‘Sitting ducks' As for rising threats to the carrier, King believes hypersonic missiles are an existential threat to the Navy and urged Gilday to take the issue head on. “Every aircraft carrier that we own can disappear in a coordinated attack,” King said. “And it is a matter of minutes. Murmansk, [Russia], to the Norwegian Sea is 12 minutes at 6,000 miles an hour. “So I hope you will take back a sense of urgency to the Navy and to the research capacity and to the private sector that this has to be an urgent priority because otherwise we are creating a vulnerability that could in itself lead to instability.” In an interview with Defense News, King said the speed at which the Russians and Chinese are fielding the capability worries him. “My concern is that we are a number of years away from having that capacity, and our adversaries are within a year of deployment,” he said. “And that creates a dangerous gap, in my view. This represents a qualitative gap in offensive warfare that history tells we better figure out how to deal with, or it will mitigate our ... advantage.” King, who represents the state where half the Navy's destroyers are produced, also said he's concerned about the long-term viability of aircraft carriers in a world with hypersonic missiles. “I think it does raise a question of the role of the aircraft carrier if we cannot figure a way to counter this capability,” he said. “I don't want indefensible, $12 billion sitting ducks out there. I'm not prepared to say the carrier is obsolete, but I say that this weapon undermines the viability of the carrier.” Inhofe, in response to another senator's questions about carrier obsolescence, said he disagrees carriers are becoming obsolete, but that he's concerned about the cost. But the threats to the carrier are mounting, experts say. With the advent of ground-launched hypersonic missiles, it's a matter of time before air-launched hypersonic missiles present a nearly insurmountable threat, barring a significant development to counter them. “I think what King's comments reflect is that he sees the vulnerability of the aircraft carrier only getting worse,” said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “Specifically, maybe not so much these kind of boost-glide weapons, but its more about cruise missiles that are hypersonic — air-launched perhaps. “Then you are talking about something that is relatively inexpensive and could be delivered in large numbers, and that would be a bigger deal because missile defenses are not necessarily built for hypersonic weapons. “So we'll have to find a way to deal with this new challenge, or we'll have to rethink how we do things.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/08/06/with-mounting-questions-about-cost-and-survivability-a-shifting-political-landscape-for-us-aircraft-carriers/