Lockheed realigns space business to boost efficiency

Sur le même sujet

• 

  11 septembre 2024 | International, Aérospatial

  South Korea summit to target 'blueprint' for using AI in the military

• 

  28 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial

  How U.S. Open Skies Exit Could Undermine Arms Control

  Tony Osborne Jen DiMascio May 28, 2020 The decision by the U.S. government to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty signed two decades ago is creating ripples of discontent within the U.S. and in Europe. Washington announced on May 22 that it would end its obligations to the arms control treaty in six months, saying that it was “no longer in the United States' best interest to remain a party to this Treaty when Russia does not uphold its commitments,” in a statement put out by the Defense Department. The Open Skies Treaty permits its 34 signatories to conduct observation flights over each other's territory. Aircraft with four types of sensors—-optical panoramic and framing cameras, real-time video cameras, infrared line-scanners and sideways-looking synthetic aperture radar—may make observations anywhere over a country's national territory. Treaty rules say that the flight may only be restricted for reasons of flight safety, not for reasons of national security. NATO and European nations may share U.S. concerns about inconsistent flight restrictions imposed by Moscow but see a U.S. departure from the agreement, in place since 1992, as regrettable. According to the U.S. and NATO, Russia has imposed restrictions on the treaty, in particular those flying near Kaliningrad, Russia's enclave on the Baltic Sea, and near the country's border with Georgia. The Pentagon also says Moscow blocked the overflight of a major military exercise in September 2019, “preventing the exact transparency the treaty is meant to provide.” In an op-ed in The New York Times, Tim Morrison, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former member of this administration's National Security Council, added that Russia has been using its overflights to collect “military relevant intelligence on the other parties, like the means to target critical infrastructure.” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, during the May 22 meeting of alliance members, called on the Russian government to return to compliance as soon as possible, noting that the U.S. could reconsider its position if Russia complied. European Open Skies Treaty member states—including Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden—said they would continue to implement the treaty, saying it has a “clear added value” for conventional arms control architecture and cooperative security. Russia rejects the claims of flight restrictions and contends that the U.S. had limited Russia's own Open Skies flights over Hawaii and the Aleutian Islands. Senior Russian officials, including Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council, denounced Washington's decision. Medvedev said the U.S. had taken another step down the “path of dismantling the international security architecture that took decades to lay down.” Moscow believes Washington's decision could also affect other arms control treaties, with negotiations on the next New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty potentially at risk. In Washington, the leaders of the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees (both Democrats) have written a letter to Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo contending that withdrawal from the treaty is illegal. They say it violates the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which requires Esper and Pompeo to notify Congress 120 days before the intent to withdrawal is presented. “This notification must be based on your joint conclusion that withdrawal is in the best interests of the United States and that other states parties to the treaty have been consulted. To date, this requirement has not been fulfilled,” wrote Reps. Adam Smith (Wash.), the Armed Services chairman, and Eliot Engel (N.Y.), the Foreign Affairs chairman. President Donald Trump and his administration have support from Repub-licans who lead the Senate for their decision to exit the treaty. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, asserts that the U.S. should withdraw if Russia is not complying with the agreement. “It will be critical for the Trump administration to continue working with our allies and partners, especially those in Eastern Europe, to ensure they have access to the intelligence they need to protect their security. That includes facilitating access to high-quality imagery.” The U.S. had planned to upgrade the two Boeing OC-135 aircraft delivered to the Air Force in 1996. Late last year, the U.S. issued a request for information saying it was considering awarding two contracts—one for the purchase of two commercial aircraft and another to modify the airframe and provide logistics support. But the Pentagon did not include funding for OC-135 upgrades in its fiscal 2020 budget request. And in March, Esper told Congress he was not prepared to authorize funding for those upgrades until a path forward is clear. Several signatories to the treaty have dedicated aircraft for the mission; others share or lease platforms from other nations for the task. Germany is the latest country to dedicate an aircraft for the mission, using an Airbus A319 converted by Lufthansa Technik. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/budget-policy-operations/how-us-open-skies-exit-could-undermine-arms-control

• 

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

  Pentagon seeks to classify future year defense spending plans

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has asked Congress to allow it to classify its Future Year Defense Program spending projections, new documents have revealed. The FYDP numbers, which project five years into the future, are considered essential information for the public to see where the Department of Defense expects to invest in the future, and to hold the department accountable when those spending plans change. Information on the request was published Monday by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists. Aftergood wrote that the proposal would “make it even harder for Congress and the public to refocus and reconstruct the defense budget.” In its request to Congress, the Pentagon wrote that an unclassified FYDP “might inadvertently reveal sensitive information,” despite the fact the numbers have been unclassified since 1989. “With the ready availability of data mining tools and techniques, and the large volume of data on the Department's operations and resources already available in the public domain, additional unclassified FYDP data, if it were released, potentially allows adversaries to derive sensitive information by compilation about the Department's weapons development, force structure, and strategic plans,” the DoD wrote. It added that there is a commercial concern with the FYDP providing too much information to industry. “The Department is also concerned about the potential harm to its interactions with commercial interests by release of FYDP information prior to the budget year. Exposing resources allocated to future acquisition plans may encourage bids and other development activities not beneficial to the Government,” the proposal read. Seamus Daniels, a budget analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a tweet that “DoD's proposal to eliminate the unclassified FYDP severely limits the public's ability to track how strategy aligns with budgets and how program plans change over time. Serious step backwards in transparency from the department.” Earlier this year, the No. 2 uniformed officer in the Pentagon railed against the department's tendency toward overclassification, calling it “unbelievably ridiculous.” The Pentagon has requested a number of legislative changes this year, in addition to the FYDP classification attempt. Among the notable requests are one that would remove the requirement for the defense secretary to “notify the Senate and House Armed Services Committees whenever the Secretary establishes or modifies an end-of-quarter strength level;” a request for the ability to add an additional 15 general officer billets in the combatant commands and three general officer billets on the Joint Staff, to be filled exclusively by reserve component officers; and a request to rename the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict as the assistant secretary of defense for “Special Operations and Irregular Warfare.” https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2020/03/30/pentagon-seeks-to-classify-future-year-defense-spending-plans/