Lockheed to supply F-35 training systems to Marine Corps

Sur le même sujet

• 

  23 novembre 2018 | International, Naval

  UK: HMS Sheffield revealed as new warship

  Defence Minister Stuart Andrew has today announced the name of a future world-beating British warship as HMS Sheffield. Built on centuries of history, the state-of-the-art submarine hunter will be the fourth ship to carry the name, and will be Britain's fifth state-of-the-art Type 26 frigate. The Defence Minister announced the news at Chesterfield Special Cylinders in Sheffield, a key supplier to the multi-billion-pound Type 26 programme. The company makes high pressure gas storage systems for the ships. Defence Minister Stuart Andrew said: HMS Sheffield will be at the forefront of our world leading Royal Navy for decades to come, providing cutting edge protection for our aircraft carriers and nuclear deterrent, and offering unrivalled capability at sea. From north to south, these ships are truly a national endeavour, built on centuries of British expertise and supporting thousands of businesses like Chesterfield Special Cylinders across the UK. Defence boosts the economy of Yorkshire and the Humber economy by £232million every year and it's only right the region's significant contribution to our national security is recognised by the naming of HMS Sheffield. The fourth HMS Sheffield will be built on more than 80 years of proud naval history, with the first ship carrying her name in 1935. She played a vital role in Scandinavia during the Second World War and assisted with the evacuation of Andalsnes in 1940. She also took part in the first major Allied landing of the war in North Africa during Operation ‘Torch', and patrolled waters from the Mediterranean to the Arctic. The second HMS Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer, was lost during the Falklands War. The naming of HMS Sheffield, the fifth ship in the city-class of Type 26 frigates, came as Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson also announced the sixth ship would be called HMS Newcastle during a visit to the Tyne today. The two ships will join HMS Glasgow, HMS Belfast, HMS Cardiff, HMS Birmingham and HMS London. The final name has yet to be announced. All of the Type 26 frigates will be built on the Clyde, supported by suppliers across the country and securing decades of work for more than 4,000 people. The first three ships have already been ordered for £3.7bn. Chesterfield Special Cylinders is just one of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain delivering essential services to the UK defence sector. It is a world-leading designer and manufacturer of safety-critical high pressure gas storage systems. Its bespoke products are deployed in the Type 26 frigate for breathing air storage, safety and backup systems, fresh water and power systems. Chesterfield Special Cylinders' managing director, Mick Pinder, said: Chesterfield Special Cylinders has been a strategic supplier to the Royal Navy for over 100 years. Our high-pressure gas storage systems are in use across many platforms, from submarines to surface ships. Our reputation for excellence in the design, manufacture and maintenance of safety-critical naval systems has seen our customer base grow in recent years to now include almost every NATO-friendly overseas navy, though the Royal Navy remains a prime partner. It is an honour to host the Minister for Defence Procurement and for our manufacturing site to be the location for this important announcement. Last year the MOD injected nearly £2.5bn into small and medium businesses. The visit by the Defence Minister came ahead of Small Business Saturday on 01 December, an opportunity for defence to thank the workforce behind many SMEs. The news also came as the Defence Secretary announced he will retain three of the Royal Navy's patrol ships to bolster Britain's fishery protection capability. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/hms-sheffield-revealed-as-new-warship

• 

  15 octobre 2024 | International, Aérospatial

  Netherlands to acquire NASAMS and NOMADS air defence systems from KONGSBERG

  The new acquisitions will improve and expand the country’s ground-based air defence capabilities.

• 

  9 décembre 2019 | International, Autre défense

  Opinion: Is Pressuring Allies To Pay More For Defense Worth The Cost?

  President Donald Trump appears to be getting his wish that U.S. allies pay more for their own defense, which begs the question: Is the victory worth the cost? Pushing allies to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense is not a new concept. Trump's predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama both argued for greater burden sharing, and Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine's Crimea region had allies starting to move toward that benchmark. Arguably, Trump's “America First” drumbeat is getting NATO allies to pay a bigger share of the cost of their defense three decades after the end of the Cold War. Military spending by European NATO nations and Canada has risen 4.6% this year, and the majority of allies have plans to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2024, according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. Meanwhile, the U.S. is on a path to dial back its contribution from 22% of NATO's total funding to 16%. “This is a direct result of President Trump making clear our expectations that these Europeans would step up to help secure their own people,” says U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Unfortunately, Trump has not stopped there, openly expressing disdain for an organization established to guard against the kind of territorial expansion undertaken by the former Soviet Union. He has hurled sophomoric barbs at steadfast allies such as the UK, Germany and Canada, while refusing to criticize Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, the architect of both the Crimea invasion and Moscow's campaign to interfere in U.S. elections. For the first phase of the Trump presidency, his cabinet tried to temper those go-it-alone impulses. Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis sought to reassure allies of U.S. support for their security. But more recent White House appointees have been less willing to cross their boss. Even more damaging was Trump's abrupt decision to withdraw most U.S. forces from Syria, disgracefully abandoning America's Kurdish allies to the benefit of Turkey, Russia and Iran and leaving Europe more exposed to attacks from Islamic extremists. “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” French President Emmanuel Macron told The Economist. Trump sees NATO in a transactional way, “as a project in which the United States acts as a sort of geopolitical umbrella, but the trade-off is that there has to be commercial exclusivity,” he added. “It's an arrangement for buying American.” While Macron is calling for a reconsideration of what NATO means in light of reduced American commitment, European nations are not waiting. They are building up their own defense industrial base. In 2017, the EU created the Permanent Structured Cooperation initiative, which is pursuing research toward new missiles, aircraft, missile defense and electronic attack capabilities. U.S. efforts to have its companies included in the work have so far been brushed off. Trump's hardball approach also is being applied to key allies in Asia that have long served as a bulwark against a rising China. The U.S. alliance with South Korea is now reviewed annually, instead of every four years. And after signing a deal in February that calls for South Korea to pay nearly $1 billion to maintain the U.S. military presence there, Washington is now demanding that Seoul pay $4.7 billion annually. Before an agreement was reached, the U.S. walked out of the talks. The Trump administration also is looking for more cash from Japan, calling for more than triple Tokyo's $1.7 billion contribution toward hosting U.S. troops in its country. These requests are straining longstanding alliances. South Korea is edging closer to China, while Japan, which has a strong industrial base, might partner with the UK on its Tempest fighter program. To be sure, U.S. defense exports remain near an all-time high. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced $55.4 billion in potential Foreign Military Sales in fiscal 2019, about the same as the prior year. But there are indications that Trump's pay-up-now methods may lead to an erosion in future sales. Asking allies to contribute more for their own defense certainly has merit, but the wider risks to U.S. global interests cannot be ignored. Can 70-year-old alliances survive if the leading partner vocally questions their value? And if the alliances crack, what would that mean for the U.S. military industrial base? “The more our alliances fray,” says Eric Edelman, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense, “the less interest people have in buying U.S. defense goods and services.” https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-pressuring-allies-pay-more-defense-worth-cost