12 septembre 2023 | International, Sécurité

Ministers of Defence from Estonia, Latvia, and Germany at Diehl Defence

Both Estonia and Latvia signed a framework agreement with Diehl Defence for the procurement of IRIS-T SLM medium range ground-based air defence systems

https://www.epicos.com/article/773487/ministers-defence-estonia-latvia-and-germany-diehl-defence

Sur le même sujet

  • Trump memo demands new fleet of Arctic icebreakers be ready by 2029

    11 juin 2020 | International, Naval, Sécurité

    Trump memo demands new fleet of Arctic icebreakers be ready by 2029

    By: David B. Larter , Joe Gould , and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — U.S. President Trump ordered a review of the country's requirements for icebreaking capabilities in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, with the goal of getting a fleet in place by 2029, according to a memo released Tuesday. The memo was directed at the Defense, State, Commerce and Homeland Security departments, as well as the Office of Management and Budget. Much of it directs work already in progress — including building a fleet of at least three heavy icebreakers — but says the remaining ships not under contract should be reviewed for what can be done to maximize their utility in the frozen poles. The memo calls for “an assessment of expanded operational capabilities, with estimated associated costs, for both heavy and medium [polar security cutters] not yet contracted for, specifically including the maximum use of any such PSC with respect to its ability to support national security objectives.” That assessment is due in 60 days. Trump's directive to assess the current plan to field an Arctic maritime capability over the next decade is the latest sign that the administration is increasingly concerned about Russian and Chinese activity in the northern region, which could threaten America's interests in crucial chokepoints, such as the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap. In April 2019, the U.S. Coast Guard announced it had signed a $746 million contract with VT Halter Marine of Pascagoula, Mississippi, for the detailed design and construction of its first polar security cutter — the first of the heavy icebreakers. And with the fiscal 2021 budget submission now before Congress, the Coast Guard says it can fully fund a second polar security cutter, according to a Congressional Research Service report. But the memo calls for a review of what the appropriate mix of ships should be for an Arctic fleet, suggesting that some changes to the three planned medium polar security cutters could be on the table. The memo asks for “use cases in the Arctic that span the full range of national and economic security missions (including the facilitation of resource exploration and exploitation and undersea cable laying and maintenance) that may be executed by a class of medium PSCs, as well as analysis of how these use cases differ with respect to the anticipated use of heavy PSCs for these same activities." “These use cases shall identify the optimal number and type of polar security icebreakers for ensuring a persistent presence in both the Arctic and, as appropriate, the Antarctic regions,” he memo continues. It also raises the possibility of nuclear-powered icebreakers, currently only operated by Russia, which would give the polar security cutter more persistent presence in the Arctic, since it would not need to refuel. The memo also calls for the study to identify two basing locations in the United States for its ice-hardened fleet, as well as two international locations. A study mandated by last year's National Defense Authorization Act mandated that the Defense Department study locations for a port in the Arctic. Furthermore, given that the Coast Guard has a lone operational heavy icebreaker, the 44-year-old Polar Star, the memo calls for the agencies to identify potential vessels that could be leased as a stop-gap measure. The 2029 date set by Trump corresponds with the year that both the Coast Guard's current ice breakers, the medium icebreaker Healy and the heavy icebreaker Polar Star are slated to be out of service. Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, a forceful advocate on the Senate Armed Services Committee for directing more resources toward the Arctic, said the memo would “add weight” to ongoing efforts to build up America's presence in the Arctic. “Our adversaries are well ahead of the United States when it comes to Arctic infrastructure,” Sullivan said in a statement. “We have one heavy and one medium functioning Polar-class icebreakers, while Russia has more than 50. “I have fought for five years to bring Arctic issues to the forefront, including in the FY19 NDAA to authorize the building of six such icebreakers and my bill, the Strategic Arctic Naval Focus Act, to develop the capabilities and basing locations needed to support persistent presence in the Arctic.” While the president's memo appeared to catch regional observers by surprise, its content lines up with the administration's rhetoric on the region, said Erik Brattberg, director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The Trump administration has shown a greater interest in Arctic issues in recent years, driven especially by China's growing presence in the region,” Brattberg said. “While America's allies and partners in Northern Europe would welcome a greater U.S. presence in the Arctic, they are also wary of the region becoming increasingly marked by zero-sum, great power competition between the U.S., Russia and China.” Leasing icebreakers If the U.S. were to lease icebreakers for missions such as the annual breaking out of the National Science Foundation's research facility in Antarctica, McMurdo Station, three nations seem most likely to be able to fill the niche: Canada, Finland and Sweden. All three have rare excess icebreaker capacity, and all three would likely welcome the business. Finland, whose industry claims to have “designed about 80 percent of the world's icebreakers” and produced “about 60 percent” of the world's fleet, has hoped to break into the American market for years. The leasing opportunity could provide a foothold for Helsinki, although issues may arise with the U.S. Jones Act that may complicate the act of America outright buying a Finnish-made icebreaker. The law is meant to provide stability to the U.S. maritime industry by supporting domestic business. “The White House announcement will likely be music in the ears of Finland, which has been trying to sell or lease icebreakers to the U.S. for years,” Brattberg said. It is also possible that Sweden and Finland — two European Union, non-NATO states that have close relations — could try to create some form of joint offering for America's needs. The U.S. has leased icebreakers for the McMurdo mission from Sweden and Russia as late as 2012 — just prior to the souring of relations between the West and Russia over the latter's annexation of Crimea. But such an arrangement often limits how the vessel can be used under the terms of the lease. In 2017, a study by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine mandated by Congress the year before, concluded that leasing icebreakers was not a viable path for the Coast Guard. “Chartering (an operating lease) is not a viable option,” the study found. “The availability of polar icebreakers on the open market is extremely limited. (The committee is aware of the sale of only one heavy icebreaker since 2010.) U.S. experience with chartering a polar icebreaker for the McMurdo resupply mission has been problematic on two prior charter attempts. “Chartering is workable only if the need is short term and mission specific. The committee notes that chartering may preclude USCG from performing its multiple missions.” In the Coast Guard's own 2019 environmental impact study for the Polar Security Cutter program, the service concluded that there were no vessels available to lease that would “substantially meet” the operational requirement for its icebreaking needs. Furthermore, any lease would need to be such that the Coast Guard provide the manning, training and equipping of the vessel — assuming all the costs — while still paying for the privilege of having it, making such an arrangement a financially dubious prospect. Frozen flashpoint The White House's decree comes in the context of a larger refocusing of national attention to the Arctic, as warming waters and melting ice open more time-efficient shipping routes and give nations greater access to natural resources that may have once been cost-prohibitive to reach. Russia in particular has made clear to the international community that it has core economic interests there and will defend them, even building icebreakers with cruise missiles and deck guns to patrol frozen waters. The country, with 7,000 miles of Arctic coast, sees the region as both a security liability and a key to its long-term economic success. President Vladimir Putin in 2017 put estimates of the mineral wealth in the region at $30 trillion. In a February hearing before the congressional Transportation and Maritime Security Subcommittee, the State Department's deputy assistant secretary for European and Eurasian affairs, Michael Murphy, testified that Russia's military buildup in the Arctic threatens the United States' and NATO's northern flank. Although Russia has cooperated on oil spill response and search-and-rescue missions, the U.S. views the country's moves with suspicion, especially in the establishment of an Arctic base and the installation of coastal missile batteries, early warning radars and air defenses, Murphy said in testimony. “The Russian military buildup in the Arctic has implications beyond its waters,” he said. “From a geostrategic perspective, the Arctic and the North Atlantic are inextricably linked. The Arctic provides Russian ships and submarines with access to a critical naval chokepoint: the GIUK gap that plays an outsized role in NATO's defense and deterrence strategy. Underwater trans-Atlantic cables also run through this area." “In short, NATO's northern flank must once again command the attention of the United States and its allies,” he added. Similar to its concerns for freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, which has become a flashpoint in Sino-U.S. relations, the U.S. is taking issue with Russia's attempt to force shippers to use Russian pilots and pay for use of the Northern Sea Route, which runs through Russia's exclusive economic zone. Russia has heavily invested in icebreakers to keep the Northern Sea Route open for as long as possible each year, and therefore the country views it as something of a toll road. “Russia's restrictions on the freedom of navigation in the Northern Sea Route are inconsistent with international law,” Murphy said. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/09/trump-memo-demands-new-fleet-of-arctic-icebreakers-to-be-ready-by-2029/

  • Here’s what an intel chief thinks industry needs to know

    16 août 2018 | International, C4ISR

    Here’s what an intel chief thinks industry needs to know

    By: Mark Pomerleau The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency had a pointed message for members of industry; whatever solution is pitched, it has to be understood in the context of how it will be used. Like many top defense leaders giving presentations nowadays, Lt. Gen. Robert Ashely, speaking Aug. 13 at the DoDIIS conference in Omaha, Nebraska, stressed the need for industry's help going forward to solve DIA's tough problems. However, solutions must not work just in the lab, but also in the operating environment military and intelligence leaders believe forces will be conducting operations in the future. “Through my career I've seen too many times the technology looks great in the lab ... but it doesn't scale to the battlefield,” he said. Full Article: https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/dodiis/2018/08/15/heres-what-the-dia-director-wants-industry-to-know/

  • Trump orders creation of independent space force - but Congress will still have its say

    19 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval

    Trump orders creation of independent space force - but Congress will still have its say

    Valerie Insinna and Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new ”Space Force,” a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service. But while the president's support for a new military branch is notable, experts -- and a powerful member of Congress -- believe Trump still needs the support of Congress to make a space force happen. “I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces,” Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. “That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important,” Trump added. “General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored.” Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, “We got you.” According to a White House pool report, the president signed the executive order establishing the Space Force at about 12:36 p.m. EST. However, a readout issued from the White House later that day of the executive order contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military. The Air Force referred all questions to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which did not respond immediately to requests for comment. However, a defense official, speaking on background, said “The Joint Staff will work closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other DoD stakeholders and the Congress to implement the President's guidance." Trump's support for creating a separate branch for space is a break from his own adminsitration's stance last year, as well as that of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. “At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department's joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations vice an integrated one we're constructing under our current approach,” Mattis wrote in a 2017 letter to members of Congress. But in recent months, Trump has signaled he was intrigued by the idea of a stand alone space force, saying in a May 1 speech that “We're actually thinking of a sixth” military branch for space. At the time, that statement confounded Air Force leaders who had publicly opposed the creation of a separate space service, leading them to adopt a softer tone when talking about the potential for Space Force to avoid being seen as out of step with Trump. This time, however, Trump's announcement tracks with the Pentagon's schedule for an interim report on whether to establish an independent space corps. Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan said in April that it was on track to be wrapped up on June 1. The final report, which would be sent to Congress, is due in August. Trump's announcement was characteristically vague, but experts say that any new branch would have to come through an act of Congress. “The Congress alone has the power to establish a new branch of the military and to establish the positions of senior executive officials to lead such a department,” said Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who has studied constitutional issues relating to the military. “While the Pentagon can informally create study or working groups, it has no such authority.” The president can have the military lay the groundwork for a future new branch, Turley said, which is close to what Trump seemed to be getting at. By: Kelsey Atherton “What the President can do is to order the study and proposal for a new branch, which would ultimately go to Congress of any authorization and appropriations,” he said. Todd Harrison, an expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed, tweeting Monday that “The president can't just create a new military service on his own. It requires congressional authorization..” “So the near-term practical effect of all this is that the president can direct DoD to come up with a plan and start preparing to create a Space Force, but he still needs congress to authorize it,” Harrison continued. And while sources on Capitol Hill said they believe Trump does have the authority to establish the new military branch, and that their attention will now turn to funding and missions for the new Space Force, at least one Republican member of Congress made his stance clear. “Establishing a service branch requires congressional action,” House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee chair Mike Turner, R-Ohio. “We still don't know what a Space Force would do, who is going to be in it, or how much is it going to cost. “The congressionally mandated report evaluating a Space Force to answer those questions is due in August,” Turner added. “After we get the report that we required as a legislative body and the President signed off on, then this issue can be appropriately evaluated for what's best for national security.” Congress reacts Trump's announcement also left it unclear whether this new space force will rest under the Department of the Air Force — much like the Marine Corps is a component of the Department of the Navy — or whether a new “Department of the Space Force” will also be created. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., the head of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, tweeted out his support for Trump's order. Rogers had previously proposed a separate space service as part of Congress' annual defense policy bill. However, lawmakers and experts also immediately registered their opposition to the announcement. Sen. Bill Nelson, (D-Fla.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees nonmilitary space programs, tweeted that now was not the right time to establish a separate space force. Harrison noted that the infrastructure may already exist to smooth the creation of a space force. “Creating a Space Force would not necessarily mean a huge increase in funding. We already have space forces within the military, this would just be reorganizing them under a single chain of command,” he tweeted. “Yes, there would be some extra overhead costs, but it doesn't have to be huge.” But David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and currently dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, questioned whether the administration had hammered down the details needed to successfully consolidate the military's space functions into a single service. “This is another case of ready, fire, aim,” he said. David Larter, Joe Gould, Tara Copp and Leo Shane III contributed to this report. This story is developing.

Toutes les nouvelles