9 avril 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre

Missile Defense Review expected in May


WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration’s review of America’s missile defense capabilities is now expected to be released in May.

The Missile Defense Review, a strategy document designed to take a holistic view of America’s missile defense posture, was expected to be released in February. But finally, it appears the document is nearing completion.

Pentagon spokesman Tom Crosson, in response to an inquiry by Defense News, said that the review is “currently in development” and that “we expect to release the review sometime next month.” The review is expected to be unclassified.

The review is part of a series of big-picture strategic documents that started with the December release of the National Security Strategy, followed by the January release of the National Defense Strategy, and continued with February’s Nuclear Posture Review.

Notably, the review was originally positioned as a “ballistic missile defense review,” but the term ballistic has since been dropped by the Trump administration ― something Tom Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said was a wise choice.

“The fact that the administration has dropped ‘ballistic’ from the review’s title indicates the document will probably employ a wider lens,” Karako wrote in a CSIS analysis Friday. “This could include a robust effort to better defend against Russian and Chinese cruise missiles, other maneuvering endo-atmospheric threats like hypersonic boost-glide vehicles (HGVs), and advanced short-range ballistic missiles.”

Although no one has spelled out the direction of the review, there have been some hints given about where the administration intends to take missile defense. The FY19 budget request for the Missile Defense Agency, for instance, increased by $2 billion from previous funding levels, with an express focus on defeating a missile threat from North Korea. And Michael Griffin, the Pentagon’s new head of research and engineering, has expressed support for investing in airborne missile defense capabilities.

Jen Judson in Washington contributed to this report.


Sur le même sujet

  • « Le laser fait rêver les militaires de tous les pays » selon le PDG de Lumibird

    16 septembre 2021 | International, Terrestre, C4ISR

    « Le laser fait rêver les militaires de tous les pays » selon le PDG de Lumibird

    Dans une interview accordée à La Tribune, Marc Le Flohic, PDG de Lumibird, évoque les raisons de la montée en puissance des armes laser dans la défense. Maîtriser leur technologie présente un grand intérêt par rapport aux armes traditionnelles : « c'est une arme extrêmement précise, beaucoup plus rapide, plus simple dans son utilisation (pas de balistique) et moins chère à l'usage. Elle n'est pas non plus soumise aux contraintes du vent. C'est pour cela qu'elle fait beaucoup rêver les militaires de tous les pays », détaille le dirigeant. En juillet dernier, Lumibird est entré au capital de CILAS, filiale d’ArianeGroup, à hauteur de 37%. « CILAS est pour nous une brique importante dans la construction d'un pôle souverain dans le domaine de la défense et du spatial, positionné sur les sous-systèmes et les composants. Notre ambition est de développer une offre transverse pour alimenter l'ensemble des intégrateurs français et européens et d'assurer à cette capacité une production totalement souveraine en France afin d'éviter des restrictions, notamment au niveau des réglementations ITAR. En outre, nous pourrions continuer à innover en transférant de nouvelles technologies qui viennent du monde civil - technologies de laser à fibre - vers le monde de la défense », détaille Marc Le Flohic. 

  • The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let’s move to protect the alliance.

    14 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    The coronavirus threatens NATO. Let’s move to protect the alliance.

    By: Sophia Becker , Christian Mölling , and Torben Schütz The global fight against COVID-19 has devastating economic consequences which might soon be felt in the defense sector. First estimates by OECD and national institutions conclude that the initial economic impact of the measures to fight the virus will by far exceed that of the 2008 financial crisis. The severe socio-economic consequences may tempt European governments to prioritize immediate economic relief over long-term strategic security and defense considerations. The good news is: there is no automatism – it remains fundamentally a political decision. If European governments do decide to slash defense spending as a result of the current crisis, it would be the second major hit within a decade. Defense budgets have only just begun to recover towards pre-2008 crisis levels, though capabilities have not. Nationally, as well as on an EU and NATO level, significant gaps still exist. European armies have lost roughly one-third of their capabilities over the last two decades. At the same time, the threat environment has intensified with an openly hostile Russia and a rising China. With European defense budgets under pressure, the United States might see any effort to balance burden-sharing among allies fall apart. A militarily weak Europe would be no help against competitors either. The US should work with allies now to maintain NATO’s capabilities. Improve coordination to avoid past mistakes Europe’s cardinal mistake from the last crisis was uncoordinated national defense cuts instead of harmonized European decisions. In light of the looming budget crisis, governments could be tempted to react the same way. This would be the second round of cuts within a decade, leaving not many capabilities to pool within NATO. If domestic priorities trump considerations about procurement of equipment for the maintenance and generation of military capabilities the system-wide repercussions would be severe. NATO defense, as well as the tightly knit industrial network in Europe, will suffer. Capabilities that can only be generated or sustained multinationally – like effective air defense, strategic air transport or naval strike groups - could become even more fragile; some critical ones may even disappear. If Europeans cut back on capabilities like anti-submarine warfare, armored vehicles of all sorts and mine-warfare equipment again, they could endanger the military capacity of nearly all allies. Ten years ago, such capabilities for large-scale and conventional warfare seemed rather superfluous, but today NATO needs them more than ever. This outcome should be avoided at all costs, because rebuilding those critical forces would be a considerable resource investment and could take years. Europe would become an even less effective military actor and partner to the US, resulting in more discord about burden-sharing. Uncoordinated cuts would also affect the defense industry, as development and procurement programs would be delayed or cancelled altogether – hitting both European and American companies. Moreover, their ability to increase efficiency through transnational mergers and acquisitions and economies of scale is limited due to continued national sentiments in Europe. Companies might decide to either aggressively internationalize, including massive increase of defense exports, or leave the market as national armed forces as otherwise reliable clients drop out. Technological innovation would suffer from a shrinking defense industrial ecosystem and duplicated national research and development efforts, risking the foundation of security for the next generation of defense solutions. To safeguard NATO’s strategic autonomy, lean on lead nations   In order to prevent the loss of critical capabilities and infrastructure within NATO, the US should immediately start working with its European partners to preemptively plan for increasingly tight budgets. NATO should take stock of existing capabilities and offer alternatives for consolidation. Based on a coordinated effort to redefine NATO’s level of ambition and priorities, it should offer plans for maintaining the military capacity to act while retiring unnecessary and outdated resources. Such a coordinated effort should include close cooperation with the European Union. Building on the NATO Framework Nations Concept, the United States should work with a network of larger member states, better equipped to weather the economic shock of the current crisis, to act as lead nations. These countries could safeguard critical defense capabilities and provide a foundation of essential forces, enabling smaller partners to attach their specialized capabilities. Such an arrangement allows for a comparatively good balance of financial strain and retention of military capacity. Additionally, NATO should look beyond the conventional military domain and build on lessons learned from hybrid warfare and foreign influence operations against Europe. The way ahead is clear: As ambitions for European strategic autonomy become wishful thinking in light of the current crisis, allies should focus on retaining NATO’s strategic autonomy as a whole. For the foreseeable future, both sides of the Atlantic have to live by one motto: NATO first! The authors are analysts at the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/09/the-coronavirus-threatens-nato-lets-move-to-protect-the-alliance/

  • UK MoD gets budget boost of more than $1B with three programs in mind

    30 octobre 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR

    UK MoD gets budget boost of more than $1B with three programs in mind

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Britain’s Ministry of Defence has been given a £1 billion (U.S. $1.28 billion) spending boost in the Treasury budget announcement Oct. 29, with Chancellor Philip Hammond suggesting the money would be mainly spent on three strategic military programs. Hammond said the additional money would be available in the coming months. Cyber, anti-submarine warfare and the Dreadnought nuclear submarine build program all got named as destinations for the extra cash. “As a former defense secretary myself I understand the immediate pressure our armed forces are facing, so today I will provide £1 billion to cover the remainder of this year and next to boost our cyber, and anti-submarine warfare capacity and to maintain the pace of the Dreadnought program,” Hammond told Parliament. The increase caught many by surprise. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been battling with Hammond for months for extra cash, but a massive funding commitment to the National Health Service made new funds toward security seem unlikely. Jon Louth, the director for defence, industry and society at the Royal United Services Institute think-tank in London said the additional funding was good news, but fell well short of what is required. “It’s welcome, but comes nowhere near addressing the potential funding gap if you add up all the programs in the equipment plan. It does appear to be a significant increase in percentage terms, although the devil will be in the detail,” he said. The RUSI analyst said the outcome was “better than we expected a few months ago. Politically people will be chalking that up as a win for Williamson in the context of the wider government budget. One billion pounds is a win,” he said. Louth cautioned against getting too hung up on the chancellor’s announcement about where the extra cash will be spent. “I suspect when we come to see how the money is used next year it will potentially be a little different from the chancellor’s headlines today,” he said. Defense consultant Alex Ashbourne Walmsley of Ashbourne Strategic Consulting said the new money was a “sticking plaster, but it will buy the MoD a bit more time to work out how to do more with less.” Earlier this year the MoD received a total of £800 million in funds to keep the program to build four Trident missile equipped Dreadnought nuclear submarines on track. Some £600 million of that cash came from a £10 billion contingency fund set aside by the government for the Dreadnought program. Ashbourne-Walmsley described the Dreadnought program as a “money pit.” The MoD is trying to bridge a funding gap in its £179 billion 10-year equipment plan. The black hole is put at anywhere between £4 billion and £20 billion by the National Audit Office, the government’s financial watchdog. The final figure is dependent, in part, on how effective an ongoing efficiency drive is at the MoD. The MoD budget for this year is £36.6 billion with 15.6 percent of that spent on equipment procurement and 18.7 percent on support. The Conservative government is committed to increasing equipment spending in real terms by 0.5 percent a year until 2020. A long running review, known as the Defence Modernisation Program, has been looking at how British armed forces can adapt and transform to meet the changing and growing military threat, while at the same time balancing the books — an effort that could require capability cuts in several areas. Publication of that report has already been kicked down the road a couple of times. Although Williamson may announce something before the end of the year, analysts and industry executives expect little of substance ahead of a comprehensive spending review due to take place across all government departments next year. Hammond appeared to say as much today when he told Parliamentarians the modernisation review will “form the basis for a comprehensive consideration of defense spending next year.” “The Modernizing Defence Program is increasingly tied into the comprehensive spending review and the 10-year equipment plan in 2019. We might get a whitepaper in late winter or early spring to set up some of the themes but the details won’t be out until beyond April,” said Louth. Some industry executives though are starting to wonder if the modernization program could be published even by April. One executive who asked not to be named, said he wondered whether the comprehensive spending plan might be the trigger for a full blown strategic defense review, particularly if Brexit goes badly and the economy takes a big hit. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/10/29/uk-mod-gets-budget-boost-of-more-than-1b-with-three-programs-in-mind

Toutes les nouvelles