14 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
BERLIN — As the European Union positions itself to become a defense force in its own right, some in Washington have wondered if such moves would weaken NATO as the dominant trans-Atlantic security pact. Alliance leaders, including Camille Grand, who serves as NATO's assistant secretary general for defense investment, have defended EU efforts, arguing something good will come out of it if both organizations manage to cooperate.
Grand sat down with Defense News Europe Editor Sebastian Sprenger during the NATO-Industry Forum in Berlin in November to discuss the state of play between the EU and NATO, defense spending by allies, and new technologies on the horizon.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said the alliance can benefit from the European Union's newfound interest in all things defense. How so?
It can be fruitful for both organizations as long as we work well together. Of course it is good news to see the European Union as a more active player in the field of defense, provided that we operate in an environment where we avoid competing guidance to the member states and the allies, especially those who are members of both organizations, and provided that the EU effort strengthens trans-Atlantic security by enabling the European allies to acquire capabilities earlier or faster or in a more efficient way.
We have a number of areas of cooperation between the EU and NATO, including in the field of capability development. Could things be better? Yes, probably, for example in terms of interaction between both organizations and fostering transparency, access to relevant documents, and so forth. Ultimately, I think the issue is whether the European effort can be a good contribution to a broader burden-sharing effort. But I think we also have to keep in mind that the effort in the field of defense remains primarily with nations.
There is still a sizable trans-Atlantic imbalance as it pertains to the size of the defense-industrial base. Is that detrimental in the long run?
The situation is relatively well-known. The defense market in North America, and especially in the United States, is larger than in Europe. There is an imbalance in defense spending; that's the whole point about the defense investment pledge, to partially correct that and having European members invest more in defense.
Beyond that, the consolidation of defense industries took place in the United States earlier. In Europe it is still a process that is underway. There are still many companies competing for all sorts of markets. We have a fragmented demand and a fragmented supply, if you will. The issue is not to end up with a single company in Europe or in the U.S.; I think competition is healthy. The issue is: Can we tackle the issue of fragmentation in a European market? As seen from NATO, we don't really do industrial policy, per se. That's really a European Commission perspective. If it enables Europeans to be more efficient in delivering the capabilities we all need in the alliance, that can be good news.
What do you expect to come out of industry consolidation in Europe?
First of all, I think it has to be a business-driven process, primarily. It's not for organizations such as the EU or NATO to decide. I think what is true is that we see repeatedly cases of where there are a very large number of types of equipment in the same category available. There are a number of medium and small players in Europe that are part of the defense equation, and the defense industry is something where states look carefully at preserving some national capacity. The issue is: Should that organization evolve over time into a slightly more consolidated market? For me, the key criteria is to promote opportunities for multinational cooperations, which is something that we do both at NATO and the EU. It's very important that allies who are EU member states, when they are in a position to do so, decide to go for multinational solutions — with or without a single industrial champion.
The European NATO members have pledge to spend more on defense. How does that manifest itself from where you sit?
First of all, they are indeed spending more on defense. The increase in defense spending for this year is expected to be more than 5 percent for Europe and Canada. It's a complete overturn from the previous 25 years. We are now in the fourth year in a row of increasing defense spending. This is starting to make a real difference. In the last couple of years, Europe and Canada have spent €36 billion (U.S. $27 billion) more on defense than they had done previously. This starts being real money. It enables us to do three things: First of all, to fill some of the very serious gaps that we have — whether in ammunition or spare parts, for example. Secondly, to reinvest in building up capabilities for identified shortfalls, for example air-to-air refueling, anti-submarine warfare, all sorts of domains. Thirdly, to invest in defense for innovation. For example, take a deeper look at disruptive technologies, 21st century technologies.
From where I sit, I can see two things. First of all, the NATO defense-planning targets have been apportioned by all allies. It's the first time in history that all allies have agreed to deliver what they are being asked. Secondly, all allies have agreed to keep increasing their defense spending. We might see nuances in terms of when they intend to reach 2 percent of GDP, which has partly to do with the politics in each country. But I think the political commitment is very strong and was strengthened by the Brussels summit in many ways. There is more money coming, and that creates more opportunities not only for new capabilities but also more cooperation. I think altogether, we have a dynamic that is very positive.
Ultimately it makes a difference. People were always pointing at the fact that the Russian Federation had tripled its defense budget over the previous decade. Without trying to match that in any shape or form into an arms race, we also have seen now that reinvesting massively in defense, as the Russian Federation has done, has given Moscow more ability to act in the Middle East, to modernize its conventional and nuclear forces, and so on and so forth. The notion that investing in defense doesn't make a difference is wrong.
What are the top three of four areas that need more investment for NATO?
One that we are focusing on is the joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance domain. This is something where modern warfare requires us to have an edge. Then also I would emphasize mobility, both tactical and strategic. All of our missions require the alliance to be very mobile and be able to forward-deploy quite quickly. I would also cite integrated air and missile defense as a domain of focus. And lastly, the maritime domain, especially anti-submarine warfare.
But those are only examples. We are in the process of designing NATO for the 21st century, which needs to be more agile and regain a degree of robustness that we didn't necessarily anticipate 10 years ago when we were working on the assumption that the primary objective of NATO would be to have light, deployable forces to go out of area. I could have mentioned cyber, of course, as a priority. I didn't mention it because while it is obviously a major, major domain for building our capabilities on, it is probably not as cash-intensive as others.
The Germans seems to be perpetually moving toward 2 percent of GDP on defense, as opposed to saying when they will reach it. Is that enough? Is the GDP-percentage metric suitable for defense contributions?
First of all, Germany has turned a corner on defense spending. I would note that Germany has a commitment to move to 1.5 percent, which is significant. Is this enough? Probably not. And Germany should meet its political commitment like other allies and aim towards moving as quickly as possible to the 2 percent objective. Having said this, 2 percent is a figure that is quite reasonable. The Cold War figure for Germany was more in the 3 percent realm. The notion that 2 percent would be a massive and disruptive number doesn't seem to me quite convincing.
The second argument that I sometimes hear in the wealthy European countries is that 2 percent when you're rich is much more difficult to achieve. I could exactly reverse that argument, saying 2 percent when you're poor is much more difficult to achieve because then you're competing with much more immediate, existential needs in terms of infrastructure, education and so on.
From that perspective, the good news with the 2 percent concept is that the burden is the same for everyone. Of course, with Germany being the largest economy in Europe, a lot of effort tends to be indeed with Germany. Germany already has demonstrated a willingness to move significantly in this direction, and there are high expectations that it will continue down that route and meet the target. I honestly think it's both doable and manageable. But then, of course, that doesn't happen overnight.
Are NATO and the EU on the same page when it comes to modernizing the members' combat aircraft fleets, especially in Europe?
I wouldn't say there is a NATO-EU competition or disagreement over that because, first of all, NATO doesn't take sides in terms of choosing equipment. NATO identified the need to modernize and keep an effective air force. And then each ally can decided which way they want to go. Some of them, quite a number now, have decided to go for the F-35 solution. On the other hand, other allies have either recently acquired planes that are quite modern — whether it's the Eurofighter or the Rafale — or are projecting to build together — as the French and the Germans [are] — the next generation of aircraft. Britain is also contemplating its own. From a NATO perspective, I think it's fair to say that we recognize every ally's right to pursue what they think is the best approach to address a capability challenge.
The European Union is pursuing a slightly different perspective because the EU does have a dimension in terms of industrial policy and research policy where they can see benefits in supporting technological development in Europe.
The United States, Russia and China are spending significant amounts of money on artificial intelligence research and development. Where does NATO as a whole stand on investments in this area?
We have to look very seriously, as NATO allies, at the latest generation of disruptive technologies. And artificial intelligence is one of them. There is a major challenge coming from other major powers, starting with China. The United States is already well into it, Europe is starting to do that. I would nevertheless put AI in the broader context of new and disruptive technologies because I think it's one of them. And AI can also probably bring a lot to our intelligence efforts. But I would put it in the broader context of all sorts of technology revolutions underway. And maybe sometimes we over-focus on AI only, as if it was the single game changer. Nobody has fully assessed how much it's going to change the way we do military operations. Is AI going to be a tool to assist in decisions, or is AI going to allow for more autonomous systems to operate? On this, we've been working very, very hard, including with Allied Command Transformation.
1 novembre 2021 | International, C4ISR
Defense contractor CACI International on Thursday announced it made two acquisitions in the last quarter, in line with plans to increase its technology-focused business, according to CEO John Mengucci.
20 février 2024 | International, Terrestre
14 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
NAVY The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded a $92,361,661 not-to-exceed firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for Phase 1 integrated logistics support for 22 F/A-18E and 6 F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft in support of the government of Kuwait under the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (85 percent); Fort Walton Beach, Florida (8 percent); New Orleans, Louisiana (5.5 percent); China Lake, California (.5 percent); Patuxent River, Maryland (.5 percent); and Gulf Port, Mississippi (.5 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2020. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $38,792,947 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to 10 U.S. Code. 2304(c)(1). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0033). CRL Technologies Inc., Alexandria, Virginia, is awarded an $84,327,079 cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for lead systems integrator contractor support services to perform engineering, technical and project management for a wide variety of new and existing programs and platforms in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division's AIRWorks organization. Work will be performed in Lexington Park, Maryland, and is expected to be completed in December 2023. No funds will be obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. This contract was competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals; five offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00421-19-D-0026). Envisioneering Inc.,* Alexandria, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2002); R&M Technology Solutions LLC,* Fredericksburg, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2003); Technology Service Corp.,* Arlington, Virginia (N00173-19-D-2005); Remcom Inc.,* State College, Pennsylvania (N00173-19-D-2004); and Cutlass Systems Engineering LLC,* Laurel, Maryland (N00173-19-D-2001), are awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award contracts for Modeling, Analysis, Research, and Simulation (MARS). The cumulative face value on this multiple award contract is a combined $48,400,000. This action does not include options. Work will be performed at the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia (90 percent); and depending on each task order, one of the following contractor's facility - Alexandria, Virginia; Fredericksburg, Virginia; Arlington, Virginia; State College, Pennsylvania; Laurel, Maryland (10 percent). This contract has a five-year ordering period and is expected to be completed Dec. 11, 2023. No funds will be obligated at the time of award. Funds will be obligated as task orders are issued. This contract is one of five contracts being competitively procured under a request for proposal #N00173-16-R-JH03 for which six proposals were received. The Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. General Dynamics Mission Systems, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, is awarded $35,034,283 for modification P00001 to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00030-19-C-0003) for research and development, and sustainment efforts for the U.S. SSBN Fire Control Sub-system (FCS), the U.K FCS and the U.S. SSGN Attack Weapon Control System, including training and support equipment and U.S./UK Shipboard data system. Work will be performed in Pittsfield, Massachusetts (98 percent); Kings Bay, Georgia (1 percent); and Dahlgren, Virginia (1 percent), with an expected completion date of September 2019. Fiscal 2019 other procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $23,665,513; fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,666,207; fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $2,857,813, and U.K. funds in the amount of $2,844,750 are being obligated on this award. Funds in the amount of $5,666,207 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Jacobs Government Services Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $25,000,000 firm-fixed-price modification to increase the maximum dollar value of a previously awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N62742-17-D-0003) for Architect-Engineering (A-E) services for design, engineering, specification writing, cost estimating, and related services at various locations under the cognizance of Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific. The work to be performed provides for services that include, but are not limited to, design and engineering services for the preparation of plans; specifications utilizing NAVFAC SpecsIntact program: cost estimates utilizing the micro-computer aided cost estimating system; second generation cost estimating system: and other services such as design and engineering services for functional analysis and concept development, request for proposal (RFP) documentation for design-build projects, RFP documentation, and plans and specifications for design-bid-build projects. After award of this modification, the total cumulative contract value will be $55,000,000. Work will be performed predominantly in Tinian (54 percent); Guam (25 percent); Hawaii (19 percent); and Diego Garcia (1 percent); and other areas within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Pacific area of responsibility (1 percent), and is expected to be completed by August 2022. No funds will be obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual task orders as they are issued. Task orders will be primarily funded by customer reimbursable funds. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. General Electric Aviation, Lynn, Massachusetts, is awarded $11,626,714 for cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order N0042119F0231 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N0042119G0001). This order provides for engineering and engine system improvement in support of the F414 engine component improvement program. Work will be performed in Lynn, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed in December 2019. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; and fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $10,817,305 are being obligated on this award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. EDO LLC, Amityville, New York, is awarded $8,661,189 for modification P00010 to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, firm-fixed-price, cost reimbursable contract (N00019-17-C-0029). This modification provides for the procurement of 77 BRU-55A/A aircraft bomb ejector racks for the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F aircraft. Work will be performed in Amityville, New York, and is expected to be completed in June 2021. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $8,661,189 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Lakehurst, New Jersey, is the contracting activity. ARMY DRS Sustainment Systems Inc., St. Louis, Missouri, was awarded a $48,741,559 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for technical support services. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 12, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity (W56HZV-19-D-0006). Lockheed Martin Corp., Orlando, Florida, was awarded a $40,372,494 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for analysis, design, development, integration, test, help desk, product improvements, fielding, software development, and exercise support. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 12, 2020. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 research, development, test and evaluation; operations and maintenance Army; and other procurement, Army funds in the combined amount of $31,199,618 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Orlando, Florida, is the contracting activity (W900KK-19-C-0012). General Atomics Aeronautical, Poway, California, was awarded a $40,000,000 modification (P00029) to contract W58RGZ-17-C-0035 for services on the Gray Eagle unmanned aircraft system. Work will be performed in Poway, California, with an estimated completion date of June 15, 2019. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $25,000,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. The RAND Corp., Santa Monica, California, was awarded a $21,898,593 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for research and analytic projects. One bid was solicited with one bid received. Work will be performed in Santa Monica, California, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2020. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $18,974,861 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity (W91CRB-19-F-0038). AIR FORCE The Boeing Co., Fort Walton Beach, Florida, has been awarded an $11,746,605, cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00014) to exercise Option Three of contract FA8509-16-C-0001 for the integrated sustainment support of the AC‐130U gunships. This modification provides for the continuation of services for the development, modification, sustainment, and maintenance of the AC‐130U gunship. Work will be performed at Fort Walton Beach, Florida, and deployed locations in Afghanistan and Kuwait, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2019 for the negotiated option. This award is the result of a sole-source acquisition and is incrementally funded. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $6,000,000 are being obligated at the time of award. Total cumulative face value of the contract modification is $11,746,605. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING SERVICES Kearney & Company PC, Alexandria, Virginia, is being awarded a labor-hour contract option with a maximum value of $8,799,484 for audit services of the Marine Corps General Fund financial statements. Work will be performed in Alexandria, Virginia, with an expected completion date of Dec 31, 2019. This contract is the result of a competitive acquisition for which four quotes were received. The contract had a 15-month base period plus three individual one-year option periods, with a maximum value of $38,372,103. This award brings the total cumulative value of the contract to $29,328,747. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance, Navy funds in the amount of $8,799,484 are being obligated at the time of this option award. The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Contract Services Directorate, Columbus, Ohio, is the contracting activity (HQ0423-16-F-0114). DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY UPDATE: Kipper Tool Co., Gainesville, Georgia (SPE8EC-19-D-0035), has been added as an awardee to the multiple-award contract for commercial construction equipment, issued against solicitation SPE8EC-17-R-0005 announced April 5, 2017. *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1713264/