New Images Of The Tempest Sixth-Generation Aircraft Revealed During UK Industry Engagement Event

Sur le même sujet

• 

  28 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

  Global defense spending sees biggest spike in a decade

  By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Global defense spending hit $1.917 trillion in 2019, a 3.6 percent increase over previous year figures and the largest increase in one year since 2010, according to the annual report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The United States remains the world's largest defense spender in 2019, with its $732 billion representing 38 percent of global military spending, SIPRI has reported. That was followed by China ($261 billion, at 14 percent of global total), India ($71.1 billion, at 3.7 percent), Russia ($65.1 billion, at 3.4 percent) and Saudi Arabia ($61.9 billion, at 3.2 percent). All told, the top five nations accounted for 62 percent of overall military spending. “Global military expenditure was 7.2 percent higher in 2019 than it was in 2010, showing a trend that military spending growth has accelerated in recent years,” SIPRI's Nan Tian said in a statement. “This is the highest level of spending since the 2008 global financial crisis and probably represents a peak in expenditure.” Large year-over-year increases were seen in China (5.1 percent), India (6.8 percent), Russia (4.5 percent), Germany (10 percent) and South Korea (7.5 percent). Regionally, military spending increased in Europe by 5 percent, Asia and Oceania by 4.8 percent, the Americas by 4.7 percent, and Africa by 1.5 percent. Combined military spending by the 29 NATO member states was $1.035 trillion in 2019. SIPRI is widely considered to be the authority on military expenditures and exports, having gathered such data for decades. Other key developments, as noted by the researchers: Together, the top 15 countries spent $1.553 trillion, 81 percent of global military spending. All but three countries in the top 15 had higher military expenditures in 2019 than in 2010, the exceptions being the U.S. (15 percent drop), the U.K. (15 percent drop) and Italy (11 percent drop.) Total military expenditures of the 11 countries in the Middle East for which data is available decreased by 7.5 percent to $147 billion, driven in part by an estimated 16 percent drop from Saudi Arabia. That overall percentage also decreased in 2018. SIPRI was unable to calculate totals from Qatar, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Military spending in South America was relatively unchanged from the previous year, coming in at $52.8 billion. Fifty-one percent of that spending, $26.9 billion, came from Brazil. Combined military expenditures from Africa grew by 1.5 percent to an estimated $41.2 billion in 2019, the first time that region saw a spending increase in five years. That includes plus-ups in Burkina Faso (22 percent), Cameroon (1.4 percent), Mali (3.6 percent), the Central African Republic (8.7 percent), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (16 percent) and Uganda (52 percent). Of the 149 countries SIPRI studied, 10 allocated 4 percent or more of their gross domestic product to the military, which the group defines as the “military burden.” Thirteen countries had a military burden of 3 to 3.9 percent of GDP; 24 had a military burden of 2 to 2.9 percent; 65 had a military burden of 1 to 1.9 percent; and 34 allocated less than 1 percent of their GDP to the military. Three countries had no military expenditures in 2019: Costa Rica, Iceland and Panama. https://www.defensenews.com/global/2020/04/27/global-defense-spending-sees-biggest-spike-in-a-decade/

• 

  5 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  The defense industry needs new entrants, and a supportive government during crises

  By: Venture capital community leaders The COVID-19 health crisis is quickly leading to an economic meltdown, throwing millions of Americans out of work and forcing strategic reevaluations across industries. The defense industry is no exception. We are praying for a swift end to the crisis, but its effects will linger, shaping the Pentagon's priorities, organizational structure, military operations, logistics, supply chains and interactions with the defense-industrial base for years to come. In the past few weeks, we have had numerous conversations with government officials about our venture and growth equity investments in the defense sector. These discussions have centered on the eligibility rules of the CARES Act's Paycheck Protection Program and the risk of foreign capital seeking entry into defense technology startups desperate for investment in these trying times. But these are secondary questions. The primary question is this: How can the Pentagon best preserve its innovation base and develop the most competitive and advanced technologies? The answer is simple: Buy commercial. New and emerging defense startups — and our men and women in uniform — don't need symbolic gestures. What they need is concerted action to bring the latest and most advanced technologies — many of which are routinely used in industry — to dangerously antiquated defense weapons systems and internal IT infrastructure. This was true before COVID-19, it is true now and it will be true when the next crisis strikes. All too often the government has responded to crises by circling wagons around incumbent firms — the large prime contractors, whose political connections afford them bailouts in the name of “ensuring ongoing competition.” This process is already underway. After announcing its hope for a $60 billion relief package for the aerospace manufacturing industry, Boeing successfully lobbied for $17 billion worth of loans for firms “critical to maintaining national security.” The CARES Act also announced provisions to streamline the Defense Department's contracting process, which sounds promising, except for the fact that these provisions apply only to contracts worth over $100 million. This discriminates against smaller, more nimble innovators and providers of cutting-edge technology. This isn't how things have always been. After complaints about large horse dealers monopolizing military contracts during the Civil War, the government allowed quartermasters to purchase horses and mules from any dealer on the open market. In World War II, Congress created the Smaller War Plants Corporation, which awarded tens of thousands of contracts to small, competitive firms. Today, through innovative use of Small Business Innovation Research money, other transactional authorities, rapid work programs and the like, the Pentagon is certainly signaling interest in emerging technologies. But let us be clear: We are not advocating continuing to invest larger dollar amounts into never-ending, short-term pilots and prototypes. The key to sustaining the innovation base through this crisis and any future crises is transitioning the best of these companies and products into real production contracts serving the day-to-day needs of the mission. Host tough, but fair competitions for new innovations, and then rapidly scale the winners. America's technological supremacy has afforded our country nearly a century of military hegemony, but it is not a law of nature. Sovereign states and peer competitors like Russia and China will quickly outpace us if we take our prowess for granted. We need new entrants into the defense industry more than ever, but without government support through crises like this one, the talent and capital simply won't be there. Why do investors say defense isn't a safe bet? As the Department of Defense readily acknowledges, its mission is fundamentally changing. Breakthroughs in technological fields like artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, robotics, resilient networks and cyberwarfare mean that future conflicts will look nothing like those we have seen before. The DoD of tomorrow needs a fresh wave of technical expertise to understand and respond to these new kinds of threats. That is not to say that legacy defense contractors are not needed; their expertise in large air and sea vehicles is currently unparalleled. But the expertise to build these new technologies resides in pockets of talent that the big and bureaucratic incumbents, who made their names with 20th century technology, lost access to decades ago. The DoD has publicly exalted the importance of innovative defense startups for years. That is partly why we are so excited to invest capital into the defense sector at this moment in history. Silicon Valley has a chance to live up to its oft-ridiculed but sincere ambition to make the world a better place by investing in American national security. However, we as venture capitalists and growth equity investors also have a duty to our limited partners who have entrusted us to invest and grow their capital. If we see the same old story of the government claiming to support small businesses but prioritizing its old incumbents, those investment dollars will disappear. Times of rapid and unprecedented change, as COVID-19 has precipitated, also provide opportunities. The DoD and Congress can reshape budget priorities to put their money where their mouths have been and support innovative defense technologies. Each dollar awarded to a successful venture capital and growth equity-backed defense startup through a competitively awarded contract attracts several more dollars in private investment, providing the DoD significantly more leverage that if that same dollar was spent on a subsidy or loan to a large legacy contractor. This leverage of private capital means that every contract a startup receives accelerates by up to 10 times their ability to build technology and hire talent to support the DoD's mission. The bottom line is this: There's no reason to let a health crisis today become a national security crisis tomorrow. The DoD has an opportunity to not only sustain but grow its innovation base, and give contracts, not lip service, to innovators. We, the undersigned, hope they do. The contributors to this commentary are: Steve Blank of Stanford University; Katherine Boyle of General Catalyst; James Cham of Bloomberg Beta; Ross Fubini of XYZ Capital; Antonio Gracias of Valor Equity Partners, who sits on the boards of Tesla and SpaceX; Joe Lonsdale of 8VC, who also co-founded Palantir; Raj Shah of Shield Capital, who is a former director of the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit; Trae Stephens of, Founders Fund; JD Vance of Narya Capital; Albert Wenger of Union Square Ventures; Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital; Hamlet Yousef of IronGate Capital; and Dan Gwak of Point72. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/04/the-defense-industry-needs-new-entrants-and-a-supportive-government-during-crises/

• 

  12 février 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Army Seeks New JLTV Competition In 2022

  The service is already slowing production of Oshkosh's Joint Light Tactical Vehicle and now wants to find an alternative manufacturer —which could create logistical or legal headaches. Other Oshkosh programs are also ramping down. By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. PENTAGON: As the Army moves billions into new high-tech weapons, truck-maker Oshkosh is feeling the pinch. The 2021 budget request not only decreases spending on three Oshkosh vehicles, the 10-wheel FHTV, the 6-wheel FMTV, and 4×4 JLTV: It also calls for a new competition the following fiscal year for JLTV, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle originally meant to replace the Humvee. That's especially worrying for the Wisconsin company, because JLTV is the youngest program of the three and the most important for the company's long-term future. But then-Army Secretary Mark Esper — now Secretary of Defense — has publicly criticized JLTV as overly specialized for the kind of counterinsurgency conflicts the Pentagon is no longer focused on. While the Army insists it will still buy the planned total of 49,099 trucks, eventually, it keeps slowing down the annual rate and extended the deadline to complete production, which now won't end until 2042. (That leaves the Humvee in service, at least with some units, indefinitely). Why recompete? “We do that to drive the price down,” said Deputy Assistant Army Secretary John Daniels this morning, when my colleague Jen Judson asked about the proposal. But any new competition would be two fiscal years from now and Daniels declined to give any details. The only other information about the plan is buried on page 102 of the fifth volume of the Army's newly released procurement request for 2021, which also includes projections for 2022 and beyond. Under JLTV, the “justification book” says that: “Current contract options may be exercised through 30 November 2023 assuming contractual quantity headspace is still available. Current funding indicates headspace quantity of 16,901 may be achieved in FY 2021, with competitive follow on contract award anticipated in FY 2022. A split procurement will occur between the existing Oshkosh contract and the new competitively awarded contract based on the approved acquisition strategy. The Program Office continues to gather insight from industry partners to better understand their position to ensure strong competition for the follow on contract.” In plain English, this means Oshkosh's current contract to build Joint Light Tactical Vehicles runs though fall 2023. Since production will continue for decades, the Army will have to award a new contract to buy more JLTVs for itself, the other services and allies. But when it comes time to award that follow-on contract, the service doesn't want Oshkosh to be its only option: It wants at least one competitor to drive down costs. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/02/army-seeks-new-jltv-competition-in-2022