Norway To Add Sikorsky MH-60R Helicopters For Critical Maritime Missions

Sur le même sujet

• 

  16 août 2019 | International, Terrestre

  Slippery slope: MDA boss fights transfer of missile defense system to Army

  By: Jen Judson HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The new U.S. Missile Defense Agency director is opposed to the transfer of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System, or THAAD, to the Army — something Senate authorizers want to do this year in the fiscal 2020 authorization bill. Talk of transferring THAAD to the Army has been ongoing for roughly a decade. The Army officially operates the system, but the MDA conducts its development and continued modernization. Both MDA and Army leadership have said if Congress were to authorize a transfer, they would not oppose the move as long as the necessary funding is made available and not taken from other portfolios within the service. But there's still a fear that programs transferred to the services is where they go to die, either in their entirety or at least the chance of continued system modernization. For instance, there could be a plan down the road to extend the range of the THAAD interceptor. Historically, at times, when programs are transferred, funding meant to further improve systems has been cannibalized for more pressing, immediate needs within the armed services. “Why would we hand that off to the Army or Air Force, that sort of transfer to a service where it won't be prioritized? They have many other priorities,” MDA Director Vice Adm. Jon Hill told Defense News in an exclusive interview at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. “I don't like organizational experiments on programs that are delivering more fighting capability,” he added. The challenge Before Congress, the military or the MDA consider transferring such a capability, a better definition for “transfer of services” must be ironed out, Hill said. He considers defining this one of his top challenges. “It gets suspicious when we don't have a fully defined term because all it really results in is fracturing of a program during a time where it's most critical to have those programs stable and taking care of the war fighter,” Hill said. “There's been a lot of discussion about the THAAD and the SM-3 [missile] transfer to the services. What does that mean?” The definition of transfer “ranges everything from a full-up transfer of the system over to the service, which assumes that the system is static and how it's designed today is how it's going to be designed forever,” Hill said. If it means transferring operations and sustainment responsibility, and then “put that in the done pile. The Army invests heavily in the operations and sustainment of that. I don't know what more we would want out of them,” he said. The argument MDA is examining whether it is doing enough to support the Army's successful operation and sustainment of the system, he noted, such as whether the service has the right logistics line in place and the right training. A THAAD transfer could also be disruptive to production at a time when THAAD interceptors are in high demand and orders continue to grow. Even if the transfer of THAAD meant the service would responsible for interceptor procurement, the MDA would have to break contracts for the Army to take over, which could result in delayed production, according to Hill. “We know right now, in today's operational environment, we need more,” Hill said. “So that makes no sense to me.” And for Hill, a THAAD transfer is a slippery slope. If the Army took complete control of the batteries, “then there's this discussion, ‘Well, let's include the TPY/2 radar and let's walk it a little bit further and let's take the homeland defense radars that are deployed globally that have a totally different mission.” The resistance to transfer THAAD in its entirety is not a sign of a resistance to transfer where it makes sense, Hill noted. “I often hear that we don't know how to transfer. Well look at the Aegis ships today. Navy procures those ships with ballistic missile defense capability. The Navy has come in and said: ‘Hey, we're going to build a multimission radar to include BMD capability in a SPY-6 [radar],' ” Hill said. “Man, what's wrong with that? That's fantastic.” MDA has also fully transferred the Patriot air and missile defense system to the Army. “Where Patriot is different, is it's a multimission system,” Hill said. “They have air defense as part of the maneuver force. It's sort of like cruise missile defense on a ship. We don't need to take over the Navy's cruise missile defense. ... Patriot is sort of the same thing.” THAAD is part of a wider integrated missile defense system, he added. “THAAD has to stay in MDA ... for the interoperability and integration into the other domains from across the services," Riki Ellison, chairman and founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, told Defense News. "THAAD is not an Army-centric weapon system. It should never be deployed as a standoff, alone weapon system.” The Joint Urgent Operational Need out of the Korean theater that calls for the integration of THAAD and Patriot is a prime example, Ellison noted. “MDA is the only one that has cross-domain [Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications] development and operational development as proven with the [Ground-Based Midcourse Defense] System," he said. Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said: “I'm afraid the Army won't fund THAAD if it's their responsibility. We need to free up more money in MDA so it can focus on research and development, so we have a dilemma. Something has to give.” Short of the defense secretary directing the services to fund and support systems like THAAD, Heinrichs said, “they're probably just going to have to stay in MDA. That means we need a much bigger top line in MDA ... to fund the new technologies needed for advanced threats, especially.” The agency is currently advising the Pentagon and Congress on the right plan for where THAAD should live. “That's something that we have to work internally," Hill noted, "and so we need to get our act together on both sides.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2019/08/14/mda-director-opposes-transfer-of-terminal-missile-defense-system-to-army/

• 

  15 septembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial

  Head of UK's Space Directorate warns of space terrorism

  UK officials says the low cost of getting payloads on orbit could open up potential for new threats in space.

• 

  29 mai 2020 | International, Naval

  Support Swells For New Indo-Pacom Funding; Will Money Follow

  The National Defense Strategy called the Indo-Pacific the DoD's priority theater. “But all of us also recognize that strategy is budget and budget is strategy, and the budget numbers have not supported, to date, the Indo Pacific's role as the primary theater.” By PAUL MCLEARYon May 29, 2020 at 4:01 AM WASHINGTON: Two prominent senators and a top Pentagon official have come out in support of a new fund aimed at boosting the Indo-Pacific command's logistic, training, and missile-defense missions. The Pacific initiative will have to contend with the federal government's massive COVID-19 response and an exploding federal debt, however, some of which may be countered by the increasingly acrimonious relations with China. The idea of a funding package that would build training ranges across the Pacific and beef up missile defense systems in Guam and Hawaii was proposed in April by Indo-Pacom commander Adm. Philip Davidson, who sent a plan to Congress for $20 billion in funding between 2021 and 2026 to bulk up the US presence in the region. The plan received some bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and will now find its way into the debate hammering out the 2021 budget markup this summer, Sen. Jim Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Thursday. In a joint op-ed with the top Democrat on the committee Sen. Jack Reed, the duo wrote that “with the stakes so high, the time for action is now. That's why this year we intend to establish a Pacific Deterrence Initiative in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.” The fund will “focus resources on key military capabilities to deter China. The initiative will also reassure U.S. allies and partners, and send a strong signal to the Chinese Communist Party that the American people are committed to defending U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific.” In a Thursday video conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Heino Klinck, deputy assistant Secretary for East Asia said he also supports the idea, while acknowledging that “it'll be a slog” to get the enhanced funding through Congress while so many other funding priorities are competing for federal dollars. “Obviously, when the National Defense Strategy came out it very clearly stated that the priority theater is for us the Indo-Pacific,” he said. “But all of us also recognize that strategy is budget and budget is strategy, and the budget numbers have not supported, to date, the Indo Pacific's role as the primary theater.” Part of the reason for that has been the Trump administration's inability to extricate itself from ongoing wars in the Middle East, including the fight against ISIS and ongoing tensions with Iran that led to thousands more US troops, aircraft, and aircraft carriers heading to the Middle East over the past year. There have been some signs that the Pentagon is looking to shift focus, however. On Thursday, the USS Mustin destroyer sailed within 12 nautical miles of Woody Island in the Paracel Island chain, where China maintains an airfield although the island is claimed by two other countries and has landed bomber aircraft in the past. The Mustin's pass by was the third time in the past month that American ships have challenged Chinese claims to the Paracel and Spratly islands, and the third since March. US B-1 bombers have also flown over the South China Sea recently, and earlier this month, two Navy ships sailed into the middle of a simmering dispute between China and Malaysia in the South China Sea, while being trailed by a shadowing Chinese warship. The Littoral Combat Ship USS Montgomery and supply ship USNS Cesar Chavez sailed close to a Malaysian drillship, the West Capella, a signal to Chinese warships who spent weeks harassing the vessel in international waters illegally claimed by Beijing. These and “other organic decisions that have come out of the [Pentagon] have demonstrated that we're putting more and more resources into the Indo-Pacific,” Klinck said. “I think the president's intent of reducing our footprint in the Middle East and in Central Asia will also lead to additional resources being available for the Indo-Pacific,” he added, “so I think the trend lines are positive, but it will be a slog particularly now in this COVID environment as resources are even tighter.” Davidson's original proposal called for $1.6 billion in the fiscal 2021 budget submitted earlier this year, and $18.4 billion between 2022 and 2026. The biggest funding recommendation is $5.2 billion over the five-year projection for investments in 360-degree air and missile defense systems, long-range precision fires, and ground- and space-based radars. Davidson also identified as “my number one unfunded priority,” the Homeland Defense System-Guam. It's not clear what the overall contours of the Inhofe-Reed plan might be, but they suggest it will have “the aim of injecting uncertainty and risk into Beijing's calculus, leaving just one conclusion: ‘Not today. You, militarily, cannot win it, so don't even try it.'” House Armed Services Committee leaders have also expressed bipartisan support for the idea, with chairman Adam Smith publicly backing the idea, though he hasn't disclosed any detailed plans. Ranking member Mac Thornberry has suggested finding $6 billion in the 2021 budget on things like air and missile defense systems and new military construction in partner countries. That kind of new spending would likely face an uphill battle finding approval across parties and committees with their own priorities, and with flat budget projections going forward, money will be tighter than in previous years. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/support-swells-for-new-indo-pacom-funding-will-money-follow