16 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial
By: Leo Shane III
The next few months could decide whether the Defense Department gets another base closing round in the next decade, according to a new analysis from a conservative think tankwarning military officials not to dismiss the potential looming impact on budgets and readiness.
Officials from the Heritage Foundation, whose policy priorities have helped influence President Donald Trump's administration, have in the past supported a new base closing round to cut back on excess military infrastructure and more efficiently spend annual defense funding.
In the analysis released this week, author Frederico Bartels — policy analyst for defense budgeting at the foundation — said a Pentagon report on the issue being compiled now represents “the best chance for the Department of Defense to make the case for a new round of BRAC” in years, and perhaps the last realistic chance to advance the idea for the near future.
“I think it's the last chance of the Trump administration to make an argument for this,” he said in an interview with Military Times. “Even if he gets re-elected next year, I think it will be hard to go back and make the case if they're unsuccessful this time.”
The military convened six base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commissions between 1988 and 2005, shutting down dozens of military installations and turning over that land to state and local municipalities.
The process has always been fraught with political turmoil, as lawmakers protest any loss of jobs, military personnel and resulting economic benefits in their districts. But the 2005 BRAC round was particularly controversial, as defense officials consolidated numerous service locations into joint bases and massively rearranged force structure in an attempt to modernize the military.
As a result, cost saving projections from that process were significantly below past rounds, and members of Congress have strongly opposed any attempts at another round since then.
In the fiscal 2019 national defense authorization act, lawmakers did include language for a new military infrastructure capacity report — due next February — where defense officials can make the case for the need for additional closures. Similar Pentagon reports in the last few years have shown excess capacity of between 19 and 22 percent.
Bartels said Pentagon leaders have repeatedly supported the idea of another round in recent years, but have done a poor job selling lawmakers on the idea.
“The department needs to make the case for a new round of BRAC based on two key tenets: potential savings and the National Defense Strategy,” he wrote. “A new BRAC round could save $2 billion by reducing unneeded infrastructure. Additionally, a new round of BRAC would permit the department to assess its infrastructure against the threats outlined by the National Defense Strategy, providing a holistic look at all of the infrastructure.”
He warns that naming specific locations will only exacerbate political tensions on the issue, and said defense officials also need to publicly acknowledge problems with the 2005 base realignment round to win back congressional support.
And Bartels argues that the Trump administration must do more to push the issue. Defense officials requested a base closing round as part of their annual budget for six consecutive years before the Trump White House dropped the idea in their fiscal 2019 and 2020 budget plans.
If officials fail to request one next spring, or if the planned infrastructure report is delayed by several months, the department risks pushing the idea back at minimum an entire extra budget cycle and likely several more years down the road. Even if approved, the new BRAC round is likely to take several years of research and debate before any recommendations are made.
“I think there is still support for this in Congress,” Bartels said. “I think there are enough people that are about good stewardship of government funds that this can move ahead, if (defense officials) make the right argument. At least, I hope those lawmakers still exist.”
The full analysis is available on the Heritage Foundation's website.
13 octobre 2021 | International, Naval
The US Department of State has approved a potential Foreign Military Sales deal for the Royal Australian Navy of 12 additional Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk submarine-hunting helicopters for an estimated $985 million.
18 juillet 2022 | International, Aérospatial
GA-ASI will begin first delivery of aircraft and support equipment this winter to facilitate the fleet standup in late summer 2023 for USMC VMU 3 located at Marine Corps Air Station Kaneohe...
5 février 2019 | International, Naval
Par Michel Cabirol L'Australie et le groupe naval vont signer l'accord cadre de leur partenariat stratégique (Strategic Partnering Agreement). Naval Group devrait signer avant le printemps un contrat portant sur le design des sous-marins et estimé entre 1 et 2 milliards d'euros. En Australie, Naval Group va bientôt voir la lumière après un très, très long tunnel de négociations. Lundi prochain, l'Australie et le groupe naval tricolore vont signer l'accord cadre de leur partenariat stratégique (Strategic Partnering Agreement ou SPA) en présence de Florence Parly et de son homologue australien Christopher Pyne, selon l'entourage de la ministre des Armées. Des négociations qui avaient commencé début février 2017. Un accord intergouvernemental entre l'Australie et la France avait été signé en décembre 2016. Ce contrat "chapeau" intègre toutes les clauses de transferts de technologies, de garanties, de risques et de couvertures notamment sur la durée du contrat (50 ans). Il doit également protéger les propriétés intellectuelles de Naval Group. C'est donc l'aboutissement de négociations tripartites très complexes, qui vont en grande partie verrouiller le contrat du siècle pour Naval Group, sélectionné en 2016 par Canberra pour fabriquer douze sous-marins à propulsion classique pour un montant évalué à 50 milliards de dollars australiens (36,2 milliards d'euros). Rassurer l'Australie Cet accord vise principalement à assurer à (et rassurer) l'Australie que Naval Group sera capable tout au long de la durée de la vie du contrat des sous-marins (50 ans) de maintenir son outil industriel. La France a dû donner son assurance à l'Australie que Naval Group existera encore dans 50 ans pour assurer l'entretien des douze b'timents qui sont stratégiques pour Canberra. De même, selon l'entourage de la ministre, le résultat des prochaines élections législatives australiennes, qui doivent avoir lieu au premier semestre 2019 afin de renouveler l'intégralité des 151 sièges de la Chambre des représentants et 40 des 76 sièges du Sénat, ne devrait pas changer l'accord entre l'Australie et Naval Group. Des assurances par l'opposition ont été données à la ministre lors de son passage en septembre dernier. Un deuxième contrat en voie d'être signé L'Australie devrait signer avant le printemps un deuxième contrat avec Naval Group, qui porte sur le design des sous-marins. Il était attendu depuis octobre 2017. Le montant est évalué entre 1 et 2 milliards d'euros. Ce contrat lancera officiellement les activités du bureau d'études du groupe naval en matière de design et d'analyse fonctionnelle des futurs b'timents. Il permettra de définir non seulement les spécificités opérationnelles des sous-marins mais également de déterminer le coût et les délais de fabrication. Enfin, il restera ensuite à Naval Group de signer le contrat de fabrication des douze sous-marins... Soit le contrat du sicèle. Naval Group avait signé en septembre 2016 un premier contrat opérationnel d'environ 300 millions d'euros, dénommé "Design and Mobilisation Contract". Il avait permis de lancer les activités de structuration du programme et de coordination avec le groupe américain Lockheed Martin, l'intégrateur du système de combat et les partenaires australiens. https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/sous-marins-la-france-et-l-australie-vont-verrouiller-le-contrat-du-siecle-806260.html