Shanahan: Super Hornet on track to meet readiness goals, but F-16s and F-22s still struggling

Sur le même sujet

• 

  9 janvier 2019 | International, Naval, C4ISR

  9 companies will compete for work on the Navy’s giant engineering contract

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Navy awarded a contract for cyber, electronic warfare and information warfare services to nine companies in a deal that could eventually be worth as much as $962 million. The companies include Grove Resource Solutions Inc., Millennium Corp., SimVentions Inc., BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton, CACI NSS Inc., General Dynamics Information Technology, Leidos, Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. and Scientific Research Corp. The new contract, run out of the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in South Carolina, will provide cyber mission engineering support services and deliver “information warfare capabilities through sea, air, land, space, electromagnetic, and cyber domains through the full range of military operations and levels of war,” according to a Nov. 30 contract announcement. According to a Jan. 7 press release from General Dynamics, the company will compete for individual task orders to provide “state-of-the-art solutions for the Navy and Marine Corps' warfighting needs.” A spokesman clarified that GDIT expects to compete for the opportunity to provide C4ISR capability to the Navy and Marines with the potential to develop prototypes depending on specific requirements. The spokesperson added that the contract might present opportunities to assist in the Navy's premier electronic warfare program Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program as requirements overlap. https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2019/01/08/9-companies-will-compete-for-work-on-the-navys-giant-engineering-contract

• 

  19 octobre 2020 | International, Naval

  2019 was a landmark year for Connecticut’s defense industry

  Julia Bergman Military contractors in Connecticut had their most lucrative year in more than a decade in 2019, receiving $37.1 billion in defense contracts last year. That's according to the State of Connecticut Office of Military Affairs, which has tracked contracts received by the state's defense industry since 2007 and releases an annual report on the outlook for the industry. In reality, the value of defense contracts awarded in 2019 to Connecticut companies or companies doing business in the state was likely higher than $37.1 billion, as the report only relies on prime contracts worth $7 million or more. The previous high was in 2014, when the report recorded $27.1 billion in contracts. The growth in 2019 was spurred by the $22.2 billion contract the U.S. Navy awarded to Electric Boat last December for the construction of nine Virginia-class attack submarines — the largest shipbuilding contract ever awarded by the Navy. The contract includes the option to purchase a 10th submarine, which would increase its value to $24.1 billion. In addition to the record-breaking contract, Congress passed a defense budget that resulted in $30 billion for Connecticut-based defense programs this fiscal year, including the purchase of helicopters, jet engines and submarines all manufactured in the state. Defense contractors, deemed essential businesses during the coronavirus pandemic, have continued to fare well, similar to what happend during the 2008-09 recession, said Bob Ross, executive director of the Office of Military Affairs. At the time, Connecticut firms with both defense and commercial arms saw their commercial business lag but were kept busy by their military contracts. "We're seeing some of that again," Ross said. "For example, commercial aviation has been struck by the (coronavirus) pandemic, but the military aviation side has kept going." In the past three years, the growth in defense contracts has mainly been related to submarine construction at EB and jet engine manufacturing at Pratt & Whitney. "Suppliers have been busier than ever, particularly for submarines," the report says. "Such high level of defense production will likely be the case for many years to come, as Connecticut continues to produce and maintain the world's most sophisticated nuclear submarines, state of-the-art military jet engines, and a variety of military rotary wingaircraft used worldwide." https://www.theday.com/military-news/20201016/2019-was-landmark-year-for-connecticuts-defense-industry

• 

  27 juin 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

  Maintaining UK and US military relationship could cost Britain more than $10 billion a year

  LONDON — Britain needs to raise defense spending by over £8 billion a year, or U.S. $10.59 billion, to not undermine the military relationship with the U.S. says a report by the parliamentary defence committee. The report, which looks at the U.K.'s defense relations with the U.S. and NATO, recommends Britain increases the percentage of gross domestic product being allocated to the military first to 2.5 percent and eventually 3 percent if the country is to maintain the military relationship with the U.S. and keep its leading role in NATO. “The U.K. armed forces and the Treasury benefit from our close relationship with the U.S. However, that will continue to be true only while the U.K. military retains both the capacity and capability to maintain interoperability with the U.S. military and to relieve U.S. burdens. For this to be the case the U.K. armed forces must be funded appropriately,” said the report released June 26. The lawmakers urged a significant rise in a defense budget which currently just manages to squeeze above the 2 percent of gross domestic product demanded by NATO for defense spending. “We calculate that raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP would result in a forecast spend of £50 billion per annum and raising it to 3% of GDP would take this to £60 billion per annum,” said the lawmakers. The defense budget this year is set at £37 billion with small real term increases expected annually up to 2022. A rise to 3 percent would see defence spending return to a level — in GDP percentage terms —that has not been seen since 1995. The release of the document comes at a bad time for anyone advocating increases in defense spending here. Last week Chancellor Philip Hammond, an ex-defense secretary, revealed plans to spend an additional £20 billion a year on health care and made it clear that there was little or nothing left to bolster the finances of other departments, including defense. Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has been battling for months to secure additional funding to fill a black hole that the National Audit Office, the government's financial watchdog, has previously estimated could be anything between £4.8 billion and £20 billion in equipment spending alone over the next decade. The exact amount depends to some degree on how much the military can save in efficiency improvements and reprioritizing and cutting capabilities and programs. The headline outcomes of a Minstry of Defence review into the future size and shape of British forces, officially called the Modernising Defence Programme, could come at the NATO summit scheduled for Brussels starting July 11. Media reports Sunday on the defense funding battle highlighted the seemingly growing rift between Williamson and senior government figures over the issue. The reports followed strong denials from Prime Minister Theresa May last week that the government here was considering a watering down of Britain's ‘tier-one' status as a military power after the Financial Times reported that May asked Williamson to justify continuance of that position. The U.S, Britain, China, Russia and France are the only nations with a tier one status — which basically means they are able to fight nuclear, conventional and other conflicts around the world. The committee said military-to-military engagement between the U.K. and the U.S. was one of the linchpins of the bilateral relationship between the two nations. The report said the U.K. benefits greatly from the width and depth of the U.K.-U.S. defense and security relationship, but such a relationship requires a degree of interoperability that can be sustained only through investment in U.K. armed forces. The importance of the military relationship between the U.S. and Europe's leading military power also extends into NATO. Lawmakers said the relationship is vital to the functioning of NATO while the U.K.'s leading contribution to the alliance helps to sustain the relationship between London and Washington. Julian Lewis, the Defence Committee chairman, said in a statement: “Defence spending is an area where a strong message needs to be sent to our allies and adversaries alike. The Government has consistently talked about increasing the U.K.'s commitment to NATO after our departure from the European Union. An increased commitment, in the face of new and intensified threats, means that further investment is essential,” said Lewis. The warning in the report over the risks to the military relationship between London and Washington follows a similar warning in February by U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis that Britain had to retain a credible military if the relationship between the two nations was to endure and strengthen. Williamson said that in financial terms alone the U.K. benefits to the tune of £3 billion a year from the U.K.-U.S. defense relationship. John Spellar MP, the Defence Committee's senior Labour Party member and former armed forces minister said the inquiry has “underlined the importance of the U.K.-U.S. relationship in the area of defense and security and emphasizes the benefit which the U.K. receives as a result.” “We have heard that there are perceptions in the U.S. that the U.K.'s defense capabilities have slipped and that concerns have been raised about the U.K.'s ability to operate independently. We need to challenge this perception and the Modernising Defence Programme is an excellent opportunity to do so,” said Spellar. https://www.defensenews.com/smr/nato-priorities/2018/06/26/maintaining-uk-and-us-military-relationship-could-cost-britain-more-than-10-billion-a-year/