Study sees British defense sector hurting after Brexit

Sur le même sujet

• 

  12 février 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  How Republicans might accept a smaller defense budget

  By: Joe Gould WASHINGTON ― California Republican Rep. Ken Calvert is willing to meet Democratic lawmakers partway in their reported plans to trim the defense budget: cut back on civilian employees, not equipment and modernization. “Like everything else in government, personnel is your biggest cost, and the civilian-to-uniform ratio ... is at an all-time high,” Calvert, the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subpanel, said in an interview Wednesday. “Our inability to correct that trend is eating away at our military, our procurement, our readiness, all the above, and so we need to do this.” President Joe Biden is expected to release his federal budget plan in April, but battle lines are being drawn on Capitol Hill ahead of what is expected to be a tighter military budget than in recent years. While some key Republicans want to protect the military budget increases that came under then-President Donald Trump, or even build upon them, Calvert said he is open to “responsible reductions.” He is offering civilian cuts as an alternative to cutting end strength and weapons platforms. “Rather than reducing [personnel in] uniforms ― and I think there's some talk about doing that, especially in the Army ― we need to look at the civilian workforce, which is at the highest ratio to uniformed service members than it has ever been,” Calvert said. “If you're going to cut defense, are you going to cut procurement? People are arguing we need to build the Columbia-class submarine and Virginia-class submarine ― and I agree ― that we [keep the] Space Force, and [that] our satellite program is woefully behind ― and I agree. Where do you make your reductions when your overwhelming cost is personnel?” Under Calvert's bill, the Rebalance for an Effective Defense Uniform and Civilian Employees Act, or Reduce Act, a 15 percent cut to the civilian workforce overall and a cap for the Defense Department's Senior Executive Service at 1,000 employees would have to be in place by fiscal 2025 and remain through 2029. The defense secretary would be empowered to use voluntary-separation and early-retirement incentives toward the reduction. The legislation, which has been introduced several times before, was inspired by a 2015 study by the Defense Business Board that illustrated how the Department of Defense could save $125 billion over five years by slashing overhead. Still, the proposal to cut civilians would face new optics this year. As civilian voices were muted in favor of uniformed leaders under the Trump administration, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, a former general, committed under bipartisan pressure to “rebalance” Pentagon decision- and policy-making in favor of civilian leaders. It's also a different tact than that of the House Armed Services Committee's new top Republican, Rep. Mike Rogers, who plans to guard against cuts and would prefer a 3-5 percent increase in defense spending ― which Pentagon leaders say is required to carry out the 2018 National Defense Strategy. It's still early in the budgeting cycle, and the two may align. But in meantime, Calvert's approach offers something to fiscal conservatives, and it tracks with past efforts from Rogers' predecessor, former Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas. Even if Republicans can fend off a top-line cut or win an adjustment for inflation to keep shipbuilding and aircraft procurement on track, Calvert said he supports cutting the Defense Department's civilian workforce. “Hey, I hope Mike's right. I mean, he is a good friend, but I think he's a realist too,” Calvert said. “I worked with his predecessor on procurement reform, I'm trying to do some personnel reform, and we need those reforms on both sides.” For their part, Democrats swiftly rejected Calvert's legislation, making it one of the first skirmishes of the annual battle over the defense budget. The defense subpanel's new chairwoman, Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said she discussed the matter with Calvert and disagrees with him. “His proposal could lead to some of the most talented and committed DOD public servants losing their jobs,” McCollum said in a statement. “While we agree there is excess defense spending, my focus is on making smart investments that yield demonstrable outcomes by cutting waste and ending subsidies for outdated and unnecessary programs and facilities. In my view, the existing Department of Defense civilian workforce is mission critical to ensuring our national security.” The American Federation of Government Employees has historically opposed the bill, and a spokesman said funding and defense policy legislation passed last year prohibit civilian workforce cuts “without regard to impacts on readiness, lethality, military force structure, stress of the force, operational effectiveness and fully burdened costs.” With 768,000 federal employees working across all Defense Department components, the proposed cut amounts to 100,000 employees. Between 2015 and 2019, an average of just under 82,000 employees left DoD jobs each year. Calvert contends his 15 percent cut could be accomplished through attrition, not firings, and target “growth in middle management,” not the supply depots scattered around the country that have political backing. Previous cuts of civilian personnel have fueled increases in contracting costs ― and Calvert said he is open to cutting those too, in partnership with McCollum. “There would be discretion on the part of the people running the Pentagon; there are people you don't want to lose, they're in a special category, I get it,” Calvert said. “There are probably a lot of people you wouldn't miss, people up for retirement.” Democrats are more apt to take on nuclear modernization, which is projected to cost the Pentagon more than $240 billion in taxpayer dollars through 2028. In the balance is the contract for the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, awarded to Northrop Grumman last year, to replace aging, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Politico reports that progressive lawmakers and disarmament advocates are lobbying allies in the Biden administration for a pause in the GBSD program, while the Air Force and its allies in Congress, think tanks, and defense contractors are sharpening their arguments to preserve the program. Calvert acknowledged criticism of nuclear spending from House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., but said big cuts to the nuclear triad lack the backing to succeed. (The panel rejected a funding cut for GBSD last year.) “I know Adam has been critical of that, but there's absolute support for redundancy of the deterrent within the Republican ranks, and so I don't see that going away. What I'm hearing so far out of the administration is that they feel the same way, so I don't think that's going to happen,” Calvert said. Austin and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks have voiced support for nuclear modernization broadly but stopped short of pledging to uphold the current nuclear modernization strategy in its entirety. Nuclear modernization cutbacks would “weaken the United States,” Calvert argued. “We're not just thinking about Russia; we've got China, who's rapidly militarizing space, and their missile capability is improving. Obviously we've got countries like North Korea or Iran that are building their own missile capability, so we have to have a strong deterrent to make sure we are ready for any contingency.” Jessie Bur of Federal Times and Leo Shane III of Military Times contributed to this report. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/02/11/how-republicans-might-accept-a-smaller-defense-budget/

• 

  15 novembre 2021 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

  Israël présente pour la première fois sa technologie de défense au salon aéronautique de Dubaï

  Le ministère de la Défense a envoyé une délégation officielle d’entrepreneurs de défense israéliens au salon aéronautique de Dubaï ce mois-ci, en référence aux liens...

• 

  10 juillet 2018 | International, Terrestre

  Army Anti-Aircraft Stryker Can Kill Tanks Too

  By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. With its eyes firmly on Russia, the US Army is racing to field 8×8 Strykers with an array of weapons that can down enemy aircraft — from drones to helicopters to jets — and incidentally make enemy tanks think twice. The first prototypes will be delivered next year, with up to 144 (four battalions) by 2022, although the contract details are still being negotiated. With the IM-SHORAD (Initial Maneuver Short Range Air Defense) Stryker, “you'll have more combat power, more lethality, than the Bradley fighting vehicle,” says Ed House, the retired Army infantry colonel who runs the program for Leonardo DRS. Now, before everyone gets too excited, this doesn't mean the new Stryker is a substitute for the Bradley as an infantry assault vehicle. The Stryker's got lighter armor, and wheels instead of tracks, so it can't handle all the threats or terrain a Bradley can. Plus, this variant's interior volume will be largely filled with spare missiles, leaving little room to carry troops. But it does raise intriguing tactical possibilities for IM-SHORAD Strykers to take up positions right behind the frontline forces — ideally on hills with good fields of fire — to provide both air defense and long-range shots against enemy armor. It's similar to how the German's famous 88mm high-velocity cannon of World War II did double duty as flak gun and tank killer. Rolling Arsenal Put together by Leonardo DRS and then installed on the Stryker by the vehicle's original manufacturer, General Dynamics Land Systems, the package includes an intimidating arsenal of weapon — and the flexibility to add more: Two Hellfire missiles, capable of hitting both air and ground targets. Hellfire has not only a larger warhead than the Army's standard Stinger anti-aircraft missile (18-20 pounds vs. 6.6) but a long range than the TOW anti-tank missiles on its M2 Bradleys and ATGM Strykers (5 miles vs. at most 2.8). Four Stinger missiles for less well-armored aircraft targets, in a new quad launcher put together by Raytheon. A 30mm automatic cannon, an upgraded model (M230LF) of the gun on the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and considerably more powerful than the Bradley's 25 mm. A standard 7.62mm machinegun as backup and to kill targets that don't merit a 30 mm round, such as slow-moving drones and infantry in the open. An electronic warfare package to jam drones' control links without having to shoot them. A Rada multi-mission radar to track both air and ground targets. What's more, the weapons are all mounted on a multipurpose unmanned turret, Moog's Reconfigurable Integrated-weapons Platform (RIwP, pronounced “rip”), which House said could take a wide range of alternative layouts as technology, tactics, and threats evolve. It could also be adapted to other vehicles, with Leonardo having tried a counter-drone version on an M-ATV truck. “It takes us about four hours to put the RIwP turret on an M-ATV,” House told me. While they've haven't put one on a Stryker yet, once General Dynamics preps a Stryker — which includes cutting the appropriate hole in the top armor — “it won't be any harder to mount it on the Stryker.” The loaded turret weighs less than the TOW missile turret already installed on the Stryker's anti-tank variant, he said. (By contrast, a rival proposal from General Dynamics and Boeing involved a much larger turret that would have required cutting off the back half of the Stryker's cargo bay). With the turret installed and loaded, the vehicle has two Hellfires and four Stingers ready to fire and more would be carried in the hull. The three-man crew should be able reload the Stingers and the 30mm without leaving the vehicle, although they'd be partially exposed in an open hatch. The Hellfires, however, are simply too big and heavy to fit through the hatches, so the crew would have to get out and clamber on top of the vehicle to reload those. That's an awkward operation under fire and another reason the IM-SHORAD Stryker shouldn't hang out in range of enemy machineguns alongside the Bradleys. If fewer or no reloads are needed for a particular mission, House said, some or all of the Stryker's cargo/passenger area would be available for supplies or troops. But with Short-Range Air Defense identified as one of the Army's glaring shortfallsagainst a modern adversary like Russia or China, the IM-SHORAD Stryker probably won't have much time for odd jobs. Rushing vs. Russia The Army is rushing to fill multiple gaps in Europe, not just air defense. It's developing a new scout helicopter and adding Trophy Active Protection Systems(APS) to its M1 Abrams heavy tanks to protect them from Russian anti-tank missiles. But while armored brigades of M1 tanks and M2 Bradleys regularly deploy to Europe, the heaviest force stationed there permanently is mounted on Strykers. So the Army is rushing to upgun these relatively lightweight armored vehicles with anti-armor weapons from 30 mm cannon to Javelin anti-tank missiles, as well as the effectively dual-purpose IM-SHORAD package. How fast is that schedule? September 2017: The Army conducts a SHORAD “shoot off” of potential systems. February 2018: Army issues a Directed Requirement for what they call an “initial material solution” for SHORAD. April: The Army holds an industry day with interested companies. May: An Army panel evaluates companies' White Paper proposals and selects Leonardo DRS for the weapons, turret, and electronics (the Mission Equipment Package); Raytheon for the upgraded Stinger Launcher (which the government then provides to Leonardo); and General Dynamics to integrate everything on the Stryker. August 31: The Army's target date to award contracts. Mid-2019 (3Q FY19): First prototype to be delivered. 2020: First IM-SHORAD battery deployed. 2022: Up to four IM-SHORAD battalions fielded. At this point the Army may either keep upgrading IM-SHORAD — note it's called the “initial” solution, not the “interim” one as is sometimes reported — or choose another system. Different missiles, improved electronic warfare, and entirely new weapons such as lasers are all options, with 50 kilowatt lasers planned for 2023. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/army-anti-aircraft-stryker-can-kill-tanks-too/