The aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is leaving the Middle East

Sur le même sujet

• 

  16 juin 2020 | International, Terrestre

  Japan suspends Aegis Ashore deployment, pointing to cost and technical issues

  By: Mike Yeo MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan has abruptly suspended the planned deployment of the Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system, which will drastically alter the U.S. ally's plans for defending itself against such threats. Defense Minister Taro Kono cited cost and technical issues as the reasons for the suspension of Japan's plans to deploy two Aegis Ashore systems at Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, or JGSDF bases at Akita Prefecture in the north of Japan's main island of Honshu and at Yamaguchi Prefecture in the south. He explained during today's announcement that that the main technical issue was the need to ensure that the rocket boosters of the interceptor missiles, which are used to accelerate the missile to supersonic speeds following their launch, will fall on its designated areas following separation from the missile. Attempts to modify the software on the SM-3 Block IIA missiles to ensure correct booster separation so as to not put civilian lives and infrastructure at risk have not been successful so far, with modifications to the missile hardware likely to be needed, the minister said. Kono added that Japan has already spent the equivalent of $1.02 billion on the development of the SM-3 Block IIA so far, which is being developed jointly by Japan and the United States. The missiles can also be fired from the Aegis equipped ships of both countries to intercept short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. Japan's Aegis Ashore deployment plans have been controversial, with the defense ministry facing strong opposition from local governments and residents at both sites, citing concerns about the radiation from the system's Lockheed Martin Long Range Discrimination Radar. The news of the suspension comes a little over a month after local media reported that the ministry will cancel the planned Aegis Ashore deployment at Akita and choose another site. However, this was swiftly denied by Japan Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, who said at the time no decision had been made. In announcing the suspension of the Aegis Ashore deployment, defense minister Kono said that Japan will continue to rely on its Aegis-equipped destroyers to provide ballistic missile defense against North Korea's missiles in the meantime. Japan operates seven such destroyers and is building another, although the Aegis Ashore radars are more advanced than that used on the ships. The land-based systems also reduce the demands placed on the ships and their crews by the missile defense mission. The latest developments come as Japan announces completion of the deployment of an upgraded Patriot Missile Segment Enhancement, or MSE, interceptors at four different locations throughout the country earlier this month. The announcement was made during a media briefing by Gen. Yoshinari Marumo, chief of the Air Staff of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, or JASDF, last Friday. The missile batteries, which can be used against aircraft or short-range ballistic missiles, are located at JASDF bases at Narashino, Hamamatsu, Ashiya, and Tsuiki. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/06/15/japan-suspends-aegis-ashore-deployment-pointing-to-cost-and-technical-issues/

• 

  1 février 2022 | International, Aérospatial

  KC-46 vision system problems lead to $402 million charge for Boeing

  Boeing and the Air Force say the new version of the KC-46's Remote Vision System remains on schedule, despite lingering problems still being worked out.

• 

  15 janvier 2019 | International, Naval

  An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism

  By: Tom Kington , Andrew Chuter , and Sebastian Sprenger ROME, LONDON and COLOGNE, Germany — The U.S. and European shipbuilding industries lead largely separate lives against the backdrop of a massive Asian naval buildup, but some trans-Atlantic projects still manage to thrive. The building of warships has always been a prime example of nations nurturing a highly specialized industry deemed so crucial that outside economic forces cannot be allowed to intervene. And while some European nations have begun to think about pooling shipbuilding forces on the continent, analysts and industry executives in Europe say the wall separating the U.S. and European naval markets remains high. Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said. “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven't given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added. At the same time, the U.S. market has been relatively closed off to European shipbuilders, though there is a chance that could change somewhat with the Navy's Future Frigate program. “It's a bit like two different planets,” said Sebastian Bruns, head of the Institute for Security Policy at Kiel University in northern Germany. The reflex to buy only American-made warships is especially strong in the current political climate, he added. The sheer number of ships needed on each side of the Atlantic creates a natural differentiator, according to Bruns, who spent time working U.S. naval policy as a House staffer on Capitol Hill. He said the Navy tends to prefer no-frills designs made for maximum war-fighting power in a great powers competition, while Europeans have taken to building vessels with a kind of peace-maintenance role in mind, affording a greater level of automation and comfort for the crew, for example. One British naval executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the lack of trans-Atlantic industrial touch points wasn't limited to market access, arguing that cost-effectiveness was also an issue. “Despite the problems we have and the programs that don't go exactly according to plan ton for ton and capability for capability, the U.K. manages to build and deliver surface ships at a much lower cost than the United States,” he said. “The U.S. shipyards know they would have difficulty competing in the region, particularly if you are talking about yards that have built a good track record. Naval Group, Fincantieri, Damen Shipyards, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems — these are yards that have been competitive and build with export experience behind them. They are already ahead of the game and I do think it comes back to the cost base, I think it is difficult for the United States to build as cost-effectively as the Europeans,” the executive argued. Full article: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism