3 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial
By: Richard Matlock
Over the past five years, missile threats have evolved far more rapidly than conventional wisdom had predicted. Best known is North Korea's accelerated development and testing of sophisticated, road-mobile ballistic missiles. But the U.S. National Defense Strategy requires renewed focus on greater powers. China has adopted an anti-access strategy consisting of new offensive missiles, operational tactics and fortifications in the South China Sea. Russia, too, has developed highly maneuverable hypersonic missiles specifically designed to defeat today's defenses.
Grappling with these sobering realities demands change. The 2019 Missile Defense Review called for a comprehensive approach to countering regional missiles of all kinds and from whatever source, as well as the increasingly complex intercontinental ballistic missiles from rogue states. But programs and budgets have not yet aligned with the policy. The upcoming defense budget submission presents an important opportunity to address these new and complex challenges.
The Missile Defense Agency's current top three goals are sustaining the existing force, increasing capacity and capability, and addressing more advanced threats. The first two are necessary but insufficient. The third goal must be elevated to adapt U.S. missile defense efforts to the geopolitical and technological realities of our time.
For the last decade, less than 2 percent of MDA's annual funding has been dedicated to developing advanced technology, during which time our adversaries have begun outpacing us. As President Donald Trump said last January, we “cannot simply build more of the same, or make incremental improvements.”
Adapting our missile defense architecture will require rebalance, discipline and difficult choices. Realigning resources to develop advanced technologies and operational concepts means investing less in single-purpose systems incapable against the broader threat. It also requires we accept and manage new kinds of risk. Indeed, meeting the advanced threat may, in the short term, require accepting some strategic risk with North Korea.
The beginning of this rebalance requires more distributed, elevated and survivable sensors capable of tracking advanced threats. The most important component here is a proliferated, globally persistent space layer in low-Earth orbit consisting of both passive and active sensors. MDA may be the missile defense-centric organization best suited to developing and integrating this capability into the architecture, but there is considerable opportunity for partnering with others to move out smartly, as recently urged by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten. Partnerships with the Space Development Agency and the Air Force can be supplemented by collaborative efforts with commercial space companies.
We need not do this all at once. Space assets could be fielded in phases, with numbers, capability (sensors, interceptors, lasers), missions, and orbits evolving over time. MDA demonstrated a similar paradigm with the Delta experiments, Miniature Sensor Technology Integration series and the Near Field Infrared Experiment in the past.
Meanwhile, other sensors could alleviate the cost of building new, billion-dollar radar on islands in the Pacific Ocean — efforts which continue to suffer delay. Adding infrared tracking sensors to high-altitude drones, for instance, has already been demonstrated experimentally in the Indo-Pacific theater with modified Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles. These need not be dedicated assets. Sensor pod kits could be stored in theater to be deployed aboard Reapers or other platforms during heightened tensions.
We must revisit boost-phase defenses and directed energy. In 2010, the Airborne Laser program demonstrated that lasers could destroy missiles in the boost phase, but deploying toxic chemical lasers aboard large commercial aircraft was fiscally and operationally untenable. Fortunately, considerable operational promise exists with recently developed solid-state lasers (the cost of which is around $2 of electricity per shot). We must move these systems out of the laboratory and build and test operational prototypes.
Near-term actions to better manage risk against the rogue-state ballistic missile threat must not overtake the pursuit of these larger goals. Although the Pentagon is currently considering a 10-year, $12 billion program for a next-generation interceptor, nearer-term, cheaper options are available. Replacing each existing kill vehicle on the Ground-Based Interceptors with several smaller kill vehicles would multiply each interceptor's effectiveness dramatically. The U.S. has been developing this technology since 2006, including a “hover” flight test in 2009. Affordable solutions like this must be found.
Missile defense cannot do it all. Denying, degrading and destroying enemy missile systems prior to launch must be part of the mix. But left-of-launch activities can be expensive and difficult, and reliance on a cyber magic wand carries risk, too. We need to broaden our approach to attack all parts of our adversary's kill chain.
The National Defense Strategy urges that we contend with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be — or as it previously was. To meet the threats of today and tomorrow, we must radically transform our U.S. missile defenses. It falls to the 2021 budget to do so.
7 mars 2024 | International, Terrestre
Only 58 per cent of the Canadian Armed Forces would be able to respond if called upon in a crisis by NATO allies right now — and almost half of the military's equipment is considered "unavailable and unserviceable" — says a recent internal Department of National Defence presentation obtained by CBC News.
18 mars 2022 | International, Aérospatial
UK engine maker Rolls-Royce and its local partner Kale will launch a joint effort to produce an engine to power Turkey's first indigenous fighter jet, the TF-X.
17 décembre 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By: Raimundas Karoblis The end of the year is a traditional time to pause for reflection and take a moment to look ahead. Especially so, if the upcoming year brings an important milestone, like the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Alliance. From the outside, it may seem that NATO is approaching the year 2019 quite perplexed, if not embattled. The important decisions of the NATO Brussels Summit were overshadowed by acrimonious public exchanges among the allies on the highly sensitive issue of burden-sharing. Moreover, the recent initiatives on European defense — in particular, all the talk about a “European army” — are perceived by many as highly divisive and damaging to the very foundations of NATO. However, to paraphrase a famous saying, the rumors of the imminent death of the alliance seem to be greatly exaggerated. The burden-sharing drama at the NATO Brussels Summit has obscured the vitally important decisions that were taken there to prepare the alliance for the post-2014 security environment. Whereas the earlier NATO summits in Wales and Warsaw focused on quick-impact deterrence measures to support the most vulnerable allies, the Brussels Summit marks the start of a systemic NATO adaptation to the conventional threat posed by Russia (as well as to the threats emanating from the south). This adaptation will take many years to complete, but its impact will be durable and profound. In the course of 2019 we will see the key elements of NATO's long-term adaptation process taking shape. In February, NATO will start systemic implementation of a reinforcement strategy, which will be a major step in carrying out the Readiness Initiative, better known as the Four Thirties. The initiative aims at providing the alliance with more high-readiness forces — a crucial aspect in today's security context. Furthermore, we will be making significant advances with the NATO Command Structure update and upgrade. Work will continue in setting up the new Cyberspace Operations Centre in Belgium to provide situational awareness and coordination of operational activity within cyberspace — a capacity that is long overdue in the alliance. Next year, the Joint Support and Enabling Command in Germany will achieve its initial operational capability to ensure rapid movement of troops and equipment into and across Europe, which has become one of the most pressing operational needs. All of these steps will make us more fit to plan and execute operations in today's demanding security environment. A significantly improved financial background is another major reason to approach the new year optimistically. In fact, if there is any drama in the NATO context, it is the dramatically increased defense budgets across the alliance. Last year we witnessed the most substantial growth in defense spending since the end of the Cold War, and 2019 will continue to mark further progress in this area, with the majority of the allies nearing the fulfillment of their commitment to reach 2 percent of their gross domestic product by 2024. Two eastern flank allies — Lithuania and Poland — have committed to moving well-beyond this number, striving to raise their defense spending to 2.5 percent of the GDP by 2030. We should be soon starting to see how the additional investments translate into more and better capabilities for the alliance. We are also approaching 2019 after a year of passionate discussions on European defense and the ways to organize it. There are voices putting forward ideas on how the European Union should strengthen its “strategic autonomy” and make sure it is able to ensure security independently. The launch of the Permanent Structured Cooperation and other European initiatives are sometimes interpreted across the Atlantic as an attempt to build an alternative to the alliance. We find such fears ungrounded. Europe's own defense efforts notwithstanding, NATO is bound to remain an irreplaceable pillar of collective defense on the European continent. It is the sole organization that can provide truly credible deterrence and defense for its members. As keen supporters of NATO-EU cooperation, we are very pleased to have witnessed the recent expansion of this cooperation into new areas. This cooperation has acquired additional importance with the finish line of Brexit just around the corner. While leaving the EU, the United Kingdom will remain in Europe, with every significant defense problem in and around the continent still affecting it. The U.K. has already assumed an immense role within NATO in addressing them, and the country has continuously indicated that its commitment to the alliance will be even stronger following Brexit. In welcoming a new year and a new chapter of its history, NATO is not doing it perplexed. The alliance is turning a new leaf, is proud of its achievements and with confidence is looking toward the future. For this reason, I am sure that 2019 is going to be a great year for the alliance. Raimundas Karoblis is the defense minister of Lithuania. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/lithuanias-defense-minister-it-will-be-a-good-year-for-nato/