USS Thomas Hudner shoots down ‘one-way attack drones’ in the Red Sea

Sur le même sujet

• 

  16 mai 2018 | International, Aérospatial

  L’offre française pour remplacer les F-16 laisse le gouvernement sur sa faim

  Le ministère de la Défense a réservé un accueil assez froid, voire distant, à la proposition de «partenariat approfondi et structurant» fondé sur l'avion de combat Rafale réitérée par la France à la Belgique. Une délégation de membres du cabinet de la ministre française des Armées, Florence Parly, a eu l'occasion, pour la première fois en huit mois, de venir détailler auprès de ses homologues belges, l «offre française» de partenariat «approfondi et structurant» fondé sur l'avion de combat Rafale – hors de l'appel d'offres officiel lancé en mars 2017 pour l'achat de 34 chasseurs-bombardiers de nouvelle génération. Cette rencontre a eu lieu «à la demande du Premier ministre» Charles Michel, qui souhaite disposer de tous les éléments nécessaires à une prochaine décision du gouvernement belge, a-t-on indiqué de sources gouvernementales. Mais «on n'a rien entendu de nouveau par rapport à la lettre reçue (de Mme Parly, NDLR) le 6 septembre 2017. Il n'y a rien de plus concret», a expliqué la porte-parole du ministre belge de la Défense, Steven Vandeput, Laurence Mortier. L'entourage de M. Vandeput (N-VA) a confirmé à l'agence Belga être intéressé par une éventuelle participation au programme de Système de combat aérien du futur (Scaf) européen, actuellement négocié entre la France et l'Allemagne, tout en étant ouvert à d'autres partenaires. Sur base de l'analyse des deux offres considérées comme juridiquement valables après réponse à l'appel d'offres (en jargon, un «Request for Government Proposal» ou RfGP) lancé en mars 2017, et de la – très vague – offre française, l'équipe de programme doit faire une recommandation au ministre de la Défense. Les deux candidats qui ont remis des offres en bonne et due forme sont les États-Unis avec le F-35 Lightning II du groupe Lockheed Martin et l'Eurofighter Typhoon du consortium européen éponyme. Le dossier complet, avec les aspects économiques, sera ensuite soumis au gouvernement fédéral. La Défense espère toujours une décision finale avant le sommet de l'OTAN des 11 et 12 juillet prochains, pour permettre à la Belgique d'y faire – relativement – bonne figure en dépit de ses faibles dépenses en matière de défense. http://www.lavenir.net/cnt/dmf20180516_01171480/l-offre-francaise-pour-remplacer-les-f-16-laisse-le-gouvernement-sur-sa-faim

• 

  28 juin 2021 | International, Naval

  Harker: Navy Planning New Multi-Year Destroyer Buy - USNI News

  The Navy plans to enter into another multi-year contract for the Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers, the acting secretary confirmed to Congress today. The service will sign a contract for Fiscal Year 2023 through 2027, acting Navy Secretary Thomas Harker told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. “Multi-year contracts are very important to us. We do …

• 

  16 août 2019 | International, Aérospatial

  Plans for a new base closing round may be running out of time: Report

  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. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/08/15/plans-for-a-new-base-closing-round-may-be-running-out-of-time-report/