Nouvelles

Par Julien Bouissou L'achat par l'Inde, en 2016, de trente-six exemplaire de l'avion de combat de Dassault suscite la colère de l'opposition. Le Parti du Congrès dénonce le rôle joué par un proche du premier ministre Narendra Modi. Deux ans après l'achat par New Delhi de trente-six avions de combat Rafale, le contrat signé avec Dassault Aviation se retrouve au cœur d'une tempête politique en Inde. Pas un jour ne passe sans que le Parti du Congrès, dans l'opposition, n'attaque le gouvernement de Narendra Modi sur son manque de transparence et sa connivence avec Anil Ambani, le partenaire indien de l'avionneur français. Rahul Gandhi, le président du Parti du Congrès, a qualifié le contrat d'« escroquerie ». Une polémique qui pourrait ternir l'image de Dassault Aviation alors que le groupe tricolore est en concurrence pour fournir à l'Inde 110 avions de combat supplémentaires. Six avionneurs ont répondu, le 6 juillet, à la demande d'information (« Request for Information ») déposée par New Delhi pour ce nouveau contrat. L'« affaire Rafale », comme on la surnomme désormais dans les médias indiens, était née de l'annonce surprise faite par M. Modi d'acheter trente-six avions de combat lors de sa visite à Paris en avril 2015. Premières livraisons prévues en 2019 L'appel d'offres remporté en 2012 par Dassault prévoyait la livraison de 126 appareils, dont 108 assemblés sur le sol indien. Mais en ce printemps 2015, les négociations piétinent depuis trois ans. Elles butent sur le prix final et le partage des responsabilités pour les avions assemblés en Inde. Or les escadrons de l'armée de l'air indienne se rapprochent dangereusement de l'obsolescence, au risque de compromettre la sécurité du pays. M. Modi, pourtant si attaché au « Make in India », enterre le « contrat du siècle » qui prévoyait la construction d'une chaîne d'assemblage Rafale en Inde. Les trente-six avions, dont les premières livraisons sont prévues en 2019, seront produits en France. Le nouveau contrat, signé quelques mois plus tard dans le cadre d'un accord intergouvernemental, est assorti d'une clause d'« offset », c'est-à-dire qu'une... Article complet: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2018/08/28/en-inde-le-contrat-rafale-tourne-au-scandale-politique_5347034_3234.html

Par Romain Mielcarek Depuis le 19 août, un détachement de l'armée de l'air française a entamé une tournée en Asie du Sud-Est, baptisée « Pegase », pour aller à la rencontre de ses alliés de la région, dont la Malaisie. Un terrain peu familier pour des aviateurs à la recherche de nouveaux partenariats face à des menaces émergentes. De notre envoyé spécial à Kuala Lumpur, Quand deux officiers d'armées de l'air différentes se croisent, ils parlent d'abord de golf - « sport d'aviateurs » -, puis de la coupe du monde de football – victoire des tricolores oblige - et enfin de leurs avions. En la matière, les Français ont sorti le grand jeu les 24 et 25 août derniers : trois chasseurs Rafale et deux A400M de transport sont déployés sur le tarmac de la base aérienne de Subang, près de la capitale, pour séduire les Malaisiens. « Notre objectif à nous, c'est de conforter la coopération sur l'A400M », résume le général de corps aérien (2S) Patrick Charaix, chef de la mission Pegase, à propos de cette escale. Les Malaisiens ont en effet acheté quatre exemplaires de cet avion européen développé par Airbus. Particulièrement sophistiqué, celui-ci demande des méthodes de travail modernes. C'est là que la France vient aider Kuala Lumpur : un officier supérieur, spécialiste de la mécanique et de la gestion aéronautique, est présent en permanence pour conseiller l'état-major sur ses procédures et son organisation, depuis 2015. La France, premier fournisseur d'armement Située en plein cœur d'une région particulièrement courtisée du fait de la forte croissance économique de plusieurs pays, la Malaisie a besoin de renouveler une grande partie de ses équipements de défense. Ce qui tombe bien pour les Français, dont les industriels sont bien implantés sur l'archipel : ils sont le premier fournisseur d'armes de Kuala Lumpur. Par le passé, d'importants contrats ont été signés, notamment pour des sous-marins, des navires, des missiles exocet et les fameux A400M. « La grande question, décrypte Dzirhan Mahadzir, un journaliste malaisien spécialiste des questions militaires, c'est de savoir si la Malaisie a les moyens et ce que le nouveau gouvernement compte faire, celui-ci n'ayant donné aucune indication sur le sujet. Les capacités opérationnelles sont un sujet permanent, la disponibilité des matériels étant un problème récurrent d'année en année. » Un espoir pour le Rafale ? Alors pourquoi pas des Rafale ? Deux commandants d'unités malaisiens, eux-mêmes pilotes de chasse, ont été invités à tester l'avion. Un officier de leur équipe résume ainsi le dilemme de son armée, en termes d'approvisionnements : « Notre principal problème, c'est que nous avons à la fois des avions occidentaux et russes. Nous, les opérationnels, nous savons quels avions sont bons. Mais ce sont les politiques qui décident. Et eux, ils choisissent souvent ce qu'ils voient le plus. Les Typhoon par exemple, viennent tous les deux ans. » Si les opérationnels préféraient avoir un seul avion pour remplir toutes les missions et pour simplifier la logistique, les politiques gardent également un problème crucial à l'esprit : multiplier les fournisseurs, c'est éviter d'être dépendant vis-à-vis d'une seule grande puissance. Dans ce domaine, la France fait souvent valoir la grande liberté dont bénéficient ses clients, Paris évitant de se montrer trop intrusif dans leurs affaires domestiques. Le Typhoon, concurrent européen du Rafale, pourrait-il convaincre le gouvernement ? Les Russes pourraient-ils placer leur Su-35, qui a déjà convaincu en Indonésie ? Les différents observateurs restent très partagés, les uns estimant que l'avion français a toutes ses chances sur ce marché, les autres qu'il est trop tôt et que les finances de la Malaisie ne lui permettront pas un tel investissement avant de nombreuses années. Paradoxalement, c'est un cadre de chez Dassault, le fabricant de l'appareil, qui se montre le plus pessimiste : « Ça a été un vrai prospect à un moment, confie-t-il. Mais ce n'est plus le cas. Ils n'ont pas les moyens. » Article complet: http://www.rfi.fr/france/20180827-armee-air-malaisienne-friande-savoir-faire-francais-A400M-rafale-aviation-defense

By: Kelsey Atherton The ocean hides what it contains, and it is in that hiding that submarines have their power. Lurking under seas, at first with just enough capability for an attack run and now with the ability to lurk for months at a time, submarines remain power out of reach, unseen until engaged in combat or resupplying in a friendly port. That stealth comes at a cost, however, besides the simple perils of existing underwater. When submerged, submarines are more or less on their own until they resurface again, since radio waves do not travel well through seawater. Or they are for now. New research by MIT, presented at a conference in late August, devised a way for submerged submarines to communicate wirelessly with people on the surface by combining hydroacoustics and acoustic radars. Presently, submarines communicate either across normal radio frequencies when surfaced or through hydroacoustic signals and listening posts underwater that can transmit the messages back to counterparts on shore. Very and extremely low-frequency radio waves can be transmitted in a way that submarines can listen to below the surface, but it's a one-way form of communication, from stations on land to submarines. To get something responsive, with the flexibility to communicate away from static seabed hydrophones, needs something else. Specifically, it needs a way to combine hydroacoustic transmission from the submarine through water that can then be converted into a useful data. “We present a new communication technology, translational acoustic-RF communication (TARF),” write paper authors Francesco Tonolini and Fadel Adib of the MIT Media Lab. “TARF enables underwater nodes to directly communicate with airborne nodes by transmitting standard acoustic signals. TARF exploits the fact that underwater acoustic signals travel as pressure waves, and that these waves cause displacements of the water surface when they impinge on the water-air boundary. To decode the transmitted signals, TARF leverages an airborne radar which measures and decodes these surface displacements.” In testing, they demonstrated that the communication technique can transfer data at standard underwater bitrates up to 400bps, and even do so with surface waves 6.3 inches crest-to-crest, or 100,000 times larger than the surface perturbations made by the acoustic transmitter. Right now, this communication is one-way. While the signal transmitted up from the water produces useful information at the boundary with the air, a signal transmitted through the air downwards would disintegrate on integration with water. This one-way is distinct from previous forms of communication with submarines, however, as it lets the submarine talk without revealing its position to surface sensors. Despite the limitations, and the earlierness of the research, Tonolini and Adlib see a bright future for the technology, as a way to enable a host of new technology in machines. The technology, they write, can enable “many applications including submarine-to-drone communication, deep-sea exploration, and subsea IoT (Internet of Things). https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/2018/08/28/mit-discovers-way-for-submarines-to-talk-to-drones

By: Jaroslaw Adamowski WARSAW, Poland — The Czech Ministry of Defence has awarded a contract to supply 62 Titus six-wheel drive armored vehicles, jointly developed by France's Nexter Group and Czech vehicle-maker Tatra Trucks, to local defense company Eldis Pardubice. “Acquiring the Titus vehicle has been one of the military's priorities for several years. Soldiers need this technology, and it is my objective to complete this project successfully and quickly,” said Czech Defence Minister Lubomir Metnar, as reported by local broadcaster Ceska televize. The ministry decided to change the contractor from Tatra Export to Eldis Pardubice after the former company failed to obtain a relevant security clearance, including a license from Nexter Systems. Deliveries of the vehicles are scheduled for the years 2020-2025, according to the minister. The contract is estimated to be worth about 6.7 billion koruna (U.S. $303.1 million). Both Tatra Export and Eldis Pardubice are part of the country's defense industry giant Czechoslovak Group. The Titus is mounted on a chassis made by Tatra Trucks. Czechoslovak Group reported sales of more than 24 billion koruna for 2017. The holding is operated by a workforce of about 8,000, according to data from Czechoslovak Group. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/08/28/after-security-clearance-hiccup-czech-republic-selects-a-contractor-for-armored-vehicle-deal

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON – With the U.S. Air Force having received final bids from industry, the service is now poised to award a contract for its 350-plane next-generation trainer fleet in just a few weeks. An Air Force official, speaking on background, said the service expects to award the contract by the end of the fiscal year — in other words, before Sept. 30. Many have speculated that the days before the Air Force Association's annual conference, being held Sept. 17-19 outside of Washington, would be a potential time for an announcement to come. However, a source with knowledge of the situation said the current plan is to make the announcement after AFA concludes, likely the week of Sept. 24. If true, it could create an awkward environment at the event, where senior leaders will have to duck commenting on the soon-to-come T-X winner. Three industry teams have submitted bids for the T-X competition, with an estimated price tag of $16 billion over the life of the program. Boeing and Swedish aerospace firm Saab have developed a new, clean-sheet design; Lockheed Martin and Korea Aerospace Industries are offering the T-50A, a take on KAI's T-50 jet trainer; and Leonardo DRS is offering the T-100, a modified version of the Italian aerospace company's M-346. The contract represents more than just 350 jets, although that alone would make it one of the biggest U.S. Air Force programs in years. Whichever contractor captures the USAF market may have the inside track on a number of future trainer competitions around the globe, particularly among countries looking to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In addition, if the U.S. Air Force decides to purchase aggressor aircraft for live-flying training, something that has been discussed on and off in recent years, simply buying more T-X trainers would be a logical solution. The contact has been a long time coming, and the contest has been filled with twists and turns. The service has for years sought to replace its aged T-38 jet, which ended production in the early 1970s and has served as the primary training plane for fighter pilots for decades. However, other priorities and sequestration-related budget caps saw the T-X campaign pushed to the right; while companies began announcing their entries for the competition as early as 2010, it wasn't until 2015 that the service revealed its actual criteria. At this point last year, the Air Force was still pledging to announce a winner by the end of calendar 2017. That projected award was pushed to March, and then to the end of the fiscal year. The expected winners have shifted over time as well. Around 2013, the conventional wisdom was that either Leonardo or the BAE Hawk, teamed with Northrop Grumman, would be the winner, as the service was looking for an off-the-shelf solution that has already been proven in service elsewhere. Boeing's idea of a clean-sheet design was seen as a longshot, due to the associated costs and timeline. However, that view shifted to the point that in 2015, Northrop and BAE scrapped plans to offer the Hawk and instead developed a new clean-sheet design of their own; the companies ultimately dropped out of the competition entirely in February of 2017. Meanwhile, the T-100 team struggled, with original partner General Dynamics dropping off the project in March 2015. GD was replaced by Raytheon in February 2016, but quit less than a year later. Other competitors, including Textron AirLand's Scorpion jet and a team-up between Turkish Aerospace Industries and Sierra Nevada, have come and gone, leaving only the three remaining competitors. Of those, industry analysts largely agree the winner will be either the Lockheed/KAI team or the Boeing offering. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/08/28/when-you-should-expect-the-air-force-to-announce-its-next-trainer-aircraft

By: Megan Eckstein THE PENTAGON – The Navy will buy the first of its Future Surface Combatants in 2023 – a large warship that will be built to support the Arleigh Burke Flight III combat system and will pull elements from the Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) and Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) destroyer designs. The combatant – not dubbed a cruiser, and potentially not dubbed a destroyer either – will be bigger and more expensive than the Arleigh Burke Flight III design and will have more room to grow into for decades to come, the director of surface warfare (OPNAV N96) told USNI News today. Future Surface Combatant refers to a family of systems that includes a large combatant akin to a destroyer, a small combatant like the Littoral Combat Ship or the upcoming frigate program, a large unmanned surface vessel and a medium USV, along with an integrated combat system that will be the common thread linking all the platforms. Navy leadership just recently signed an initial capabilities document for the family of systems, after an effort that began in late 2017 to define what the surface force as a whole would be required to do in the future and therefore how each of the four future platforms could contribute to that overall mission requirement. With the ICD now signed and providing the service with an idea of how many of each platform would be needed in a future fleet and how each would contribute as a sensor, a shooter or a command and control asset, Surface Warfare Director Adm. Ron Boxall and his staff are now able to begin diving into the finer details of what each platform would look like. The first to be tackled is the large combatant, Boxall told USNI News today. He noted the effort would be more like the move from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser to the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer – where the same combat capability was kept, but housed in a more suitable hull – rather than the move from the Spruance-class destroyer to the cruiser, which maintained the same hull design but added in new combat capability. After the addition of the AN/SPY-6(V) Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) to the DDGs' Aegis Combat System to create the Flight III design, Boxall said the resulting warfighting capability is one the Navy can use for years to come. “We have a new capability on that hull now, so everything's going good – except for, as we look towards going further, we know we've maxed out that hull footprint,” Boxall said of the Arleigh Burke-class hull design, power-generation capability and more. “So the key elements that we're looking at in this work we're doing on the requirements side is, keep the requirements about the same as DDG Flight III, but now look at what do we need a new hull to do.” USNI News first reported last month that the large combatant would pair a new hull with the Flight III combat system. The Navy will spend about the next six months having that conversation about what the new hull will need, though he suggested to USNI News that it would need sufficient space to carry helicopters and unmanned systems; it would need to support long-range missiles and weapons; it would have to include command and control systems able to support a staff onboard for air defense or offensive surface capability, much like the cruiser does today with the air defense commander role for a carrier strike group; it may incorporate DDG-1000's signature controls and integrated power system; and it will certainly have to be flexible and modular enough to quickly undergo upgrades and modernizations in the future as new systems are developed that the Navy will want to incorporate into the next block buy of large combatants or back fit fielded ones. Though there has been much speculation about whether the large combatant would use an existing design or a new design, Boxall said there really are no designs out there that meet the Navy's needs without significant modifications. Whereas the ongoing frigate design effort was able to mandate that bidders use mature parent designs, Boxall said “a lot of people in the world make frigates. Not many people make large surface combatants of the size and capability that we need. So we've got to kind of look to our portfolio of blueprints that we have as a starting point, and we'll edit and modify the hull and design things as we go forward.” “I think what you're going to see won't be a huge deviation from things we have already, but at the same point, we are going to be making changes to anything we have” already in the fleet, he added. In a nod towards the idea the next large combatant will share the same combat system as DDG Flight III and will perform much the same role in the fleet, Boxall said the Navy is starting with the DDG-51 Flight III capability development document (CDD); will go through a Large Surface Combatant Requirements Evaluation Team effort with requirements, acquisition and engineering personnel from the Navy and industry; and after six months call the finished product a “modified Flight III CDD.” Once that modified CDD is complete, it will be clearer how much the future large surface combatant will resemble its predecessor and how much it will be a new class of ship – which will likely determine its name. “It is the big question: what do you call the future large surface combatant? I don't know. I don't think you call it a cruiser. I don't think you call it a destroyer. Maybe – I don't know what it is,” Boxall said, noting that he has commanded both a cruiser and destroyer and that they get used in much the same fashion, save for the cruiser's role as the air defense commander ship, which the future large surface combatant will have the capability of doing with its command and control suite. Once the first large combatant is designed and purchased in the 2023 “block” – following the current block-buy of Flight III DDGs from Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, which spans from Fiscal Years 2018 to 2022 – new blocks will be planned for every five years. As USNI News has reported, this block structure, laid out in a Surface Combatant Capability Evolution Plan, would allow the insertion of new hardware and software in a predictable timeline. This would help researchers and developers in the government and in industry understand when a new capability would have to be matured by to be included in the next block design, and anything not quite ready yet could wait until the next block. This setup is much like the Virginia-class attack submarine's block upgrade approach to adding in new capabilities, and its Acoustic Rapid Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (ARCI) process of adding new capabilities in via new construction and back fitting existing subs. However, Boxall noted the surface community had the added challenge of managing this block buy and upgrade effort across four or more types of surface combatants, compared to just one class of attack submarines. Unlike before, when the surface community would undergo a massive planning effort – like the CG(X) cruiser replacement design that ultimately was too expensive and not accepted by the Navy – and then cease planning for many years before undertaking another massive effort, Boxall said he hoped the block upgrades would create a “heartbeat type of effort, where you always have something going on.” https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer

By: Mark Pomerleau The Army's Rapid Capabilities Office is beginning to expand to new areas of interest. Initially stood up in 2016, the RCO was designed to address the Army's biggest capability gaps by delivering solutions in one to five years. The original focus areas for the office included electronic warfare, position navigation and timing and cyber. While in the past few years it has moved out a bit into areas such as countering unmanned aerial systems, officials presenting Aug. 22 at TechNet Augusta explained the organization is now officially looking into much broader areas. The first is in future communications and narrowband communications. Rob Monto, Emerging Technologies Office lead at the RCO, explained these new areas of interest for the RCO could allow for fall-back or redundancy in denied environments. They could also allow paths for certain specific messages, such as medevac, to be transmitted. Monto then outlined an interest in robotics for employing logistics and maintenance for heavy platforms. Robots can help replace parts faster during war or even augment humans in the way Special Operations Command has conducted experiments with exoskeletons. The next area is in conformal antennas, which Monto said were of interest in order to reduce the profile of vehicles. Monto described a keen interest for the RCO in electric drives and drivetrains, noting that commercial industry and heavy machinery have started to take this route. Lastly, Monto noted that the RCO is interested in high-energy lasers and directed energy technology. Anything in these areas are starting to become a broader portfolio for the RCO, Monto said, adding they are looking to bring new technologies in that might not be specifically leveraged today. https://www.c4isrnet.com/show-reporter/technet-augusta/2018/08/24/here-are-the-new-areas-of-interest-for-the-army-rapid-capabilities-office

By ROSE L. THAYER AUSTIN, Texas – It could cost between $30 and $50 billion annually for the Army's Futures Command to work towards modernizing the service, Gen. Mark Milley, the Army's chief of staff, said Friday. In Milley's formal remarks during an activation ceremony for the command at its new headquarters in downtown Austin, he said most of the Army is involved in today's military operations. Futures Command instead will think about tomorrow's fight. “The only thing that is more expensive than preventing war is fighting a war,” Milley said. “The only thing more expensive than fighting a war, is fighting and losing a war. This command is all about setting the United States Army up to not only win on the battlefield, but to be decisive and absolutely dominate on the battlefield so that we inflict punishment and destroy the enemy at the least cost to ourselves.” Futures Command hopes to help do that by working with technology companies, startups, academia and businesses of all sizes with ideas on how to modernize the Army and be prepared to fight forces of similar strength. The mission is to provide soldiers with the weapons and equipment they need, when they need them and ensure success on future battlefields – all at a much faster rate than the Defense Department's acquisitions process allows now. Milley said Futures Command would not have been formed if not for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced Friday that he is discontinuing treatment for his brain cancer. The general said he and McCain discussed the challenges of procurement about three years ago as Milley awaited confirmation as chief of staff. “[McCain] said, ‘I want you to think about how you're going to reform the Army',” Milley recalled. “He planted that seed that we had significant challenges.” They continued the dialogue for several months and slowly their talks developed into Futures Command. On Friday, Gen. John “Mike” Murray took the helm of the new command with the support of its highest ranking noncommissioned officer Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Crosby. Together, the men unveiled the command's flag on the 17th floor of an University of Texas System office building. It is the first time that the Army has established a command in the middle of an urban center. The space's still unfinished walls and ceilings showed the work ahead to get the Futures Command operational. With the expectation of employing about 100 soldiers and about 400 civilians, the cost of managing just the headquarters is expected to be about $80 to $100 million, or on par with the other four-star commands. The new command is included in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Milley said Murray has six months to get settled, and another six to start showing results. https://www.stripes.com/news/army-expects-to-spend-up-to-50-billion-a-year-on-futures-command-1.544234

By: Jill Aitoro LONDON — In spring 2016, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman unveiled a plan to reduce the country's dependence on oil and to diversify the economy. The goal of Saudi Vision 2030, as that plan is known, is to make Saudi Arabia “the heart of the Arab and Islamic worlds, the investment powerhouse, and the hub connecting three continents.” Among the sectors central to that vision is military. Taking cues from other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia stood up a single umbrella organization to lead its efforts in defense development and expertise: the Saudi Arabian Military Industries. Defense News spoke to CEO Andreas Schwer in an exclusive interview about the goals of SAMI, and what it could mean for global defense partnership and cooperation. You lead the Saudi Arabian Military Industries. I would love for you to talk a bit about how SAMI, as it's known, was stood up and the goals of that organization. When the Vision 2030 program was established and defined by his royal highness, it became apparent right from the beginning that the defense industry would play a major role to achieve these global targets. So the defense industry, set up, is one of the major tasks of the Vision 2030 program. They established a team to define how this kind of defense industry should be set up. They were looking to comparable countries who are undergoing this kind of process — countries like Turkey, South Korea, South Africa or some Western countries. They have tried to learn the lessons out of that process. It was obvious that there are two choices: either to go for a [new company], or to use existing assets and to build up on those assets. They decided to go [new] in order to enhance the opportunity to implement best Western practices from the beginning. That was the key decision to go ahead, and they decided to build a nucleus which is covering any kind of [military] activities, starting from space, ground or naval activities under one big umbrella company to set up a kind of sustainable business instead of having different companies of smaller size. Are they operating relatively independently, or is it really one management structure? SAMI itself is acting as a kind of active holding company. We will operate through four business divisions. Each of the business divisions will be composed of a set of business units. A business unit is a joint venture with a foreign partner, but it would also integrate the existing assets in the kingdom into this umbrella environment; assets which are already joint ventures today but also nationally owned assets, which will be allocated to the various business divisions. I know you have an extensive career with defense companies. You were with Rheinmetall, and you spent time at Airbus. What interested you about this opportunity? It's quite unique overall in the world that to set up a new company which covers, again, all the product portfolio you can imagine. Space, aviation, land systems, hydraulic simulation, ammunition, shipbuilding, everything. I don't think there's any job in the world which offers you this kind of broad portfolio of activities. So it's unique. It's a once-in-a-lifetime chance. And the second argument is it's fantastic to set up a company. You can apply all your ideas, all the activity to form and shape something which otherwise you will never be able to do, versus ending up in an organization where almost all elements are predefined and it's hard to implement any kind of significant change. You have said that the goal for SAMI is to become one of the largest 25 defense companies in the world by 2030. How do you intend to make that happen? Saudi Arabia has the third-biggest defense budget in the world. It's around $70 billion throughout the year. On top of that, we have to look to all the budgets for the other customers on the domestic scene. It's the National Guard, the Royal Guard, Ministry of Interior, homeland security. There are lots of national customers [for] security-related equipment. Most of that will end up at SAMI's desk. So just by the volume and the size of the procurement, it's achievable, [also with] export potential of 30 percent. With that, you can easily achieve the target to become among the top 25 companies in the world. The Pentagon started working with Saudi Arabia on some very sizable foreign military sales from the United States, with the Trump administration very vocal about supporting that. How does that fit into the picture? There are lots of partnership opportunities. Those [foreign military sales] will be subject to our new scenario. We will apply for each and any of those contracts with the 50 percent localization rule, to be in line with Vision 2030. And whether it's a foreign military sale or whether it's a direct commercial sale, those sorts of buys will offer in all the local industries great opportunities for growth. So it's a good opportunity? You would say it's a positive? It's possible. But we have to make the target. We have to grow the local content from the 2 percent to more than 50 percent of the total span, new procurement, and [maintenance, repair and overhaul]. That's the target: 50 percent localization. That brings up an interesting point. Saudi Arabia has long voiced, like many countries in the Middle East, a desire for more indigenous capabilities. You mentioned the 50 percent localization in terms of contract opportunities, but how else can SAMI promote those aspirations? In the past, we've had the classic vendor-buyer relationship. Saudi Arabia was the classic buyer with very, very little local content. There were offset obligations, but most of the times they were never being fulfilled for different reasons. In the new scheme, we change from this kind of supplier-vendor relationship to a partnership model, a partnership model to the extent that we expect the foreign partner — under the terms of their exclusivity access to Saudi Arabia — to bring all their technologies, all the skills and knowledge into the kingdom. That typically is established through a joint venture so we can build up local competence not only by getting licenses for production, but in the engineering and R&D field to be able to develop the next generation of weapons systems, within the joint venture, within the kingdom. And you established a joint venture with Boeing. Can use that as an example? Saudi Arabia has a very long-lasting, strategic relationship with Boeing. It started many years ago, and we already have an established joint venture in the kingdom, where we conduct substantial aircraft MRO activities. Our future collaboration is obviously centered around this activity and will be expanded along the portfolio of Boeing products. Boeing is a showcase. Boeing is one of our most important partners. What does Saudi Arabia bring to the table both in terms of location, and technological capabilities? What is ripe for expansion within the country to support the military industry? As I mentioned before, we're the third-largest defense budget in the world. If you compare this budget with smaller budgets in other countries and if you compare what they have achieved in terms of localization — we have all the ingredients which we need to have in order to make this a success story. We will invest not only in the defense industry, but we also do a big push in the education system in universities, in any kind of area which needs support in order to get this industry up and running, to support the creation of jobs, to fulfill the Vision 2030. SAMI's obligation is to create more than 40,000 direct jobs, more than 100,000 indirect jobs, to achieve the target as defined. Are there things that the United States and other allies can do to better support Saudi Arabia with this military expansion? If there was a wish, we would love to get more access to top-class technologies from all the U.S. partners. There are obviously limitations, which we are suffering from. That's the one element. So be a little bit more open. And second, export in arms and weapons was driven by FMS programs. In our new set up in Saudi Arabia, we will do more and more in direct commercial sales. Why? Because this office has more flexibility, more opportunity for follow-up in the organization in a more time-effective manner. And yes, companies have to be trained, in that they have to change the mindsets and mentality in order to do this kind of normal type of commercial sales activity and to become a commercial partner on an industrial level rather than on a political or governmental level. They'll need to convince the Pentagon to allow them, too, because there's a lot of cases where the Pentagon tends to put in restrictions and wants to be in control of that relationship. You are absolutely right. This is a burden on the U.S. companies, and I wish them all the best in order to overcome the hurdle [so we] will be equally treated as many other companies who are not restricted by their governments. Some western European countries, for example, are offering much more support in that respect. Offering more opportunities for the companies to transfer their ideas, their technologies into the kingdom. Saudi Arabia had a bit of a shakeup in terms of its own military leadership. Where does that stand, if you don't mind my asking, and how does that influence the formation and growth of SAMI? The Vision 2030 program has many elements. So it's a transformation program, not only for society but also for the governmental administration. And as [the armed forces] are part of this administration body, they also have to undergo this transformation process. This is an ongoing process. The first steps have been done. One of the outcomes is the creation and foundation of the new regulatory body, which is the twin to SAMI, to host a centralized procurement agency, which they regulate and control and manage any kind of military and defense-related or security-related procurement action. This will ensure critical mass, synergy effects, volume effects, and allow us to build up a kind of sustainable business. With this kind of transformation, obviously, the roles and the responsibilities of administrative bodies, as well as leaders in the forces, have to change. And in line with that, some people have to be replaced, to be in full support with this new vision and to be completely in line with our targets, and I can tell you we have relationships with all the national stakeholders, and we consider ourselves with them as partners. They are no longer a client, we are no longer vendor to them; we are partners. You mentioned R&D. What areas do you see the greatest potential in terms of investment for development and product development? We will put our focus on software technologies, electronics, microwave, space-based technologies, robotics, laser weapons systems on the midterm and long term, but in in the short term we have to give the short-term needs, which are conventional in nature. So, in the beginning, as all the other companies are doing, are on the classical systems. How do you meld what Saudi Arabia as a nation needs for its own military with the potential for global export? Upmost importance and top priority is the security of the country. That means, yes, our top priority is to serve the needs of our armed forces, and we try in parallel to satisfy also the needs of our strategic partners. In most of the cases those are quite complementary. You see a lot of efforts in the United Arab Emirates to bolster defense. Is there a collaboration between the military organizations that are stood up in a country like UAE and what you're trying to establish in Saudi Arabia? Top leadership of UAE and Saudi Arabia have recently agreed on a strong collaboration on defense, and defense industries, so we are highly encouraged to align our thoughts and to align our strategies with our counterparts in the UAE. This process is ongoing, but we've had very fruitful collaborative talks, and soon we'll hopefully be in a position to announce some great, common achievements. https://www.defensenews.com/interviews/2018/08/27/head-of-saudi-arabias-defense-industry-umbrella-org-talks-vision-2030