Nouvelles

By SAMANTHA MASUNAGA The year was 1989. The Pentagon was under the command of President George H.W. Bush and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. And aviation giant McDonnell Douglas Corp. was riding high as the top federal contractor, grabbing 4.6%, or $9.15 billion, of all federal contracting dollars. The next two largest contractors, General Dynamics Corp. and General Electric Co., raked in about 4% and 3.4%, respectively. Thirty years and many acquisitions later, Pentagon spending has grown far more top-heavy. Today, Lockheed Martin Corp. and Boeing — which bought McDonnell Douglas in 1997 — together reaped almost 15% of total U.S. government contracting dollars in fiscal year 2017, according to the most recent federal numbers. The two aerospace giants are the only makers of fast combat jets in the U.S. and are the dominant players for military transport aircraft. The concentrated power of big defense companies became an issue two years ago when longtime Boeing executive Patrick Shanahan was confirmed as deputy secretary of Defense. Then in December, President Trump named him to serve as acting Defense secretary. After a monthlong ethics investigation into allegations that Shanahan promoted Boeing while slamming rival Lockheed Martin, particularly in discussions about its F-35 fighter jet contract, the Pentagon's office of inspector general concluded Thursday that Shanahan “did not promote Boeing or disparage its competitors.” “We did not substantiate any of the allegations,” the report said. “We determined that Mr. Shanahan fully complied with his ethics agreements and his ethical obligations regarding Boeing and its competitors.” Shanahan is considered a leading candidate for permanent Defense secretary. The question of possible favoritism toward Boeing had also been raised by some when the U.S. Air Force, in its 2020 budget, made a surprise request to purchase F-15X fighter jets, an update of that company's fourth-generation jet. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have all made major commitments to the F-35, Lockheed Martin's more advanced and pricier fifth-generation fighter. The inspector general report said the Pentagon's mix of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft was a decision made by former Defense Secretary James N. Mattis before Shanahan's confirmation to the department. A Defense official told trade publication Defense News that the decision was bolstered by concerns about keeping “multiple providers in the tactical aircraft portfolio.” But there was no contract competition based on a set of defined requirements — the way business typically works in the industry, said Richard Aboulafia, aviation analyst at market analysis firm Teal Group. “It's a duopoly structure business with a lot at stake,” he said of fast combat jet manufacturing. “It's amazing that no one considered the optics here.” In some cases, the military has encouraged monopolies. In 2006, Lockheed Martin and Boeing got government approval to form United Launch Alliance, a joint venture set up specifically to launch national security satellites. The venture was proposed after the companies argued there were not enough launches to sustain two competitors. “The market is more concentrated,” said Mandy Smithberger, director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight, an independent watchdog group. “You see the government making decisions thinking about how it will impact industry probably more than they should be.” Still, when President Reagan was in office, there were a number of major manufacturers of tactical military jets — Northrop Corp., Grumman Corp., Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, and General Dynamics, to name a few, Aboulafia said. But as the Cold War ended in the 1990s, defense funding dried up, leading to major aerospace mergers, such as Lockheed and Martin Marietta, and Boeing's acquisition of Rockwell International's aerospace business and McDonnell Douglas. A push for commonality among the Pentagon's planes also led to the fewer numbers of tactical military jets. The idea was that using similar aircraft would lead to savings in development and production costs, Andrew Hunter, director of the defense-industrial initiatives group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said in an email. As a result, the share of federal defense contracts awarded to the top largest private companies increased to 31.3% in 2000 from 21.7% in 1990, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper on the effect of 1990s-era defense industry consolidation. In 2017, the share of the top five reached 35%, according to federal data analyzed for that paper by Stanford University researchers. The paper concluded that those mergers resulted in a less competitive procurement process. But it did not find evidence of a significant increase in acquisition costs for large weapon systems, said Mark Duggan, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and co-author of the paper. As the industry gets more concentrated, it can lead to concern that “there's only one or two potential contractors for a certain product, and then you may not get the kind of competitive outcome you want,” he said. The consolidation process hasn't slowed, driven by the perceived need to compete for more and bigger contracts. Last year, Northrop Grumman Corp. acquired spacecraft and rocket motor manufacturer Orbital ATK Inc. Months later, military communications firms L3 Technologies Inc. and Harris Corp. announced their intent to merge. Although acquisitions and mergers can lead to greater efficiency, they can also have a detrimental effect on product innovation, said Aboulafia of Teal Group. For example, he said, as aircraft manufacturers consolidate, clean-sheet designs may be more of a rarity in the future as there are fewer design teams in the industry from different companies. For Boeing, “in terms of designing a clean-sheet fighter jet, it's been many, many, many years,” he said. In 2017, Lockheed Martin won more than $50 billion in total federal contracting dollars, making the Bethesda, Md., company No. 1 on a list of the top 100 federal contractors, according to federal procurement data. Boeing was a distant second with more than $23 billion. When narrowed to weapon acquisition contract dollars in fiscal year 2017, Lockheed Martin's individual piece of the pie totaled about 17%, with Boeing further behind at about 7.5%, according to federal data analyzed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. News of the Defense Department ethics investigation came after watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the acting Defense Department inspector general, asking him to investigate allegations that Shanahan had boosted Boeing while working in the Pentagon. The letter includes a description from a Politico story published in January, in which Shanahan allegedly criticized Lockheed Martin's work on the F-35 joint strike fighter program, saying it “would be done much better” if Boeing had won the contract. In that article, an unnamed former Pentagon official told the news organization that Shanahan said during a high-level meeting that Lockheed “doesn't know how to run a program.” The inspector general's report said none of the witnesses interviewed said they heard Shanahan praise Boeing in meetings or discussions or make disparaging remarks about Lockheed Martin. Shanahan told the inspector general's team that he had never praised a Boeing military product and that he had said “program management on the F-35 is inadequate.” Shanahan's Boeing career spanned more than 30 years, during which he led its missile defense systems and military helicopter units. He also served as senior vice president of the company's commercial airplane division and is known for his work on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner program, which was behind schedule when he first took the helm. Boeing declined to comment this month on the initiation of the ethics investigation. The company referred to a statement it made in January, saying Boeing officials had not spoken to Shanahan about its programs during “his entire Pentagon tenure” and that the company “adheres to and respects Acting Secretary Shanahan's decision to recuse himself from company matters.” Shanahan isn't the first industry executive to lead the Defense Department. Under President Eisenhower, Defense Secretary Charles Wilson joined the Pentagon after serving as chief executive of General Motors, which made military vehicles at the time. Other defense industry brass have also joined the Pentagon over the years, though in lower roles. Analysts say the Pentagon could benefit from having a leader who understands how industry works, and who has been on the other side of the negotiating table and can avoid being tricked. And the Defense secretary typically works less with industry representatives than deputies do. “Secretaries aren't making a lot of decisions on individual contracts,” Smithberger said. “They're setting the priorities for the department.” But the potential conflicts may be “hard to escape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the Lexington Institute think tank, which receives funding from both Boeing and Lockheed Martin. “Boeing is so big that almost every discussion of strategy, budgets or programs bears upon its interests,” he said. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boeing-lockheed-shanahan-20190426-story.html

By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — Overall military expenditures rose 2.6 percent between 2017 and 2018, to hit a total of $1.82 trillion dollars, according to new research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The total from 2018 is 5.4 percent higher than 2009, and represents a 76 percent increase over 1998, a 20-year period. Sixty percent of global military spending came from five countries: The United States ($649 billion), China ($250 billion), Saudi Arabia ($67.6 billion), India ($66.5 billion) and France ($63.8 billion). Russia ($61.4 billion) and the United Kingdom ($50 billion) were the other two countries to spend $50 billion or more on defense. However, there are ups and downs among the biggest spenders. While the U.S. (4.6 percent, the first overall growth since 2010), China (5 percent) and India (3.1 percent) increased their respective military spending year over year, Saudi Arabia cut its spending by 6.5 percent, France by 1.4 percent and Russia by 3.5 percent. And overall defense spending per gross domestic product fell to 2.1 percent in 2018, representing $239 per global citizen, a 0.1 percent decrease over one year and a 0.5 percent decrease over 10 years. Notably, Russia ranked outside the top five for the first time since 2006. China, meanwhile, increased its military spending for the 24th consecutive year, and its spending is almost 10 times higher than it was in 1994; however, researchers warn that Chinese growth may slow in the coming year. “The annual rate of growth of China's military spending has slowed steadily since it reached a post-2009 high of 9.3 percent in 2013. The growth of 5.0 percent in 2018 was the lowest annual increase since 1995,” the authors note. “China has followed a policy of linking growth in military spending with economic growth. With its economic growth slowing in 2018 to the lowest level in 28 years, slower rates of growth in the coming years can be expected if China continues to follow this policy.” SIPRI, which is widely considered to be the authority on military expenditures and exports, having gathered such data for decades. Other key developments, as noted by the researchers: Military spending in South America rose by 3.1 percent in 2018. This was mainly due to the increase in Brazilian spending (by 5.1 percent), the second increase in as many years. Military expenditure in Africa fell by 8.4 percent in 2018, the fourth consecutive annual decrease since the peak in spending in 2014. There were major decreases in spending by Algeria (–6.1 percent), Angola (–18 percent) and Sudan (–49 percent). Military spending by states in the Middle East, for which data is available, fell by 1.9 percent in 2018. Total military expenditure by all 29 NATO members was $963 billion in 2018, which accounted for 53 percent of world spending. Military spending in Turkey increased by 24 percent in 2018 to $19 billion, the highest annual percentage increase among the world's top 15 military spenders. Six of the 10 countries with the highest military burden (military spending as a proportion of GDP) in the world in 2018 are in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia (8.8 percent of GDP), Oman (8.2 percent), Kuwait (5.1 percent), Lebanon (5 percent), Jordan (4.7 percent) and Israel (4.3 percent). https://www.defensenews.com/global/2019/04/28/heres-how-much-global-military-spending-rose-in-2018

AIR FORCE The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts, has been awarded a $2,038,147,146 modification (P00020) to previously awarded contract FA8702-15-D-0001 for the operation of the Lincoln Laboratory Federally Funded Research and Development Center. This modification provides for advanced technology research and development activities that focus on long-term technology development as well as rapid system prototyping and demonstration. Work will be performed in Lexington, Massachusetts, and is expected to be complete by March 31, 2020. This modification brings the total cumulative face value of the contract to $9,600,000,000, and no funds are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, is the contracting activity. General Dynamics Missions Systems, Scottsdale, Arizona, has been awarded a $20,241,853 requirements contract for Identification Friend or Foe KIV-78 Mode 4/5 Cryptographic Applique production. The contract provides for KIV-78 units, Delorean Circuit Card Assemblies, data and technical support for United States and foreign military sales requirements. Work will be performed in Scottsdale, Arizona, and is expected to be complete by April 24, 2023. No funds are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division, Joint-Base San Antonio, Texas, is the contracting activity (FA8307-19-D-0004). ARMY Lockheed Martin, Orlando, Florida, was awarded a $723,550,174 modification (P00011) to domestic and Foreign Military Sales (Lebanon, Netherlands and France) contract W31P4Q-18-C-0130 to procure a variety of HELLFIRE II missile variants. Work will be performed in Orlando, Florida, with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2022. Fiscal 2017, 2018 and 2019 other procurement, Army funds in the amount of $723,550,174 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity. Korte Construction Co., St. Louis, Missouri, was awarded a $31,295,038 firm-fixed-price contract to design and build an Integrated Training Center Academics Building at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Bids were solicited via the internet with six received. Work will be performed in Okaloosa, Florida, with an estimated completion date of April 30, 2021. Fiscal 2016 and 2019 military construction funds in the amount of $31,295,038 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W91278-19-C-0013). Gentex Corp., Simpson, Pennsylvania, was awarded a $27,860,817 firm-fixed-price contract for the Head Gear Unit 56/P Rotary Wing Helmet. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of April 25, 2024. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-19-D-0070). Yorktown Systems Group Inc.,* Huntsville, Alabama, was awarded a $23,650,768 modification (P00025) to contract W911S0-17-C-0007 for Asymmetric Warfare Group operations support services. Work will be performed in Fort Meade, Maryland, with an estimated completion date of May 14, 2021. Fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance Army funds in the amount of $18,800,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia, is the contracting activity. NAVY British Aerospace Engineering Systems Technology Solutions and Services, Inc., Rockville, Maryland (N00421-19-D-0045); Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., McLean, Virginia (N00421-19-D-0048); Coherent Technical Services, Inc., Lexington Park, Maryland (N00421-19-D-0049); Engility Corp., Andover, Maine (N00421-19-D-0050); Gryphon Technologies, LC., Washington, District of Columbia (N00421-19-D-0051); J.F. Taylor, Inc., Lexington Park, Maryland (N00421-19-D-0052) and Valkyrie Enterprises, Inc., Virginia Beach, Virginia (N00421-19-D-0053) are each awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee, multi-award indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts to provide engineering support services for Air Traffic Control and Landing Systems as well as developmental programs such as the Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) and unmanned programs for the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force and other Department of Defense activities. The estimated aggregate ceiling for all contracts is $98,625,565 with the companies having an opportunity to compete for individual orders. Work will be performed in St. Inigoes, Maryland, and various awardee and customer sites to be determined on individual orders and is expected to be completed in April 2024. Funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. These contracts were competitively procured via an electronic request for proposals, seven offers were received. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded $90,773,387 for fixed-price-incentive-fee modification P00014 to a previously awarded contract (N0001918C1048). This modification will stand up organic depot repair capabilities for the F-35 integrated core processor. Work will be performed in McKinney, Texas (39.1 percent); Owego, New York (32.7 percent); Fort Worth, Texas (14.5 percent); Camden, New Jersey (5.9 percent); Clearwater, Florida (5 percent) and Melbourne, Florida (2.8 percent), and is expected to be completed in October 2022. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy) funds in the amount of $90,773,387 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This modification combines purchases for the U.S. Air Force ($45,386,693; 50 percent), U.S. Marine Corps ($22,693,347; 25 percent) and the U.S. Navy ($22,693,347; 25 percent). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. The Boeing Co., St. Louis, Missouri, is awarded an $89,011,500 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity task order contract for the technical and engineering services to integrate various external stores and alternative mission equipment onto the F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft. Work will be performed in St. Louis, Missouri (40 percent), Patuxent River, Maryland (40 percent); Tullahoma, Tennessee (8 percent); Mountain View, California (8 percent); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2 percent); and Buffalo, New York (2 percent), and is expected to be completed in December 2022. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Navy) funds in the amount of $482,841 will be obligated at time of award; none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N0001919D0021). Amethyst Builders, LLC*, Ewa Beach, Hawaii (N62478-19-D-4029); Concept 2 Completion, LLC*, Kailua, Hawaii (N62478-19-D-4030); D&D Construction, Inc.*, Waipahu, Hawaii (N62478-19-D-4031); and MEI Corp.*, Hauula, Hawaii (N62478-19-D-4032), are each awarded indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award design-bid-build construction contracts for construction projects located primarily within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Hawaii area of responsibility (AOR). The maximum dollar value including the base period and four option years for all four contracts combined is $48,000,000. The work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, new construction, addition, alteration, maintenance, and repair work by design-bid-build for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and various Federal Agencies located in the State of Hawaii. These four contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. No task orders are being issued at this time. All work on the contract will be performed within the NAVFAC Hawaii AOR. The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of April 2024. Fiscal 2019 Navy working capital funds in the amount of $20,000 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by operation and maintenance (Navy). This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website, with 20 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Harris Corp., Roanoke, Virginia, has been awarded a maximum $50,000,000 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the production of Image Intensifying tubes in support of the AN/AVS-6 and AN/AVS-9 Aviator's Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS). This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a five-year base contract with one five-year option period. Location of performance is Virginia, with an April 24, 2024, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (SPRBL1-19-D-0029). Seiler Instrument & Manufacturing Co., Inc.,* St. Louis, Missouri, has been awarded a maximum $11,902,218 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for telescope and quadrant mounts. This was a competitive acquisition with one response received. This is a five-year contract with no option periods. Location of performance is Missouri, with a March 25, 2024, performance completion date. Using military service is Army. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2024 Army working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime, Warren, Michigan (SPRDL1-19-D-0083). *Small business https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-View/Article/1824510/source/GovDelivery/

GUIDE À L'INTENTION DES ENTREPRISES QUI SOUHAITENT FAIRE DES AFFAIRES EN FRANCE https://www.desjardins.com/ressources/pdf/c00-entreprendre-le-marche-francais-f.pdf

De nos jours, les forces spéciales (FS) font face à un ennemi toujours plus insaisissable et plus rapide, doté de capacités tactiques et technologiques de plus en plus sophistiquées. Riches d'un retour d'expérience (RETEX) innovant et d'une réelle connaissance du terrain, les unités FS contrent cette tendance en s'inscrivant dans une démarche de recherche et d'innovation au profit de leurs unités et de l'armée de Terre. Les forces spéciales font face à un environnement changeant dans lequel l'ennemi non étatique est pourvu de capacités opérationnelles modernes comme les matériels de vision nocturne, les drones ou encore les missiles antichars. Pour répondre à ces mutations, le commandement des forces spéciales Terre (CFST)développe et améliore constamment ses capacités opérationnelles pour disposer d'une longueur d'avance sur ses ennemis. Comme l'explique le commandant Xavier, chef du bureau étude et prospective du CFST : « Pour le CFST, l'enjeu est de conserver le juste niveau d'asymétrie technologique qui contribue à la supériorité opérationnelle des détachements opérant sous le contrôle opérationnel du commandement des opérations spéciales ». Des combattants impliqués Ainsi, le retour d'expérience (RETEX) des combattants des forces spéciales éclaire le CFST sur la réalité des engagements et la nature de la menace. Débriefer la mission est une seconde nature des FS. La particularité au sein des unités FS, c'est que la boucle est très courte. En effet, le soldat va pouvoir rapporter son RETEX directement à son chef de corps, qui traitera à son tour directement avec les différents organismes internes et les industriels. Il permet de tirer leçon des engagements opérationnels pour y apporter une réponse adéquate. Les soldats FS peuvent aussi inscrire leurs idées dans le cadre des missions pour l'innovation participative (MIP). Organisée par le ministère de la Défense, ces MIP permettent de favoriser l'émission d'idées de la part du personnel, puis de favoriser la diffusion et le déploiement opérationnel des innovations qui en résultent. En 1991, Un colonel du 1er régiment parachutiste d'infanterie de marine (1er RPIMa) de Bayonne a réalisé le projet d'un véhicule léger, d'une masse à vide inférieure à 1,2 tonne, permettant d'améliorer les capacités d'investigation et d'intervention ponctuelle d'équipes spécialisées du 1er RPIMa. D'une autonomie de 1 000 km en terrain varié, sommairement protégé, le véhicule dispose d'un équipage de trois hommes en mesure de se servir d'armes lourdes d'infanterie et antichar. En 1996, dans le même régiment, un officier supérieur a créé un système d'architecture modulaire portable permettant l'acquisition, le traitement et la transmission en temps réel d'images pour le renseignement, du thé'tre d'opérations vers la métropole. Une organisation favorable à l'innovation A son niveau, le CFST doit fait face à un cadre normatif très contraignant. Entre les modalités d'attribution de matériels et leur mise en service, les règles et les clauses entre les entités publiques et privées, le CFST doit s'adapter pour impacter le moins possible la durée d'acquisition de matériels. De plus, le cycle d'innovation habituel (au sein des unités conventionnelles) est extrêmement long et non adapté aux besoins souvent urgents des FS. Le CFST cherche donc à le réduire au maximum. « A ce jour, nous avons réussi à ramener la durée du cycle d'innovation à 6 ans contre 15 à 20 ans pour les unités conventionnelles » explique le commandant Xavier. De plus, le CFST est doté d'un bureau études équipements et prospectives (BEP) ayant pour responsabilité principale, le développement capacitaire des forces spéciales Terre. C'est une structure vouée à l'innovation. Spécifique au FS, le BEP est décliné dans chaque unité, puis au niveau supérieur au sein du CFST qui prend ensuite contact avec le niveau décisionnaire : l'état-major de l'armée de Terre. Gr'ce à cette organisation, le BEP recueille le RETEX directement en régiment et s'attache à appréhender de manière globale la somme des faits et événements qui lui sont rapportés. En terme de prospective, il étudie les évolutions prévisibles des adversaires et les technologies susceptibles d'asseoir la supériorité opérationnelle de nos armées ou au contraire de la remettre en question. Il évalue ensuite les options de réponse et propose le développement d'une nouvelle capacité ou l'évaluation d'un équipement en vue de son acquisition. Fortes de leur volonté d'innovation, les forces spéciales jouent un rôle essentiel dans la supériorité capacitaire de l'armée de Terre. « Actuellement, nous nous intéressons aux nouvelles solutions de mobilité, aux capacités offertes par les drones, l'impression 3D, la gestion de l'information et de l'énergie » conclut le commandant Xavier. L'ensemble de ces démarches ne se limite pas à adapter seulement les capacités opérationnelles des FS, il sert ainsi l'ensemble des forces de l'armée de Terre. https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/actu-terre/forces-speciales-l-innovation-au-centre-de-leur-reussite

The deputy commander of Army Futures Command told lawmakers recently that he expects the competition to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to be highly competitive. The Army recently released the request for proposal (RFP) for the Next Generation Combat Vehicle-Optional Manned Vehicle (NGCV-OMFV), the second-highest priority in the service's new modernization strategy. The new vehicle will be designed to maneuver a squad of soldiers through dense urban terrain as well as wooded areas and deliver "decisive lethality" in close combat against a near-peer foe such as Russia, according to the RFP the Army released in late March https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/04/03/army-expects-major-competition-bradley-fighting-vehicle-replacement.html

By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army plans to take another year to pick an Active Protection System for its Stryker combat vehicle, according to the military deputy to the Army acquisition chief. The service is already fielding the Rafael-made Trophy APS on its Abrams tank and has picked IMI's Iron Fist for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle — both as interim systems until the Army can develop an advanced future system — but it had to go back to square one when its attempt to outfit Stryker with Herndon, Virginia-based Artis LLC's Iron Curtain system failed. The Army put out a request for possible systems to be qualified as an interim solution on the Stryker. Officials ultimately chose a Rafael and DRS team and a Rheinmetall and UBT team to participate in a live-fire rodeo last November to see if either system might work. But while it was believed a decision would come soon after, Lt. Gen. Paul Ostrowski testified at an April 2 Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee hearing that it would take another year to make a decision. “We have two companies that are in the process of competing for [APS on Stryker]. One is a venture between ... Rafael and DRS and the other is Rheinmetall and UBT, so we are in the process of going through that,” Ostrowski said. “It's going to take about a year, quite frankly, in order to put those systems on the vehicles, characterize them and make a determination as to whether or not to move forward with either one of the two vendors.” Ostrowski added the service had asked each team to provide blueprints and to build their non-developmental APS systems to fit on Stryker. “They are in the process of doing that build,” he said. “And once the build is put on the vehicle, it's then a matter of testing in order to ensure that it works,” Ostrowski said, which is not unlike the process the Army went through to characterize and qualify APS systems on both Abrams and Bradley. Israeli company Rafael and DRS submitted its Trophy VPS — a lighter version of Trophy — for the rodeo. Germany-based Rheinmetall partnered with Unified Business Technologies, based in Michigan, and submitted its Active Defense System — now renamed StrikeShield. During the rodeo, participants did not perform a full installation of their systems on the vehicle. Instead, they set up test rigs in front of Strykers or hung their system off a Stryker in the evaluation. Following the rodeo, the idea was to select one, possibly two systems, to begin some sort of installation characterization on a platform deemed most appropriate for the APS system, Col. Glenn Dean, the Army's Stryker program manager who is also in charge of the interim APS effort, told Defense News in October 2018. Meanwhile, Ostrowski said the Army bought 88 Iron Fist systems for Bradley in 2019 and planned to buy another 36 in the FY20 budget. The service is on a path to field four brigades of Abrams with Trophy by FY21. The Army is also developing its own Modular Active Protection System, which is seen more like a digital integrated backbone that will be designed with an open-system architecture so that vendors can bring radars, optical sensors and hard- or soft-kill effectors and plug them in, according to Ostrowski. The important thing is “to get a capability out there first. . . . Now it's just a matter of moving beyond that,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/04/02/us-army-needs-another-year-to-pick-protection-system-for-stryker/

(B2) Il ne se passe pas de mois désormais sans qu'un dirigeant en responsabilité au niveau européen ne présente une idée ‘nouvelle' pour faire avancer l'Europe de la défense. En soi, c'est intéressant, cela anime le débat. Mais il serait nécessaire d'en savoir plus. Une foison d'entreprises On a mis en place une coopération structurée permanente. Puis est venue une initiative européenne d'intervention, dérivée d'une idée présentée par Emmanuel Macron il y a 18 mois, en septembre 2017. Ensuite sont venues plusieurs déclarations franco-allemandes (à Meseberg en juin 2018 et Aix-La-Chapelle en janvier 2019) qui ont évoqué une nouvelle solidarité militaire entre les deux pays et un conseil de sécurité de l'UE. Puis sont venues des déclarations de plusieurs leaders européens — tels le Français Emmanuel Macron, l'Allemand Angela Merkel, l'Espagnol Pedro Sanchez — annonçant un projet, « à terme », d'armée européenne (1). Des dirigeants de premier plan. Enfin, Emmanuel Macron a souhaité mettre en place un nouveau traité de défense avec non seulement l'Allemagne mais aussi le Royaume-Uni définissant une nouvelle clause de défense mutuelle et ce fameux Conseil de sécurité européen. Sans oublier le fameux porte-avion commun, que voudrait développer la CDU d'Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. Cesser de mettre en bouche et expliquer Il serait peut-être désormais temps que les idées cessent d'être mises en bouche, mais qu'on arrive à saisir ce qu'elles recouvrent exactement. Paris et Berlin n'ont pas tout à fait peut-être la même idée du Conseil européen de sécurité ni de la défense européenne, il serait intéressant que ces nuances soient clarifiées pour que le débat puisse s'engager concrètement. Il serait aussi intéressant d'avoir un peu de cohérence dans tout ce feu d'artifice d'idées merveilleuses. Expliquer : une nécessité démocratique Les responsables politiques devraient prendre l'habitude, dans leurs grands discours, d'accompagner ceux-ci d'une petite notice explicative, détaillant en quelques phrases, comment leurs belles idées doivent être comprises. Cela aurait un intérêt : éviter des incompréhensions, permettre au débat de s'engager, faire avancer les projets. Cela aurait un avantage : clarifier si on est dans l'effet de manche, l'agitation ou le projet, l'action. Cela répondrait tout simplement à une nécessité démocratique. https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/03/31/arretons-de-declamer-detaillons/

(B2) Formation Continue Panthéon Sorbonne (FCPS) et la Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (FRS), en liaison avec le programme de recherche « Sorbonne War Studies », organisent le 10 avril prochain un colloque sur le thème « Industries et marchés de défense : dynamiques nationales et européennes ». Parmi les points abordés, la coopération nordique, l'axe franco-allemand, le partenariat stratégique France-Belgique CAMO, un état des lieux sur l'ouverture des marchés publics de défense à la concurrence, le programme PEDID et le futur Fonds européen de la défense, etc. Lieu : Amphi II A du centre Panthéon de l'université Paris I, 12 place du Panthéon, 75005 Paris. Inscription Télécharger le programme https://www.bruxelles2.eu/2019/03/30/industries-et-marches-de-defense-dynamiques-nationales-et-europeennes/