Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
20 janvier 2015 2 20 /01 /janvier /2015 12:56
Sécurité : comment les forces de l'ordre organisent leur présence permanente


20.01.2015 Par Blandine Le Cain – LeFigaro.fr


Depuis une semaine, près de 5000 policiers et gendarmes sont venus renforcer les effectifs déjà présents sur le territoire pour assurer la sécurité, ainsi que 10.000 militaires. Ce déploiement de personnel impose une organisation logistique complexe, en amont comme sur le terrain.


Un groupe de CRS posté jour et nuit devant un établissement, des militaires armés près des lieux de cultes ou devant des écoles juives: depuis deux semaines, cette présence policière renforcée fait partie du quotidien des habitants des grandes villes. Pour les forces de l'ordre, ce déploiement en masse 24 heures sur 24 impose d'organiser les rotations et les hébergements de personnels. Du côté des CRS par exemple, déployés sur de nombreux sites à sécuriser, les soixante compagnies existantes se relaient pour assurer une présence, notamment à Paris, où se concentrent 40% des effectifs.


Suite de l'article

Partager cet article
10 septembre 2013 2 10 /09 /septembre /2013 11:20
Both variants of the LCS class at sea photo USN

Both variants of the LCS class at sea photo USN

Sept. 09, 2013 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Congressional Research Service; issued Sept. 3, 2013)


Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a relatively inexpensive Navy surface combatant equipped with modular “plug-and-fight” mission packages for countering mines, small boats, and diesel-electric submarines, particularly in littoral (i.e., near-shore) waters.

Navy plans call for fielding a total force of 52 LCSs. Twelve LCSs were funded from FY2005 through FY2012. Another four (LCSs 13 through 16) were funded in FY2013, although funding for those four ships has been reduced by the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding. The Navy’s proposed FY2014 budget requests $1,793.0 million for four more LCSs (LCSs 17 through 20), or an average of about $448 million per ship.

Two very different LCS designs are being built. One was developed by an industry team led by Lockheed; the other was developed by an industry team that was led by General Dynamics. The Lockheed design is built at the Marinette Marine shipyard at Marinette, WI; the General Dynamics design is built at the Austal USA shipyard at Mobile, AL. LCSs 1, 3, 5, and so on are Marinette Marine-built ships; LCSs 2, 4, 6, and so on are Austal-built ships.

The 20 LCSs procured or scheduled for procurement in FY2010-FY2015 (LCSs 5 through 24) are being procured under a pair of 10-ship, fixed-price incentive (FPI) block buy contracts that the Navy awarded to Lockheed and Austal USA on December 29, 2010.

The LCS program has become controversial due to past cost growth, design and construction issues with the lead ships built to each design, concerns over the ships’ ability to withstand battle damage, and concerns over whether the ships are sufficiently armed and would be able to perform their stated missions effectively.

Some observers, citing one or more of these issues, have proposed truncating the LCS program to either 24 ships (i.e., stopping procurement after procuring all the ships covered under the two block buy contracts) or to some other number well short of 52. Other observers have proposed down selecting to a single LCS design (i.e., continuing production of only one of the two designs) after the 24th ship.

In response to criticisms of the LCS program, the Navy has acknowledged certain problems and stated that it was taking action to correct them, disputed other arguments made against the program, and maintained its support for completing the planned program of 52 ships. Reported comments from some Navy officials suggest that the Navy might be open to changing the design of one or both LCS variants after the 24th ship or perhaps down selecting to a single LCS design after the 24th ship.

A September 2, 2013, press report stated, “The office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
reportedly supports the idea of limiting total purchases of littoral combat ships to only 24.... The Navy, according to sources, is countering with proposals for higher numbers, but strongly advocates going no lower than 32 ships.... The OSD proposal to limit LCS to 24 ships is understood to be part of” an alternative Department of Defense (DOD) budget plan that assumes reduced levels of DOD spending and includes “severe reductions in purchases and programs.”

Issues for Congress concerning the LCS program include the following:
• the impact on the LCS program of the March 1, 2013, sequester on FY2013 funding and unobligated prior-year funding for the program;
• the potential impact on the LCS program of a possible sequester later this year or early next year on FY2014 funding and unobligated prior-year funding for the program;
• whether to truncate the LCS program to 24 ships or some other number well short of 52;
• whether procurement of LCS sea frames and mission modules should be slowed until operational testing of the sea frames and mission modules is more complete and other acquisition-process milestones are met;
• whether to down select to a single LCS design after the 24th ship;
• technical risk in the LCS program; and
• what defense-acquisition policy lessons, if any, the LCS program may offer to policymakers.

Click here for the full report (94 PDF pages) hosted on the Federation of American Scientists website.

Partager cet article
6 septembre 2013 5 06 /09 /septembre /2013 06:30
75,000 troops needed to secure chemical weapons if Damascus falls

September 05, 2013 RT.com


The potential of strategic US strikes in Syria has sparked fears Damascus’ chemical weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the government is toppled. A recent congressional report says 75,000 troops would be needed to safeguard the WMD caches.


The Congressional Research Center (CRS) report, issued just one day before the alleged August 21 chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb, was compiled with the aim of “responding to possible scenarios involving the use, change of hands, or loss of control of Syrian chemical weapons.”


It states that Syria’s chemical weapon stockpiles, which a French intelligence report recently estimated at over 1,000 tons, have been secured by Syrian special forces.


“Due to the urgency of preventing access to these weapons by unauthorized groups, including terrorists, the United States government has been preparing for scenarios to secure the weapons in the event of the Assad regime’s loss of control,” the document reads


Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta warned the ouster of Assad would present a scenario “100 times worse than what we dealt with in Libya.”


In order to secure the 50 chemical weapon and production sites spread across Syria, in addition to storage and research facilities, “The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons,” the document continues, citing a February 2012 CNN report.


Meanwhile, a resolution backing the use of force against President Bashar Assad's government cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on a 10-7 vote on Wednesday, although section 3 of the draft ostensibly ruled out US combat operations on the ground.


The wording of the text, however, could potentially allow for troops on the ground for the sake of non-offensive operations, including securing chemical weapons stockpiles and production facilities.


While the Senate committee initially opted to limit US military involvement in the country to 90 days with no potential of ground operations, Republican Senator John McCain joined forces with Democratic Senator Chris Coons to add a provision calling for "decisive changes to the present military balance of power on the ground in Syria."


The Obama administration’s vacillations on Syria were perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry suggested it would be preferable to give the White House the power to send in ground forces in the event that Syria “imploded” or if chemical weapons were at risk of being obtained by extremists.


"I don't want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country," he told the committee in the run up to the vote.


After being told by Senator Bob Corker –  the top Republican on the committee –  his sentiments regarding boots on the ground were not “a very appropriate response,” Kerry quickly backtracked.


"Let's shut the door now," Kerry said. "The answer is, whatever prohibition clarifies it to Congress or the American people, there will not be American boots on the ground with respect to the civil war."


Having cleared committee, the measure authorizing force in Syria is expected to reach the Senate floor next week. Senator Rand Paul, a republican with strong ties to the Tea Party movement, has threatened a filibuster.

Partager cet article


  • : RP Defense
  • : Web review defence industry - Revue du web industrie de défense - company information - news in France, Europe and elsewhere ...
  • Contact


Articles Récents