Overblog Tous les blogs Top blogs Entreprises & Marques Tous les blogs Entreprises & Marques
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
MENU
10 mai 2012 4 10 /05 /mai /2012 22:32

F35B-pic1-source-LockheedMartinVideos.jpg

 

10.05.2012 (Boursier.com)

 

Les projets franco-britanniques dans la défense auraient du plomb dans l'aile !... Selon le 'Financial Times' du jour, Londres annoncerait aujourd'hui son intention d'acquérir des avions de chasse américains F-35 à décollage vertical, et non la version du F-35 à décollage classique... La nuance paraît subtile, mais elle est d'importance, puisque le choix britannique empêchera les avions de chasse français d'atterrir et de décoller sur les porte-avions britanniques... Or, ce partage de porte-avions était un volet central de l'accord de coopération dans la défense signé en 2010 entre les deux pays !

 

Ainsi, pour faire décoller les Rafale d'un porte-avion britannique, il faudrait installer sur le pont du matériel de catapultage et de freinage des appareils, ce qui aurait été trop coûteux, explique le quotidien financier britannique... Selon le 'FT', le secrétaire britannique à la Défense, Philip Hammond, devrait donc officialiser aujourd'hui le choix d'appareils à décollage vertical, en expliquant que les estimations de coûts pour équiper les porte-avions britanniques d'équipements de lancement et de freinage a dérapé à 2 Milliards de Livres (environ 2,5 MdsE), contre 1 Md£ estimé dans le projet initial de 2010.

 

M. Hammond devrait aussi revenir sur le projet de vendre ou de démanteler un des deux porte-avions britanniques, qui devraient donc continuer à fonctionner tous les deux jusqu'en 2020...

Partager cet article
Repost0
10 mai 2012 4 10 /05 /mai /2012 22:25
Londres choisit le F-35B aux dépens de l'entente franco-britannique

 

 

10.05.2012 Le Monde.fr avec AFP

 

Au plan diplomatique, l'une des conséquences du revirement britannique est que les avions français Rafale ne pourront pas se poser sur le pont du "Queen Elizabeth", dépourvu de catapultes.

 

Le choix du F-35B américain pour équiper les porte-avions britanniques, annoncé jeudi 10 mai à Londres, constitue un coup dur pour le concept d'interopérabilité au coeur de l'entente franco-britannique en matière de défense.

 

Le gouvernement britannique hésitait entre deux versions de l'avion de combat fabriqué par la même société américaine Lockheed Martin pour équiper la Royal Navy et la Royal Air Force (RAF): le F-35B à atterrissage et décollage vertical et le F-35C lancé par catapultes. Il a finalement renoncé à se doter du F-35C du fait de "l'augmentation inacceptable [du coût] et des délais" qu'impliquait un tel choix. L'installation d'un système de catapulte et de récupération "cats and traps" sur le pont du Queen Elizabeth, futur porte-avions britannique qui reste à construire d'ici 2020, aurait entraîné un retard de trois ans et un surcoût de 2 milliards de livres (2,5 milliards d'euros) par rapport au devis initial, a plaidé Philip Hammond, l'actuel ministre de la défense du Royaume-Uni au sein du gouvernement de coalition de David Cameron.

 

La coalition des conservateurs et libéraux démocrates avait pourtant, en 2010, préconisé d'adopter le F-35C, plutôt que le F-35B initialement retenu par le précédent gouvernement travailliste. Le premier ministre David Cameron avait à l'époque vanté aux députés l'interopérabilité du F-35C avec les porte-avions français et américains. Jeudi, le porte-parole de l'opposition travailliste pour les affaires de défense, Jim Murphy, a immédiatement dénoncé "l'incompétence" gouvernementale.

 

PAS DE RAFALE SUR LE PONT DU "QUEEN ELIZABETH"

 

Au plan diplomatique, l'une des conséquences du revirement est que les avions français Rafale ne pourront pas se poser sur le pont du Queen Elizabeth, dépourvu de catapultes. Or l'utilisation croisée des porte-avions était au cœur du projet de coopération bilatérale franco-britannique esquissé à Saint-Malo en 1998 et relancé à grand renfort de publicité par David Cameron et le président Nicolas Sarkozy lors de la signature du traité de défense de Lancaster, en novembre 2010.

 

La nécessité du maintien de capacités aéronavales fortes, trente ans après la guerre anglo-argentine aux Malouines, en Atlantique Sud, constitue un argument fort dans le débat en Grande-Bretagne sur les risques réels ou supposés des coupes budgétaires dans le domaine de la défense. Jeudi, Philip Hammond a expliqué : "La décision concernant les porte-avions, prise en 2010, était légitime à l'époque, mais les faits ont changé et nous devons changer notre approche en conséquence. Ce gouvernement ne va pas aveuglément poursuivre des projets sans considération pour l'augmentation des coûts et des délais."

 

"C'est un autre rendez-vous manqué pour des raisons secondaires", a déploré Etienne de Durand, expert auprès de l'Institut français des relations internationales, dans une interview au Financial Times. Le partenariat inédit scellé en 2010 par les deux principales forces militaires européennes prévoit notamment la création d'un corps expéditionnaire commun s'inspirant de la brigade franco-allemande, le partage de laboratoires pour tester leurs arsenaux atomiques et des partenariats industriels sur les drones et les missiles. Le rapprochement exprime un souci commun de mutualisation et de réduction des coûts en période d'austérité.

Partager cet article
Repost0
10 mai 2012 4 10 /05 /mai /2012 15:54

F-35B flies with gun pod installed - photo Lockheed Martin

 

10 mai 2012 Par Barbara Leblanc – L’USINE NOUVELLE

 

Cette décision est prise aux dépens de l’interopérabilité au cœur de la coopération anglo-britannique.

 

Le ministre britannique de la Défense, Philip Hammond, a annoncé ce 10 mai au Parlement que pour équiper ses porte-avions, la Grande-Bretagne avait sélectionné l’avion de combat F-35B. un choix qui rejoint le premier qu’il avait fait. Le ministre assure que l’appareil à décollage vertical présentait des caractéristiques supérieures au F-35C à catapulte.

 

Il a pour avantage notamment de permettre aux avions français et britanniques d’utiliser indifféremment les porte-avions de chacun des deux pays. Le choix du F-35C aurait obligé la Grande-Bretagne à équiper ses futurs porte-avions d'un système de catapultes pour un montant estimé à 2,5 milliards d'euros, deux fois supérieur au devis initial.

 

Reste que ce choix semble embarrassant sur le plan politique comme diplomatique. Le gouvernement de coalition formé par les conservateurs et libéraux démocrates se contredit à deux ans d'intervalle, en revenant à l'option initiale retenue par le précédent gouvernement travailliste.

 

Au plan diplomatique, la notion d'interopérabilité était au coeur de la coopération franco-britannique en matière de défense célébrée sous l'appellation "d'entente formidable" lors de la signature du traité de Lancaster par le Premier ministre David Cameron et le président Nicolas Sarkozy en novembre 2010.

 

Le choix du F-35C avait par ailleurs la préférence des militaires britanniques, en raison de son rayon d'action et de son système d'armement supérieurs. Cependant, il n'aurait pas été opérationnel pour la Royal Navy avant 2023, trois ans après la date prévue de lancement du nouveau porte-avions dont la Grande-Bretagne est aujourd'hui dépourvue.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 mai 2012 3 09 /05 /mai /2012 17:30

F-35-source-defense-news.jpg

 

A statement on the planning round for the financial year 2012-13 has been delayed by a debate in government over whether it should revert to purchasing the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter. (Lockheed Martin)

 

May. 6, 2012 - By ANDREW CHUTER Defense News

 

LONDON — The United Kingdom is set to ax the annual planning round system it uses as part of its effort to balance defense spending. The Ministry of Defence said the process had fallen victim to the wide-scale reforms underway in the department and will be replaced with an annual budget cycle (ABC) scheme.

 

Planning Round 2012, or PR12 as it is better known, is likely to be the last time the process is used by the MoD ahead of switching to ABC. The planning round system has been in the spotlight in recent years due to its part in the failure to effectively control runaway defense commitments agreed to by the previous Labour government.

 

A high-level committee appointed by the MoD to reform the ministry and the National Audit Office, the government’s spending watchdog, has in the last two years criticized the process as unfit for that purpose.

 

The annual planning round process seeks to balance the MoD’s books for the year ahead and for future years across equipment, support, manpower and other costs. It’s one of a handful of key financial controls used by the MoD to try to balance an annual budget, which currently stands at 34 billion pounds ($55.1 billion).

 

Planning rounds were introduced by the Labour government in 1998 and have become increasingly discredited. Critics said the need to question and reprioritize virtually every budget line annually leads to inefficiency, decisions fudged, money juggled between years and programs salami-sliced.

 

An announcement that British are moving to the new financial planning system could come after the much-delayed outcome of PR12 is revealed by Defence Secretary Philip Hammond, possibly in the second half of this month. A spokeswoman for the MoD confirmed a change was being considered as part of the wider reform effort at the ministry.

 

“We are considering ways in which we can update our financial management processes, in line with the Levene Defence Reform Review, which recommended an increased delegation of budgets to top-level budget holders, such as the service chiefs,” the spokeswoman said. “This work, known as the Annual Budget Cycle, is ongoing and no changes will be made until the current planning round is completed.”

 

Lord Levene, an ex-defense procurement minister, last year led an MoD-appointed team in recommending a raft of reforms to alter the structure and management of the ministry.

 

Levene’s team of senior businessmen and MoD officials criticized the annual planning round process as “resource intensive, fails to focus on outputs or understand true costs, and is not sufficiently strategic to keep the forward program in balance.”

 

Industry executives here are equally critical, saying the process is time consuming, complicated, inefficient, bureaucratic and lacks adequate detailed scrutiny of the costs across defense.

 

One executive unflatteringly described the planning round process as: “Take the plan for this year that was made last year, see the latest position on what’s happened with early or late deliveries and under/overspend to reach a new total. Test that total against the budget for the new year, then painfully take out uncommitted items in order to keep within the new year budget.”

 

Ahead of any announcement, it’s unclear how the MoD’s proposed ABC scheme might work. MoD insiders said the department has already improved budget control with changes to this year’s planning round process to finally nail the issue of overspending. The Annual Budget Cycle will build on those changes.

 

One finance director here said that in a commercial organization, ABC is simply a process that uses agreed parameters to build a model “to document how the organization’s goals and objectives translate into a projection of financial performance.”

 

Not everybody is convinced a change of process will make much difference.

 

Howard Wheeldon, the new director of policy at ADS, the defense and aerospace trade organization, said that reducing the complexity of the planning round would be welcome but will bring little change.

 

“Changing to ABC may end up being more cosmetic than transformational,” he said. “The planning round is confusing and a process that makes things simpler and the figures sounder would be to the good. We will have to see the details, but whether an annual budget cycle is suitable when the constituent parts of the budget differ so much year-on-year remains to be seen.”

 

One industry executive was doubtful whether the proposed change will solve the problem.

 

“The biggest issue is if they do not get the numbers right that feed into any process they adopt, they will never sort out the problem,” he said. “In my opinion, it’s the estimating and forecasting process that is still flawed. For example, what Joint Strike Fighter or Type 26 frigates would you use to build your budget?”

 

Affordability is now the driver at the MoD. That’s rarely been the case in the past, when capability always trumped money when it came to making budget decisions. As a result, the ministry has increasingly lived beyond its financial means to a point where by 2010, when Labour was ejected from office, there was a 38 billion pound black hole in unbudgeted liabilities in defense funding over the 10 years up to 2020.

 

That has enhanced the ministry’s already well-entrenched reputation, particularly at the Treasury, for being financially dysfunctional.

 

The cash-strapped Conservative-led coalition government has been attempting to fix the black hole as well as cut equipment, capabilities and personnel to take account of an 8 percent reduction of its own in defense spending in the period up to 2015.

 

Hammond, a businessman by training, has pledged to balance the books at the MoD in the upcoming planning round, leading to expectations of cuts to equipment programs where funding has not already been committed.

 

Industry executives and others talk of Hammond having a white board in his office on which is listed a large number of programs for which funds have not yet been committed, and as a result, are at risk of being cut or put on ice until the MoD can either fund them or find another way of meeting the capability requirement.

 

The defense secretary’s fierce reputation with figures has led to him being nicknamed “Spreadsheet” or “Forensic” Phil.

 

The initiative for change predates Hammond’s arrival as defense secretary last October, but his focus on sorting out the financial management of the MoD backed by Permanent Secretary Ursula Brennan and Jon Thompson, the director general finance, has given the change process added impetus.

 

A statement on the planning round for the financial year 2012-13 starting last month has been delayed by a debate in government over whether it should revert to purchasing the F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

 

The British had originally opted for the STOVL aircraft, but the incoming Conservative-led coalition government in 2010 switched to the F-35C conventional carrier takeoff variant without properly estimating the cost of converting a new aircraft carrier, now under construction, so it could operate the F-35C variant.

 

Now the spiraling costs of converting one of the two 65,000-ton carriers (the other one could be sold or mothballed) to carry the catapults and arrestor gear to operate conventional fast jets has forced the government to consider changing its mind again.

 

Even though the move to switch to the F-35C was heavily backed by Prime Minister David Cameron, a move back to the STOVL variant is the most likely outcome when Hammond outlines planning round deliberations.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 mai 2012 3 09 /05 /mai /2012 17:20

4-mh-60r-san-diego

 

May 9, 2012 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp.; issued May 7, 2012)

 

Sikorsky and Terma Widen MOU As Denmark Considers MH-60R Helicopter

 

STRATFORD, Conn. --- Sikorsky Aircraft and Terma today announced they have extended and broadened their previously announced Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore additional potential collaborations on aircraft programs.

 

Both the original MOU, signed in February 2010, and the new MOU are conditioned on the Danish government's decision to procure Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters via a Foreign Military Sale with the U.S. Government, which is currently under consideration.

 

Such a collaboration would bring together two of the world's leading aerospace companies. Sikorsky Aircraft, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of helicopters. Terma A/S is a leading defense, aerospace and security company in Denmark with subsidiaries in the U.S., the Netherlands, Singapore and Germany.

 

"Both of our companies are customer and innovation focused, which creates a solid foundation for collaboration," said Sikorsky Vice President Robert Kokorda. "The MH-60R helicopter has proven to be a strong and reliable asset for the U.S. Navy, which currently operates more than 100 of an expected 300 aircraft purchase."

 

The multi-mission MH-60R helicopter combines sensors, such as surface radar and forward looking infrared camera, with tactical data links that enable the host ship to see what the aircraft sees even when over the horizon. Long-range sight gives the ship commander a clear advantage while tasked with protecting commercial shipping routes, ensuring maritime sovereignty, and conducting search and rescue operations. Routinely also used for ship-to-ship cargo replenishment and medical evacuation, the aircraft can be upgraded to provide anti-submarine warfare if one day required by Danish Defense.

 

"Other opportunities where we see strong potential for collaboration include composites and electrical component manufacturing, as well as the use of Terma's survivability equipment on a number of our aircraft platforms, including Black Hawk helicopters," Kokorda added.

 

"We look forward to combining Sikorsky's and our core capabilities and to investigating a shared number of business opportunities in the international market," said Jorn Henrik Levy Rasmussen, Vice President, Terma Global. "We see a significant match between Sikorsky Aircraft as a helicopter manufacturer and Terma as a niche-oriented high-tech company with a very focused international strategy."

 

 

Sikorsky Aircraft is based in Stratford, Conn. United Technologies, based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

 

Headquartered in Aarhus, Denmark, Terma provides products and systems for a number of defense and non-defense applications, including command and control systems, radar systems, electronic warfare systems, space technology, and aeronautic structures for high-performance military aircraft. In the U.S., Terma North America Inc. is headquartered in Arlington, Va.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 mai 2012 3 09 /05 /mai /2012 16:40

Eric Smith f35a photo USAF

 

May. 8, 2012 By MARCUS WEISGERBER Defense News

 

The head of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program touted a fix for the jet’s troubled, high-tech helmet, which officials hope will solve jitter picture and lag time issues.

 

A “micro-inertial measurement unit” is expected to fix the jitter, while “signal processing changes in the software and the architecture” could fix the lag, Vice Adm. David Venlet, the F-35 program manager said after testifying at a May 8 U.S. Senate hearing.

 

“What I am focused on is seeing he demonstration of those fixes working and being effective,” Venlet said. “That will be paced out through the remainder of this year and into 2013.”

 

Program officials also plan to improve a camera installed on the helmet which they believe will fix “the acuity and night vision,” he said.

 

The fixes will be eventually demonstrated through a flight test or in a laboratory environment, Venlet said. The program has funding to work on the fixes to the primary helmet, made by Vision Systems International, as well as a back-up helmet system.

 

In 2011, Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, selected an alternated helmet made by BAE Systems.

 

“I’m not going to let go of that alternate until I’ve got demonstrated performance of the one I really want,” Venlet said.

Partager cet article
Repost0
9 mai 2012 3 09 /05 /mai /2012 07:30

 

08.05.2012 Propos recueillis par Stéphane Taillat / En Vérité et F. de St V. / Mars Attaque

 

Leo G. Michel, Distinguished research fellow à l’Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), a récemment publié une étude intitulée « Cross-curents in French Defense and U.S. Interests« . En une trentaine de pages, l’auteur aborde les défis relevés récemment par la défense française et ceux à venir, ainsi que les possibles axes de coopération États-Unis/France. L’Alliance Géostratégique remercie Leo G. Michel, parfait francophone, d’avoir bien voulu répondre à nos questions sur ces sujets.

  

 

1/ Quelle est la particularité de la France sur le plan militaire vue des USA par rapport à d’autres pays européens ?


France is the only European ally, except for the United Kingdom, that regards its military capabilities, operational performance, and defense industries as vital levers to exert global influence. Several French attributes – among these are their sense of global responsibilities, their commitment to « full spectrum » conventional and nuclear forces, and a willingness to use force and accept combat risks, if necessary – have made them highly valued partners with the United States (and other allies) in complex operations, notably in Afghanistan and Libya.  Of course, despite a broad convergence of our views on strategic issues – such as the threats posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery means (in particular, by Iranian nuclear and missile programs), weakened but still determined terrorist networks, and states and non-state actors able to exploit vulnerabilities in the cyber domain – there are times when our governments may disagree on specific political-military approaches.  But for the most part, these differences have not interfered with close military-to-military cooperation, which by all accounts is better today than in many decades.

 

2/ Quelles sont les tendances récentes prises par la France, en particulier dans leurs relations vis à vis de l’OTAN et avec quelles conséquences ?


France’s return to full participation in NATO’s military structures in 2009 was certainly welcomed by the United States, and it has proved to be very beneficial both for France and for the Alliance as a whole.  The presence of some 900 French officers and non-commissioned officers throughout the various headquarters and military staffs has had the desired effect of integrating more closely than before French planning and operational skills with those of other allies. In his position as Supreme Commander, Allied Command Transformation, General Abrial is credited with having reinvigorated that organization’s ability to help NATO prepare the doctrine, capabilities, and other dimensions of multinational interoperability necessary for the Alliance to face challenges that are very different from the Cold War era.

 

But this is a two-way street: France is at the same time improving its ability to work with European and North American militaries and defense structures. Moreover, this has been at relatively modest costs to the French defense ministry and – it should be emphasized – without the dire consequences for French independence and global stature predicted (perhaps mainly for domestic political reasons) by opponents of the move.

 

 

3/ Quels sont les enseignements des opérations en Libye, en termes de coopération ou d’indépendance, en particulier avec l’Union Européenne ?


On the positive side, the French military performed very well in Libya, although one should not minimize the contributions of several other allies. In particular, during the last two months of Operational Unified Protector, it is fair to say that French strike aircraft and helicopter attacks made it one of the leading combat contributors.  And broadly speaking, France saw that NATO can respond quickly and effectively in such a contingency – even gaining significant support from Arab countries that some in Paris thought would be “allergic” to any involvement by the Alliance.

 

On the other hand, the Libyan operation underscored European reliance on U.S. strike assets (including cruise missiles and specialized aircraft), “enablers” (such as aerial tanks, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems, and targeting experts), and—for some allies—transfers of precision-guided munitions to defeat a third-rate adversary.  Some French officials privately have speculated that an exclusively European “coalition of the willing” could have managed the Libyan operation without U.S. participation.  But other French experts have acknowledged that American “enablers” played a critical role in sustaining the pace, intensity, and accuracy of the air campaign.  These “enablers” greatly reduced the inherent risks to European, Canadian, and other partner forces, minimized the number of Libyan civilian casualties, and thus prevented Qadhafi from exploiting cracks in the NATO-led coalition as the conflict dragged on longer than anticipated.

 

As for the role of “Europe”, it seems to me that the Libyan affair reinforced already existing French concerns about Germany, insofar as its participation in military operations is concerned. I understand why French officials are reluctant to speak openly about this. But from my research, I could only conclude that many French experts inside and outside government are worried that Berlin and Paris are not on the same wavelength when it comes to Europe’s strategic stakes in North Africa and, more generally, on the conduct of so-called “expeditionary” operations.

 

As for the European Union, I think Admiral Guillaud got it right when he told French Senators last October that “European defense missed the boat in Libya”. Perhaps the EU’s difficulties in coming to grips with the Libyan crisis should not have surprised anyone. EU members that were reluctant to contribute to NATO’s operation carried the same reservations in EU deliberations. One can hope, of course, that the EU will do a better job in using its civilian tools to assist the Libyans to build better and more responsive government institutions and a real civil society.

 

4/ Comment sont vus depuis Washington les efforts de coopération entre la France et la Grande-Bretagne ?


If France and the United Kingdom succeed in implementing the ambitious goals and programs in the Lancaster House treaties, it can only be to the benefit of Europe and the transatlantic relationship. In my view, the American defense and foreign policy establishment has traveled a long distance from the concerns expressed, for example, in the wake of the French-British St. Malo declaration in December 1998, which in effect launched what is today the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy.  Washington has put aside the “theological” arguments about supposed competition between NATO and the EU. And closer French-British cooperation appears above all to be a pragmatic response to the realization, in Paris and London, that in an era of “defense austerity”, they have no alternative to cooperation if they want to preserve their already constrained ability to act in global affairs, either with the United States, with others, or – if necessary – independently.

 

Finally, their greater bilateral cooperation will, in my view, actually open new opportunities for trilateral cooperation with the United States. In the near term, I think these opportunities likely will focus on conventional forces; here, our three air forces are leading the way. But I would not exclude, over the longer-term, serious consideration of trilateral cooperation in specific areas involving our respective nuclear forces, without diminishing any nation’s autonomous decision-making in this sensitive area.

Partager cet article
Repost0
8 mai 2012 2 08 /05 /mai /2012 18:45

meads.jpg

 

May 8th, 2012 MDAA Washington Business Journal

 

Six members of Congress sent a letter to the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Defense, urging support of funding for an international missile defense system that is at risk of cancellation by appropriators.

 

The April 20 letter surfaced the same week that the House will consider a bill that would shut down funding for the Medium Extended Air Defense Systems, known as MEADS, which is being developed by Lockheed Martin Corp. with funding from the U.S., Germany and Italy. President Barack Obamarequested $400.9 million in his fiscal 2013 budget proposal for the program.

 

The letter, which was obtained by the Washington Business Journal, reiterated previous arguments made by members of the Defense Department, and German and Italian officials: that unilateral withdrawal from the program would prevent the U.S. from benefiting from the technology advancements made thus far and be a black eye to the international community.

 

It also noted that most models show operations and sustainment savings of $40 billion over the next three decades if the 60 current missile defense systems in place — called Patriot — were replaced with MEADS.

 

“This makes the best operational and fiscal sense for the U.S. Army, while also providing our allies with the advances in air and missile defense that we promised at the start of the MEADS program,” read the letter, signed by Michigan’s Mike Rogers, Arizona’s Trent Franks and Alabama’s Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Spencer Bachus and Martha Roby.

 

The total price to develop MEADS is about $3.4 billion. The U.S. is contributing 58 percent of the funding, and Italy and Germany making up the rest, as established under a 2005 memo of understanding among the countries. The U.S. is on the hook to contribute $806 million more, split between 2012 and 2013.

 

Some members of Congress are pushing to eliminate the funds, essentially forcing the U.S. to back out of its deal with the international partners. That created a firestorm, as shown in responses from the White House and Defense Department, as well as from the German and Italian allies.

 

After some delay, fiscal 2012 funding for the program was approved and released at the end of April.

Partager cet article
Repost0
6 mai 2012 7 06 /05 /mai /2012 16:29

claude-france-arnould-APRIL-2012.jpg

 

Brussels - 27 April 2012 EDA News

 

USA-EU-rendezvous--1-.jpg

 

Claude-France Arnould, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency, called attention to European defence cooperation at a conference in Washington D.C. on 26 April. As part of a distinguished panel at the EU Rendez-Vous event, she gave a European perspective on the future of the transatlantic defence partnership.

 
In her speech, she struck a pragmatic note, highlighting European recognition that US military support was not unlimited, and that Europe would be expected to assume greater responsibility for security and defence as the US focus shifts to the Asia/Pacific region.

 

This, she said, would require additional effort from European nations. She identified four challenges that Europe needed to address: poor investment, especially in research; a fragmented market and industrial base; static forces rather than expeditionary capabilities; and insufficient capabilities of the right type.

 

Mme. Arnould explained that the EDA is working to tackle these issues, and welcomed US support. She noted the promising progress made so far by the EU-US High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth, and identified other areas that might benefit from such cooperation, including the transatlantic defence market.

 

The warmly-received speech concluded that Pooling & Sharing through the EDA was one part of a wider relationship, and that enhanced defence cooperation needs a roadmap in which the new strategic environment and financial circumstances could act as drivers for transatlantic endeavours.

The event agenda can be found here, and the full text of the speech is below:

 

“I want in the next few minutes to focus on European military capabilities, and the defence industry needed to support them, through the optic of transatlantic relations.

 
I will of course be happy to field broader questions in the discussion session.


This is a critical time for Europe. Defence departments are facing a perfect storm of declining budgets, an increasingly unstable world, a shift in US focus, and a defence industrial base that is under severe pressure.

 
This shift in US focus is understandable. I would even say that it is a positive move.

 
I say this for two reasons.

 
First, it is a manifestation of US confidence in Europe’s ability to deal with its own security and defence. To quote from the US Strategic Guidance: “Most European countries are now producers of security rather than consumers of it”.

 
The corollary of this – and this is the second reason – is that it signals the beginning of the end of European over-dependency on the US.

 
For too long European nations have been, with a few exceptions, content to depend on the security provided by the US. And to be fair, the US was content to provide it.

 
I would argue that this culture of dependency led - at least in part - to what one might call the “benign neglect” of defence capabilities in Europe.
So the shift of US policy will force Europe to stand on its own two feet. To walk the walk, not just talk the talk.

 
Europe is at an important crossroads. There is a risk of degrading our strategic, industrial and technical abilities. The operation in Libya revealed - once again - that even though Europe spends a respectable amount on defence, critical capability gaps persist.

 
There is of course an additional risk that, because of the squeeze on their defence budgets, governments will be tempted to make further cuts in capabilities.

 

But where there is risk, there is also opportunity. As you like to say in this country: "never waste a good crisis.”

 
So there is an opportunity for Europe to work efficiently together.


An opportunity for European nations to acquire collectively what is out of reach individually: to acquire, to support, to train, to use, together.

 
Europe faces a stark choice: either cooperate to acquire capabilities; or risk losing those capabilities altogether. No longer simply an option. A necessity.


Europe needs to address three challenges:

 
First: investment, including in R&T. Decreasing trend. Impact on innovation, development of key technologies, competitiveness, jobs.

 
Second: a market that is should be less fragmented and an industrial base which supports the effort.

 
Third: a shift from investment from static forces to expeditionary capabilities.

 
We are dealing with these challenges in the EU, in particular in the European Defence Agency. We’re dealing with them in close cooperation with NATO. Nations have a single set of forces and quite rightly want to avoid duplication.

 

We focus on pragmatic cooperation, on outputs rather than an institutional beauty contest. After all, EDA’s work on Pooling and Sharing and NATO’s Smart Defence are two sides of the same coin. More Europe is good for NATO.

 

What is encouraging is the strong US support for our efforts. The old dogma of “everything through NATO” has gone.

 

Instead, the US approach is to support European efforts, irrespective of where they are undertaken. A good example is Air to Air refuelling – close dialogue with the US, we benefit from US support and advice to develop a European response to a European shortfall.

 

That said, it is clear that the US will no longer underwrite European security. So Europe has to demonstrate that it can increase its own capability to act.


But this makes it all the more important that we develop sound and balanced cooperation across the Atlantic.

 

In the 21st century the transatlantic partnership cannot be measured solely by the number of US troops deployed in Europe; or the defence equipment Europeans buy from American companies. It has to be developed in the context of a genuine and equitable “two-way street”.

 

The US and Europe need to work together to secure shared interests, and to build and employ capabilities. This also includes the ability of our militaries to deploy, to defend the interests we all share as the most like-minded group of nations in history.

 

We all need to be pragmatic and output oriented. To cooperate when it maximises the potential benefits (ITAR regulation on smart munitions), or when we face joint challenges (air traffic management, airworthiness).


This is what we have to keep in mind when identifying the areas for further cooperation – and do so in the context of the worst economic crisis in decades.

 

That’s why the recent initiative to jumpstart the transatlantic partnership for jobs and growth, and the establishment by the EU-US Summit last November of a High-Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth is globally important for the success of our cooperation.

 

The development of an equally open defence market on both sides of the Atlantic that supports a healthy defence and technological base on both sides should, I believe, be part of these endeavours.

 

We should exploit industry’s support and expertise. Ultimately success, and indeed public support for defence efforts, will require industry to be fully engaged.

 

Another field for further cooperation is civil-military cooperation in crisis management. The US and the EU have established a Framework for crisis management, which is a very positive development.

 

This could potentially also facilitate R&T cooperation. In areas such as communications, ISR, maritime surveillance, lift and logistics, much of the necessary technology is actually dual use. The same technologies can be used for disaster relief one day and expeditionary military operations the next – so it is an important area that we should explore.

 

Enhanced defence transatlantic cooperation could perhaps benefit from sort of roadmap for the new strategic environment and financial circumstances, to act as a driving force for our joint endeavours.

 

To conclude: Smart Defence and Pooling & Sharing initiatives will help deliver required capabilities more efficiently, but they are not in themselves enough.

 

Expectations of the relationship are high – on both sides of the pond: but it is expected to be more equitable on both sides.

 

After all, the core of transatlantic cooperation is about how Americans and Europeans together share responsibilities, based on their security, their interests, and their values.

 

Thank you.”

Partager cet article
Repost0
3 mai 2012 4 03 /05 /mai /2012 07:20

Cross-currents-in-French-Defense-and-U.S.-Interests.jpg

 

28.04.2012 par P. CHAPLEAU Lignes de Défense

 

L'Institute for National Strategic Studies vient de consacrer une étude d'une trentaine de pages à la défense française. L'ateur analyse les liens de la France avec ses alliés dont Londres ("A new route for European defense?", p. 5) et Washington (au détriment de Berlin) et aux défis que va devoir relever le futur chef de l'Etat français en matière de défense et de coopération industrielle militaire (où les alliés se retrouvent concurrents).

 

Pour lire ce Strategic Perspectives n°10 (National Defense University Press), cliquer ici.

Partager cet article
Repost0
2 mai 2012 3 02 /05 /mai /2012 16:30

F-35s Lined Up-LockheedMartin

 

01/05/2012 latribune.fr (Source AFP)

 

Alors que Rome a commandé 90 exemplaires de l'avion de chasse américain F-35, le secrétaire américain à la Défense Leon Panetta a indiqué à son homologue italien que la priorité du Pentagone était "de s'assurer que les coûts soient respectés".

 

Le secrétaire américain à la Défense Leon Panetta a tenté lundi de rassurer son homologue italien sur le prix du futur avion de chasse F-35, sujet à une augmentation constante des coûts de production et dont Rome a commandé 90 exemplaires. Au cours de leurs entretiens à Washington Leon Panetta et Giampaolo di Paola ont évoqué le prix du chasseur, qui ne cesse de grimper, mais ils ont tous deux "réaffirmé leur engagement à mener le programme à bien", a indiqué un responsable du Pentagone à l'AFP. Leon Panetta "a expliqué qu'une des priorités du ministère de la Défense était de s'assurer que les coûts soient respectés", a ajouté ce responsable qui s'exprimait sous couvert d'anonymat.

 

Commande revue à la baisse

 

Sous le coup de contraintes budgétaires, l'Italie a récemment revu à la baisse sa commande de F-35, qui est passée de 131 à 90 exemplaires. Le F-35 ou Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), construit par Lockheed Martin, est le plus coûteux programme d'armement du Pentagone. Le programme associe les Etats-Unis, le Royaume-Uni, l'Australie, le Canada, le Danemark, la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, la Turquie et l'Italie. Il a connu une série de retards dus à des problèmes techniques, et son coût n'a cessé d'augmenter. Le coût du programme s'établit dorénavant à 385 milliards de dollars, soit un coût par appareil de 103 millions de dollars à prix constants (sans tenir compte de l'inflation) ou 113 millions de dollars courants, selon le Pentagone.

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 avril 2012 2 24 /04 /avril /2012 17:05

La-fregate-Cassard-navigue-aux-cotes-du-HMS-Daring-photo.jpg

La frégate Cassard aux côtés de la frégate HMS Daring

 

24 avril 2012 Par Rédacteur en chef. PORTAIL DES SOUS-MARINS

 

Le 16 avril, dans le golfe Persique, la frégate Cassard de la marine nationale transitait en formation avec la frégate britannique HMS Daring.

 

Les 2 frégates Cassard et Daring sont affectées à la Combined Task Force (CTF) 152, une force opérationnelle multinationale dont la mission est de mener des activités de coopération dans le domaine de la sécurité avec des partenaires de la région, et d’effectuer des opérations de sécurité maritime dans le golfe Persique.

 

Référence : US Navy

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 avril 2012 2 24 /04 /avril /2012 17:03

Swift170412_161_Photo-Jean-Louis-Venne.jpg

Photo Jean-Louis Venne

 

24 avril 2012 Par Rédacteur en chef. PORTAIL DES SOUS-MARINS

 

Le 20 avril, le catamaran rapide Swift a quitté le port de Toulon après une escale de 3 jours destinée à renforcer les relations avec la marine nationale.

 

Le vice-amiral Yann Tainguy, commandant en chef pour la Méditerranée, et d’autres officiels français de haut rand, ont visité le bâtiment américain et rencontré son équipage. Après la visite, les visiteurs étaient invités à un cocktail à bord.

 

« C’est la première visite du Swift en France depuis longtemps, » indique le Lt. Cmdr. Charles Eaton, son commandant. « Cette visite du bord a permis aux responsables français de voir le navire et d’en savoir plus sur ce que le Swift peut faire et à quoi il est actuellement utilisé. »

 

Pendant la visite, l’équipage expliqué les capacités très particulières de leur bâtiment.

 

« Le Swift est le bâtiment de soutien le plus rapide de l’US Navy, » explique Eaton. « Déployé en moyenne 11 mois sur 12 outre-mer, il fait parti des navires qui travaillent le plus. Mais c’est aussi un très beau bâteau, et nous sommes très heureux de le montrer un peu quand nous sommes dans un port. »

 

Le Swift a aussi participé à plusieurs entraînements, dont un PASSEX avec le patrouilleur L’Adroit.

 

« Nous avons été heureux de pouvoir passer du temps dans un port magnifique tout en ayant la chance de travailler avec nos alliés en mer, » indique Eaton. « Le PASSEX que nous avons fait avec l’Adroit était un gros changement pour nous et nous en avons été très contents. »

 

Les marins américains ont aussi pu visiter la ville, ses boutiques, les restaurants et profiter d’un temps de repos à Toulon.

 

Référence : US Navy

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 avril 2012 2 24 /04 /avril /2012 12:10

Enhanced-Small-Arms-Protective-Insert--ESAPI--plates.jpg

 

Apr 24, 2012 ASDNews Source : BAE Systems PLC

 

BAE Systems has received a $75 million order from the U.S. Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to produce and deliver hard armor inserts used to protect Soldiers and other men and women in combat.

 

The Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert (ESAPI) plates are worn in soft armor vests, such as the Improved Outer Tactical Vest, to protect against a variety of ballistic threats. Since 1998, BAE Systems has produced more than 1.2 million hard armor inserts, including ESAPI and other SAPI derivatives, under various Department of Defense contracts.

 

“The ESAPI plate protects against multiple hits from small arms threats,” said Don Dutton, vice president and general manager of Protection Systems at BAE Systems Support Solutions. “These hard armor inserts help to save lives on the battlefield.”

 

The $75 million order is part of a new, three-year contract from DLA Troop Support. The total value of contract orders could reach approximately $236 million over the next three years. ESAPI plates are manufactured at the BAE Systems Phoenix, Ariz. facility, and deliveries are expected to begin this September and continue through August 2013.

 

“BAE Systems and its employees continue to demonstrate their commitment to producing top products to protect our troops worldwide,” said U.S. Representative Ed Pastor. “I’m proud of the work being done in my district to bring our men and women back home safely.”

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 avril 2012 2 24 /04 /avril /2012 07:45

onr_remus_600.jpg

REMUS 600

 

April 23, 2012 defpro.com

 

REMUS 600-S Features Advanced Technology to Exceed IHO Standard

 

Pocasset, MA and Monaco | Hydroid, Inc., a subsidiary of Kongsberg Maritime and the leading manufacturer of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), today announced its newest AUV, the REMUS 600 Survey (REMUS 600-S) at the XVIII International Hydrographic Conference (IHC) in Monaco. The REMUS 600-S is a high performance version of the successful REMUS 600 AUV and features advanced technology that has only previously been available in Kongsberg’s accomplished HUGIN vehicles, making it ideal for such applications as International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) quality surveys.

 

Specifically, the REMUS 600-S incorporates a Kongsberg EM 3002 Multibeam Echosounder (MBES) operating at 300 kHz. The MBES has previously been shown to exceed the feature-detection requirements of the IHO standard S-44 for Order 1a surveys.

 

The vehicle also features Kongsberg’s Navigation Processing Suite (NavP), which improves timing accuracy to 1 ms or better and provides complete time synchronization of all onboard sensors, and the Navigation Laboratory (NavLab) software, which enhances the NavP by increasing navigational integrity.

 

“By integrating Kongsberg technology, this next-generation AUV can collect high-resolution, IHO-quality data with unmatched accuracy,” said Christopher von Alt, President and co-founder of Hydroid. “By incorporating long-endurance capabilities and increased-payload capacities, the REMUS 600-S brings a new level of excellence to applications such as under-ice surveys, pipeline inspection and channel monitoring.”

 

The REMUS 600-S benefits United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLS) surveys, search and recovery operations, emergency response surveys, rapid environmental assessment and military survey operations by providing a transportable and reliable platform to gather high resolution data. The vehicle comes equipped with a full suite of communications options, including Iridium, Wi-Fi and acoustic communication; Hydroid’s flexible Vehicle Interface Program (VIP); and an EdgeTech 2200-S Sidescan Sonar.

 

Hydroid's REMUS AUVs are modular and may be fitted with a large number of different types of sensors and have been used to aid in hydrographic surveys, harbor security operations, scientific sampling and mapping, as well as many basic and applied research programs funded by ONR, DARPA and the UK Ministry of Defense. With over 300 vehicles in the field, Kongsberg Maritime is currently the AUV market leader.

Partager cet article
Repost0
23 avril 2012 1 23 /04 /avril /2012 11:30

Block C V-22 Osprey source Boeing

 

Apr 23, 2012 ASDNews Source : Rolls-Royce Plc

 

Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has signed a $598 Million contract with the US Department of Defense for 268 AE 1107C engines for US Marine Corps and Air Force V-22 aircraft.

 

In the first year, Rolls-Royce will deliver 70 engines valued at $151 Million. The contract includes four additional option years, with deliveries expected to total 268, including spare engines. Rolls-Royce is the sole manufacturer of the engines for the V-22 and has delivered 550 AE 1107C engines to the US Department of Defense.

 

Patricia O'Connell, Rolls-Royce, President Customer Business - North America, said, "Rolls-Royce continues to be the world leader in tilt-rotor engines and this long-term contract reflects the confidence our customer has in our expertise and our technology. Throughout the length of this contract, we will strive to further improve performance and capability of this unique aircraft."

 

The Rolls-Royce turbo shaft engines help provide the unique capability for the V-22, allowing the tilt-rotor aircraft to take off and land like a helicopter, and to rotate its engines forward to fly like an airplane. The V-22 aircraft can carry more troops, fly faster and has greater range than the helicopters it will replace.

 

The AE 1107C has amassed over 260,000 engine flight hours.

Partager cet article
Repost0
20 avril 2012 5 20 /04 /avril /2012 07:50

Czech Republic.svg

 

Avr 19, 2012 Nicolas Gros-Verheyde (BRUXELLES2)

 

Décidément, s’il est un outil qui a bien fonctionné mercredi (18 avril), à l’OTAN, c’est le stylo… Alexandr Vondra, et Leon Panetta, ministres de la Défense tchèque et américain ont ainsi signé un accord intergouvernemental sur l’acquisition mutuelle des matériaux et des services à des fins de défense. Cet accord permet aux entreprises tchèques d’être traités sur le même pied d’égalité que les autres entreprises, estime-t-on coté tchèque. « L’accord est d’une importance vitale pour les entreprises tchèques de l’industrie de défense. Cela nous ouvre la voie à l’obtention de contrats gouvernementaux américains de défense. Nous avons ainsi rejoint 21 des plus proches alliés des Etats-Unis (*) qui avaient déjà signé un tel accord », a expliqué Alexandr Vondra, le ministère tchèque. « Cet accord est évidemment réciproque. Les entreprises américaines pourront accéder aux marchés tchèques de défense. Une concurrence accrue dans les compétitions aurait alors un impact favorable sur les prix », explique-t-il.

 

La forme définitive de cet accord dit RDP – MOU (Reciprocal Defense Procurement Memoranda of Understanding) avait été agréée entre les deux ministres à Washington en janvier dernier. Les procédures d’approbation dans les deux pays ont été très rapidement effectuée ; ce qui permet à l’accord d’entrer en vigueur immédiatement, précise-t-on à Prague.

 

NB : ce type d’accord a déjà été signé avec plusieurs pays européens (*) et ne suscite pas de la part de la Commission européenne d’inquiétude ou de problème quant à leur conformité avec le droit communautaire. Il s’agit d’un engagement qui a une portée « non obligatoire » m’a précisé un expert du dossier. Mais c’est certainement au niveau économique que l’effet peut se faire sentir de façon plus intense. Produisant à grande échelle, bénéficiant aussi d’importants stocks de matériels du fait de la réduction des acquisitions outre-atlantique, les entreprises Us pourront « casser » les prix sur le marché tchèque et emporter ainsi les marchés… Selon nos informations, une quinzaine de pays de l’UE/EEE ont déjà ce type de MOU : Autriche, Belgique, Danemark, Finlande, France, Allemagne, Grèce, Italie, Luxembourg, Pays-Bas, Norvège, Portugal, Espagne, Suède, Suisse, Royaume-Uni. Ajoutons à cela d’autres pays : Canada, Egypte, Israël, Turquie. Pour la France, l’accord avait été signé en mai 1989 par Jean-Pierre Chevènement à l’époque.

Partager cet article
Repost0
20 avril 2012 5 20 /04 /avril /2012 07:35

Rheinmetall-GD.jpg

 

19.04.2012 Rheinmetall - army-guide.com

 

Rheinmetall Defence of Dusseldorf and General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, have formed a tank ammunition joint venture company named Defense Munitions International, LLC (DMI). The new company will develop and market new and existing 120mm kinetic energy and multi-purpose cartridges for the U.S. and international tank ammunition markets.

 

DMI combines the partners’ full range of development, production and sales activities of 120mm tactical ammunition for main battle tanks. By combining their activities in DMI, the two partners aim to broaden their global market access, expand production efficiencies and selectively engage in joint development work. Select cartridge types and 120mm practice ammunition will not be part of this joint venture arrangement.

 

This forward-looking joint venture is the culmination of the longstanding partnership between General Dynamics and Rheinmetall Defence. For over a decade the two companies have worked together on numerous 120mm ammunition projects, such as the development and production of the KEW-A1 and KEW-A2 advanced tungsten kinetic energy ammunition for Abram’s users worldwide.

 

Additionally, Rheinmetall has fielded the DM 63 tungsten kinetic energy round for the German Bundeswehr and other NATO users of Leopard tanks. Under the joint venture, DMI will continue these efforts while working to add further improvements to the KEW family. The company will also develop and produce advanced multi-purpose ammunition, leveraging the success of Rheinmetall’s DM 11 cartridge, which was recently fielded by the United States Marine Corps in Afghanistan.

 

As Armin Papperger, member of the Executive Board of Rheinmetall AG, explains, “This pioneering joint venture is a transatlantic extension of our chosen policy of internationalization. Thanks to DMI, we will be able to respond better to our global customer base’s desire for an increased product portfolio in the future as well as providing an expanded set of services. Our strategic relationship with General Dynamics, a joint venture for marketing and producing tactical tank ammunition, is the logical outcome of over ten years of working together successfully. By joining forces, we aim to take the lead in the global market for tank ammunition.”

 

Michael Wilson, president of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, said, “We are excited about the creation of this joint venture with Rheinmetall. Our successful partnership over the last decade lays the foundation for this joint venture. Under DMI, we will continue to build upon that success within our existing customer segments while we expand our product offerings, including the Rheinmetall DM 11 multipurpose cartridge, recently fielded by the Marines, which adds another powerful capability to the warfighter’s arsenal.”

Partager cet article
Repost0
19 avril 2012 4 19 /04 /avril /2012 07:50

Swift170412_049_Photo-Jean-Louis-Venne.jpg

photo de Jean-Louis Venne

 

18 avril 2012 Par Jean-Louis Venne. PORTAIL DES SOUS-MARINS

 

Le catamaran américain High Speed Vessel 2 SWIFT est arrivé mardi 17 avril à Toulon pour une escale de routine. Ce bâtiment de soutien anti-mines de l’US Navy, amarré au quai d’honneur, séjournera jusqu’à vendredi dans le port du Levant.

 

Swift170412_102_Photo-Jean-Louis-Venne.jpg

photo de Jean-Louis Venne

 

Le REPORTAGE photo de Jean-Louis Venne

Partager cet article
Repost0
18 avril 2012 3 18 /04 /avril /2012 07:50

F-35-for-the-United-Kingdom-STOVL-B-variant.jpg


April 17, 2012 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Financial Times; published April 16, 2012)         

 

Aircraft Carriers Will Not Be Reconfigured for French (excerpt)

 

The UK will not reconfigure its aircraft carriers so that French fighter jets can land on them, senior government officials have told their French counterparts.

The move, confirmed by parliamentary officials, makes it increasingly unlikely David Cameron, the prime minister, will avoid an awkward U-turn in announcing the UK will buy the Stovl B variant of the Joint Strike Fighter, the version of the aircraft that can land on British carriers without the catapult and trap needed by French planes.

In the 2010 strategic defence and security review, Mr Cameron announced the Ministry of Defence would convert the carriers and buy the longer-range F-35 C variant of the strike fighter. At the time he roundly criticised the previous Labour government for choosing the Stovl B variant.

Allowing France and the UK to share the expensive task of maintaining uninterrupted carrier capability was an important reason for the switch, the SDSR noted at the time.

But Mr Cameron is widely believed to have changed tack because his government underestimated the cost of converting the carriers, analysts said. Instead of the expected £400m, it is believed the conversion would cost about £1.8bn. Meanwhile, to make the carriers interoperable with French fighters, further expensive technological adjustments beyond the catapult and trap would have to be made.

Despite weeks of speculation, Mr Cameron has yet to announce the switch back to the B variant – which can land vertically and only needs a short runway to take off – to parliament. (end of excerpt)


Click here for the full story, on the Financial Times website.

Partager cet article
Repost0
18 avril 2012 3 18 /04 /avril /2012 07:50

GBU-44-E-Viper-Strike-munition.jpg

 

Apr 17, 2012 ASDNews Source : MBDA

 

MBDA Incorporated’s GBU-44/E Viper Strike munition scored multiple direct hits from a U.S. Marine Corps KC-130J Harvest HAWK aircraft during developmental testing at Naval Air Warfare Center’s China Lake, California Weapons Station.  Viper Strike is a glide munition capable of precision attack from extended stand-off ranges using GPS-aided navigation and a semi-active laser seeker.  Its small size, precision and high agility provides a very low collateral damage weapon that is effective against stationary and moving targets.

 

Using the new pressurized “derringer door” launcher on Harvest HAWK, Viper Strike successfully launched and scored multiple direct hits on tactical targets.

 

The new derringer door launcher uses a side door in the fuselage and enables the aircraft to launch and reload Stand Off Precision Guided Munitions while the aircraft remains pressurized.   This allows the aircraft to extend standoff ranges while reducing the time to acquire and attack a target, increasing the likelihood of a successful engagement with the Viper Strike.

 

Viper Strike also proved its new fast attack software load that greatly enhances the weapon’s effectiveness against time sensitive targets.  Combined with its top-attack mode of operation, the weapon can safely attack targets that are either ground or air-designated.

 

Viper Strike is in production at MBDA Incorporated’s Huntsville, Alabama facility.  “Viper Strike provides the right characteristics needed to support our warfighters in both current and future fights ─ high precision and agility to hit moving and stationary targets in complex terrain and with very low collateral damage,” said Jerry Agee, President and CEO of MBDA Incorporated.

Partager cet article
Repost0
18 avril 2012 3 18 /04 /avril /2012 07:15

Mk41-Vertical-Launch-System--VLS--Photo-BAE-Systems.jpg

Mk41 Vertical Launch System (VLS)

Photo BAE Systems

 

17 April 2012 naval-technology.com

 

The US Navy has awarded a modification contract to BAE Systems to provide additional ship sets of the Mk 41 vertical launching system (VLS) for installation on the Arleigh Burke DDG-116 destroyer and the Aegis Ashore equipment.

 

The latest $22.9m contract is a modification to the originally awarded contract for the Mk 41 VLS mechanical components in June 2011.

 

BAE Systems' Weapons Systems business vice president and general manager Mark Signorelli said the firm will continue its support for the US Navy by providing the Mk 41 VLS for the DDG-51 programme.

 

"The Mk 41 VLS provides a number of key capabilities that support a wide range of missions onboard the Navy's major combatants," Signorelli added.

 

The Aegis Ashore part of the contract will support the US Phased, Adaptive Approach for missile defence in Europe.

 

The additional ship set, which includes hardware components and a land-based Mk 41 VLS equipped with SM-3 missiles as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence system, will be used to support the first tactical Aegis Ashore site in Europe.

 

Work under the contract will be carried out at several BAE Systems and subcontractor facilities in South Carolina, New York, Kentucky, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and North Dakota, US.

 

The majority of the work under the contract will begin from 2013 and run through 2015.

 

With more than 30 years of experience in the development, production, and support of the system for naval forces throughout the globe, BAE Systems has been the mechanical design agent for the US Navy's Mk 41 VLS.

Partager cet article
Repost0
17 avril 2012 2 17 /04 /avril /2012 21:44

SHIP CVF Concept lg

 

17.04.2012 journal-aviation.com

 

L’information a été révélée par le quotidien Financial Times le 16 avril : Selon des sources proches du dossier, les futurs porte-avions britanniques ne subiront pas de reconfiguration pour permettre l'appontage d'avions de chasse français .

 

Selon l’analyse du Financial Times, cette annonce rendrait très improbable un éventuel retour à la version STOVL – qui rendrait toute interopérabilité avec la France impossible.

 

Un retour potentiel au F-35B agite la Grande-Bretagne depuis plus d’un mois. Le Premier ministre David Cameron avait approuvé la version F-35C dans le Strategic Defense and Security Review d’octobre 2010.

 

La décision finale, qui devait être annoncée mi-avril, a été reportée à une date encore indéterminée.

Partager cet article
Repost0
17 avril 2012 2 17 /04 /avril /2012 21:08

417164.jpg

 

17/4/2012 Pascal Coutance, ElectroniqueS

 

Cette société suédoise est spécialisée dans la connectique optique pour environnements sévères à destination des applications militaires et aéronautiques.

 

Bel Fuse, fabricant américain de composants d'interconnexions, de protection et de conversion d'énergie, a racheté le mois dernier la société suédoise Gigacom Interconnect. Fondée en 1996, cette dernière est spécialisée dans la connectique optique pour environnements sévères à destination des applications militaires et aéronautiques. Elle produit notamment des solutions d'interconnexions optiques de type "Bean Expander" conçues pour aller directement sur le terrain. Gigacom Interconnect est également actif dans les comités de standardisation dans le domaine de l'aviation civile. Le montant de la transaction n'a pas été révélé.

 

Ce faisant, Bel Fuse étoffe sa gamme de solutions d'interconnexions pour environnements sévères. L'américain avait débuté cette diversification en 2010, suite au rachat de Cinch Connectors au groupe français Safran. Gigacom va d'ailleurs devenir partie intégrante de la division Cinch de Bel Fuse.

Partager cet article
Repost0
17 avril 2012 2 17 /04 /avril /2012 18:55
FEA ou le troc interalliés

 

17/04/2012 SEActu

 

Fuel exchange agreement ou en français : convention d’échange de carburant. Le principe des FEA est de faciliter les approvisionnements entre alliés. Des points de situation sont réalisés lors de réunions périodiques, comme celle qui s’est déroulée du 3 au 5 octobre dernier à Wiesbaden en Allemagne.

 

Les États-Unis, à travers la Defense Logistic Agency Energy (DLA-E), sont les « leaders » dans ce domaine. Initialement, l’US Air Force, qui se ravitaillait fréquemment dans différentes bases européennes, a cherché à simplifier ses échanges essentiellement avec les aviations grecques, italiennes et turques. Depuis une vingtaine d’années, les Américains cherchent à augmenter leur réseau en le déployant vers davantage de pays et en l’appliquant à toutes les armées et à tous les produits.

 

Quel est l’intérêt ?

Il s’agit de limiter les procédures administratives en évitant, par exemple l’émission de facture dès qu’une unité fait le plein chez ses alliés.

 

Quel en est le principe ?

Plutôt que de payer à chaque approvisionnement et de compter en $ ou en €, les volumes sont cumulés sur une période, en galons ou en litres. Tous les 6 mois, un point périodique sur l’état des échanges est effectué. Lorsqu’un pays a davantage été livré en carburants qu’il n’en a délivré, il peut choisir suivant les cas de rembourser soit en nature, soit en monnaie. Ces mises à plat, appelées réconciliation, se réalisent une première fois à distance par courriel. Puis la fois suivante, lors d’une conférence permettant en sus de faire le point sur les difficultés, les avancées mais également de faire remonter diverses informations des différents pays participants, comme cela a été le cas les 3, 4 et 5 octobre derniers.

 

Qui y participe ?

Actuellement, les États-Unis ont près de 42 conventions ou « agreement » dans le domaine du carburant, notamment avec l’Espagne, la Turquie, l’Allemagne, la Grande- Bretagne, le Japon, la Corée, les Émirats arabes unis, l’Italie. Uniquement pour le carburéacteur : la Grèce. Uniquement pour le gazole de navigation : l’Inde, l’Indonésie, le Pakistan, la Pologne, le Chili, le Pérou, l’Argentine, le Canada et la France. D’autres accords sont en préparation.

 

Et la France dans tout cela ?

En France, c’est la Marine en 2006 qui a conclu le premier FEA, avec les États-Unis puis avec la Grande-Bretagne. La nécessité de simplifier les procédures administratives des avitaillements sont apparues naturelles, du fait du déplacement des bateaux en permanence autour du monde. Le SEA, avec la reprise du soutien de la flotte le 1er janvier 2010, fait perdurer cet accord et travaille à développer un « joint agreement » qui inclurait tous les carburants.               

 

Quel est l’intérêt opérationnel ?

Actuellement en mer, le ravitaillement d’un navire français auprès d’un britannique ou d’un américain n’engendre aucune charge administrative de facturation. La quantité reçue fait l’objet d’un compte rendu au bureau soutien pétrolier de l’état-major de la Marine qui assure un suivi. A terme un avion américain qui se poserait à Istres ne serait pas facturé mais compenserait un avion français qui se poserait à Incirlik, en Turquie. Une facilité de logistique opérationnelle avec une couverture mondiale, c’est la force du FEA.

Ainsi pour le SEA, adhérer au FEA est un maillon supplémentaire pour consolider son interopérabilité au sein de la logistique pétrolière interalliés.

Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

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

Recherche

Articles Récents

Categories