15 Juin 2011 Belga

La baisse des dépenses consacrées à la défense dans les pays de l'Otan constitue un "grave problème" qui risque à terme de détourner les Etats-Unis de l'Alliance, a affirmé mercredi le secrétaire américain à la Défense Robert Gates.

Réitérant devant les sénateurs d'une sous-commission de la Défense ses critiques après son discours véhément de Bruxelles vendredi, le ministre a affirmé que la part des Etats-Unis était passé de la moitié aux trois-quarts du budget militaire des 28 pays de l'Otan. "C'est un grave problème. C'est un souci depuis quelques années mais je pense que nos propres difficultés financières et ce à quoi le budget militaire américain va devoir faire face pose le problème comme jamais auparavant", a-t-il jugé. "Un nombre croissant" de membres du Congrès "pour qui la guerre froide et nos liens avec l'Europe et l'Otan ne sont pas dans les gênes" va finir par ne plus vouloir prendre en charge le fardeau, selon lui. Mais le secrétaire à la Défense a toutefois estimé préférable une Otan aux capacités réduites que "pas d'Otan du tout". Robert Gates avait mis en garde à Bruxelles les alliés occidentaux contre leur manque d'investissements militaires et de volonté politique, soulignant que ces "lacunes" pourraient "compromettre" l'efficacité de la mission en Libye et contre la perspective "inacceptable" d'une "alliance à deux vitesses". (MPK)

Un F/A-18 Super Hornet au catapultage sur un porte-avions américain

crédits : US NAVY

16/06/2011 MER et MARINE

L'US Navy et la Royal Navy ont confirmé la signature d'un accord portant sur la formation des pilotes embarqués du futur porte-avions britannique, dont la mise en service interviendra à partir de 2018. Ce partenariat découle du choix britannique d'abandonner les bâtiments dotés de tremplin pour la mise en oeuvre d'avions à décollage court et appontage vertical, au profit de navires équipés de catapultes, d'une piste oblique et de brins d'arrêt. Cette décision, qui se traduira par l'achat de F-35 C au lieu des F-35 B prévus initialement, pose néanmoins un problème à la Royal Navy, qui n'a pas opéré de porte-avions classiques depuis trente ans. Et le retour aux catapultes et brins d'arrêt ne va pas seulement nécessiter l'acquisition d'un savoir-faire spécifique par les pilotes de la Royal Navy et de la Royal Air Force (la composante d'avions embarqués est interarmées depuis 10 ans). « Nous avons beaucoup de travail pour nous assurer que nous sommes capable de réaliser (cette mutation). Nous devons préparer les matelots, les ingénieurs, les opérateurs de catapultes, les opérateurs de brins d'arrêt et le contrôle de la navigation aérienne. C'est un défi majeur et quelque chose que nous n'avons pas fait depuis la fin des années 70», explique l'amiral Mark Stanhope, le patron de la flotte britannique. Mais le First sea lord se dit confiant. « Nous y parviendrons avec le soutien de nos alliés américains et français ».


Appontage de Rafale sur le Charles de Gaulle (© : MARINE NATIONALE)

Aide française et américaine

Dans le cadre des accords de défense franco-britanniques signés il y a quelques mois, la Marine nationale a accepté d'aider son homologue britannique pour qu'elle puisse recouvrer cette capacité perdue il y a plusieurs décennies. En décidant de doter son futur porte-avions de catapultes, le Royaume-Uni a, en effet, ouvert la voie à une interopérabilité avec les porte-avions américains et le Charles de Gaulle. A Paris, l'Etat-major de la marine réfléchit déjà, entre autres actions de coopération, à la possibilité de mutualiser les plateformes pour des missions d'entrainement et de qualification aux appontages et catapultages. Et les Français se disent ouvertement prêts à aider au maximum leurs alliés pour faciliter l'acquisition de compétences très techniques et très longues à maîtriser. Les Britanniques, toutefois, ne se reposeront donc pas uniquement sur la Marine nationale mais, aussi, sur leur principal allié. Comme pour les pilotes de l'aéronautique navale tricolore, les aviateurs britanniques effectueront leur formation initiale aux Etats-Unis, d'autant que l'US Navy mettra elle-aussi en oeuvre le F-35 C, ce qui permettra sans doute de pousser encore plus loin le processus d'apprentissage, d'abord à terre puis ensuite sur les porte-avions américains.


Vue du futur porte-avions britannique (© : ROYAL NAVY)

source army-technology.com

Jun 15, 2011 ASDNews Source : Thales Group (Paris: HO.PA)

Neuilly sur Seine, France - Thales today announced that it has successfully achieved, with its partner Boeing, the full automatic landing of a one ton class VTOL (Vertical Take Off and Landing) UAV. The automatic landing was carried out on the back of a moving trailer, representing the movement of a ship's deck.

The flight tests took place in the US at the New Mexico SpacePort, using Boeing's Unmanned Little Bird (ULB) air vehicle. They show that the demonstrator based on MAGIC ATOLS (Automatic Take Off and Landing System) developed by Thales, is able at any given time, to provide the relative position of the drone in relation to the platform and ensure flight guidance and control with a better accuracy than GPS. The system operates at a long range independently of GPS signals, in all weather conditions.

Innovation-driven, this system offers a unique level of security and redundancy to allow certification. It thus enables UAV landings with no external pilot - a key advantage for both Army and Navy operations.

The flight trials will continue over the following weeks - this time with the demonstrator fitted on to a 3 axis-moving table representing the movements of the ship's deck.

The MAGIC ATOLs system draws on extensive experience gained from the UK's Watchkeeper programme, for which it was qualified in 2008. The Watchkeeper is Europe's most ambitious surveillance and intelligence UAS program.

Fox, like his counterpart in the US, has expressed dissatisfaction with institutionalised

inefficiencies within the established defence structure [image: US DoD]

06/14/2011 Contributor: Robert Densmore

According to Defence Secretary Liam Fox, the United Kingdom is no longer safe. In a speech delivered to defence industry juggernauts from around the globe, Dr Fox outlined in extraordinary detail the imminent cyber threat that his department, and the country at large, faces day in and day out. For over a quarter of an hour, the minister spoke in grave tones of the daily cyber attacks – having doubled since 2009 -  waged against the MoD and against Britain’s intellectual and industrial capital. His words of warning, delivered at the London Chamber of Commerce’s defence dinner at the Imperial War Museum, extended beyond international threats, however.

Reading between the lines

The onus, he pronounced, was the very real and threatening budget deficit facing the Coalition government, which will reach in excess of £1.3 trillion in 2014. This is the real threat, a legacy of Labour that, he declared, has put the UK in a state of ‘national economic emergency’. The solution? Make the economy strong, and national security will follow. Yet, by going on the back foot, the MoD front office has embarked on a dangerous policy course that looks more like a defensive posture than a tangible growth strategy.

Perhaps most worthy of mention were those notables not (or barely) mentioned in the Dr’s speech. At the top of that list is Libya. Early honeymoon optimism has been steadily crumbling and NATO partnerships are showing strain under an imbalanced force commitment. Fox’s vocal counterpart, outgoing US defence secretary Bob Gates, revealed last week that he is worried that the American military remains the single largest contributor to Nato’s Operation Unified Protector. Since the end of March, US air forces have conducted around 2,600 sorties, an unwelcome expenditure in light of US budget deficit woes. In typical Gates frankness, he openly lauded Canada, Denmark and Norway while castigating European countries for limited or non-existent participation. Pundits will read as much from what was unsaid as what was said – is Gates dissatisfied with British efforts?

He would certainly have right to be. While the MoD press office was busy churning out daily press releases on RAF endeavours in Operation Ellamy, the Guardian was reporting how Norway and Denmark were putting hundreds more bombs on target than UK air forces. Increased pressure from Britain’s First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, has finally led to the delayed but welcomed deployment of HMS Ocean with her Apache attack helicopter force. Sadly, this seems to have somehow re-ignited Anglo-French enmity, a situation made more glaringly obvious by the US’ firm resolve to avoid any leadership role in the conflict. Sources within the US Embassy’s Defense Attache Office in London confirm that Libya is not, and never will be, a US foreign policy priority. Rather, they said, it is an out-and-out fight for ‘primacy’ within Europe.

The spectre of ground ops in Africa . . . and the Afghan legacy

An objective view of Britain’s entering into the Libyan conflict will reveal that, despite Cameron’s early enthusiasm, the prime minister believes that pursuing a second war on another continent is only tenable if it is done without boots on the ground. For most Americans, the justification for limiting the quota of boots on the ground has always been Vietnam. There are simply too many touchstones of wasteful expenditure (of lives and defence dollars) from this era to allow an American president to commit in Libya beyond a support role. Without a doubt, Afghanistan has been a turning point for UK defence policy. Memories of the Falklands War, now two conflicts old, are fading fast. The Gulf Wars were too quick to count and Iraq was always just a quirky Bush phenomenon (with a Blair exponent to be factored in).

In contrast, Afghanistan has hit the hearts and minds of the British public. Help for Heroes, the landmark charity dedicated to helping injured Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, has emerged as a British touchstone of Afghanistan, having raised a record £100m in three short years. Over past months, the televised repatriation parades through Wootton Bassett took over as the dominant image of the conflict, and discourse in Westminster during the same period turned vocally bitter over equipment shortages. Suddenly, it seems very clear that Afghanistan, while earning a pitifully lonely mention in Dr Fox’s speech, is a very real and menacing bogeyman in this minister’s closet. And for good reason: the budget shortfall in defence has proven to be far more serious than anyone previously imagined.

In an interview in March of this year, Peter Luff promised me that Afghanistan remained priority number one. (Though as I write this, the list of cuts to Afghan operations continues to rise.) Over and above defence review cuts, more armoured vehicle improvements have been scrapped and the pledged purchase of Chinook helicopters has been pushed so far to the right that, by the time they enter service, British troops won’t even be in Afghanistan anymore. All of these facts line up to produce an overwhelmingly desperate queue of policy shortcomings – but these are things not borne of oversight or malpractice. They are not mistakes. Indeed, they are worse. They read like a catalogue of debts that the bank has finally refused to pay off – because that is precisely what they are.

'Show me the money'

As Dr Fox looked out over us - his audience - his hands shifted from page to page to mark his progress, like ticking boxes on a grocery list. Then there was a weighty pause over this statement: ‘we have taken over a troubled business, with the Treasury as our main investor’. That pause continues to speak volumes. Providing equipment to British forces in Afghanistan may be a priority for the Dr and his staff, but it is clear that No. 10 is pushing hard for something else – a balanced budget at any cost. I have never spoken to a single British commander who would, through their words, undermine public support for the chain of command – and that includes No. 10. Yet, for the discerning ear tuned to receive it, there are clear chords of discontent over the way in which business is being conducted in Downing Street.

Indeed, things have never been easy between Downing Street and the MoD Main Building at Whitehall. Only last month, another ‘leaked’ letter found its way into the prime minister’s hands from Dr Fox’s office – the second such in only a year. It is unclear whether these leaks, one of which criticised the current round of defence cuts, were deliberate or were some conspicuous act of sabotage (as Fox claims). Whether or not paranoia prevails in the MoD is a moot issue. The fact remains that austerity measures have not gone down smoothly with the secretary of state, and figures like foreign secretary William Hague have increased that cultural divide by standing firm over the Treasury’s contributions (or lack of) to defence.

Unfortunately, Treasury scepticism is not entirely unfounded. A succession of clangers have been dropped into the discussion on MoD spending: most notably by the National Audit Office in their report on armoured vehicle capability. While the report points the finger at both sides of the House in its far reaching look into past development spending and resulting waste from cancellations (millions spent on cancelled projects that will never make it to the factory floor, much less the front lines), it flies in the faces of those within Fox’s office who are keen to prove that Tories are in control of defence investment. Moreover, it casts a shadow over Peter Luff’s claim that British troops in Afghanistan are abundantly well-equipped. This tops the list, but an inventory of faux pas has been consistently rearing its head in the national press. One such story spoke of the £1.3m the MoD paid out to Afghan families over the wrongful death of loved ones  in the hotly contested Helmand region. Another story highlighted the £150K the MoD had to spend to buy back a book manuscript it had originally approved, but on which it reversed its decision. The book, again highlighting operations in Helmand, was deemed too sensitive for release – albeit, late in the game.

In fairness, both of these unsettling quandaries can likely trace their origins to the previous Labour management, but the fact that both seemingly caught the Dr unawares draws a line under the kind of odds he is facing in the MoD. His countless criticisms of ingrained institutional inefficiencies in the MoD seem to be falling on slightly deaf ears. Which is why, perhaps, he presented a crafted, clear and portentous speech at last week’s dinner. It needed to be clear, it needed to establish the facts and it needed to describe the next big threat of the future.

This is cyber warfare - and this is real

No one in that room on that night would have been surprised to hear Dr Fox ping on ‘cyber’ as that threat. Perhaps we all have been desensitised to the magnitude of the thing. If we’ve done our homework, we may know that when the US talks about meeting the cyber threat, they talk in a language that translates into billions of dollars (3.2 billion on security and a total of 38.4 billion on IT). This, of course, represents only fiscal year 2012 and does not include the multiple service and inter-service cyber commands that focus on offensive cyber warfare. What we may not be aware of is that the UK has set aside what amounts to a quarter of this funding to meet the same threat – and this will be spread across GCHQ, governmental agencies and the police. It’s difficult to get an exact handle on how many US institutions are targeted by cyber attack, but recent attacks have sent US-based industry reeling. Sony, Lockheed Martin and EMC Corp have all borne the brunt of cyber infiltration, theft and, to some extent, sabotage in just the past few weeks. Even more disturbing is the surfacing of what appears to be a state sponsored hacking of the IMF database, which is based in Washington DC. In spite of the DoD’s budget crackdown efforts, cyber is one of the few domains slated for a rise.

So too, it appears, is it the case in the UK, where £650m will be put toward beefing up cyber security. A senior representative of Atos Origin, the firm spearheading development and operation of the IT infrastructure at London 2012, revealed to me that cyber attacks at the games are expected to outpace those seen at Beijing – and be primarily state-sponsored attacks, to boot. The stakes are indeed high and though Fox’s speech resonated with what my fellow dinner guests know to be true, I could sense an element of doubt – even discouragement, because what came next was a polite, but firm, ‘dropping of the Bergen’. It is clear that the MoD will not – in fact, cannot – shoulder the total burden of national cyber security. The cost will obviously be too great. What the representatives from Atos Origin know – indeed what every security and defence firm in attendance would learn – is that this ‘new partnership’ between industry and the MoD means somebody else needs to begin footing the bill.

Perhaps the less than exuberant level of post-speech conversation reflected an element of industry’s ‘coming to terms’ with the MoD’s stark budget realities. There were no calls for meeting UORs (urgent operational requirements) this time; no promises of renewed investment; no new major technology initiatives. Instead, we all quietly ate our desserts beneath the gloomy and  hard-hitting reality that the MoD, finally, ultimately, is broke. It’s a bleak picture.

But, perhaps it is some consolation that, as the MoD worker bees fumble and flail to catch up with the times, the queen bee seems to have a firm handle on the incomings and out-goings. The good times have definitely come to an end – and big business is now at the pointy end of a fuzzy but deadly foreign cyber war. If anyone who reads this thinks I’m exaggerating, I would suggest a quick read of the Pentagon’s new policy on cyber attack – which, for the first time in history, promises ‘bombs on an enemy target’ for each cyber attack to cross US borders. How the times have changed. While many listening to Dr Fox’s speech might have felt it anti-climactic, the concern he expressed was more real than many would give him credit for.

So is he on the back foot? It seems self evident. He and the Tory leadership are engrossed with the deficit burden Labour has left them – and it emerges at every corner as the surrogate answer (or excuse) for nearly every defence challenge that comes round the corner. Yet, leaked letters or no, he is a man clearly at odds with this same leadership. He is a man who understands that defence spending can often translate into lives saved, whether in Afghanistan or Libya, or even in cyber space. Unfortunately, for as long as it takes to pay the deficit, or even just the interest which is running at £43bn per annum, he will also know that these are not the first priority for Cameron’s government.

This leaves him in an increasingly precarious situation. While petitioning for defence solutions from the private sector is a strategy close to the hearts of Tory leaders, it leaves little room to manoeuvre if there is no budget to facilitate these solutions. Those in the UK who would cite US budget cuts for comparison should also know that, last year, US defence spending represented 4.8% of GDP, whereas UK spending ranked at 2.7%. The numbers suggest that the US has some margin of safety – some buffer that would allow growth alongside budget cuts. This is simply not the case in the UK, especially when overall GDP here is a fraction of what it is in the states.

If we are to understand Liam Fox when he talks about risk and investment, we must comprehend and appreciate the road he has travelled. The increased funding for cyber security, while small, is a victory of sorts. It is a statement to those in government that the threat is serious, that it is capable and that it is immediate. It by no means aims to match the threat. But when you are tied to a front office that is more concerned with balancing the books than bolstering defences, the back foot approach is perhaps one of the few options left.

June 14, 2011 Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet Public Affairs / NNS – defpro.com

USS MOUNT WHITNEY, At Sea | Twelve minesweeping vessels representing five different Baltic nations and accompanied by the USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20), completed a series of close maneuvers, June 12, during Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) 2011.

The exercise began with the formation of a battle line, followed by an arrow, and concluding with an expanding star burst formation. The USS Mount Whitney served as a flagship and point of reference.

"The seamanship of these vessels and their crews is amazing," said Lt. Cmdr Tiffany Hill, USS Mount Whitney operations officer. "The ships performed flawlessly. To do this in a multi-national environment is an impressive accomplishment.

Ships participating in the exercise included the Latvian ships LNS Jotvingis and LNS Suduvis; Polish vessels ORP Gardno, ORP Druzno, and ORP Naklo; Estonian vessel ENS Ugandi; Germany's FGS Bad Rappenau; the Danish vessel HDNS Havkatten; and Lithuania's LVNS Visvaldis. Two manned drones from the Havkatten also participated.

Now in its 39th year, BALTOPS is a multinational naval exercise focusing on peace and security in the region. Baltic maritime operations continue through June 17.

12 juin 2011 par Nicolas Gros-Verheyde(BRUXELLES2)

C’est ce que disent six diplomates européens qui connaissent bien l’Iran pour y avoir été ambassadeurs de leur pays. Richard Dalton (Royaume-Uni), Steen Hohwü-Christensen (Suède), Paul von Maltzahn (Allemagne), Guillaume Metten (Belgique), François Nicoullaud (France) et Roberto Toscano (Italie) estiment que le moment est venu des « remises en question » notamment sur la politique occidentale vis-à-vis du nucléaire iranien. Leur argumentaire publié dans Le Monde et plusieurs autres journaux européens entend démonter quelques présupposés.

Tout d’abord le fondement sur le droit international paraît plus fragile qu’il n’y paraît, soulignent-ils. Rien n’interdit dans les traités internationaux de se positionner comme un « pays de seuil ». Et la « menace contre la paix » est exagérée. Car l’Iran ne serait pas le premier ni le seul pays du monde à frôler la limite de l’enrichissement nucléaire. Il faut donc sortir de ce dilemme, disent-ils, et se concentrer sur d’autres questions – comme les droits de l’homme et les droits politiques. Il faut faire confiance à l’AIEA – ou alors à la… démanteler si elle ne sert que « les seuls pays vertueux ». Les partenaires de ce dossier (Iran, UE, Usa, Russie) doivent donc demander « ensemble à l’AIEA ce qui lui paraîtrait nécessaire pour contrôler pleinement le programme nucléaire iranien et garantir de façon crédible qu’il est bien pacifique dans toutes ses dimensions ».

On peut aussi consulter le Blog du Français Nicoullaud, dénommé à juste titre « à contre-courants ». On y verra quelques remarques intéressantes sur la Côte d’Ivoire ou les révoltes arabes – sur la notion de « deux poids, deux mesures » et de plan Marshall, utilisé à tort et à travers.

June 9, 2011 By Tamir Eshel DEFENSE UPDATE

Lockheed Martin received yesterday over $107.5 million to produce the first F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF). Hague is committed to fund two early production F-35, a decision made in April this year despite drastic cuts in the government budget.

The order is part of the multi billion fixed price incentive contract for low rate initial production, (LOT IV) managed by the US Navy Navair command, Patuxent River, Md. The funding for the Dutch plane was provided as a modification to that contract.

Most of the work will be performed in the USA (80 percent) with the remaining work done in the UK. According to the Pentagon announcement , the work will be completed in less than who years (by February 2013).

07/06/2011 Ministère de la Défense Sources : EMA

Le 4 juin 2011, un avion de transport américain de type « C2 Greyhound » apponte sur le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle. Il s’agit de la première liaison de cet appareil dont la marine américaine a proposé les services pour faciliter les mouvements logistiques du groupe aéronaval déployé au large de la Libye dans le cadre de l’opération Harmattan.

En effet, les aéronefs américains en provenance de Norfolk (USA) sont arrivés le 2 juin 2011 sur la Base aéronavale d’Hyères (83). Depuis, des rotations régulières sont planifiées entre Hyères et le porte-avions.

Proche du Hawkeye  en service au sein de la Marine nationale, le « C2 Greyhound » est un avion bi-turbopropulseur d’une envergure de 24,60 mètres, qui peut aller jusqu’à 553 km/h . Il possède deux réservoirs de carburant dans les ailes qui lui donnent une large autonomie pour les convoyages à grande distance, son rayon d’action est d’environ 2400 km. L’équipage est composé, d’un pilote, d’un copilote et de deux adjoints responsable du chargement. La porte arrière se transforme en rampe pour faciliter l’embarquement du fret. La soute peut accueillir une cargaison, des passagers ou encore des civières et leurs médecins. Dans le cadre de cette mission la charge au décollage offerte par cet avion est de l’ordre de 2 tonnes.

Depuis 2001, les échanges entre les porte-avions français et américains sont réguliers favorisant la mise en commun des matériels et le travail en interalliés. Grâce aux différents entraînements déjà effectués, les militaires des deux Nations peuvent désormais mettre en application leurs savoirs dans un cadre opérationnel.

Sources : EMA

June 07, 2011 SHEPARD GROUP¨ Source: TCG

Tactical Communications Group (TCG), the leading independent supplier of tactical data link ("TDL") software solutions for military test, training, simulation and operational applications worldwide, and Saab, a global provider of world class defense and security solutions, today announced the signing of a new Letter of Intent.

Under terms of this agreement, the parties intend to more closely collaborate on technical, marketing and business development initiatives designed to quickly bring innovative new C4I solutions to market. These solutions will leverage Saab's command and control products and capabilities with TCG's comprehensive tactical data link solutions, enabling both companies to continue to expand market share in new and existing defense market segments globally.

"Tactical data link capabilities are increasingly becoming core to many offerings in our broad product portfolio, and we are pleased to announce this agreement and to work more closely with TCG in bringing unique, differentiated and cost-effective solutions to the global defense marketplace," said Mikael Olsson, Vice President, Marketing and Sales, C4I Solutions, Saab Security and Defence Solutions.

"We are very excited to expand our relationship with Saab, and look forward to collaborating extensively with them in bringing new air, naval and land product offerings to market globally, leveraging the considerable capabilities of TCG's LinkPRO data link processing engine, combined with Saab's superior C2 system offerings. Saab's excellence in product innovation and laser focus on customer satisfaction will continue to serve them well as they expand globally, and we are very pleased to work more closely with Saab," said Edward Durkin, President and CEO of TCG.

"With extensive experience in competing tactical data link solutions over many years, and having enjoyed real market success with TCG's LinkPRO solution working with Saab's Air C4I systems in many countries throughout Europe, Asia Pacific and the Middle East, we have now made the decision to work even more closely with TCG. We plan on providing expanded C2 and Situational Awareness solutions for our global military customers across multiple market segments, and look forward to continued success with TCG," said Martin Vobora, Senior Director, Marketing and Sales, C4I Solutions, Saab Security and Defence Solutions.

Jun 3, 2011 By Bill Sweetman Aviationweek.com

Washington - The European fighter development community’s views on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) have become more negative since 2005-06, and this is not, primarily, the result of marketing. The commentary expressed in offline meetings at conferences and shows is much more negative than on-the-record statements suggest.

People at Saab, Eurofighter and Dassault are of one voice on JSF and do not believe it will deliver its promised affordability, whether in acquisition, upgrades or operational cost, or that it will deliver capability on its present schedule. They expect that when JSF emerges from development, its stealth technology will be less valuable than expected, and that it will be inferior in other respects to European products.

The non-competitive selections of the JSF by the Netherlands, Norway and Canada are attributed to three main factors: political pressure by the U.S. (suspected for years but confirmed in 2010 by WikiLeaks), U.S.-oriented air forces, and political vacillation enabled by the fact that full-rate production JSFs are not available for order.

This worldview underpins the Europeans’ determination to keep their programs alive until the JSF program runs its course, or unravels, as they expect it to.

India’s decision to eliminate all but two contenders for its Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirement was a blow to Boeing and Saab, the companies in the losing group who had reason to hold out most hope in the competition (see p. 21). For the survivors, Eurofighter (Typhoon) and Dassault (Rafale), it means a bruising duel to win the contract and—for the winner—a major challenge to fulfill it.

Indian officials say the winners scored highest on technical grounds, which is not surprising. Typhoon and Rafale are larger and more powerful than Saab’s Gripen. The former is better at high altitude and the latter excels in payload and range. The European fighters also have a more contemporary aerodynamic design than Boeing’s Super Hornet.

But a word of caution—what is being offered in both cases is not what is coming off the production line today. Boeing’s Super Hornet proposal seems to have been close to the in-production F/A-18E/F Block 2, with the exception of General Electric’s Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) version of the F414. Gripen NG rests on a development program that is well underway.

Whether Rafale or Typhoon is selected, the program will aim to achieve several things simultaneously, including co-developing improvements such as an active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and Meteor air-to-air missile (AAM) integration; dealing with obsolescence issues that are inevitable in long development cycles; transfering technology and launching joint indigenous production; and transplanting a complex all-digital aircraft into the Indian air force, all on a tight timescale.

If Rafale wins, and is also successful in Brazil, Dassault and its partners—Safran and Thales—will be doing much the same thing, 9,000 mi. from India.

Good luck with that. The Indian customer, however, may take the view that the burden of risk will fall on the contractor—and ultimately its domestic government stakeholder, which is unlikely to want to see problems erupt into public finger-pointing.

Boeing and Saab, meanwhile, can take comfort in depicting the Indian decision as something less than an outright repudiation of their approach to fighter design and the market. Boeing can present it as a choice to not rely on the U.S. for a principal weapon system, and Saab can point out that either finalist represents a move to closer ties with the major powers of Europe.

The current competitive situation of the three “Euro-canard” fighters, however, is shaped by economic, operational, technical and historic factors, and whether one or all survive into the 2020s as viable programs depends on all of them.

The historic factor dates to the mid-1980s, when France and the Eurofighter partners went their separate ways. Germany and the U.K. argued that one-nation programs no longer had the critical mass to compete with those from the U.S. France believed multinational programs without a clear leadership structure were impossibly cumbersome.

Both arguments were right.

Rafale works, but is being built at such slow rates that costs are high. To increase rates would be to starve other national programs of resources. Typhoon’s production and upgrade program has been successively delayed and restructured as the sponsoring nations have wrangled over how much should be spent on each step, and when.

Sweden escaped these outcomes because it had always structured its fighter programs differently. Design, integration and most manufacturing remained in Sweden, but subsystems such as the engine, radar and weapons were co-developed with foreign partners or imported. Combined with a uniquely authoritative and highly skilled government arms-development agency, Gripen’s development has been affordable on a national basis.

Technically and operationally, Rafale and Typhoon are more different than the distant view suggests. At its conception, Typhoon was expected to enter service at a point where Tornado, developed by three of its four partners, would be at its mid-life point. Combined with the emerging threat of the MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-27, this drove the design toward air-combat performance, with a configuration that accommodated large radar and a standard, low-drag, six-missile load-out, and aerodynamics and propulsion optimized for agility (including supersonic maneuver) and acceleration.

The RAF considers the Typhoon second only to the Lockheed Martin F-22 in the air-to-air regime. Armed with Meteor ramjet-powered AAMs and equipped with a high-end infrared search-and-track (IRST) system, it will be more formidable yet. The problem is that few customers face adversaries with large or modern fighter forces.

Also, there is a difference of approach among the four Typhoon nations. The U.K. has recognized since the early 2000s that the Typhoon will have to take over some or all Tornado missions and developed an interim air-to-ground precision-strike capability. But the other partners have not seen this as an urgent need (and are less involved with air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), so funding for definitive solutions has been slow to materialize.

Nonetheless, the Typhoon team continues to promote future variants, including evolved designs with thrust vector control (TVC)—which, among other things, improves handling with heavy external loads—and even a carrier-based version, which is of interest to India (and to the U.K. if JSF has problems). TVC is linked to carrier landing capability, as it permits a trimmed approach at a lower angle of attack and overcomes a problem with earlier “Seaphoon” studies—the big radome that interposed itself between the pilot’s eyes and the ship.

afale, by contrast, was designed to permit a one-type air force for France, including the navy, with missions ranging from close air support to nuclear strike. The result was a small aircraft with the ability to carry a large external load and lower top-end performance than Typhoon. Another tradeoff was to accept less radar range in return for flexibility and light weight, with the relatively small passive phased array of the RBE2.

The Rafale has impressive capabilities, including discretion, which the French prefer to the term “stealth.” Rafale visibly shows more marks of low-observables technology than its contemporaries, and there is evidence that its Thales Spectra electronic warfare system has an active cancellation mode.

The Rafale team has, since the mid-2000s, done reasonably well at keeping its plans to mature and upgrade the aircraft on schedule. It can self-designate with the GBU-12 laser-guided bomb and carries the Sagem AASM extended-range, precision-guided weapon family. For the destruction of enemy air defenses mission, presentations show one Rafale targeting with radar from outside lethal range, while another approaches in terrain cover and delivers a pop-up AASM. The latest version to be tested is the imaging-IR model. Rafale is also operational with the Thales Areos multiband, long-range oblique reconnaissance pod.

Stealth, meanwhile, appears to be the hallmark of Gripen development, in that it is moving forward under a shroud of non-publicity. Sweden has taken the strategic decision to retain a small but capable air force, which will be based on Gripen until at least 2040. The only currently planned route to that goal is through the JAS 39E/F Gripen NG.

The next milestone is the return to flight of the Gripen Demo prototype, equipped with the E/F’s new avionics system, designed to reduce the cost of upgrades by partitioning mission systems from flight-critical functions. Selex Galileo is pushing forward with the Skywards-G IRST—the first system of its type to operate in dual IR bands—and the Raven ES-05, the first wide-angle AESA.

The first new-build Gripen NG is due to fly in 2012. Reports describe stealth enhancements including diverterless inlets. The enhanced performance (EPE) engine would be a useful addition—at its highest reported rating, its non-afterburning output would be over 90% of the maximum thrust of the C/D’s RM12 engine, although Saab may elect to take a smaller thrust boost combined with longer engine life to reduce ownership cost. GE claims that the EPE is relatively low-risk.

There’s a lot of work to be done if European programs are to remain viable, but so far, industry considers it worthwhile.

03 June 2011 army-technology.com

Aqeri, one of Sweden's leading suppliers of rugged computers and communication equipment, has taken home its first order in the US.

Aqeri has taken home its first order on the American market. The customer is one of the American defence industry's largest companies, who have ordered advance communication equipment for extreme environments. The value of the order is nearly 2MSEK and the equipment will be delivered during the third quarter of 2011.

"It is of course really fantastic to win this first order on the American market. The customer is one of the very largest companies in the industry, with extremely high-quality requirements. We see this order as proof that we continue to deliver the best solution to each individual request," says Jan Israelsson, Aqeri's President.