TALLINN, 6 février - RIA Novosti

Le premier ministre estonien Andrus Ansip pourrait se rendre en Russie pour la première fois les 5 et 6 avril prochains afin de participer à la conférence sur la protection de la mer Baltique qui se déroulera à Saint-Pétersbourg, rapporte mercredi la télévision locale.

"Je possède effectivement une telle information", a confirmé Liina Kersna, conseillère du chef du gouvernement, en ajoutant qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'une rencontre bilatérale, mais d'une conférence internationale associant d'autres pays riverains de la mer Baltique.

Et de souligner que ce serait la première visite en Russie de M.Ansip depuis sa nomination au poste de premier ministre en avril 2005.

La conférence pétersbourgeoise des chefs d'Etat des pays riverains de la mer Baltique se tiendra dans le cadre de la présidence russe du Conseil des Etats de la mer Baltique (CEMB).

M.Ansip a reçu une invitation à se rendre à Saint-Pétersbourg pour participer à la conférence de son homologue russe Dmitri Medvedev, et comme l'a fait savoir Mme Kersna, le chef du gouvernement estonien entend prendre part à cette conférence.

HMS Queen Elizabeth's Forward Island

6 February 2013 naval-technology.com

The key Forward Island for the UK Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class (QE) aircraft carrier, Upper Block 07, has set sail from BAE Systems' Portsmouth shipyard to its Rosyth facility for final assembly and integration phase.

As a crucial component of the carrier, Upper Block 07 will include the main bridge and approximately 100 vital mission systems compartments.

BAE has tested the block to ensure it is weather-proof to undertake the first sea voyage, while clearing the UK Ministry of Defence audit to approve all compartments of the block.

The block will be lifted onto the carrier in March, followed by installation of the long-range radar on top of the Forward Island.

HMS Queen Elizabeth will also feature the Aft Island, which will serve the role of an airport control tower to manage aircraft movements.

Both the Forward and Aft islands will help increase the survivability of the ship, as they can carry out each other's role during an emergency.

"BAE has tested the block to ensure it is weather-proof to undertake the first sea voyage."

The two 280m-long and 74m-wide aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales, have a full-load displacement capacity of 65,000t and are expected to enter service in 2016 and 2018 respectively.

With an operational range of 10,000nm, the two ships will have the capacity to carry 40 aircraft with a total runway area of 13,000m² and can accommodate a crew of 1,200, including an aircrew of 600.

Armed with Phalanx CIWS, 30mm guns and miniguns, the Queen Elizabeth-class ships will be integrated with new-generation maritime medium-range radars (MRR) to replace the existing type 996 surveillance and target indication systems.

Featuring a deck to support simultaneous launch and recovery operations, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will be powered by two Rolls-Royce Marine 36MW MT30 gas turbine alternators providing more than 70MW, in addition to four diesel engines providing approximately 40MW.

Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA), a joint venture between Babcock Thales, BAE Systems and the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), is the prime contractor for the Royal Navy's Queen Elizabeth-class programme.

05 Feb 2013 By Des Browne and Ian Kearns*  - telegraph.co.uk

Like-for-like renewal of our nuclear deterrent is neither strategically sound nor economically viable

In 2006, the Labour government decided to pursue like-for-like renewal of Trident, a decision that was reaffirmed by the Coalition in 2010. The thinking underpinning both decisions now needs to be re-examined. Since 2006, important things have changed and it is time for a more honest debate about the defence choices facing the country.

It has become clearer, for example, that a set of long-term threats has emerged, to which deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable: not only climate change, which can be addressed only through coordinated international action, but also cyber-attacks and nuclear terrorism. Attacks of both kinds will be difficult to trace. Since deterrence only works against those with a known address, it is not a viable strategy for meeting this category of threats.

Recent research also shows that large-scale use of nuclear weapons by either the US or Russia would be suicidal, not because of a retaliatory response but because global agriculture would collapse as a result, leaving the population of the attacking country to starve. The same research shows that even a small-scale nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would affect at least a billion people and usher in colder temperatures than at any time in the past millennium.

These facts do not mean that nuclear weapons are totally irrelevant to all future security threats. The weapons may still play important psychological roles in inhibiting wars between major powers; our position is not, as a result, a unilateralist one. What these factors do mean, however, is that nuclear deterrence is decreasingly effective. We could pursue like-for-like renewal of Trident and still perish as a result of a nuclear incident not directly involving the UK.

Deterrence is also increasingly risky. The number of nuclear weapons in the world has gone down since the end of the Cold War, but the bombs are now in some of the most unstable countries in the world. Loss of control is a major concern. If we allow current trends to continue, some of these weapons are going to get used.

While it might make sense to invest a huge portion of the British defence equipment budget, around 25-30 per cent in 2020-2030, into a nuclear system that provides insurance against every eventuality, it makes less sense to invest so much into one that provides less and less insurance against a narrowing range of threats. Given unlimited resources, this would be less of a problem but since 2006 we have also experienced a recession. The defence budget is being cut and reductions in conventional capability are ongoing. This matters for a number of reasons. First, the cuts are occurring even as each new generation of equipment becomes more sophisticated and expensive than the last. The implication, given that no end to public spending cuts is in sight and that health and education budgets are ring-fenced, is that our military will continue to shrink in future.

Second, defence cuts are under way and will continue in other allied countries on which we rely, such as the US, France, and elsewhere in Europe. Third, the military research budgets of many non-Western powers are increasing. While we have a clear technological edge today, the long-term trend is towards reduced Western technological superiority. In future, we will be able to rely much less on technically sophisticated but ever smaller forces to win conflicts. Fourth, America’s pivot to Asia signals its reduced willingness to provide for the security of Europe. As Libya and Mali show, Europe must take more responsibility in future, and do so with less.

Some of the supporters of like-for-like Trident renewal argue that anyone questioning the current approach is irresponsible. But in the circumstances outlined, Trident’s advocates also have serious questions to answer. They want to pour limited national resources into a increasingly ineffective nuclear system while being unwilling either to call for higher defence spending to meet conventional shortfalls or to scale back the UK’s level of international ambition. They want a gold-standard nuclear deterrent while under-investing in everything else.

Their approach will demonstrate to the international community that we intend to keep nuclear weapons on permanent deployment for decades while seeking to deny those weapons to everyone else. In the process, it will destroy any chance of building the broad-based international support required for a stronger non-proliferation and nuclear security regime. It also potentially sets the country up for a future Suez moment when, in the context of a crisis thought to threaten our vital interests, we will either try to intervene somewhere and fail or won’t try at all because we don’t have the capability. Either way, as a country committed to internationalism and to the defence of our interests, we will be diminished.

The choice before us, then, is not between a risky and a risk-free future. There are no risk-free futures on offer. Given the range of challenges before us and the limited resources at our disposal, if the Government’s Trident Alternatives Review reveals an effective alternative to like-for-like renewal of Trident, such as stepping down from continuous at-sea deterrence and the building of fewer submarines, we should pursue it. This would continue our glide-path to reduced reliance on nuclear weapons for our security, and in the circumstances, make sound strategic sense.

* Des Browne is a former defence secretary; Ian Kearns is chief executive of the European Leadership Network and a former adviser to Parliament on national security strategy

5/2/2013 EU source: European Union - Ref: EU13-043EN

Summary: 5 February 2013, Brussels - Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the Commission, hosted today a ministerial meeting of the Support and Follow Up Group on the situation in Mali.

The meeting was co-chaired by the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the United Nations. The Malian Delegation led by Minister for Foreign Affairs Tieman Coulibaly included Ministers for Territorial Administration Sinko Coulibaly and for Humanitarian Action Mamadou Sidibe. 

All members of the Group - including a significant number of Foreign Ministers - welcomed the advance of the Malian armed forces, supported by France and the region, against the terrorist groups in the north of Mali, and underlined the importance of the respect for international humanitarian law as well as the protection of civilian populations. They also commended the Malian transitional authorities on the adoption of the Road Map for the transition and they encouraged them to implement it faithfully and with resolve. A free and fair electoral process, the return to full constitutional order and a genuinely inclusive national dialogue are key to address the instability in Mali and restore security and development in the Sahel region across the board. 

Following the meeting, High Representative Catherine Ashton said: "The international community has recognised its responsibilities and reacted quickly to protect the Malian people. France has been in the frontline; the European Union and its member states, along with ECOWAS, the African Union and their members, are working together to provide support across the board." 

The Foreign Affairs Council of 31 January recognized that the adoption of the Road Map for the transition in Mali allows the gradual resumption of the European development aid. The EU has also speeded up the preparations for the EUTM Mali mission to provide training and advice for the Malian armed forces and it will provide financial (€50 million) and logistical support to the African-led International Support Mission in Mali. 

Audiovisual material available on TV Newsroom and Europe by Satellite 

For more information: FACTSHEET - EU Training Mission in Mali (EUTM Mali)

fév 5, 2013 Nicolas Gros-Verheyde (BRUXELLES2 à Strasbourg)

Répondant à une question de journalistes (mon confrère Pascal Verdeau de France3), le président de la République française, François Hollande, a reconnu que « l’Europe de la défense n’a pas encore pris la dimension attendue. Il n’y a pas de force de projection au plan européen. » « Dès lors ce sont des pays qui se coalisent pour intervenir. » Au Mali, la France était le « seul pays qui avait capacité de le faire ». « Nous étions proches » avec notamment les « bases en Afrique ».

Suite de l’article

05/02/2013 Michel Cabirol – LaTribune.fr

Le groupe aéronautique et de défense va présenter son nouveau conseil d'administration dans les 48 heures. Une obligation s'il veut tenir son assemblée générale d'ici à la fin mars. Le président du conseil sera élu après l'assemblée générale. L'ancien PDG de Thales Denis Ranque est favori.

Comme toujours chez EADS, rien n'est jamais simple. Les accouchements se font toujours dans la douleur (gouvernance à plusieurs reprises, financement de l'A400M, partage de la charge de travail entre la France et l'Allemagne, etc...) sans parler de l'échec tragi-comique de la fusion EADS-BAE Systems. La nomination des douze membres du conseil d'administration (et non plus onze comme actuellement) n'échappe pas à cette règle intangible d'une entreprise... pas encore normale, car trop sujette aux influences des Etats.

Une chose sûre, le géant européen de l'aéronautique se retrouve une fois de plus dos au mur et doit rapidement nommer son conseil d'administration s'il souhaite tenir son assemblée générale à Amsterdam d'ici à la fin du mois de mars comme il l'a annoncé en décembre. Comme EADS se doit d'informer les marchés 42 jours avant la tenue de l'assemblée, cela devient très, très urgent. "Dans les 48 heures, ce sera fait", confirme à La Tribune un proche du dossier. Soit ce mardi ou mercredi. Le futur conseil d’administration d’EADS comprendra 12 membres, proposés par le comité de rémunération et de nomination, "dont un président, un président exécutif (CEO) et au moins 8 administrateurs non-exécutifs indépendants", avait annoncé début décembre un communiqué d'EADS. La majorité des administrateurs, ainsi que les deux tiers des membres du comité exécutif, devront être des ressortissants de l’Union européenne".

Sept administrateurs à trouver ou à confirmer

Qui dans le conseil ? Cinq administrateurs sont sûrs de s'installer dans les fauteuils du board. Outre le président exécutif, Tom Enders, deux Allemands et deux Français ont été agréés par le comité des nominations d'EADS à la suite des propositions de Berlin et de Paris. Côté allemand, il s'agit du président du conseil de surveillance de Daimler, Manfred Bischoff, qui connait très bien le groupe pour y avoir été co-chairman du temps de Jean-Luc Lagardère, et de l'ancien président de la fédération allemande de l'industrie BDI, Hans-Peter Keitel. La France a opté pour l'ancienne présidente d'Areva, Anne Lauvergeon, et l'ancien président de la BCE, Jean-Claude Trichet. Il reste donc sept administrateurs indépendants à trouver ou à confirmer.

Parmi ces sept, il y aura un Espagnol, qui ne devrait pas changer (Josep Piqué, le PDG de la compagnie low-cost espagnole Vueling). "C'est acquis", confirme-t-on à "La Tribune". Les quatre administrateurs indépendants actuels, Hermann-Josef Lamberti, Lakshmi N. Mittal, Sir John Parker et Michel Pébereau, devraient être renouvelés

Ranque est favori pour le diriger le conseil

Le président du conseil d'administration sera élu par un conseil dans la foulée de l'assemblée générale. Anne Lauvergeon, Philippe Camus, Denis Ranque... Les trois noms ont été évoqués dans la presse pour prendre le fauteuil de président du conseil. Mais certains ont déjà semble-t-il perdu du crédit auprès d'EADS, notamment Anne Lauvergeon, qui pourrait toutefois à terme prendre la tête du conseil une fois son apprentissage sur le secteur effectué. Pour Philippe Camus, président de l'équipementier Alcatel-Lucent, l'histoire malheureusement se répète. Une fois de plus les politiques lui barrent la route. Le ministre de l'Economie, Pierre Moscovici, qui soutenait Anne Lauvergeon, a été très clair fin janvier pour écarter sa candidature : "Je crois que M. Camus a beaucoup à faire chez Alcatel", a-t-il affirmé. Est-ce que EADS passera outre un de ses clients majeurs, l'Etat français. Il y a des chances, souffle-t-on à La Tribune. D'où la candidature de l'ancien PDG de Thales, Denis Ranque, qui connait lui aussi très bien l'aéronautique et la défense... et qui n'était candidat à rien au départ..

5 février 2013  info-aviation.com

Le groupe EADS prévoit de doubler le nombre d’employés dans sa filiale Cassidian avec une entité dédiée à la cyber-sécurité. Une augmentation qui contraste avec son activité de ventes d’armes, où la demande est en baisse et accuse des pertes d’emplois (source: Bloomberg).

Cassidian vient de créer une entité entièrement dédiée à la Cybersécurité, de manière à accélérer sa croissance dans ce domaine. Pour cette nouvelle entité, Cassidian prévoit de recruter environ 700 collaborateurs dans les trois ans pour travailler sur la protection contre le piratage des données dans des domaines tels que les technologies de l’information d’entreprise, a déclaré son président exécutif Bernhard Gerwert.

M. Gerwert, qui conduit la direction de Cassidian depuis septembre 2012, travaille aussi à un second programme de réduction des coûts. Les gouvernements européens ont décidé de réduire leurs dépenses militaires et Cassidian n’a pas réussi à décrocher des contrats récents pour les avions de chasse. La société, basée près de Munich, envisage de lever des bénéfices d’exploitation de 10% du chiffre d’affaires d’ici à 2015, passant de 5,7 % en 2011, en réduisant le nombre d’employés et en faisant plus d’affaires à l’étranger.

Le consortium Eurofighter, constitué de Cassidian, BAE Systems et Finmeccanica, a vendu 12 Eurofighter Typhoon à Oman en décembre 2012, après que la compagnie ait perdu des appels d’offres en Inde, au Japon et en Suisse. L’avion est également en compétition en Corée du Sud, en Malaisie et en Arabie saoudite.

M. Gerwert a déclaré qu’il allait se concentrer sur les entreprises telles que les communications sécurisées où Cassidian détient une position de leader avec Motorola Solutions, les solutions cryptographiques, et les systèmes de contrôle aux frontières. Cassidian génère environ 70 millions d’euros (96 millions de dollars) avec les technologies de cyber-sécurité.

Cassidian veut également soutenir les efforts déployés par les gouvernements européensà acheter des drones armés. La compagnie a investit 80 millions d’euros pour développer le drone Talarion alors qu’il n’a pas réussi à obtenir l’approbation du gouvernement, et 600 millions d’euros, avec ses partenaires, sur toute une gamme de véhicules aériens sans pilote.

« Je suppose que nous allons développer un drone armé de fabrication européenne à moyen ou à long terme, » a commenté M. Gerwert. « Nous sommes en pourparlers avec les ministères de la défense de l’Allemagne, la France et les autres nations. » a t-il ajouté.

L’Allemagne loue actuellement des drones Heron (non armés) fabriqués par Israël Aerospace Industries Ltd, et le ministre français de la Défense Thomas de Maizière a déclaré le 1er février que l’armée doit rapidement combler cette lacune dans son arsenal et acheter un modèle armé développé conjointement avec la France, indépendamment des fournisseurs aux États-Unis ou en Israël. L’idée n’est pas nouvelle mais la réponse se fait toujours attendre.

Voir l’offre d’emploi publiée par EADS

05/02/2013 Michel Cabirol – LaTribune.fr

Astrium (EADS) et Herakles (Safran) convoitent tous les deux les activités espace du groupe italien Avio, selon des sources concordantes.

C'est le match des prochaines semaines qui agite toute la communauté spatiale européenne. Astrium (EADS) et Herakles (Safran) convoitent tous les deux les activités espace du groupe italien Avio (296,5 millions d'euros de chiffre d'affaires en 2011 pour 800 salariés environ), selon des sources concordantes... à condition bien sûr que l'Etat italien autorise cette opération. "Pas sûr", explique un bon connaisseur du dossier, qui estime que la décision n'a pas été prise Pourtant, les deux actionnaires d'Avio, Cinven (81%) et Finmeccanica (14%), avaient précisé en décembre à l'occasion de l'annonce de la cession des activités aéronautiques du groupe italien à General Electric, qu'ils allaient désormais travailler à établir les "alliances industrielles" les plus aptes à garantir "la compétitivité à long terme" de cette activité.

De réelles synergies industrielles et technologiques avec Safran

La filiale spatiale d'EADS, Astrium, et Safran sont dans les starting-blocks. Ces deux groupes ne seront certainement pas les seuls, des fonds italiens risquent de s'inviter dans cette opération. Mais, industriellement, les deux groupes français ont de réelles synergies industrielles et technologiques à faire jouer avec Avio, notamment Safran dans la propulsion (lanceurs spatiaux et missiles tactiques, dont l'Aster), qui représente environ 90% du chiffre d'affaires des activités spatiales d'Avio. Herakles possède des filiales communes avec Avio dans la propulsion stratégique et spatiale (40 % de Regulus et 50 % d'Europropulsion). Regulus réalise la production du propergol solide des segments médian et arrière des 2 MPS (Moteurs à Propergol Solide) d'Ariane 5 et du P80 Vega tandis que Europropulsion assure la maîtrise d'œuvre de la propulsion des MPS d'Ariane 5 et du P80 du Vega. Enfin, Herakles détient à parité avec le missilier MBDA Roxel, leader européen dans l'industrie des systèmes de propulsion d'armes tactiques et les missiles de croisière.

Du coup, Safran, qui attend un signe de Rome, reste très intéressé par les activités spatiales d'Avio, qu'il convoitait il y a peu de temps encore en entier. "Nous voulons payer le juste prix", assure-t-on en interne. Ni plus, ni moins. Ce serait d'ailleurs une consolidation intelligente de l'industrie spatiale européenne. Mais... en matière d'acquisition Safran est (trop?) prudent. Son partenaire historique, General Electric, lui a soufflé Avio au nez et à la barbe; Thales s'éloigne jour après jour de l'orbite de l'équipementier pourtant bien placé en 2012, et Zodiac continue à faire de la résistance.

Astrium intéressé par les activités lanceurs d'Avio

De son côté, Astrium s'intéresse aux activités lanceur, Avio étant l'actionnaire à 70% du groupe italien ELV (les 30% restants sont détenus par l'agence spatiale italienne, ASI), maître d'oeuvre du lanceur Vega, qui peut lancer des petits satellites jusqu'à 1,5 tonne sur une orbite polaire à 700 km d'altitude. En outre, Avio revendique 14% de la valeur d'un lanceur Ariane 5. Ce qui n'est pas pour déplaire à Astrium même si une grande partie est réalisée dans la propulsion, coeur de métier de Safran. Mais EADS, qui a longtemps lorgné au début des années 2000 SNPE Matériaux Energétiques (devenues depuis Herakles) sans dégainer, entretient sur son site de Brême en Allemagne des activités de propulsion. Du coup, avec la possible vente d'Avio, "c'est un peu retour à la case départ", souligne un connaisseur du dossier. Soit un nouveau match Safran-EADS.

Par ailleurs, Astrium souhaite grandir en Italie, comme l'a annoncé son patron, François Auque à l'occasion des voeux à la presse. "Nous ne voulons pas laisser le monopole à une seule entreprise", avait-il expliqué, visant Thales Alenia Space. C'est dans ce cadre qu'Astrium a récemment acheté une PME italienne, Space Engineering, spécialiste italien des télécoms et des technologies radar, et notamment sa principale filiale Teleinformatica e Sistemi.

Vue des futurs patrouilleurs belges du programme RDS

crédits : SOCARENAM

05/02/2013 Mer et Marine

Le chantier boulonnais Socarenam a remporté un très beau succès en étant retenu pour construire les deux nouveaux patrouilleurs hauturiers de la Composante navale belge. Commandés dans le cadre du programme Ready Duty Ships (RDS), ces bâtiments seront livrés d’ici le début de l'année 2015. Longs de 52 mètres pour une largeur de 9.3 mètres, ils seront dotés d’un système de commande et de contrôle SEWACO, fourni par Thales, qui gèrera les senseurs et le système d’armes, comprenant notamment un canon télé-opéré de 12.7mm. Destinés aux missions de patrouille, de surveillance, de maintien de l’ordre et de sauvetage, les futurs patrouilleurs belges pourront mettre en œuvre deux embarcations rapides.

Développé en partenariat avec le bureau d’études Mauric, le design retenu par le ministère belge de la Défense s’inspire de celui des patrouilleurs Jacques Oudart Fourmentin et Kermorvan, livrés par Socarénam à la Douane française en 2007 et 2008. Mais il s’agit d’une version améliorée, plus grande et aussi plus complexe puisqu’elle dispose d’un système de combat léger et un système d’armes intégré. Cette commande représente en tous cas une belle performance pour Socarenam. « Nous sommes très fiers d’avoir été choisis par la Composante marine belge. La compétition était internationale et a été acharnée. Nous faisions face à des concurrents australiens, espagnols, néerlandais et français. Nous sommes donc très satisfaits d’avoir emporté ce marché », explique-t-on chez Socarenam.

Employant 200 personnes, le chantier boulonnais travaille actuellement sur plusieurs projets. Trois chalutiers (deux de 25 mètres et un de 15 mètres) sont en cours de construction, de même qu’un bac pour la Gironde. Commandé en juillet 2012, ce dernier a vu la construction de sa coque débuter sur le site Socarenam de Saint-Malo. En mai ou juin, elle rejoindra Boulogne pour son armement. En lice sur différents appels d’offres, le constructeur va également travailler sur le programme ARPEGE, qui vise à concevoir et réaliser le prototype d’une nouvelle génération de chalutiers plus performants et moins gourmands en énergie.

The Houses of Parliament in London. Appointing a foreign contractor to run Britain’s defense equipment and support arm could pose problems, according to a report from the parliamentary defence committee.

Feb. 4, 2013 - By ANDREW CHUTER  - Defense News

LONDON — Appointing a foreign contractor to run Britain's 13 billion pound-a-year ($20.4 billion) defense equipment and support (DE&S) arm could pose problems, according to a report due to be published Feb. 5 by the parliamentary defence committee.

“There are particular concerns about how the Government's overall responsibility for acquisition could be maintained within a Government Owned Contractor Operated [scheme]. In particular, we believe problems might arise if a non-U.K. company were given responsibility for U.K. defense acquisition,” said the report.

Potential bidders, including U.S. contractors Bechtel, Fluor, Jacobs and KBR, participated last year in what the MoD calls “soft market testing,” alongside local companies CH2M Hill and Serco.

The committee didn't spell out in detail the reason for its concerns.

The report also said that ahead of any implementation of the proposals, it was “vital” that consultations were satisfactorily concluded with allies “to ensure that there is no adverse impact on co-operation.”

One senior industry executive said the U.S. government had expressed some concerns about a possible Go-Co arrangement in Britain.

The committee raised the question of just how much support the scheme had at home.

“It is clear that the GoCo is not universally accepted as the best way forward,” the report said.

Analysts here said there were indications support for the scheme was patchy in other government departments and industry.

MoD Permanent Secretary Jon Thomson told a Feb. 4 Public Accounts Committee hearing into major defense projects that the business case for reform of DE&S had already been presented to Ministry of Defence ministers.

Thomson appeared to signal the GoCo scheme would move forward in one form or another.

“Given the scale of the proposed reform,” ministers in other departments, including the Treasury, also need to approve the business case. That would take two to three months, he told the Public Accounts Committee.

Philip Dunne, the British defense equipment and support procurement minister, said the reform of DE&S will further improve the procurement process here.

“As announced last year, a GoCo organisation is our preferred option but further analysis is being carried out before a final decision is made,” he said in a statement.

The analysts said the MoD might consider running a GoCo trial to measure what benefits the plan could bring in making Britain's defense procurement more cost effective. But that might further delay an implementation date that is already being looked at for post-2015 and beyond the next election.

GoCo is one of three options the MoD has considered in recent months to increase the effectiveness of its poor performing Defence Equipment & Support arm. The other two contenders involve retaining DE&S in something like its present form or adopting a scheme called DE&S Plus. Details of that arrangement have yet to be released.

The committee also said British defense companies are disadvantaged by the government's refusal to adopt an industrial strategy.

“We believe that the absence of a defense industrial strategy which supports appropriate national sovereignty puts the U.K. at a disadvantage against competitor countries.” said the committee.

The committee urged the Conservative-led coalition government to “reconsider the wisdom of not having a defense industrial strategy.”

The previous Labour administration introduced an industrial strategy in 2005 but much of the arrangement failed to survive the incoming coalition government of 2010.

The current government came out with a white paper of its own in early 2012 that advocated more open competition at home and help for British industry in an export drive overseas.

Alex Ashbourne-Walmsley, a director at the consulting firm ASC here, said the Defence Committee report “highlights the fact that the choice of a GoCo as a new model for acquisition is neither unanimously accepted, nor are its implications fully understood. Does the U.K. want to entrust a company from one of its allies with its defense acquisition?”

February 5, 2013 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: Saab’s Gripen blog; posted Feb. 3, 2013)

The Gripen Proposition for the Dutch Air Force

2013 will be an exciting year for the Dutch Air Force and for Dutch politics. The reason: there is a decision to be taken on the new fighter to replace the outdated F-16s, says a report in Een Vandaag.

In a report that looks at the various options that are on offer, Kimo Demoed of Een Vandaag says that while the U.S. F-35 was the dream candidate for the Dutch Air Force for years, the JSF project is anything but smooth: "The costs are skyrocketing, there are numerous technical problems and the performance of the aircraft is disappointing."

Een Vandaag's reports on the changed gameplan on the replacement of the F-16 in the year of the decision, quoting Dick Zandee, former political adviser MoD and NATO, now working at Clingendael, who says that the F16 replacement puts the government under serious duress: "The JSF will cost more than 100 million E, and I believe this cost will increase. Social Democrats are against the JSF and the Liberals want it. This could become a serious political crisis."

The Swedish Saab Gripen is an alternative and Eddy de la Motte, Head of Gripen Export, says, "We can provide an unbeatable offer in terms of capability of the aircraft, fixed price and fixed schedule."

According to Dick Zandee (Clingendael), "the real question is, how much do you want to pay for this extra JSF capability? There are other good alternatives out there, like the Saab Gripen, that are capable and suit our needs for half the price. When we go for the JSF we can never afford four squadrons and that makes it difficult to conduct missions around the globe."

Zandee goes on saying: "Other Western countries are flying Gripen, Rafale or Eurofighter, I do not get the feeling that these countries are in danger because they fly European products. I urge the politicians to answer the question: What do we really need to be able do in the air? And not: What is the best aircraft money can buy?"

Eddy de la Motte points out, "We tried to make this aircraft good in a lot of ways: good to buy, good to maintain. It will live for 40 years, it can be updated, very flexible and we will provide you with the technology so that you can update it yourself. I think it is pretty much established that we are the most cost effective fighter."

According to in Een Vandaag, "While others are making progress, the JSF is troubled with a lot of problems. The American MoD made a long list with recurring problems: test schedule falls behind, software problems, safety systems falter, stealth not working, acceleration and manoeuvrability are disappointing."

Eddy de la Motte points out that the Gripen offers force multipliers that give it the edge. "You can operate the Gripen from an ordinary 800 metre piece of straight road. Landing, taking off and do rearming in less than 10 minutes. You can change the engine in less than one hour outside with 5 guys."

According to Een Vandaag, "In 2008 Saab made the Dutch an offer for 85, based on that number it will cost 56.4 million. The price of the JSF is unclear. We now estimate it at around 100/110 million.

February 5, 2013 defense-aerospace.com

(Source: British Forces news; published Feb. 1, 2013)

Confusion Over Defence Spending Plans

David Cameron's plans for Armed Forces spending after 2015 were plunged into confusion today as the Defence Secretary was unable to confirm an apparent commitment to above-inflation budget rises.

Senior sources have indicated that the Prime Minister would deliver real-terms rises in the Ministry of Defence budget after 2015.

Tensions have been growing in the Coalition as negotiations begin over how to save billions of pounds more in the 2015-16 spending review.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, who has already seen his budget slashed by 8% in real terms since 2010, is believed to be among ministers resisting further cuts.

However, during the Prime Minister's trip to North Africa it was signalled that he "does not resile" from comments he made in October 2010, when he appeared to accept that defence spending had to start rising again from 2015 onwards.

But Mr Hammond said today that he had been given a commitment that the equipment side of his budget - accounting for roughly half of MOD spending - would rise in real terms, but that there would be a "robust discussion" about other elements.

"I have a firm commitment that the equipment plan, which is a very large part of the defence budget, will rise in real terms by 1% a year between 2015 and 2020, that's a commitment that has previously been made and repeated since the Chancellor delivered his Autumn Statement," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"But there is going to be a spending review for 2015/16 and I will go into that arguing the case for the resources that defence needs to deliver the plan that we have set out, Future Force 2020, and I am very confident that we will have a robust discussion about that."

Pressed as to whether overall defence spending would rise or not, Mr Hammond said: "What I know is that I have a firm commitment on the equipment plan, which about roughly half the defence budget is covered by that. That will rise in real terms after 2015."

Asked whether staffing budgets could be cut, he said: "The rest of the budget will be subject to a discussion around the spending review the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement. But I'm going into that spending review discussion on the basis that I expect the outputs that I have defined to be protected."

The confusion comes amid warnings from the Whitehall spending watchdog that any further cost-overruns on the Ministry of Defence equipment programme could jeopardise its future plans for the armed forces and as Mr Hammond published a detailed equipment plan for the next ten years which, he said, had finally eliminated a £79 billion "black hole" inherited from the former Labour government.

The £159 billion programme includes £35.8 billion for a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines, £18.5 billion for combat aircraft for the RAF and £17.4 billion for Royal Navy warships, including the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers.

Within the plan there is £4.8 billion for contingencies as well as £8 billion of "unallocated" funding which the MoD said would be allocated to meet new equipment priorities as they emerged over the coming decade.

But the National Audit Office said there was "systemic over-optimism" built in to the MoD's planning which ran the risk of leaving "capability gaps" in the years ahead. While the NAO acknowledged that the MoD had taken "significant positive steps" to address the affordability of the equipment programme, it expressed concern that the contingency allocation was insufficient.

It warned that if the MoD was forced to fall back on the unallocated funding to make-up the shortfall, it would be unable to deliver in full the plans set out in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review - known as Future Force 2020.

"The £8 billion of unallocated budget does offer protection to the core programme. However, our review of departmental documents and interviews with departmental personnel suggest that the unallocated budget is essential to deliver the full intent behind Future Force 2020” the NAO said.

"Using this budget to protect the core programme would therefore result in capability gaps."

Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said they would be taking evidence from MOD officials in order to assess the robustness of the plan.

"The Ministry's track record in forecasting accurately the cost of its largest projects hardly inspires confidence," she said.

"Between 2000 and 2012, the cost of its 69 largest projects ballooned by £11 billion. Independent analysis in 2009 found that final project costs were typically 40% higher than the Ministry's initial forecasts.

"Given this past performance, I am dismayed that the Ministry is still taking an over-optimistic view to putting a price on risk and uncertainty."

Mr Hammond, however, insisted that the plan would ensure that Britain's armed forces remained among the most capable and best equipped anywhere in the world.

Downing Street insisted today that Mr Cameron's previous statement had been referring to the 2016-17 financial year and beyond, and not 2015-16.

The PM's spokesman said: "The Prime Minister does not resile from what he said to the House of Commons at the time of the SDSR.

"He said then his strong view is the defence budget will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the years beyond 2015.

"As his remarks at the time made clear, in the years beyond 2015 means starting in 2016.

"To suggest otherwise would be quite wrong.

"As to the spending review announced by the Chancellor in the 2012 Autumn Statement, we are not going to pre-empt its decisions which will be announced in the first half of this year."

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the NAO report "confirms what many feared - Philip Hammond has failed his own test of balancing the MoD books. This supposed 'mission accomplished' fact is more like a 'wishful thinking' claim.

“The Government has not provided a full list of equipment that is accounted for. The financial baseline against which projections are made is unknown. This report covers less than half of defence expenditure. The Government's claims don't add up.” (ends)

Viewpoints: Future of the British Army (excerpts)

(Source: British Broadcasting Corp.; posted Feb. 1, 2013)

What does the future hold for the British army?

More than 5,000 Army job losses have been announced as part of plans, unveiled last year, to restructure the force and reduce its numbers from 102,000 to 82,000 by 2017 - while at the same time boosting reservist numbers from about 15,000 to 30,000.

BBC News asked defence experts and employers what the future holds for the Army - and its operations.

Click here for the full story, on the BBC News website.