0 Comments
According to Deutsche Welle German radio, Germany and France are considering cooperation on developing a successor to the tank Leopard 2.
The current model has been in service since 1979, and aging Bundeswehr equipment is currently in stark focus. The German Defense Ministry announced its plans for the “Leo 3″ (as it’s likely to be nicknamed in Germany) in a report on Friday, May 22, to the German Bundestag, which was obtained by multiple media outlets. “Technologies and concepts will be investigated between 2015 and 2018 in joint studies also involving German industry,” Markus Grabel, a deputy minister in the German Defense Ministry told his parliamentary colleagues. He cited the Leopard 2’s long years of service as the reason that a new battle tank was required. The Leopard 2’s 50-year service life is set to expire in 2030. The tank, which came into service in 1979, was conceived as part of a plan for Cold War-era land defense. Germany commissioned more than 2,000 of them at the peak of the arms race of the early 1980s. Currently, however, only about 240 are in active service; but last month, citing the security situation in Ukraine, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to reactivate 100 mothballed Leopard 2 tanks. In November of last year, von der Leyen also announced a move to add more than 100 additional “Boxer” armored personnel carriers to the Bundeswehr’s ranks. The Defense Ministry is in the process of drawing up a new “white paper” listing Germany’s security policies and goals for the present day. The manufacturer of the current Leopard 2, Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, is scheduled to fuse with French firm Nexter Systems in the course of this year. This has prompted media reports in Germany saying that the new Franco-German firm, with more than 6,000 staff and a combined turnover of around 2 billion euros ($2.2 billion), could be a strong candidate to win the contract to develop a new battle tank for the German Bundeswehr. In parallel Russia has unveiled a new-generation battle tank called Armata T-14 ahead of World War Two Victory Day celebrations on 9 May. Armata will come standard with a 125 mm cannon capable of firing several types of shells and even anti-tank guided missiles — but these munitions are already fielded by older and cheaper Russian tanks like the T-72. Though the cannon is a new design, Armata will be using ammunition manufactured for the T-72. The tank wil be a vast improvement on Soviet designs The Armata is highly automated compared to its Soviet predecessors, featuring an advanced targeting system that makes it faster and more accurate than older tanks. The rapid spread of cheaper but good-enough weaponry poses a serious threat to U.S. military dominance. By JOE KATZMAN
April 5, 2015 6:00 p.m. Precision weapons and networked targeting have helped maintain America’s military superiority for decades. But technology marches on. New defense exporters are joining the global game with advanced and well-priced offerings, creating potential threats to the U.S. and its allies, and weakening Western influence. The Pentagon has a plan to cope with these evolving threats, but is it enough? To understand what’s happening, consider the global automotive industry. South Korea’s Hyundai Motors became a serious global competitor by leveraging the rapid diffusion of technology, an initial edge in cheap labor, and a “good enough” product for value buyers. Their success wasn’t obvious in 2001, but by 2015 the proof was in our parking lots. A similar “Hyundaization” process is under way in the global defense industry. A few examples: NATO allies Turkey and Poland didn’t buy their latest self-propelled howitzers from the U.S. or even Germany. Instead they turned to Samsung. South Korea’s Daewoo is building Britain’s next naval supply ships, and Korea Aerospace Industries is exporting TA-50 and FA-50 fighter jets to Iraq, Indonesia and the Philippines. The F-16 is America’s cheapest fighter; the new Korean, Pakistani and Indian fighters cost about 33%-50% less. If you’d rather pocket a 67% savings, Brazil’s A-29 Super Tucano has become the global standard for counterinsurgency. An urgent order from the United Arab Emirates is likely to see combat in Yemen soon. The long-term threat involves the spread of precision-strike weapons that can hit what modern surveillance “sees.” In addition to Russian and Chinese exports, Turkey has begun to export new guided weapons, including a stealthy cruise missile. India’s Mach 3 Brahmos antiship missile is available, as are GPS-guided equivalents to Boeing’s JDAM, including the UAE-South-African Al-Tariq or Brazil’s Acauan. Pakistan has already bought Brazil’s MAR-1 radar-killer missiles for its JF-17 fighters. There are other examples. ENLRE America’s surveillance-strike capabilities helped defeat Iraq’s military in two wars. Now Western militaries must plan to face evolving versions of the same thing. Western navies and their marine forces, which routinely place themselves within harm’s reach during deployments, expect that these surveillance-strike capabilities will be more common a decade from now. In addition to challenging the U.S. defense industry, this proliferation of value-priced and “good enough” weapons will challenge Western diplomatic and military relationships in two ways. First, it’s hard to overstate the value of personal relationships with foreign militaries, which often begin through equipment training and support programs. As we’ve seen in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere, today’s colonel may be tomorrow’s president. Second, the flood of choices in the global marketplace will make it harder to withhold advanced weapons from specific regimes, reducing Western leverage throughout the world. In the 1990s it was widely understood that Western opprobrium would have a meaningful impact on one’s military. By the 2020s, that idea will seem quaint. How is the U.S. responding? With technology. Last November then-Secretary of DefenseChuck Hagel unveiled the Pentagon’s “third offset” strategy, designed to develop new technologies as a follow-on to the first two “offsets”—nuclear weapons and precision-guided munitions. The Pentagon plans to shore up its eroding edge by investing in fields like cyberwarfare; advanced computing and big data; robotics and autonomous weapons; advanced manufacturing techniques like 3-D printing; and electromagnetic weapons like railguns and lasers, to boost naval firepower and replace some land-based defensive weapons. At present, the third offset is merely a statement of intent. The question is whether it would be adequate even if fully executed. Countries whose civilian companies must master big data, for example, can transfer that expertise to their military. Ditto for cyberwarfare, as Iran and North Korea have demonstrated. Passive radars using superfast computing and big data might even compromise today’s stealth technology. Meanwhile, Islamic State is already using lightweight commercial drones, and Peter W. Singer’s recent book “Wired for War” cites 87 countries with military robotics programs. The West can’t stop Hyundaization, but market barriers like limited investment capital, technological chokepoints, the role of politics in purchasing, and the difficulty of setting up global service networks will slow it down. Nevertheless, Hyundaization is happening, powered by a global tsunami of techno-industrial momentum. Western governments have a number of policy options to address the numerous military and diplomatic threats Hyundaization presents. But this much is certain: A serious response will have to think beyond technology. Mr. Katzman is editor emeritus of Defense Industry Daily and the principal at KAT Consulting. Aircraft manufacturer Boeing Company has established itself as one of the most responsible companies in fulfilling offset obligations related to the sales of defence equipment, including to Malaysia.
The company works with hundreds of companies, each with varying degrees of offset, Robert Schoeffling, Boeing's Military Aircraft Maritime Surveillance Aircraft Business Development Senior Manager said. "We also work closely with governments to best fulfill the requirements, whether its direct offset, indirect offset, technology transfer or whatever that fulfil the needs of that country," he told Bernama on the sidelines of the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA'15) here recently. In 1993, Malaysia ordered eight F/A-18D Hornets fighter jets from Boeing Defence, Space and Security to strengthen the Royal Malaysian Air Force's (RMAF) airpower capability. As part of Boeing's industrial participation commitment stemming from the F/A-18D purchase, Boeing completed a planned 10-year, US$271 million offset programme within seven years. Boeing is currently performing an avionics and weapons systems capability upgrade modification programmed on RMAF Hornets and has secured a direct procurement agreement with the Malaysian government to provide commercial support services and currently is promoting its Maritime Surveillance Aircraft (MSA). The Boeing's MSA is a fully integrated, modular, open architecture solution, built using a combination of the latest military and commercial-off-the-shelf technologies to deliver maximum capability in a business jet-class aircraft. The MSA applies advanced, proven, fielded intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. Built on a Bombardier Challenger platform, the MSA recently completed initial ground and flight testing and is ideal for monitoring large coastal areas, long range search and rescue situations and humanitarian efforts. Malaysia's relationship with Boeing dates back to 1947 with the acquisition of three 21-seater DC-3s for Malayan Airways Limited, then a small, regional carrier, to offer in-flight services for the first time. |
News & Links
News articles and interesting links regarding our activities. Categories
All
Archives
May 2017
|