You will be redirected to the page you want to view in seconds.
sponsored by
Five years ago, the Pentagon’s Air-Sea Battle (ASB) concept was the fledgling province of a handful of military strategists who argued that America’s air and naval forces must more intimately collaborate against potential enemies.
At their Chicago summit, NATO leaders adopted a political declaration that anchors Smart Defense at the heart of how the alliance will think about capabilities in the future. Industry is an important stakeholder in this initiative.
It’s July 1969. F-4 fighter jets span the globe. Like the British Empire of old, the sun never sets on McDonnell’s “Phabulous” Phantom.
NATO members will gather May 20 in Chicago under the shadow of fiscal austerity and pressure to pull out of Afghanistan. Washington wants as many NATO troops as possible to stay in Afghanistan, not just through 2014, when major combat elements are to be removed, but for years beyond to play essential training and advisory roles.
After Britain in 2010 switched from a jump jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a catapult-launched naval version, critics said higher costs would force London to change back.
Last week, U.S. House Republican lawmakers authorized hundreds of millions of dollars for costly new nuclear weapons-related facilities and missile defense projects the Pentagon says it does not want or need. Worse, the House Armed Services Committee majority is seeking to hold up implementation of the New START Treaty, which entered into force just last year and verifiably reduces U.S.
Although Nadia Schadlow’s thought-provoking article in the May 1 edition, “Validating the U.S. Army’s Future,” raises some interesting points, I am concerned that she has greatly misdiagnosed what she calls an “identity crisis.” Although Dr.
Britain’s approach to defense planning — capability first, affordability second — gives it the ability to project and sustain more useful power than any other nation its size. But it was the cause of a cavernous 38 billion pound ($61.4 billion) gap between what London planned to buy and what it could afford.
Why is the F-16 fighter jet so successful, with 4,500 airplanes delivered and, 30 years later, still in production, while the F-35 is a continuing struggle?
Just two days after its ill-fated attempt to launch a satellite, North Korea held a festive parade in honor of the centennial anniversary of its first ruler, Kim Il Sung. At this celebration of militarism and nationalism, a huge surprise was shown for the very first time — a new, three-stage, road-mobile ballistic missile with almost intercontinental range.
The U.S. Army seems to be experiencing an identity crisis. After 10 years of fighting two major wars and suffering the brunt of America’s military casualties, the most experienced and powerful ground force in the world now has to justify its value and relevance in the coming defense drawdown, in contrast with the U.S. Air Force and Navy, which seem to benefit from shifts in defense planning priorities.
The last time U.S. defense spending faced deep cuts, the Clinton administration made regulatory changes to encourage commercial contractors to more economically — and innovatively — satisfy military needs.
The Obama administration’s “pivot” to the Asia-Pacific is largely intended to reassure America’s allies and partners that the U.S. is committed to strengthening its economic and security ties to the region. The strategy has been welcomed by most nations of the region, but it has also sowed doubts and created unintended consequences that must be addressed if the U.S. position in the region is to remain robust.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s November visit to Australia underscored the nation’s growing importance as a key U.S. ally in the critically important Asia-Pacific region. At a news conference with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Obama declared himself the “Pacific president,” announcing plans to step up the U.S. military presence in Australia.
When it comes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, the sticker shock never seems to end.
Before nations embark on major defense spending drives, they usually issue a foundational strategy to shape the missions the new equipment is supposed to accomplish. Australia, Britain, Canada, China, France, Japan, Turkey, the United States and many other nations are guided by one or more public national security strategies or white papers that shape defense spending.
In a Defense News Commentary in the Feb. 27 issue, Lord Robertson, a former secretary general of NATO, noted the world has been caught off guard regularly by a series of major events — some natural, like earthquakes or volcanoes, others manmade, like the Arab Spring.
With $600 billion in planned U.S. Defense Department budget cuts over the next decade, and another $500 billion on top of that if the congressional sequestration holds, it is worth considering how DoD plans to enact such massive savings.
Exclusive Events Coverage
In-depth news and multimedia coverage of industry trade shows and conferences.TRADE SHOWS:
CONFERENCES:
Sign up for complimentary access anytime, anywhere.
