Defence`s Feeds

Romanian Marasesti Guided Missile Frigate

The Canberra Class landing helicopter docks (LHDs) are the largest vessels ever constructed for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). Navantia and BAE Systems Australia constructed two 27,800t ships of the class under the Joint Project 2048 Phase 4A/4B.

BAE Systems has been awarded a $72m contract by the US Navy to manufacture and deliver propulsor systems for Block IV Virginia-class (SSN 774) submarines.

CybAero has successfully completed a test campaign with their ship-based system APID One on-board the Swedish Navy's Visby-class stealth corvette HMS Karlstad.

The Mexican Navy has deployed Arcturus UAV's T-20 JUMP fixed-wing vertical-take-off-and-landing (VTOL) tactical unmanned aircraft vehicle (UAV) to perform unspecified missions.

German StG 44 Assault Rifle

The Australian Government has signed a long-term contract for the sustainment of Anzac-class frigates based in Western Australia.

The US Navy's Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman's (CVN 75) deployment in the Arabian Gulf to combat ISIS operations has been extended by 30 days.

Harris has received a $88m order from the US Navy to supply electronic jammers for F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet aircraft.

Nigerian Aradu Multi-Role Frigate

Last week, I was once again in attendance at the Russian MOD’s Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS). This was the fifth such conference and the third that I’ve attended. In the past, I’ve summarized all the key speeches by Russian participants. That seems less necessary this year as video from the entire conference has been posted online, both in Russian and in English.  I do have the slides from most of the speeches, which have not been posted online by the organizers, and will post them over the next few days. Other than that, it seems more valuable to write up my general impressions, rather than focusing on the specifics of what was said.

The overall tone was less hostile toward the United States than last year. Last year, the speakers were quite open in declaring that the United States was creating threats to international security by undermining governments of states that refused to go along with U.S. “diktat.” This year, the formulations were much more indirect, along the lines of “some [unnamed] states are continuing to have a negative impact on international security by promoting exclusive military blocs, establishing military bases around the world, and dictating their will through the use of their military superiority.” While the target of such formulations is of course entirely transparent, the mere fact that the United States is not being mentioned by name is a sign that the Russian government is at least making an effort to shift its rhetoric to a less hostile stance.

The desire to reestablish a relationship with the United States was made clear when the topic turned to the threat of terrorism, the primary theme of this year’s conference. Here, the Russian officials made sure to argue that the ability of the United States and Russia to cooperate in Syria shows that the two countries can work together and stated that they hoped that such cooperation could be expanded to a broader range of issues. This line was prominent in all the speeches, and particularly in those of Nikolai Patrushev, Sergei Shoigu, and Valery Gerasimov.

Of course, the unspoken subtext underlying this call for cooperation was predicated on the notion that Russia and the United States could solve all the world’s security problems if only the United States followed Russia’s prescriptions on how to act. This was most openly stated by Sergei Lavrov, who said that what the West needs to do is to drop its anti-Russian policies.

While Russia’s relationship with the West was still one of the primary topics for discussion, it was certainly less central than at any of the past conferences. The majority of the non-Russian plenary speakers were from Asian states, and one of the two initial substantive plenary sessions was on military cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. After the usual opening lineup of Russian government heavy-hitters (Patrushev, Shoigu, Lavrov, Bortnikov), the first plenary on the threat of terrorism included the defense ministers of China, Pakistan, and Iran, as well as Hamid Karzai. The Asia-Pacific panel included more Asian defense ministers, this time from India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Laos. The most striking thing about this panel was the lack of any participation by Russian officials. Unlike the first panel, where Valery Gerasimov presented the Russian government’s view on the threat posed by international terrorism, the Russian government chose not to present its view on Asian security issues. The only Russian on the dais for this session was conference host and panel moderator Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, who said little of substance on the topic at hand.

It seems to me that the Russian government’s lack of participation in the Asia-Pacific discussion was quite deliberate. Russia is in a bit of a bind in the region. One the one hand, it is dependent on its “strategic partnership” with China, especially since the deterioration of relations with the West. On the other hand, it is looking to develop security and especially economic ties with a number of Southeast Asian states — most particularly Vietnam and Indonesia — and to deepen its existing relationship with South Korea. The disputes between China and its Asian neighbors, particularly the maritime border dispute in the South China Sea, places Russia in a difficult position. I would not be surprised if the absence of a Russian speaker on the Asia-Pacific panel was a deliberate decision taken so as to avoid having to make the hard choices about how to thread the needle on the sensitive issue of China’s security relations with its neighbors.

Finally, a few words about the general atmosphere. The conference was much better organized than last year, when panels repeatedly ran over time and the agenda had to be modified on the fly. Shoigu was not visibly unhappy, as he was last year. The conference was also much larger than in the past. The plenary sessions took place in the large Congress Hall, rather than in the meeting rooms of the Radisson Ukraina hotel as in the past. The increase in size was also notable in the addition of breakout sessions and the expansion to a second day of panels.

While in the previous two years, one had a sense of being at a conference that was an opportunity for a wide range of representatives of rogue (and quasi-rogue) states to get together, this was largely absent this year. Sure, the Iranian Defense Minister took the opportunity to go on about “Zionist terrorism,” but this was the exception, rather than the rule. The 2016 list of speakers notably excluded senior officials from countries such as North Korea and Cuba, who had prominently featured in past years. They were replaced by representatives of countries such as Argentina, the Phillippines, and Chile. In addition, the presence of senior officials from South Africa and most major Asian and Middle Eastern states highlights the global nature of the event. The absence of Western officials, which looks set to continue as long as military cooperation between Russia and NATO remains frozen, prevents MCIS from becoming a truly global conference. But even absent the West, the high level of representation from a wide range of countries from around the world is a clear indication that the MCIS has become a regular stop on the global international security conference circuit.

 

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Since the creation of the European Defence Agency in 2004, support to the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and to EU operations has been one of EDA's core missions. Several activities are now ongoing to develop the support of CSDP military and civilian operations or missions as well as EU Battlegroups at the request of Member States. 2016.

Typically, CSDP operations and missions are deployed on short notice to manage crisis in remote areas. In some cases, shortfalls on assets and equipment arising from the force generation have led to outsourcing some key services. This has been the case for camp management services for several CSDP missions and operations2016.

In order to better understand the range of commercially available solutions which could fulfil possible future requirements for camp management services and associated risks or limitations, EDA is conducting a market survey. It has to be highlighted that the objective of this survey is to identify service providers of ‘turnkey’ solutions and not manufacturers of assets or supply providers.

Operators are kindly invited to participate in the survey by submitting their answer by 15 June 2016.

More information:

• Market Survey for Camp Management Services
• Support to Operations project page

Russian KamAZ-78504 Tank Transporter

The SENER engineering and technology group is participating in ExoMars, a European Space Agency (ESA) programme that includes two missions: ExoMars 2016, consisting of an orbiter and a descent module that will land on Mars, and ExoMars 2018, which wi…

The US Navy has launched its first carrier strike group powered partly by biofuel made from beef fat, a significant turning point in reducing the military’s reliance on imported oil.

Bluedrop Training & Simulation has been awarded a contract by Fleetway and Irving Shipbuilding for the Royal Canadian Navy's (RCN)new Harry DeWolf class of Arctic offshore patrol ships (AOPS).

The Khareef Class corvettes were built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy of Oman (RNO) under Project Khareef.

Lockheed Martin and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (DSME) have entered into a agreement to partner on the multi-mission combat ship (MCS).

Thales has been awarded two contracts from the Royal Thai Navy (RTN) to upgrade RTN's minehunters and provide an integrated combat suite for its offshore patrol vessels (OPV).