US legislation moves F-35 sustainment, acquisition away from the Joint Program Office
29 December 2021
by Pat Host
A USAF F-35A seen on 16 December. Legislation signed into law on 27 December directs the Pentagon to transfer all F-35 sustainment and acquisition activities from the F-35 JPO to the USAF and USN. (US Air Force)
US legislation signed into law on 27 December directs the Pentagon to transfer all Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning II sustainment and acquisition activities from the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) to the US Air Force (USAF) and US Navy (USN).
The fiscal year (FY) 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the Pentagon to move all functions relating to the management, planning, and execution of F-35B- and C-model sustainment activities to the USN no later than 1 October 2027. The legislation also directs the Pentagon to move similar F-35A sustainment activities to the USAF in the same time frame.
The Pentagon has shared a classified version of the 2022 National Defense Strategy with Congress. (Getty Images)
US President Joe Biden's administration plans to publicly release an unclassified version of its new National Defense Strategy (NDS) “shortly”, a White House official said on 27 September.
The US Department of Defense (DoD) sent a classified version of the 2022 NDS to Congress in March. The DoD's two-page “fact sheet” on the NDS describes China as “our most consequential strategic competitor and the pacing challenge for the department”.
Two other defence-related documents that the administration is drafting are unlikely to usher in significant policy changes, according to Cara Abercrombie, deputy assistant to the president and coordinator for defence policy and arms control at the White House's National Security Council.
The Conventional Arms Transfer Policy will mainly emphasise existing arms transfer practices, such as speeding weapon system deliveries to Ukraine, Abercrombie told the Common Defense (ComDef) conference in Rosslyn, Virginia. The policy will “help clarify” the administration's priorities but will “not effectively change” the way it conducts business.
LIG Nex1's low-altitude missile defence system, a model of which is shown above, has a range of 7 km. (Janes/Dae Young Kim)
South Korea's LIG Nex1 has disclosed plans to supply its low-altitude missile defence (LAMD) system to the Republic of Korea (RoK) Armed Forces by the end of the decade.
The company started development of the system earlier this year, and told Janes at the DX Korea 2022 exhibition in Goyang that the LAMD will undergo seven more years of work before it is ready for deployment.
“We have planned two years of engineering development, one year to prepare for full-scale development, and four more years of full-scale development,” said an LIG Nex1 official.
The company is developing the system in collaboration with the Agency for Defense Development (ADD).
The LAMD, which is based on the Haegung Korean Surface-to-Air Anti-Missile (K-SAAM) system developed for the Republic of Korea Navy (RoKN), underwent its first test in April. This featured a test-firing from the ADD's launch facility in Anheung.
Updating strategy: NATO's new strategic concept calls for reprioritisation of CBRN threats
08 September 2022
by John Eldridge
NATO-Russia relations since 1999. (Janes)
NATO's strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union was noted for its drift and lack of purpose. Comments by French President Emmanuel Macron in November 2019 that NATO was “brain-dead” highlighted this concern at the top of the alliance member states' leadership.
While the alliance expanded over twenty years to encompass former states that had been within the Soviet Union, NATO struggled to define a role for itself that not only involved protecting its members, but which could also at the same time improve relations with the Russian Federation.
Throughout the 1990s and into the beginning of the 2000s, NATO's strategy and relationship with Russia were conditioned by events outside of the alliance's control, and which were mainly undertaken by its strongest member state, the United States. Humanitarian interventions, the invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), alongside an expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltics, were all viewed with unease in Moscow.