Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

Gestart door Lex, 10/07/2006 | 21:54 uur

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)


Trident will not protect us

Britain can't justify these military cuts without looking at the billions spent on nuclear weapons

The Guardian, Tuesday 22 January 2013 21.15 GMT

With our long engagement in Afghanistan moving into its final chapter, we must now debate the role of our armed forces beyond 2015, when the next defence review is due. In my view, despite successive reviews forcing change, we are still too configured for state-on-state warfare.

On Monday, in the light of events in Mali and Algeria, David Cameron rightly suggested that the threat from international terrorism will have to be contested for decades to come. It is a threat we will have to tackle in co-operation with others, not on our own. And it is a threat against which we must wield strategic patience, avoiding the impulsive and costly errors of the past decade. Much visionary thinking has been undertaken by UK military chiefs about the Future Character of Conflict and the lighter, nimbler, more flexible and adaptable forces we will need. Getting our people into potential trouble areas before problems arise and political engagement will be vital. One of the most uplifting things I saw as defence minister was a training camp in the Sierra Leone bush, where we were helping train a battalion for an Amisom peacekeeping mission. Amazing when you think where Sierra Leone was just a decade ago. Sadly, we are currently cutting our effort there.

By cruel irony, the day after Cameron's statement, ministers were back in the Commons defending the latest army redundancies. Are we cutting the right things? Central to our narrative while making the cuts was the assertion – valid in my view – that if our predecessors has faced up to difficult decisions earlier, we would not have had to take such desperate measures.

But defence ministers in post later this decade will face even grimmer choices, and make that case even more forcefully, if big decisions are not made by 2015. Central among these will be the question of whether and how to replace our Trident nuclear deterrent.

In the decade or so from 2017-18, the current plan is to spend between £25bn and £30bn building four vast new submarines whose sole purpose will be to patrol the high seas 24/7 waggling our nuclear bomb at – er – no one in particular. For another 30 years we'll spend £3bn a year in today's money operating them, and one day it will cost several billion more to decommission our nukes. Yet our national security strategy has downgraded the nuclear threat to "secondary", and we have had no identified nuclear adversary since the end of the cold war.

But in the same decade, we will have to pay for: the F35 plane to fly off the new carriers; Type 26 frigates; whatever remotely piloted aircraft we end up building; and whatever amphibious shipping is to replace HMS Ocean and her like. The army must eventually be bought some kit fit at least for the 20th century, even if the 21st is a bit hopeful, and we must urgently expand our Istar – intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance – capability. You cannot do all of that on the existing size of defence budget, even assuming that it can be conserved at today's value in real terms (a big if!). In fact, you probably can't do quite a lot of it. So it is absolutely essential that any further generation of nuclear deterrent must take its place alongside all those other items – far more relevant to the action we really will be involved in – on the table for debate.

If we give Trident an automatic bye we will become even less capable of protecting our real interests through joining in international action to tackle and pre-empt real threats. If replacing Trident like for like on its cold war scale comes at the expense of the rest of the Royal Navy's capabilities, this would have a devastating impact on our global reach. We already ask the navy to do too much with too little, as far apart as the south Atlantic and the Gulf. Cuts in the frigate programme would greatly reduce what can be done even further. Failure to complete the carrier-strike project would risk leaving us with two white elephants.

And failure to replace HMS Ocean and the other amphibious shipping we have lost with a new 21st century generation of such assets would drastically curtail the work of the Royal Marines and our ability both to land forces from the sea, and sometimes evacuate people by sea. This will be the bread and butter work of the armed forces; we will need to fulfil the more expeditionary role being envisaged for them.

In the air we need more helicopters, as recent reports have pointed to at least a decade of shortfall in rotary capability – again vital both to our reach and to humanitarian work in tricky terrain. We have thin coverage of air surveillance assets and need far more to equip us for the long battles against insurgents that the PM described. More investment in the cyber domain will also be needed.

And on the land, in various parts of the globe, we need professional and properly equipped forces capable of deploying quickly and flexibly. Current plans see numbers cut, but as yet no corresponding upswing on equipment.

Sacrificing any of these for the sake of sustaining our nuclear capability at 1980 levels puts us at risk, and means that our perception of ourselves as a significant force at the world's top table will be based on historical anachronism rather than current capability.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/trident-military-cuts-billions-nuclear

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

US general says Britain risks 'special relationship' if it cuts military

Britain will be shut out of key decisions in the 'Special Relationship' with the US if it does not maintain credible military capabilities, Stanley McChrystal, America's former top commander in Afghanistan has warned.

By Peter Foster, Washington
17 Jan 2013

Retd. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the author of America's counter-insurgency strategy and among the most influential and controversial US generals of the post-September-11 era, said that British defence cuts could not be made without a future cost to US-UK military relations.

"It will take a little while to reach that reality," he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, "but what worries me is that additional cuts could be made and everybody thinks 'it's okay', because people are still polite, but at a certain point you just find you're not consulted when important decisions are made."

The warning came as Leon Panetta, the out-going US defence secretary arrived in London on the final leg of a four-nation tour of Europe, aimed at highlighting the importance of maintaining the transatlantic security relationship at a time of budget cuts on both sides of the Atlantic.

Gen McChrystal, who commanded US Special Forces for five years before taking command of the War in Afghanistan in 2009, recalled the effects of British shortages and over-stretch in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where British forces struggled to hold off a Taliban insurgency in Helmand.

"When we started the fighting in Baghdad seriously in 2004, the Brit [special operations] forces were under-resourced significantly," he recalled of his time in Iraq leading an intense phases of special operations raids that lead to the death of Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

"We had to lend them a lot of equipment, we had to do a bunch of things; we even had to use forces to help them, because they just didn't have the stuff. Within a couple of years they were just like any of my other forces; they were extraordinary."

When Gen McChrystal took command in Afghanistan in June 2009 he found British forces in Helmand "essentially besieged inside sandbagged outposts the Taliban has surrounded", according to his newly published memoir My Share of the Task.

Meeting a group of Black Watch soldiers that June just after a combat mission, Gen McChrystal recalled that even at an early stage in their six-month tour, the soldiers looked "gaunt and weary, their matted hair blanched and skin yellowed from the film of sand clinging to it.".

The book remains tactful on the arrival of a 17,000-strong force of US Marines sent to rescue the British and the resulting intense friction between British and US commanders who felt Britain had "made a mess" of the task, according to a State Department cable that was leaked in 2010.

Gen McChrystal said that British failures in Helmand were caused by the "hubris" or "ignorance" of British military and political leaders who took on more than they could handle, leading to a dangerous over-stretch of forces.

"You could argue that it's hubris, that it's ignorance – whatever it is – but there was a reality that there was an effort to do more than could be done effectively. And I think the soldiers on the ground knew it. The commanders knew it and they tried to work their way through it," he said.

Asked what lessons Britain should learn from Helmand, Gen McChrystal suggested it would be prudent in future to match political and military ambitions to hard capabilities.

"When you look at Sangin and how hard that was for so long, and of course in all of Helmand," he recalled, "I think the take-away is, to try to do something with less military capability that is required."

The failures in Helmand and in Basra - where British troops were widely seen to have been forced into an ignominious retreat in 2007 - had not irreparably damaged the UK's standing with the US soldiers, who understood the realities of war.

"My sense is that Brits are probably more sensitive about it than Americans, who don't really think about it," he added, "I'm not saying that that sensitivity doesn't have some value because we're sensitive about our shortcomings too."

Gen McChrystal, now 58, remains an influential voice, despite being the first wartime commander to be fired in 60 years after he was dismissed by Barack Obama in June 2010 following an article in Rolling Stone magazine in which his team were quoted openly disparaging the administration.

He has raised questions about the Mr Obama's heavy reliance on unmanned drones to prosecute the war against al Qaeda, predicting the strategy will become unsustainable if the US fails to forge a meaningful strategic partnership with the Afghans after troops withdrew in 2014

"It's very tempting for any country to have a clean, antiseptic approach, that you can use technology, but it's not something that I think is going to be an effective strategy, unless it is part of a wider commitment," he said. "Unless there's something in it for the Afghans, then their willingness to accept it is diminished."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9808791/US-general-says-Britain-risks-special-relationship-if-it-cuts-military.html

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Canada's military: Funding should be focused on protecting our sovereignty

By David Kilgour | David vs. David

Canada's military seeks to be future-oriented, adapting to advancing technologies, changing political dynamics and global economic shifts. Predictions about its future are currently difficult, partly because the March 29 federal budget is expected to cut $2.5 billion from defence spending.

Prime Minister Harper confirmed last May that Canada's military role in Afghanistan will end once the current training mission concludes in March 2014. Our country will contribute $110 million per year over three years (2015-2017) to help sustain the Afghanistan National Security Forces.

Problems with the planned purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 aircraft have worsened with the latest controversy over its capacity for in-flight refueling. Confirmation of the multi-billion dollar purchase is still months away, but the new issue is particularly sensitive due to the earlier serious cost underestimates. Overall, buying the F-35 fighter appears to enjoy little support among Canadians.

In mid-2010, the government announced its ship-building strategy, through which the current surface fleets of our Navy and the coast guard will be replaced. The long-delayed joint support program should come under the political microscope in the near future and will hopefully avoid the F-35 errors.

The Canada First Defence Strategy (2008), which set out plans to spend $490 billion on defence over twenty years, declared that the role of our armed forces is to protect Canada, then North America, and finally to contribute to international peace and security.

Harper's government has sensibly been anxious to assert Canadian sovereignty over Arctic territories designated as parts of Canada. It is building up Arctic defence and infrastructure as part of its long-term program of protecting our nation's presence in a region increasingly claimed by competing powers. The government feels that exploration of the Arctic energy and mineral resources is critical to Canada's growth.

The Canadian military operates three Cormorant search-and-rescue helicopters like this one from a base near Gander, ...Global climate change and melting ice have raised concerns that the Arctic may open up to maritime navigation and competing naval operations. This will probably include the deployment of stealth snowmobiles with hybrid gas-electric engines, amphibious craft to operate in tandem with patrol boats and icebreakers, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Aviation and defense industries are competing to win military contracts for a range of equipment intended to increase Canada's Arctic capability.

Paul Mitchell at the Canadian Forces College says Canada is unlikely to be threatened by fleets of advanced bombers across the polar region, even given a further collapse in Russian relations with the West. He concludes that options other than fighter jets should be considered. Light attack craft, such as the Hawker Beechcraft AT-6 or the Embraer Super Tucano, could be used to counter "low and slow" threats, such as hijacked civil and commercial turbo-prop aircraft.

Others say Canada's aging GF-118s should be replaced with the Saab Gripen E/F, which is designed to operate in cold climates, has the latest sensors, is capable of firing the most advanced weapons, is compatible with our air refuelers, and can be 100% built in Canada.

The Defence department decided last July to begin billing provinces, municipalities and other government departments in most cases where the military's assistance is required. It long held the authority to recover costs incurred when the military participates in domestic disaster relief, but for fifteen years waived it. Many Canadians feel that, as we pay for our military through taxes, we shouldn't be billed for emergencies. The government now wisely appears to have backed away from its early decision to start billing.

Harper earlier indicated that he was not considering a direct Canadian military mission in Mali, one of Canada's closest historical friends in Africa, despite the reality that the often-glacial UN Security Council approved international intervention in December. The chair of the African Union has also petitioned NATO members to send forces to expel al-Qaida-linked fighters, warning that convoys of Islamist extremists advancing on government-held towns represent a threat to the world. France launched air strikes on Jan. 11; it appears that Canada will join the governments of Mali and France in providing some logistical support for African and French combatants.

While the government seeks to determine what kind of military it can afford in a period of shrinking budgets, Canadians are not hesitant about describing what they want.

At one extreme are those who call for Canada, like Iceland and Costa Rica, to abandon our standing army and no longer be part of NATO. Most Canadians appear to favour a military which is adequately equipped and funded to protect our sovereignty over territorial waters and airspace, and to have a say at the table on global security by rapidly deploying anywhere in the world on occasions when needed to protect civilians under siege. I favour this approach.

David Kilgour is co-chair of the Canadian Friends of a Democratic Iran and a director of the Washington-based Council for a Community of Democracies (CCD). He is a former MP for both the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the south-east region of Edmonton and has also served as the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific and Deputy Speaker of the House

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/davidvsdavid/canada-military-funding-focused-protecting-sovereignty-145441774.html

andré herc

Egypt signs repeat order for six additional C295 aircraft
16/1/2013

New order confirming the market leadership of the C295.

Airbus Military has received an order for six additional C295 transport aircraft from the Egyptian Air Force, bringing the Egyptian Air Force's C295 fleet to a total of 12 aircraft. This third batch of aircraft plus the associated spares and support equipment, training and field support are to be delivered from the end of 2013 onwards.

The Egyptian Air Force selected the C295 because of its proven versatility, robustness and efficiency for its daily transport missions combined with the ease of maintenance and low cost of operations.

This order reinforces the C295's position as the best-selling airlifter in this category, with a total of 121 C295s sold to 17 operators. Seven of them have placed repeat orders for C295 aircraft, confirming the trust our customers place in the aircraft for medium airlift. With more than 90 aircraft in service today in 15 countries, the C295 has accumulated more than 120,000 flying hours in the most demanding conditions, from extreme cold weather to hot desert areas.

"A repeat order from a loyal customer is extremely valued by Airbus Military and the trust that the Ministry of Defence of Egypt is placing in us confirms that we offer a product that responds to our customer's needs. We will ensure that we live up to this mark of confidence and stand by our customer as a trusted partner for many years to come", said Antonio Rodríguez Barberán, Airbus Military Senior VP Commercial. "The C295 is exactly the kind of workhorse required for current and future airlift missions, and the most cost-efficient complement to heavy transport aircraft."

www.airbusmilitary.com
Den Haag stop met afbreken van NL Defensie, en investeer in een eigen C-17.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Surface Navy boss sounds readiness alarm

By Sam Fellman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jan 15, 2013

Caught between a straining operations pace and continued budget woes, the surface Navy's top boss warned Tuesday that his force of 167 ships is drifting ever closer to a readiness drop-off.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2013/01/navy-sna-surface-warfare-boss-tom-copeman-sounds-readiness-alarm-011513w/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Hyperion

Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 15/01/2013 | 10:55 uur

De Roemenen hebben twee Type 22's (batch 2 als ik me niet vergis) maar ik denk niet dat die dat financieel aankunnen, nog een paar zulke schepen 'uitbaten'.

De Roemenen hebben niet eens geld genoeg om meer dan een 76mm kanon op hun Type 22's te zetten.

dudge

Citaat van: ARM-WAP op 15/01/2013 | 10:55 uur
De Roemenen hebben twee Type 22's (batch 2 als ik me niet vergis) maar ik denk niet dat die dat financieel aankunnen, nog een paar zulke schepen 'uitbaten'.
De Brazilianen beschikken over de Batch 1's (4ea) en de Chilenen hebben de enige andere nog varende Batch 2 (Sheffield).
Beide Zuid-Amerikaanse marines zijn heden 'grot genoeg' denk ik.
De Brazilianen willen 'nieuw' - mss Franse FREMM...
Het draait allemaal om geld en ik betwijfel of deze prachtige schepen nog zullen rondvaren in de toekomst...

Klopt helaas. Kleine kans dat ze nog een toekomst hebben. Maar wie weet. Het zijn toch mooie schepen, maar ook voor mooie schepen is er een laatste dag.

ARM-WAP

#1320
Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/01/2013 | 22:19 uur
Er varen oudere schepen rond in de wereld. Inderdaad, een huidige type22 gebruiker zou er best wat mee kunnen denk ik dan.
De Roemenen hebben twee Type 22's (batch 2 als ik me niet vergis) maar ik denk niet dat die dat financieel aankunnen, nog een paar zulke schepen 'uitbaten'.
De Brazilianen beschikken over de Batch 1's (4ea) en de Chilenen hebben de enige andere nog varende Batch 2 (Sheffield).
Beide Zuid-Amerikaanse marines zijn heden 'grot genoeg' denk ik.
De Brazilianen willen 'nieuw' - mss Franse FREMM...
Het draait allemaal om geld en ik betwijfel of deze prachtige schepen nog zullen rondvaren in de toekomst...

Ace1

#1319
Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/01/2013 | 22:19 uur
Er varen oudere schepen rond in de wereld. Inderdaad, een huidige type22 gebruiker zou er best wat mee kunnen denk ik dan.

Klopt maar Pakistan zoekt nog tweedehands schepen en de Philippijnen zouden ook een optie zijn die nemen geloof ik tweedehands schepen van de US Coast Guard over, dan heb je aan Type 22 Fregatten meer dan aan US Coast Guard OPV's.  Daar hebben we geloof ik ergens een topic van hier op het forum?

http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/empty-t13961.0.html

dudge

Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/01/2013 | 22:09 uur
Volgens mij zijn er vast wel landen in Zuid-Amerika of in Azie die interesse hebben in tweede hands Marineschepen?

Er varen oudere schepen rond in de wereld. Inderdaad, een huidige type22 gebruiker zou er best wat mee kunnen denk ik dan.

Ace1

Volgens mij zijn er vast wel landen in Zuid-Amerika of in Azie die interesse hebben in tweede hands Marineschepen?


Lex

Four decommissioned Royal Navy ships have been put up for sale by the Ministry of Defence.

The Type 22 frigates HMS Cumberland, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Chatham and HMS Cornwall are currently moored in Portsmouth Harbour.

The navy is open to offers for the former Devonport-based ships, including being scrapped and recycled, reused or sunk to become artificial reefs.

Bids must be in by 23 January with viewings in February and March.

The government's Disposal Services Authority, which is handling the sale, wants to award at least one of the frigates to a UK ship recycler to determine the capacity of the UK's industry in the field.

Mike Hancock, Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said he believed it would be unlikely the ships, which were decommissioned in 2011, could be saved from the scrap yard.

'Rusting away'

He added: "I've seen since my childhood in Portsmouth that this has been the traditional last place for ships waiting to go.

"It's sad to see these beautiful ships literally rusting away.

"I think the navy would be super optimistic to believe they could bring them into commission again.

"I think the reef idea could work, the scrap value of these ships is not enormous, it might be someone is interested in putting them down.

"[But] the navy hasn't got a choice really, they will be going for scrap."

The Ministry of Defence said it would take any bid seriously and that it was too early to assume the outcome of the process.

Originally designed as a specialist anti-submarine ship, the Type 22 frigates evolved into a powerful surface combatant with substantial anti-surface, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft weapons systems.

They were also known for having excellent command and control, and communication facilities, making them ideal flagships on deployments, with a complement of about 280 crew.

Last year, the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal was sold as scrap for £3m.

BBC News,
14 January 2013 11:23 GMT

dudge

Citaat van: Mourning op 14/01/2013 | 13:44 uur
En.... 3,5 miljard euro in 1994 is heel wat meer waard dan 3,5 miljard euro in 2013, denkende aan o.a. prijsstijging en inflatie, laat staan 2,7 miljard euro. Dat is relatief gesproken een schijntje en het nadeel van een dergelijk vast budget in euro's is dat mede door voormelde prijsstijging en inflatie er non-stop zal moeten worden bezuinigd om het budget niet te overschrijden waardoor je krijgsmacht steeds minder kan en steeds verder zal worden uitgehold...

Ook wel "mooi" om te zien hoe die kleine "dictator" die de macht heeft als Minister van Defensie in Belgie omgaat met professionals die WEL echt weten waar ze het over hebben...

Inderdaad. Bij gemiddeld 1% inflatie kom je op 4,2 miljard, bij gemiddeld 2,5% inflatie kom je nu op 5.7 miljard. De inflatie in de militaire markt is doorgaans vrij hoog. Al met al komen dus de Belgen, net als de Nederlanders, zo'n 3 miljard op hun defensiebegroting tekort.

Mourning

En.... 3,5 miljard euro in 1994 is heel wat meer waard dan 3,5 miljard euro in 2013, denkende aan o.a. prijsstijging en inflatie, laat staan 2,7 miljard euro. Dat is relatief gesproken een schijntje en het nadeel van een dergelijk vast budget in euro's is dat mede door voormelde prijsstijging en inflatie er non-stop zal moeten worden bezuinigd om het budget niet te overschrijden waardoor je krijgsmacht steeds minder kan en steeds verder zal worden uitgehold...

Ook wel "mooi" om te zien hoe die kleine "dictator" die de macht heeft als Minister van Defensie in Belgie omgaat met professionals die WEL echt weten waar ze het over hebben...
"The only thing necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"- Edmund Burke
"War is the continuation of politics by all other means", Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege/On War (1830).