Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ik mag hopen van niet en ik denk ook niet dat dat gaat gebeuren.

Frankrijk is als (bijna) enige in Europa in staat zelfstandig militair (offensief) op te treden waar ook ter wereld voor x tijd. Ergo, zou weinig hebben aan mee liften (potentiële) free-riders, zoals Nederland en België.

Landen zoals Nederland en België profiteren, leunen, (parasiteren ?) sterk op de NAVO. Zou Europa een tegenhanger, opvolger van de NAVO willen ontwikkelen met vergelijkbare mogelijkheden van de NAVO, maar zonder de VS (...) en zonder de Britten, ... dan moeten we toch eerst flink de portemonnee optrekken. En een andere, actievere, houding gaan ontwikkelen jegens de rest van de wereld.

Nee, de NAVO en de VS is voor ons en meeste Europese landen een goedkope en betrouwbare verzekering waar we zelf niet al te actief in hoeven te worden.
Het idee van het oprichten van een Europees leger wordt te vaak gebruikt om wederom een mogelijkheid te bieden om nog meer te bezuinigen op defensie, onder het mom van taakspecialisatie (lees, goedkopere defensie en minder verantwoordelijkheid nemen)

Mee eens (zeker voor de komende decenia)

[Reinier]

Hopelijk nieuwe aanzet tot versterking van de Europese defensiestructuur...ten kosten van die van de NAVO. Lijkt mij een gezonde ontwikkeling.

Ik mag hopen van niet en ik denk ook niet dat dat gaat gebeuren.

Frankrijk is als (bijna) enige in Europa in staat zelfstandig militair (offensief) op te treden waar ook ter wereld voor x tijd. Ergo, zou weinig hebben aan mee liften (potentiële) free-riders, zoals Nederland en België.

Landen zoals Nederland en België profiteren, leunen, (parasiteren ?) sterk op de NAVO. Zou Europa een tegenhanger, opvolger van de NAVO willen ontwikkelen met vergelijkbare mogelijkheden van de NAVO, maar zonder de VS (...) en zonder de Britten, ... dan moeten we toch eerst flink de portemonnee optrekken. En een andere, actievere, houding gaan ontwikkelen jegens de rest van de wereld.

Nee, de NAVO en de VS is voor ons en meeste Europese landen een goedkope en betrouwbare verzekering waar we zelf niet al te actief in hoeven te worden.
Het idee van het oprichten van een Europees leger wordt te vaak gebruikt om wederom een mogelijkheid te bieden om nog meer te bezuinigen op defensie, onder het mom van taakspecialisatie (lees, goedkopere defensie en minder verantwoordelijkheid nemen)

[Elzenga]

Hopelijk nieuwe aanzet tot versterking van de Europese defensiestructuur...ten kosten van die van de NAVO. Lijkt mij een gezonde ontwikkeling.

[andré herc]

Hollande twijfelt over NAVO

President François Hollande AFP

Toegevoegd: woensdag 18 jul 2012, 20:53

De Franse president Hollande twijfelt of zijn land lid moet blijven van het geïntegreerde militaire commando van de NAVO. Hij heeft oud-minister Védrine gevraagd verder onderzoek te doen, meldt het Elysée.

Hollandes conservatieve voorganger Sarkozy maakte Frankrijk in 2009 weer lid van het commando van het bondgenootschap.

Frankrijk had dat in 1966 onder president De Gaulle verlaten uit protest tegen de Amerikaanse dominantie in Europa. De NAVO werd toen gedwongen zijn hoofdkwartier uit Frankrijk te verplaatsen naar het Belgische Bergen.

Oud-minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Védrine heeft zich in het verleden, net als de socialist Hollande zelf, al eens kritisch uitgelaten over de beslissing van Sarkozy. Zijn onderzoek moet in oktober afgerond zijn.

nos.nl

[Cigarz]

..."Our military can now match the West!"...

Zegt dat iets over de goede staat van het Russische leger of over de belabberde staat van de kapotbezuinigde westerse legers...? 

[Reinier]

"Our military can now match the West!"

He? Rusland is toch niet meer de vijand van het Westen?

The head of the Kremlin has certainly set his ambitions high: by 2020, he is aiming to transform 1 million underpaid, underequipped and undermotivated men into a professional army of 145,000 soldiers.

Dat zijn relatief weinig manschappen voor het grootste land ter wereld. Kan mij bijna ook niet voorstellen dat dit correct vermeld is. Hadden de Russen rond 2008 in totaal zo'n 2,5 mln manschappen, is dit in 2012 al terug gebracht naar een klein 500.000 (landmacht, marine, luchtmacht, etc).
En dan nu naar 145.000? 1/10 van de VS, 1/2 van Frankrijk, net zo groot als VK? Volgens mij is hier een foutje gemaakt??

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Inside Putin's ambitious push to modernise the Russian military

11 Jul 2012

By Benjamin Quénelle

MOSCOW - "Our military can now match the West!" There is no shortage of pride from Sergei Skorniakov, deputy commander of the Yaroslav Moudry, the crown jewel of the Russian navy's Baltic fleet.

The battleship has been presented as a symbol of the "Renaissance" of the fleet, moored in a naval base in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave tucked between Poland and Lithuania, where the Kremlin is threatening to deploy its Iskander close-range missiles and S-400 anti-aircraft missiles. The majority of the men are now volunteers rather than conscripts; both the control crew and the sailors on deck have seen their salaries double. Aboard the ship everyone repeats that they finally feel respected after the military reforms of Vladimir Putin, the past and current occupant of the Kremlin.

But the Yaroslav Moudry also illustrates the limits of Russia's military modernization. The 4,500 ton heavily armed vessel, which came out of the shipyard in 2008, is based on a model from the time of the USSR -- the control room is still decorated with red stars, symbols of the Soviet regime.  Computers are rare here, and the communication equipment seems to have come from a nautical museum.

"Modernization is happening. We are gradually equipping ourselves with new weapons," responds Vice-Admiral Viktor Tchirkov, the general commander of the Baltic fleet.

Modernizing is a priority for the entire army, and Putin has promised a "rearmament like no other." Some 23,000 billion rubles, or nearly 600 billion Euros, will be spent over 10 years in the Russian military-industrial machine. More than 10% of this sum will be devoted to the first and only attempt at a major overhaul of its factories.

The head of the Kremlin has certainly set his ambitions high: by 2020, he is aiming to transform 1 million underpaid, underequipped and undermotivated men into a professional army of 145,000 soldiers. Some 400 modern ballistic missiles should be delivered, as well as eight strategic submarines, 20 multipurpose submarines, 50 surface vessels, over a 100 pieces of military spacecraft equipment, 600 modern planes, 1,000 helicopters and 28 new anti-aircraft missiles.

Curbing corruption

The figures leave experts perplexed. Most of them, however, praise Putin's proposed reforms, which are being orchestrated by the Minister of Defense, Anatoliy Serdyukov. However, the plans are "impossible" to respect from a technical standpoint, says Alexandre Konavolov, an independent expert. "The military-industrial estate is living too much off of the ruins of the Soviet era, and is therefore incapable of producing a modern army," he explains.

"For a rearmament of such an extent to succeed, Putin should repeat what he has done in the army: reform it from the top down," warns Alexandre Golts, another renowned military commentator.

Ruslan Pukhov, part of the Cast think-tank, says Putin is well aware that "the problem isn't money, it's our production capacity."

One obstacle to modernization is corruption, with military commanders usually benefitting from large accumulations of wealth through murky transactions. The Defense Minister has now demanded to be informed of any manufacturing costs beforehand, while the Kremlin now wants to limit the portion of contracts to any one arms company to 20 percent (25 percent in the navy) in order to limit any possible abuses of power.

"There needs to be clear rules. The level of corruption has already decreased due to the regulation of purchase offers," Ivan Konavolov assures, another journalist specializing in defense matters. "But the temptation is all the bigger now that the government has placed large sums of money on the table to finance modernization. Lobbies are powerful, and too often, those who are ordering equipment are close to those that control procurement deals..."

There is also a structural problem. At the time of the USSR, when a large amount of manufacturers supplied the army in one way or another, factories would often manufacture products destined for military use. The system used to work when it was under a regime that was ready to go to war on all fronts and took on the mass production of arms. This is no longer the case. Disorganized delivery chains now suffer from chronic failures in quality-control systems.

Old stuff, old men

These problems have many causes. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the industrial sector exploded into multiple companies with largely unknown owners that the Kremlin wanted to group into vast conglomerates. "But these vertical integrations were forced, without real evaluation of production capacity and without control of finances," Alexandre Golts says.

Another explanation: from the young, inexperienced recruits to the aging commanders of the Soviet era, the military-industrial machine suffers from a lack of skilled managers in their 30s and 40s in the engineering sector. With many specialists having left for better paid jobs, the armament industry could not attract the best graduates from the Science Academy like in the days of the USSR. Innovation, as a result, has been largely crippled.

The order from France last year of two Mistral helicopter carriers also created tension, but the ministry's message remained clear: if manufacturers do not modernize, the army will buy from abroad. This would have a major effect on Russia's military, which is still one of the world leaders in exports, with a new $12 billion record in sales last year.

Export markets have saved numerous Russian businesses, with external orders allowing them to survive for ten years despite the absence of national orders after the collapse of the USSR. Amongst these orders were Almaz Antey, with its anti-aircraft defense systems; a group which today does not have enough production capacity to meet new demands and which is finally planning to build two more factories.

The military industry has faced bitter failures.  Some 5 billion rubles (125 millions euro) have been squandered by the Vega company in producing a new drone. The project finally had to be given to a private civilian company, and by waiting for a hypothetical Russian plane, Moscow was forced to give it to Israel.

The war against Georgia in August 2008 showed the concrete weaknesses of an army lacking modern equipment at the height of its ambitions: Russia prevailed, without a doubt, but only by fighting the old-fashioned way. "The majority of wars today are regional," says Alexandre Golts. "The army must therefore rearm itself for other conflicts.  Its priorities should be drones, 'smart weapons' and means of communication."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1667818/Inside-Putins-ambitious-push-to-modernise-the-Russ

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Defence's $153bn capability plan covers F-35 JSF purchase

by: MARK DODD
From:The Australian
July 10, 20122:06PM

DEFENCE has released a new-look four-year $153 billion capability plan covering 111 priority projects including a timeline to buy the troubled F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

However, a fourth squadron of JSFs - listed as part of a $10 billion acquisition - may not become operational until 2023.

The 2012 Defence Capability Plan (DCP) was released by Defence Minister Stephen Smith and his colleague Jason Clare, the Minister for Defence Materiel.

It marks the first time a DCP aligns with the budget's four-year forward estimates, answering a demand by defence industry.

The 2012 DCP comes at a time of growing financial uncertainty for Defence as it struggles to balance government's demands to find $20 billion in efficiency savings.

The document does indicate growing support for the purchase of the US-made EA-18G Growler, one of the world's most advanced electronic warfare aircraft.

Twelve of the Royal Australian Air Force's 24-plane fleet of F/A-18 Super Hornets were manufactured with the fittings needed to accommodate the electronic equipment should the final decision be made to buy it.

The DCP is regarded as a key document for defence industry and a valuable guide on the Government's long-term defence procurement intentions.

A Defence Capability Guide (DCG), designed to provide industry with general guidance on projects over a six-year time frame will be released in the near future, Mr Smith said.

This year's document underlines the Australian Defence Force's growing priority given to so-called net-centric warfare capabilities - the ability to exchange data between warships, aircraft and land-based forces, including ther ADF's key allies.

It also prepares the groundwork for a $3 billion replacement of the RAAF's ageing fleet of P3-C Orion patrol planes by a fleet of jet-powered P8-Poseidon aircraft to be supported by long-endurance high altitude Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defences-153bn-capability-plan-covers-f-35-jsf-purchase/story-e6frg8yo-1226422621771

[Harald]

Italy Delays Vehicle, Helicopter Buys

Verschuivingen in uitgaven van defensie budget Italie

ROME — Italy's newly released Defense Ministry budget for 2012 reveals that a number of key procurement programs are to be slowed as spending cuts announced last year begin to bite.

After deciding last year to slash 28 percent off procurement spending, Italy has reduced its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter order, announced a fire sale of Navy ships and hatched plans to cut 30,000 troops.

But Rome had not, until now, gone public with a full breakdown on its truncated spending plan for 2012. Due for publication last November, Italy's 2012 budget had been delayed as generals divided up scarce funds for ongoing programs.

Released to the parliament at the end of June and seen by Defense News, the spending document describes a "reduction, remodulation, slow down and reorienting" of procurement in 2012.

The completion of Italy's purchase of 249 VBM Freccia armored vehicles, built by Iveco and Oto Melara, slips from this year to 2016, while the full buy of Italy's second pair of U 212 submarines is pushed back from 2016 to 2017.

The upgrading of Italian mine-sweepers is moved back from 2014 to 2018, while the full delivery of Army and Navy NH90 helicopters is pushed from 2018 to 2021. New combat search-and-rescue AW101 helicopters for the Air Force will be fully delivered by 2017, not 2014.

Deliveries of the new Vulcano munition for Army and Navy guns, and small-diameter bombs and a new direct infrared countermeasure system for the Air Force are all put back by at least two years.

"There has been a tendency for a number of years to delay big decisions about a large rebalancing of the budget," said Roberto Menotti, an analyst at think tank Aspen Institute Italia. "It is a cautious way to proceed that makes sense when the future is uncertain, but you want to be at the table in Europe on major programs."

The upshot, he added, is that producers such as Italy's Finmeccanica defense and aerospace group are being driven "to find innovative ways into new markets as their traditional sources of income reduce."

Total Defense Ministry spending this year stands at 13.61 billion euros ($16.75 billion), down 5.2 percent from 2011, and equal to 0.84 percent of Italy's gross domestic product.

After years of taking the brunt of cuts, Italy's maintenance and operations spending receives a 5.4 percent top-up to reach 1.52 billion euros, but the spending document warns that funding is still "insufficient," and that if the situation does not improve, Italy could find it hard to meet overseas deployment commitments.

Personnel spending also is stable at 9.6 billion euros, leaving procurement to suffer the entire burden of the cut, which was decided last year as Italy scrambled to reduce its budget deficit. Spending on procurement stands at 2.48 billion euros, down by 28.2 percent.

The regular top-up from Italy's Ministry of Industry amounts to 1.3 billion euros this year, with another 375 million euros starting to be freed for procurement from funds officially earmarked for military missions.

But the total still falls far short of 2011 spending. Defense Minister Giampaolo di Paola has said that combining all funding, Italy's defense spending this year reaches 0.92 percent of GDP, well below the European average.

Finmeccanica also has reported that the Italian government has released no research-and-development funds under its Law 808 provision this year, after releasing 400 million euros last year.

The spending document reveals some programs have been accelerated. The upgrade of Mangusta attack helicopters — with new sighting systems to facilitate the adoption of Spike missiles — is moved forward from 2017 to 2014.

Other programs appear for the first time, including 40 explosive and roadside bomb disposal vehicles at a cost of 120 million euros. Built by Italy's Iveco with Germany's Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, these are part of the Multi-Purpose Vehicle family the companies are developing, which have been likened to U.S. mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle.

Italy has signed on to deliver an ambulance version to its Army.

The new program meets a stated aim in the spending document of prioritizing force protection in theater. The document also lists the purchase of 60 gun turrets to be mounted on Italy's new Iveco VTLM 1A armored vehicles.

A 16 million euro program to buy 81mm mortars makes it into the spending column for the first time. Also listed is the acquisition of an unnamed Navy tactical UAV. The UAV, the document states, will be used for surveillance and flown from vessels during anti-pirate missions.

The document also lists the launch of the development of "onboard systems to equip the MC-27J destined to support Special Forces." The MC-27J is the gunship version of the C-27J airlifter, planned by maker Alenia Aermacchi, a unit of Finmeccanica.

"At the moment, we are trying to keep up procurement and be flexible on running costs. But something has been adjusted on procurement, like the F-35 cuts," said the Air Force chief, Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis.

"My personal view is that we cannot afford to cut too much, because we still have a strong industrial base, and we think that base has to be supported," he said.

"We want to keep investment levels as much as possible," Bernardis said. "In the case of the JSF, we accepted a reduction of numbers as long as we could keep up capabilities. To have enough to still be effective."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120709/DEFREG01/307090001/Italy-Delays-Vehicle-Helicopter-Buys?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

B-1 bomber mission shifts from Afghanistan to China, Pacific

By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY

DYESS AIR FORCE BASE, Texas – President Obama's new military strategy is taking shape here on the sun-seared grasslands of West Texas where B-1 bomber pilots train.

The strategy pivots from missions over the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan to targets on the sea and, though the military doesn't come out directly and say it, in China. "We're going back to the future," says Col. David Been, commander of the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess. "As the balance shifts from almost exclusively Afghanistan right now, we're shifting to the Asia-Pacific region."

After a decade of ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — 6,350 Americans killed and more than $1 trillion spent — Obama announced the new strategy in January that looks to counter the rising power of China. The changing role of the B-1 is a prime example of how the Air Force is responding.

Suddenly, the B-1, a plane that once seemed irrelevant after the end of the Cold War, is being repurposed again. First, the B-1 became the workhorse of the air war in Afghanistan. Now, as the Pentagon's strategic vision shifts to Asia, so too is the B-1.

"The B-1's capabilities are particularly well-suited to the vast distances and unique challenges of the Pacific region, and we'll continue to invest in, and rely on, the B-1 in support of the focus on the Pacific directed in the president's new strategic guidance," said Maj. Gen. Michael Holmes, assistant deputy chief of staff for Air Force Operations, Plans and Requirements at the Pentagon.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta highlighted those changes during a series of meetings with Pacific leaders recently.

"One of those principles in our strategy is the ability to be agile, to be quickly deployable, to be flexible, and to be on the cutting edge of technology," Panetta said in Cam Ranh, Vietnam. "And in a region as large as the Asia-Pacific region, agility is going to be extremely important in terms of our ability to be able to move quickly."

The armed services also will have to make do with less, with $480 billion in cuts to projected budgets forecast over the next 10 years. That puts a premium on existing weapons, at least in the near term. The Air Force wants a new bomber, one that is invisible to radar and possibly pilot-less. But that plane wouldn't be ready for combat until well into the next decade.

The B-1's revived fortunes, however, bode well for the communities that depend on the jobs affiliated with the bomber. The Air Force employs 13,000 people to support B-1 operations in three states, with an estimated economic impact just shy of $1 billion, records show. Not only is the bomber based at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, but it is also at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, and there is a maintenance facility in Oklahoma City.

A long road

It's been a long flight for the B-1 to its current role in the new military strategy. Designed in the 1970s to replace the B-52, the B-1 wasn't ready for missions until 1986.

A main feature is its terrain-following radar that allows the plane to fly itself at low altitude to avoid detection by enemies. "It's designed to fly over the pole by itself, hug the ground — you push a button and you let go — whether it's pitch black, a snowstorm, a rainstorm," Been says. "It would hug the ground, go into Russia, drop nuclear bombs and recover on the other side of the planet somewhere. All by itself. Not talking to anybody."

That sounded good in theory. In practice, the debut stank. "It was a painful birth back in the late '80s for the B-1," says Been, who has flown in the B-1 for 3,500 hours, the equivalent of almost five months. "Engine problems, fuel leaks, it couldn't fly real high. Self-protection ... a lot of problems with those right when it came out."

Eventually, the Air Force worked most of the bugs out of the plane.

Today it is the workhorse of the air war in Afghanistan, carrying twice as many bombs and missiles as the aging B-52. The B-1 has dropped 60% of weapons in Afghanistan. Its speed, 900 mph at the top end, allows it to streak across the width of Afghanistan in 45 minutes, critical when troops battling insurgents need air support.

"We're killing bad guys there every day," says Capt. Erick Lord, executive officer for the 7th Bomb Wing.

At other times, Lord says, the B-1 flies close to the ground in a show of force that scares Taliban fighters.

Last year, the bomber dropped bombs in Libya in support of the NATO mission that helped topple Moammar Gadhafi. Two B-1s flew non-stop from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, attacked 45 targets with 2,000-pound bombs, landed, refueled, turned around and hit about as many on the way home.

Equipped with a pod packed with cameras and other sensors, the B-1 also provides high-quality video of insurgent activity on the ground. Its vast fuel tanks allow it to circle overhead for hours before it needs refueling.

With the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan scheduled to end in 2014, the Air Force has begun to focus training for action in the Pacific.

"We're shifting from flying over desert environments to over-water ranges," says Lt. Col. George Holland, commander of the Air Force's 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron.

The Air Force, Holland says, is working with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to outfit the B-1 with a long-range anti-ship missile. The bomber will be able to track ships at sea and launch the missiles from "hundreds of miles" away.

Pentagon budget records also show the B-1 is getting a series of modifications over the next few years to improve its capabilities.

With China becoming bolder and more aggressive in and around its territorial waters, the B-1 may have a role to play in the Pacific, says John Pike, a military analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy website. "The South China Sea is the biggest security problem we have today, and it's only going to get worse," Pike says.

China and the Philippines are quarreling over possession of small islands and fishing rights in the sea, and the clashes could escalate. Moreover, critical shipping lanes cross the sea, and it contains oil and natural gas reserves. Pike notes that the Chinese navy recently added an amphibious-assault ship and a hospital ship to its fleet — ships that could be used if the Chinese seek to seize an island.

The Air Force, in a presentation on the bomber's capabilities, shows its range from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam. Without refueling, the jet can hit targets across most of the South China Sea with 24 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM). Those weapons, cruise missiles that can change course in midflight, can hit moving targets, such as ships.

China's development of so-called anti-access, area-denial weapons, or long-range missiles that can destroy aircraft carriers or hit forward bases, could negate the U.S. military's advantages. The idea is to keep American military might at bay, operating from farther and farther away.

New training began earlier this year for B-1 fliers to use the stand-off missile in the Pacific, says Capt. Kyle Schlewinsky, assistant director of flying for the 28th Bomb Squadron. "That's the next fight that everybody's worried about," he says. "It's no secret that if you fight the U.S. straight up, you lose."

Seeking relevance

Part of the Air Force interest in trumpeting the B-1's capability might stem from a desire to emerge from the shadows cast by the Army and Marine Corps, which have done most of the fighting in the last decade, Pike says. "The Air Force would be very eager to bring the B-1 to the table to demonstrate that they are relevant," he says.

Just how relevant is open to question, says Barry Watts, a former fighter pilot and now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a non-partisan military think tank in Washington.

The B-1 lacks the stealth of its more advanced, radar-eluding cousin, the B-2 bomber. Countries with stout air defenses would pose serious threats.

"It's not a stealthy air platform," Watts says. "Penetration of advanced air defenses would be a real problem."

Been, the colonel with decades of experience with the B-1, says its speed, ability to stay aloft for hours and payload of long-range missiles could be critical for missions in the Pacific. "Those could help kick down the doors," he says.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/story/2012-05-11/b-1-bomber-obama-new-strategy/56097706/1

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Russia's new muscle

Robert Gottliebsen. Published 8:37 AM, 9 Jul 2012

Russia might have lost the cold war but as a low debt country it is coming back with a vengeance.

The return of Russian power is among the long-term security ramifications caused by the convulsions in Europe and the Middle East plus the mistakes of the US.

More ramifications will start to emerge in the next 12 months.

But over the weekend the 'Russia is Back' syndrome hit the headlines in two events. First, the Dutch parliament rejected the American Joint Strike Fighter. The Netherlands are coming close to an election and whether the rejection will follow through to action will depend on the outcome. Nevertheless, the Netherlands are facing the same problem as all other JSF partners – in tough economic times the aircraft's costs are ballooning. And they will rise even further as more countries pull out.

More seriously, it is now clear that the JSF will not be able to match the Russian/Indian PAK-FA T-50, the aircraft giving Russia air superiority in Europe.

Russian/Indian air superiority will extend to Australia because Indonesia has ordered a massive 180 of the Russian jets to be delivered by 2024 – about the time we might have JSF aircraft. Given that the JSF is a lemon, Indonesia, with Russia's backing, will have air superiority over Australia if we don't wake up (Australia's mission critical, October 4, 2010).

The Indonesians are not happy about the proposed US defence base in Australia. Tony Abbott is very wise to make Indonesia the first overseas visiting post for his government (China also has an aircraft which will be superior to the JSF).

Against a background of looming air superiority over NATO, Russia is taking steps to make sure it continues with a strong naval presence in the Mediterranean.

Russia, and not Europe, is going to bail out EU member Cyprus. The Russians want a number of things, led by access to Cyprus's deep Mediterranean port. The Russians currently have a naval base at Tartus in Syria which has become high risk given the Syrian civil war. In addition, Russia has close financial connections with Cyprus, which is the home of many Russian companies who have exposure to the troubled Cyprus banks (Self-interest drives Russia to loan to Cyprus, July 9).

But we should not forget that a major factor that brought down Communist Russia was low oil prices. Part of the current Russian wealth has come from the recent high energy prices. As America develops its gas reserves then the cost of global oil/gas energy will stay down for an extended period.

Shale and coal gas give the US a second chance, which it can exploit by merging the JSF development with its mothballed but brilliant aircraft, the F22. But politics in the US move very slowly, which is an enormous advantage for Russia.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/JSF-joint-strike-fighter-defence-military-Russia-pd20120709-VZTYE?OpenDocument&emcontent_Gottliebsen

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Beter als we nu hebben. De Zwitsers hebben het qua landmacht wel goed voor elkaar.

Maar een hele beroerde marine 

[IPA NG]

Als het zo doorgaat zullen we hier ook naar een Zwitsers model gaan ?

Beter als we nu hebben. De Zwitsers hebben het qua landmacht wel goed voor elkaar.

[Oorlogsvis]

Als het zo doorgaat zullen we hier ook naar een Zwitsers model gaan ?

[Reinier]

Britain to give details of defence cuts

LONDON (July 5, 2012): Britain will release details Thursday of major army cuts which will see the number of soldiers reduced by a fifth, taking force levels to their lowest since the early 19th century.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is to outline how the size of the army will be reduced from 102,000 regular troops to 82,000 in a statement to the House of Commons.

Five infantry battalions are likely to be axed in the biggest overhaul of the British army in more than a century.

Sjesus G. dat is nog al wat! 

The changes will also see Britain become more reliant on part-time soldiers in the future, with the number of reservists expected to double to 30,000.

Gaan we hier in de toekomst ook meer zien gebeuren, denk ik.