Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[IPA NG]

Ridicuul.

[dudge]

Army's most senior female officer quits amid cuts anger
The Army's most senior female officer has resigned just days before the announcement of a restructuring programme which will see the service drastically reduced in size, with some historic battalions disappearing.

Brigadier Nicky Moffat, who just six months ago declared that there was "no better time" for women to join the Army, is understood to have become despondent at the depth and severity of the Government's cuts.
On Thursday, ministers will announce a package of changes which will see the Army manpower reduced from around 100,000 soldiers to 82,000 by 2020, its smallest size in a century.
Brig Moffat, 50, has told her bosses that she wanted to take voluntary redundancy after 26 years service.
The brigadier, who is the Armed Forces head of pay and strategic manning at the Ministry of Defence, joined the now defunct Women's Royal Army Corps after leaving the University of Liverpool and has since enjoyed a series of promotions to her current position. Her roles have included a spell as military private secretary to former defence secretary Geoff Hoon. She was widely expected to become the first female general in British military history and her departure is said to have left many colleagues stunned.
Her resignation has been followed by that of another high-ranking officer, Brigadier Justin Maciejewski, the director of combat, who has also taken voluntary redundancy. He is also understood to have become disillusioned by the extent of the cuts.

Brig Maciejewski, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order after leading The Rifles in Basra in 2007, is regarded as one of the best officers of his generation and was earmarked as a future Chief of the General Staff. Both officers, who have been in the Army for the past 26 years, will leave in the next six months with redundancy packages worth around £190,000.
The high profile resignations underline the growing resentment in all ranks of the military after months of cuts and redundancies.
Presentations are being given to soldiers by Major General James Everard, the Assistant Chief of the General Staff, in which they are warned of the "great challenges" which still lie ahead as part of the restructuring, which include a reduction in manpower of 6,000 in 2013 and a further 5,000 in 2014.
One senior officer last night told The Sunday Telegraph: "I have never seen morale as low as this. There has been a complete breakdown down of trust and faith between the Army and the government."
As part of the restructuring - known as Future Force 2020 - the number of infantry battalions is expected to reduce from 36 to 25. Full details of the cuts were due to be made several weeks ago but, much to the frustration of Army chiefs, the announcement has been delayed by Downing Street.

The Government is seeking an agreement which, according to one senior official, will "give the Army something they can live with and will be presentationally acceptable".
However, The Sunday Telegraph understands that while some infantry battalions will be axed, such as those suffering from historically poor recruitment or those with a high proportion of foreign or Commonwealth troops, others have been earmarked as "untouchables".
These are thought to include the entire Household Division, which is composed of the five Foot Guard battalions — the Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots, Irish and Welsh Guards — as well as the Household Cavalry, composed of the Blues and Royals and the Life Guards.
The Parachute Regiment, which supplies more than half the troops to the SAS and the majority of soldiers for the Special Forces Support Group, will remain as a three-battalion regiment. The Royal Irish Regiment, the last single-battalion regiment in the Army, will also escape the axe.

Beyond the infantry, the Royal Logistic Corps is facing a cut of 25 per cent down to 12,000 soldiers, although its bomb disposal arm, which has grown in recent years to deal with the improvised explosive device threat in Afghanistan, will remain untouched.
The Corps of Royal Engineers will be reduced by 30 per cent to 5,500 troops, with a similar cut to fall on the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
The 15 Royal Artillery regiments will be reduced by a third to 5,000 troops, with almost its entire fleet of AS90 self-propelled guns being mothballed or held at "readiness" by Territorial Army units.
The five tank and five reconnaissance regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps are also facing a similar reduction, with many of their vehicles also being passed to the TA, so they can be brought into action when needed.
The Army Air Corps will see some of its older helicopters, such as the Lynx, being axed, but its fleet of Apaches, which counts Prince Harry among its pilots, will not face any reductions.
The infantry units at greatest risk of cuts are those of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, which will lose one or possibly two of its five battalions. The regiment has struggled to recruit for many years.
Both the Yorkshire Regiment and the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment – which recently had members killed in Afghanistan – and The Rifles are also thought to be vulnerable.
There is also a growing view within the Army that the Gurkhas should be axed before "any British regiments go to the wall" .
After 2020, the regular Army's 82,000 soldiers will be supported by 30,000 territorial troops. It will be composed of five multi-role brigades together with 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Army's high-readiness rapid-response unit.
Under the new structure commanders will move away from "enduring operations" such as Iraq or Afghanistan, and instead focus on short-term "contingency operations" such as in Libya, where Special Forces supported rebels.
The Army will remain committed to "homeland resilience", such as supplying assistance to the Government during strikes or times of national crisis, such as the foot and mouth epidemic.
A special cadre will also be created to provide what has been called "upstream engagement" — where military trainers deploy to foreign countries in an attempt to prevent future conflicts.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "The army is reducing in size to become an integrated regular and reserve force of 120,000 by 2020, which was necessary to tackle the Defence deficit. Any change of this size is bound to create uncertainty; however, the resilience of our soldiers should not be underestimated.
"The last decade of campaigning has been tough but the Army has emerged stronger and remains focused on doing their job, whether it is in Afghanistan or at home in the UK for the Olympics. While we cannot comment on the individual circumstances of those leaving under redundancy terms, we do not accept that it is a reflection of morale of the Army."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9366975/Armys-most-senior-female-officer-quits-amid-cuts-anger.html

[ARM-WAP]

Een grote kruisraket met nuclaire kop zou eventueel ooit populair kunnen worden. Met een bereik van nu al 2000km, zit daar wel potentie in. En voor elke SSBN kunnen dus 3 grote nuclaire aanvalssubs gekocht worden. Maar voorlopig blijft de SLBM een van de zoniet het krachtigste MAD middel.

SLBMs en hun lanceerplatformen zijn dan wel verschrikkelijk duur, ze hebben het voordeel dat ze nauwelijks te detecteren zijn (eens 'op zone') en men weet dus nooit van waar de dreiging komt.
Daarbij komt dat ik niet te zwaar zou durven inzetten op BMD - Balistic Missile Defence...
Kruisvluchtwapens zijn makkelijker neer te halen en in mijn ogen geen alternatief voor SLBM (groter bereik, veel grotere snelheid, MIRVs)s.

Zoals de Fransen en Britten (oorspronkelijk) met vier SSBNs is het goed doenbaar om permanent een eenheid op zone te hebben, en in ernstgeval mss zelfs twee.

[dudge]

Het zou mij niet verbazen als de Fransen dezelfde (financiele) problemen hebben als de Britten mbt het ontwikkelen van een evt. nieuwe SSBN-klasse (waarbij ik aanteken dat ik uberhaupt eigenlijk niet weet of Frankrijk van plan is om haar SSBN's indien nodig door nieuwe SSBN's te vervangen of ze er bijv. voor kiezen om die optie uit hun nucleaire arsenaal te halen) en bovendien vergelijkbare internationale ambities om nog maar niet te spreken over een vergelijkbaar eisen pakket waar de sub aan zal moeten voldoen.

De Fransen kunnen nog wel even vooruit, hun Triomphant class is zo oud nog niet en mag mee tot '30/'40. Maar inderdaad, een prijzige onderneming. Die schepen hebben de Fransen zo'n 5 miljard in ontwikkeling gekost en per stuk 3 miljard om te bouwen. Een van de redenen dat er ook maar 4 zijn gekomen, in plaats van de geplande 6.

De Britten maken overigens al gebruik van Amerikaanse Trident missiles.

Ik denk dat zowel de Britten als de Fransen niet snel van hun 'at-sea deterence' zullen afstappen.
Een grote kruisraket met nuclaire kop zou eventueel ooit populair kunnen worden. Met een bereik van nu al 2000km, zit daar wel potentie in. En voor elke SSBN kunnen dus 3 grote nuclaire aanvalssubs gekocht worden. Maar voorlopig blijft de SLBM een van de zoniet het krachtigste MAD middel.

[ARM-WAP]

Waarom de Britten niet gewoon met de Fransen een SSBN ontwikkellen is mij echt een raadsel. Gewoon gezamenlijk ontwikkelen en dan ieder zelf produceren of de opdrachten naar rato over de producenten in de verschillende landen verdelen. Gebruiken de Fransen en Britten verschillende typen nucleaire raketten?

De Fransen ontwerpen en produceren alles zelf... Reactoren en bewapening inclusief.
De beste garantie om 'onafhankelijk' te blijven van andere landen (i.e. USA) voor wat betreft onderdelen en 'code' en wat dan nog...
Zelf produceren en dan nog enkel voor eigen gebruik is zeer duur, maar dat is een prijs die de Fransen er tot nu toe voor over gehad hebben.

[Mourning]

Het zou mij niet verbazen als de Fransen dezelfde (financiele) problemen hebben als de Britten mbt het ontwikkelen van een evt. nieuwe SSBN-klasse (waarbij ik aanteken dat ik uberhaupt eigenlijk niet weet of Frankrijk van plan is om haar SSBN's indien nodig door nieuwe SSBN's te vervangen of ze er bijv. voor kiezen om die optie uit hun nucleaire arsenaal te halen) en bovendien vergelijkbare internationale ambities om nog maar niet te spreken over een vergelijkbaar eisen pakket waar de sub aan zal moeten voldoen.

[Reinier]

De Britten zijn ook niet achterlijk, het is niet dat de Britten nog nooit een nucleaire sub hebben gebouwd. Als de Amerikanen, begrijpelijk, niet al hun geheimen willen prijs geven dan zijn de Britten wel zo snugger genoeg om het zelf op te lossen.

[KapiteinRob]

De Fransen zijn daar wel happig op?

[Mourning]

Waarom zouden de Britten gaan samenwerken met de Fransen als ze dezelfde taal en nagenoeg dezelfde cultuur (Angelsaksische) delen met de Amerikanen?

Omdat de Amerikanen voor zover ik weet niet zo happig zijn mbt het delen van ontwerpen e.d. als het over nucleaire subs (zowel SSN als SSBN) gaat? Zorgen over Nationale Veiligheid e.d. die dan in de Senaat e.d. worden opgeworpen kan ik me zo voorstellen. Ook al zijn de Britten de meest trouwe bondgenoot die ze hebben.

[KapiteinRob]

Precies! Wat Mourning stelt over een Franse samenwerking, kun je met meer gemak loslaten op een samenwerking met de VS. Tenzij in deze gedoeld wordt op het "hallelujah" van Europese samenwerking.....

[Reinier]

Waarom zouden de Britten gaan samenwerken met de Fransen als ze dezelfde taal en nagenoeg dezelfde cultuur (Angelsaksische) delen met de Amerikanen?

[Mourning]

Waarom de Britten niet gewoon met de Fransen een SSBN ontwikkellen is mij echt een raadsel. Gewoon gezamenlijk ontwikkelen en dan ieder zelf produceren of de opdrachten naar rato over de producenten in de verschillende landen verdelen. Gebruiken de Fransen en Britten verschillende typen nucleaire raketten?

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Cost of designing new submarines is too high

Replacing Trident

6:58AM BST 21 Jun 2012

SIR – In his headlong rush to replace Trident, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, seems to be overlooking the basic question of whether it remains viable for Britain to continue independently developing and maintaining its own nuclear submarines (report, June 18). He should take into account the chronic squeeze on British defence funding, the limited number of hulls it can afford, ever more stringent safety standards, and the long-term erosion of Britain's nuclear expertise.

By developing an independent design for the new submarine, the Government is opening itself up to allegations that the Trident replacement programme is just an excuse to stuff pound notes into the pockets of the British defence industry.

If Mr Hammond wishes to proceed with replacing Trident, then we should tuck in behind the Americans, who have near-identical requirements for near-identical submarines, and work on a collaborative British-American submarine design-and-build programme.

Alternatively, he might care to proceed with a more affordable solution based on deploying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles within the torpedo tubes of Britain's existing Astute-class attack submarines. This will maximise taxpayers' return on the huge sums that have been sunk into this existing submarine design.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/9345127/Cost-of-designing-new-submarines-is-too-high.html

[Elzenga]

Zie een aantal projecten waar Nederland zo aan mee kan doen wat mij betreft....maar ja...focus ligt Westwaarts over de Oceaan helaas..

[Lex]

France and Germany sign new defense agreement

Germany and France agreed on Thursday to deepen military cooperation in areas ranging from satellites and missile defense to arms procurement, aiming to extract maximum value from shrinking defense budgets.

The agreement, signed by the two governments in Paris on Thursday, highlights Europe's drive to reduce costly duplication in defense and achieve economies of scale as it struggles to cut spending and tame its sovereign debt crisis.

A copy of the declaration of intent was seen by Reuters before the signing at the Eurosatory arms show near Paris.

Under the accord, NATO allies Germany and France aim to coordinate new purchases of tanks and artillery, to better integrate the Tiger and NH-90 helicopter projects and to explore possible cooperation on missile defense.

Other countries, such as Italy, could also participate.

Germany, France and Britain also plan to look into developing a European drone, the declaration said.

"We must build a platform that others can join," German Deputy Defence Minister Stephane Beemelmans told Reuters in Berlin. "Germany and France have often done this and that is what we want to do once again. . . ."

Governments in Europe and the United States are responding to the euro zone debt crisis and budget deficits by cutting defence spending. That is spurring a drive by NATO and the European Union to reduce duplication of defence equipment and to save money by sharing some capabilities. . . .

Under the agreement, France and Germany will set up working groups to identify projects for cooperation and a roadmap reaching to 2030. . . .

The working groups are due to deliver a final report by December and the starting date for the first project should coincide with the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Elysee Treaty in January 2013, he [Beemelmans] said.   

The Atlantic Counsel,
06/15/2012 - 10:14