Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

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

Lynxian

Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/04/2012 | 11:55 uur
Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/04/2012 | 11:49 uur
VS willen nauwer samenwerken met Zuid-Amerika – angst voor invloed China

En zo wordt Europa meer en meer buitenspel gezet. (en Eurpa laat het willens en wetens gebeuren)
En waarom niet, hé? De politici in Europa doen toch geen moeite, dus laat het ze op den duur maar voelen. Wanneer men erachter komt dat we geen drol meer voorstellen, wordt er misschien eindelijk weer eens geïnvesteerd in de belangrijke gebieden.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: jurrien visser op 29/04/2012 | 11:49 uur
VS willen nauwer samenwerken met Zuid-Amerika – angst voor invloed China

En zo wordt Europa meer en meer buitenspel gezet. (en Eurpa laat het willens en wetens gebeuren)




jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

VS willen nauwer samenwerken met Zuid-Amerika – angst voor invloed China

De Amerikaanse minister van Defensie Leon Panetta tijdens zijn bezoek aan Brazilië. Foto AFP / Evaristo SA

door Niels Posthumus

De Verenigde Staten willen nauwer samenwerken met Zuid-Amerika om de Aziatisch-Pacifische regio de komende jaren beter te kunnen controleren en beschermen. Dat zei minister van defensie Leon Panetta vandaag na bezoeken aan Colombia, Brazilië en Chili.

Panetta benadrukte volgens persbureau AP het belang van deze Zuid-Amerikaanse landen als militaire bondgenoten in de Aziatisch-Pacifische regio, waar China snel aan invloed wint en Noord-Korea voor onrust zorgt.

Nu de VS zich steeds verder terugtrekken uit Irak en Afghanistan, komt de focus van de mondiale grootmacht steeds meer op deze regio te liggen. Maar in tijden van grootschalige defensiebezuinigingen zijn bondgenoten ook voor de VS onontbeerlijk.

In gesprekken met defensieleiders van Brazilië, Colombia en Chili, landen behorend tot de trouwste vrienden van de VS in Zuid-Amerika, werd ook gekeken hoe de VS op hun beurt de Zuid-Amerikaanse landen militair kunnen ondersteunen, onder meer bij cyberaanvallen.

China steeds belangrijker handelspartner en investeerder in Zuid-Amerika

China wordt ook in Zuid-Amerika steeds meer een serieuze economische en politieke bedreiging voor de VS. China is in Zuid-Amerika, dat traditioneel onder grote Noord-Amerikaanse invloed staat, een steeds belangrijkere handelspartner en investeerder.

In Brazilië, Chili en Peru is het land een grotere handelspartner dan de VS. In Argentinië en Colombia zijn de VS nu nog de grootste, maar komt China met rasse schreden naderbij.

De oproep tot nauwere militaire samenwerking van de VS lijkt dus ook een licht economisch randje te hebben. De VS kunnen het zich politiek niet veroorloven veel invloed te verliezen in Zuid-Amerika aan China.

Zeker niet omdat zelfbenoemde vijanden van de VS, zoals president Hugo Chavez van Venezuela, al enige tijden juist maar wat graag samenwerken met China. En China ook met Venezuela vanwege de grote hoeveelheid olie die in dat land in de grond zit.

Zuid-Amerikaanse defensieministers willen kennis over cybertechnologie

De VS willen de komende jaren meer troepen naar de Aziatisch-Pacifische regio sturen, maar hebben daarvoor door geldgebrek steun van Zuid-Amerikaanse bondgenoten nodig.

Panetta wil verder graag dat Zuid-Amerikaanse landen zich gaan inzetten om militair minder ontwikkelde Centraal-Amerikaanse landen te trainen. De VS heeft hier door de bezuinigingen evenmin zelf nog geld voor.

De defensieleiders met wie Panetta sprak (Juan Camillo Pinzon van Colombia, Celso Amorim van Brazilië en Andres Allamand van Chili) beschouwen op hun beurt cyberaanvallen als een grote bedreiging voor hun landen en willen daarbij hulp van de VS, die veel kennis bezitten op het gebied van cybertechnologie.

Panetta: meer landen moeten bijdragen aan mondiale veiligheid

Panetta riep de Latijns-Amerikaanse landen ook op, naast de Aziatisch-Pacifische, ook andere regio's nadrukkelijke op hun veiligheidsagenda te zetten, waaronder Afrika. Hij zei volgens persbureau AP:


"De Verenigde Staten moeten een wereldmacht blijven. Maar steeds meer landen dragen bij en moeten bijdragen aan de mondiale veiligheid. Wij verwelkomen en moedigen deze nieuwe realiteit aan omdat het de wereld echt veiliger maakt en al onze landen sterker."

http://m.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/04/28/vs-willen-meer-samenwerken-met-latijns-amerika-angst-voor-invloed-china/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Timetable Unveiled for Turkey's Defense Boost

(Source: Anatolia News Agency; published March 27, 2012)
 
ANKARA --- Turkey's Undersecretariat for the Defense Industry has disclosed a new five-year strategic plan, which finalizes completion dates for key projects including Turkish-made tanks, aircraft, satellites, destroyers, and helicopters, in a bid to lift the country's defense industry into a higher league.

Altay, the Turkish-made tank project, will be complete by the end of 2015, the plan says. The first Turkish destroyer will be delivered in 2016. Atak, an attack helicopter, and Anka, an unmanned aerial vehicle, will be delivered in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

More than 280 projects have been carried out since 2011, according to the new 2012-2016 strategic plan. The total value of the contracts the undersecretariat signed last year was about $27.3 billion.

The plan envisages Turkey's defense industry entering the top 10 worldwide within five years. The total turnover target for defense and aerospace industry exports for 2016 is $2 billion, out of an overall industry turnover of $8 billion, according to the plan.

Turkey will establish liaison offices in the Middle East, the Far East, the U.S., the Caucasus-Central Asia, and in Europe (EU-NATO). The undersecretariat will encourage collaboration between prime contractors, sub-industries, and small and medium enterprises, with universities and research institutions improving the technological base.

The Turkish government will support the establishment of testing and certification centers that meet international standards, in order to meet non-military and non-public sector demands. A land vehicle test center, a high-speed wind tunnel, an aerial vehicle flight test field, a missile systems test field, a satellite assembly center, and an integration and testing center will be among these facilities, according to the strategic plan.

Arms projects timetable
The strategic defense plan has laid out dates for the deadlines to manufacture the first domestically produced prototypes in the local defense industry.

• A radar observation satellite will be ready by 2016.
• The third-generation of the main battle tank, Altay, will be manufactured by the end of 2015.
• The first destroyer will be delivered to the Turkish Navy by the end of 2016. Studies regarding development of a submarine will be completed by 2015.
• Atak, a national attack helicopter, will be delivered by 2013. An all-purpose helicopter will be delivered by the end of 2016.
• The mass production of a national infantry rifle starts in July.
• Hürkuş, a training aircraft designed by TUSAŞ, and Anka, an unmanned aerial vehicle, will be delivered to the Turkish Air Force by the end of 2015 and 2014 respectively. And a jet motor prototype will be ready by 2016.
• Long-range and medium-range anti-tank rocket systems will be in the inventory of the Turkish army by the end of 2012 and 2013 respectively.
• Semi Active Laser Guided Missile, CIRIT, will be mass produced and integrated to ATAKs by the end of 2013.
• Low and medium altitude air defense systems will be designed by the end of 2016.


Click here for the SSM's document on the new five-year plan.  http://www.ssm.gov.tr/home/institutional/Documents/Sp2012_2016/index.html


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133872/turkey-unveils-five_year-equipment-plan.html

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Frost & Sullivan: Europe and Asia to Drive Market Growth In Unmanned Aerial Systems Market In the Next Ten Years

(Source: Frost & Sullivan; issued April 26, 2012)
 
LONDON --- Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have repeatedly proved their worth in recent conflicts. Drones have certain inherent advantages over manned platforms, motivating the interest of military forces and driving the market for military drones. Despite projections for a substantial increase in spending on UAVs, reduced military expenditure by the United States is causing uncertainty among industry stakeholders.

New analysis from Frost & Sullivan, Military Unmanned Aerial Systems Market Assessment, finds that total market revenue is likely to be $ 61.37 billion across the forecast period 2011-2020. It is estimated that the global military unmanned aerial systems (UAS) market generated $ 4.55 billion in revenues in 2010, a figure that is set to rise to $ 7.31 billion in 2020.

"The United States will reduce its spending on UAS as it is adequately equipped to meet its needs," notes Frost & Sullivan Senior Research Analyst MahendranArjunraja. "Although the country has plans to increase its inventory by more than 35 per cent over the next ten years, market revenues are expected to decline at least till 2020; the U.S. military UAS space is undergoing a transition from procurements to sustainment with most future procurements likely to be limited to upgrades."

At the same time, Europe is facing intense competition in the medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) UAV segment, as more domestic companies are collaborating to develop indigenous equipment. Existing high altitude, long-endurance (HALE) UAVs are too expensive for many nations, even while MALE equipment has limited capability. Hence, an opportunity exists for equipment with capabilities between MALE and HALE.

As the operations in Afghanistan are expected to reach an end soon, governments are unlikely to show keen interest in renewing lease agreements. This will have an immediate impact on UAV leasing companies. However, this restraint is set to become a driver in the long-term, as cash-strapped countries would be able to allocate resources for equipment procurement.

"Reduction in spending by the United States is expected to slow down the UAS market," cautions Arjunraja. "Fortuitously for market participants, this slowdown will be partly off-set by the growth in the European and Asian markets."

The military UAV market in Europe and Asia will witness significant growth in the next ten years. This is the opportune time for UAV manufacturers and suppliers, therefore, to explore opportunities in these emerging markets.

Frost & Sullivan, the Growth Partnership Company, enables clients to accelerate growth and achieve best-in-class positions in growth, innovation and leadership. Frost & Sullivan leverages 50 years of experience in partnering with Global 1000 companies, emerging businesses and the investment community from more than 40 offices on six continents.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/134790/uav-market-to-grow-mostly-in-europe%2C-asia.html



andré herc

Cash-strapped Greece has cancelled the 50-million-euro ($66-million) purchase of four Italian C-27 transport planes, a government source said following a cabinet meeting Thursday.

Greece ordered 12 planes from aerospace firm Alenia in 2007 and has already received eight of them.

http://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/greece-scraps-order-four-italian-183545503.html
Den Haag stop met afbreken van NL Defensie, en investeer in een eigen C-17.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

HASC Orders DoD To Fly Block 30 Global Hawks; Sticks $260M In Bill

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Published: April 25, 2012

WASHINGTON: The House Armed Services Committee is giving the US Air Force both marching orders and money to operate its eighteen "Block 30" Global Hawk UAVs instead of warehousing them as the service proposed. The Administration's fiscal 2013 budget request cancelled the Block 30 program and provided no funds to operate the 18 drones already bought from prime contractor Northrop Grumman, arguing they were less effective and more expensive to fly than the venerable U-2, the manned spyplane they were intended to replace. But the HASC's mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 includes $260 million to keep the Block 30s operational.

The first slice of that funding appeared this morning on page 7 of a 190-page document released by the personnel subcommittee, with a statement that " The committee recommends an increase in end strengths to reflect the corresponding manpower requirements to maintain 18 Air Force Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks." A House source confirmed that the procurement and operations & maintenance funding to operate the Global Hawks would be in other subcommittee marks being released today and tomorrow.

"The Air Force's proposal to just retire [the UAVs] immediately hasn't gone over so well here on the House side with members," said the House source, laughing, in a conversation with AOL Defense.

It's still somewhat of a surprise that the HASC has intervened to save the Global Hawk, something that Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) had previously declined to do. The powerful top Democrat on the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), however, has made clear that mothballing the Block 30s is "unacceptable," which means that once the authorizers on the HASC pass their bill, the money to implement it will be forthcoming from the appropriators. Now all the Global Hawk provision has to do is survive the House floor vote, the Senate, any Presidential veto, and the closed-door conference process between the two legislative chambers. Jim Stratford, a Northrop Grumman spokesman for the Global Hawk program, said on hearing the news from AOL Defense that, ""This is very encouraging, but there's still a long process ahead."

http://defense.aol.com/2012/04/25/hasc-orders-air-force-to-fly-its-block-30-global-hawks-260-mil/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

'The QE class carrier debacle is clouding real maritime security issues'

24 April 2012

With the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier and F-35 decision grabbing all the headlines, the rest of the Royal Navy's fleet is being left to 'wither on the vine', argues maritime consultant and former Royal Navy officer David Mugridge

It is hard to imagine a defence procurement project more inept in construct and scandalously administered than the MoD's current handling of Britain's new aircraft carriers. The almost daily headlines about cost over-runs, in-service delays and ridiculous ever-changing equipment decisions are over-shadowing more important defence and security issues like the erosion of effective national maritime security.

For over a decade the Royal Navy has staked its future on the operational employment of these carriers. It has decimated other hard-won capabilities like amphibious warfare in the process and now finds "flat-top nirvana" still as elusive as ever because cost over-runs and the need for last minute design changes make these platforms unaffordable to a cash-strapped Britain. As important as the carrier debate is, I would argue the rest of the fleet is withering on the vine because of it. By the time these sacred cows are operational and equipped with a viable air group there will be so little left of the Royal Navy to support the type of operations envisaged by Admirals and politicians alike, Britain's already compromised maritime security will be lost.

Because of today's media-fest, we hear nothing of the "battle royal" within Whitehall, which is raging over the Type 26; a modest future escort which trades traditional war-fighting capabilities to moderate its platform cost. The loss of the Royal Navy's once world-renowned amphibious capability is lucky if it grabs an inch of headlines as both sides of the carrier debate trade headlines in the hopes of carrying the ill-informed media day. Astute and Daring have both proved at best limited operational successes, while their platform costs contributed greatly to the financial haemorrhage that was the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010.

Even though we continue to sit on the UN Security Council and rely upon Italian national debt to keep us in the G8, the diplomatic future of the UK is not encouraging. We all now accept Great Britain and today's Royal Navy no longer rule the waves but too few realise our growing weakness in defence and, in particular, maritime defence costs and will cost this nation dearly. For many decades we have been a country of diplomatic influence and clout; a transatlantic power broker, who when words failed was not afraid to use force to intervene around the world. From the South Atlantic, West Africa, the Middle East to the mountains of Central Asia we have possessed a Royal Navy which could respond effectively across the full spectrum of defence and diplomatic missions. That hard-won ability and focused, operational excellence has been squandered on the altar of CVF, and for what? At best a hollow platform we cannot afford to operate effectively for a perfidious Royal Air Force which continues to out-manoeuvre the Naval Staff at every turn on the issue of carrier based air power or for a vulnerable platform which we cannot defend without additional escorts from other countries.

Power projection without a robust landing force is an empty threat. Shock and Awe did not win the Iraq war. In its wake it left a bloody counter-insurgency campaign which the coalition lost. One operational carrier can only achieve so much defence diplomacy or regional engagement. Only having one operational carrier means you have to be incredibly risk-averse in its employment or be prepared to create a political storm of epic proportions if it is lost to enemy action. The CVF decision was wrong in 1998 and, because of Whitehall incompetence and Portsmouth ego, continues to distort the recovery of Britain's armed forces in the wake of SDSR. Enough of trading ill-conceived tabloid headlines, can we please sort out the future Royal Navy and Britain's maritime security needs with some careful consideration and realistic planning? After all, those who threaten our national maritime security will not be countered by a single show-boat on exercise in the Wash, but they will be by a gunboat, deployed to their back yard, and some fighting spirit.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=19646

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

We've a government who think they are playing a game of toy soldiers

By Annabelle Fuller

PUBLISHED: 15:09 GMT, 23 April 2012 | UPDATED: 15:13 GMT, 23 April 2012

If these weeks have done anything, they've shown what an absolute disaster this coalition has been over defence. Yes, pasties, grannies and caravans may have hit the headlines but in the murky world of defence procurement and the Armed Forces, there has been serious criticism of a MoD considered by many not to be fit for purpose.

First of all we had the news that the Boeing Sentry surveillance planes were grounded because a fault was discovered on a routine check. Now there's news that we've wasted months and a possible contract with the Indian government over Cameron's short lived love-in with the French over fast jets and aircraft carriers.

It was a decision of the Cameron government that instead of the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) being ordered from Lockheed Martin which would operate from the original design of the Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carrier, we were instead to cancel that order and buy the CV version which would require a 'cat and trap' to be fitted to the carriers, adding an extra £1.8bn to the bill and leaving the country without a fixed wing strike capability for years longer.

The Lockheed Martin F-35B is shown during an unveiling ceremony
The single-engine, single-seat F-35 will be manufactured in three versions: a conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) variant for the U.S. Air Force, an aircraft-carrier version (CV) for the U.S. Navy, and a short-takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) version for the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy.

Whilst the STOVL version had been held up with problems, there was no real reason to change our existing order and add time and billions to our defence bill during a time of massive cuts and low morale in the military. All the changes really meant was that we would be able to let the French use our Aircraft Carriers and we would be able to land our planes on their 'cat-and-trap' fitted carriers.

More...We need a new Nimrod! Months after axing of £4.1bn fleet, MoD to buy U.S. spy in the sky

But surely Cameron wasn't going to spend vast amounts of money we can ill afford just to share equipment with the French?

There were already other cheaper options which would also have boosted the British economy which were never taken up. Lord Hesketh, former Tory Party Treasurer and Chief Whip in the House of Lords who defected to UKIP last year and has become their defence spokesman, put forward an argument for a marinized Typhoon to be developed instead of the JSF. Not only would this have removed the problems of the technology restrictions which have held back the JSF project (the U.S. will not share software access codes with us) but it would maintain jobs in Lancashire where the UK Typhoon is built.

Alternative: Lord Hesketh put forward an argument for a marinized Typhoon to be developed instead of the JSF
Certainly now that the JSF has been beleaguered with problems, a naval version of the Typhoon is looking a more attractive proposition by the day.

In February the Indian government decided on the French Raphale as their aircraft of choice in a contract worth $20bn, primarily because the version of Joint Strike Fighter which they required for their carriers was not developed yet.  Since the technology for a marinized Typhoon has already been developed, it was a missed opportunity for British business and British jobs which could have benefited from the billion pound deal in a part of the country where the recession is still hurting.

Not only that, but such a project has the benefit of no outside restrictions on the export of the aircraft as we would have control of the intellectual property on both the systems and weapons.

'Much of the work to make the Typhoons fit for carrier operations has already been undertaken' writes Lord Hesketh. 'And there's the added bonus that it would preserve and create British jobs.'

But it's not just in fast jets that the Strategic Defence and Security Review has made fundamental errors. The grounding of the Sentry surveillance planes begs the question of what have we in back up for these situations where we need surveillance to be undertaken.

Last year I wrote to the MoD to ask why they were scrapping Nimrod and asked what they were replacing it with. As the review made clear, it is not with the Sentinel, a truly excellent aircraft for surveillance and intelligence work.

Complaint: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has made it clear that it is not replacing the Nimrod (above) with the Sentinel
These planes take on the sort of missions in Afghanistan and the Swat Valley which affect the whole of OP HERRICK and the lives of our troops. It's telling that the MoD are keeping the planes in Afghanistan to fulfil that need: there is no decent replacement. So why are we getting rid of it?

The Sentinel is only of real value when it is fully kitted up with software and technology which, as a country, we are unable to sell with the aircraft frames in order to protect national security. Financially, therefore, it makes no sense to sell them.

The decision to sell the Sentinel and replace it with Rivet Joints and The Reaper is nothing less than reckless and the reason for doing so remains as clear as mud. The savings would be tiny and would not compensate for the the lack of quality of the Reaper compared to the Sentinel.  All the latter aircraft will do is bring us into line with what the rest of the EU are doing.

So is that what this has all been about? Was the EU seen as a 'quick fix' to the defence black hole with the sharing of planes and carriers with the French and surveillance equipment with one of 26 other countries? If so, what do the latest changes mean for ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) who are losing their best planes?

I never received a clear answer from the MoD about what would undertake the role of Nimrod. If the E3D was part of that capability and is now grounded  then once again the true uselessness of the SDSR has been shown up. It's no wonder troops are quitting the Armed Forces in their hundreds: we've a government who thinks they're playing a game of toy soldiers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2133981/Weve-government-think-playing-game-toy-soldiers.html#ixzz1stXkdpFh

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Elzenga op 20/04/2012 | 23:59 uur
Blijven dus wel gewoon 57 Leopard tanks in service in Oostenrijk. Volledige opheffing dus ook daar geen keuze. Heel wijs.

Dat was het in Nederland ook niet toen we nog +/- 1.000 hadden rondrijden!

Eerst maar eens zien wat er gaat gebeuren bij de eerste volgende "ronde" of als de vervangingsvraag aan de orde komt.

Elzenga

Blijven dus wel gewoon 57 Leopard tanks in service in Oostenrijk. Volledige opheffing dus ook daar geen keuze. Heel wijs.

Harald

Oostenrijk bezuinigd flink op hun tank-materieel

Army to Retire 750 Armoured Vehicles

VIENNA, Austria --- As previously announced in November 2011, the Austrian armed forces will reduce about two thirds of its heavy equipment in the coming years. These equipments include various types of tanks, self-propelled and antiaircraft guns.

This step is in line with reforms that will take current and future threats into account.

Savings

By 2014, some 750 armoured vehicles out of the current inventory of 1,150 will be retired. The vehicles will be sold, scrapped or used as a source of spare parts.
By 2014, this is expected to generate revenues of about 17 million euros.
In terms of operating costs, according to expert estimates, these reductions will generate medium-and long-term savings of more than 15 million €.

Types of tanks

The inventory of Kurassier tank destroyers, the M-578 armored recovery vehicles and armored personnel of the Saurer-Reihe series will be retired.
The fleet of Leopard 2 main battle tanks will be reduced by half, and a quarter of the fleet of M-109 self-propelled howitzers will remain in service.
The entire inventory of Ulan tracked armoured vehicles, Pandur wheeled armored transport vehicle and most of the recovery and engineer vehicles will be retained.

Skills are adapted

The military's operational capacity will be reduced to align capabilities with realistic operational scenarios.
As a logical consequence, the training of personnel in the affected branches of armour, artillery and air defense artillery will be adjusted.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/134590/austria-to-retire-750-armoured-vehicles.html

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

How Cold War Weapons Can Nuke the Economy

By MERRILL GOOZNER, The Fiscal Times
April 19, 2012Two decades beyond the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia are still brandishing more than 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons on either side of an Iron Curtain that no longer exists.   This outdated nuclear standoff at the heart of Europe is costing cash-strapped governments on both sides of the Atlantic billions of dollars, rubles and Euros annually, money that is desperately needed for other things including deficit reduction. And it's not getting less expensive.
     
The Fiscal Times FREE Newsletter
     
The U.S. and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for instance, over the next few years plan to update their aging jet fighter fleets. They will need to go through the costly steps of building the F-35 Joint Strike fighter "dual capable" if it is going to be able to deliver nuclear weapons, which experts say could cost up to $10 million a plane. Tight-fisted Germany, meanwhile, will need to spend an estimated $400 million should it replace its aging fleet of Tornado jetfighters with nuclear-capable copies of the Eurofighter

That's not a lot of money in the larger scheme of things. But in an era where every European government is reducing its contributions to NATO, that could leave the U.S. holding the bag for maintaining a policy designed to fight a war from the mid-20th century. Even Pentagon planners are open to new talks to reduce tactical nuclear weapons, given the budget pressures they are under. "They'd much rather have ships and drones – things with a demonstrated use, not tactical nukes," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. "But all that has to take place in negotiations with Russia."

RELATED: 10 Years and $24 Billion: Just Two New Ships!

Yet there is little political will in either Washington or Moscow right now to challenge the status quo. Some of NATO's newest members – who just happen to be Russia's immediate neighbors and formerly under its boot heels – believe NATO nukes serve as an implicit guarantee that the U.S. and NATO will be there should Russia revert to its old ways. 

The Russians, meanwhile, are growing increasingly testy over NATO plans to install a missile defense shield aimed at Iran. Missile defense, an outgrowth of the 1980s "Star Wars" program that the U.S. still finances to the tune of more than $10 billion a year, is viewed as a strategic threat by Russia and its military is demanding either a legally binding pledge to never aim the shield at Russia or a jointly operated system. Barring those assurances, they have promised to deploy some of their aging tactical nuclear weapons closer to Europe as a countermeasure.

Two decades beyond the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia are still brandishing more than 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons on either side of an Iron Curtain that no longer exists.   This outdated nuclear standoff at the heart of Europe is costing cash-strapped governments on both sides of the Atlantic billions of dollars, rubles and Euros annually, money that is desperately needed for other things including deficit reduction. And it's not getting less expensive.
     
The Fiscal Times FREE Newsletter
     
The U.S. and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for instance, over the next few years plan to update their aging jet fighter fleets. They will need to go through the costly steps of building the F-35 Joint Strike fighter "dual capable" if it is going to be able to deliver nuclear weapons, which experts say could cost up to $10 million a plane. Tight-fisted Germany, meanwhile, will need to spend an estimated $400 million should it replace its aging fleet of Tornado jetfighters with nuclear-capable copies of the Eurofighter

That's not a lot of money in the larger scheme of things. But in an era where every European government is reducing its contributions to NATO, that could leave the U.S. holding the bag for maintaining a policy designed to fight a war from the mid-20th century. Even Pentagon planners are open to new talks to reduce tactical nuclear weapons, given the budget pressures they are under. "They'd much rather have ships and drones – things with a demonstrated use, not tactical nukes," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. "But all that has to take place in negotiations with Russia."

RELATED: 10 Years and $24 Billion: Just Two New Ships!

Yet there is little political will in either Washington or Moscow right now to challenge the status quo. Some of NATO's newest members – who just happen to be Russia's immediate neighbors and formerly under its boot heels – believe NATO nukes serve as an implicit guarantee that the U.S. and NATO will be there should Russia revert to its old ways. 

The Russians, meanwhile, are growing increasingly testy over NATO plans to install a missile defense shield aimed at Iran. Missile defense, an outgrowth of the 1980s "Star Wars" program that the U.S. still finances to the tune of more than $10 billion a year, is viewed as a strategic threat by Russia and its military is demanding either a legally binding pledge to never aim the shield at Russia or a jointly operated system. Barring those assurances, they have promised to deploy some of their aging tactical nuclear weapons closer to Europe as a countermeasure.

Those issues won't be on the front burner when the 28 NATO heads of state meet in Chicago next month. They will focus mostly on next year's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan and how to deal with Syria and Iran. The alliance will avoid making significant changes in its "Deterrence and Defense Posture Review," which outlines the rationale for the U.S. maintaining the five airbases in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey that house about 200 tactical nuclear warheads. But pressure is mounting from Europe for a change, and it's not just coming from countries facing severe budget crises. Germany may be under conservative leadership, but its elites are united around eliminating nuclear weapons from German soil.

"Prevailing public sentiment in Germany is strongly antinuclear, and the German government is now also committed to ending reliance on nuclear power generation," noted a recent paper on "Nuclear Weapons in Europe and the Future of NATO" from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank. "Barring a major crisis with Russia or Iran, it is very hard to see any future Germany government proposing, and the Bundestag agreeing, to sustain a nuclear delivery capability in the German air force after the Tornado is gone."

U.S. politics, on the other hand, may be moving in the opposite direction. After President Obama, who in 2009 promised to seek "a world without nuclear weapons,"  was caught off-microphone in Seoul last month telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he could be more flexible after the November election on the missile defense issue, Republican candidate Mitt Romney blasted him as an appeaser. "President Obama signaled that he's going to cave to Russia on missile defense," he said. "But the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be flexible in a second term." Romney's immediate attack wasn't just election-year politics. His distrust of Russia appears to be deep-seated.

After the Obama administration reached a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2010, Romney wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that branded the treaty as "his worst foreign policy mistake yet." The agreement, which will reduce the number of long-range missiles that assure mutual destruction of both countries in any nuclear war, also limited the re-use of old missile silos in a Star Wars-type missile defense system.

Romney's Cold War mentality resurfaced during a follow-up interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer after Obama's gaffe in Seoul. Russia, Romney said, "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

"When Romney comes out and says Russia is our greatest strategic foe, it translates into maintaining the existing nuclear complex," said Hurlburt of the National Security Network, which supports arms control talks. "And if you build in all the other plans to modernize the nuclear complex, then you're talking about real money."


Those issues won't be on the front burner when the 28 NATO heads of state meet in Chicago next month. They will focus mostly on next year's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan and how to deal with Syria and Iran. The alliance will avoid making significant changes in its "Deterrence and Defense Posture Review," which outlines the rationale for the U.S. maintaining the five airbases in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey that house about 200 tactical nuclear warheads. But pressure is mounting from Europe for a change, and it's not just coming from countries facing severe budget crises. Germany may be under conservative leadership, but its elites are united around eliminating nuclear weapons from German soil.

"Prevailing public sentiment in Germany is strongly antinuclear, and the German government is now also committed to ending reliance on nuclear power generation," noted a recent paper on "Nuclear Weapons in Europe and the Future of NATO" from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank. "Barring a major crisis with Russia or Iran, it is very hard to see any future Germany government proposing, and the Bundestag agreeing, to sustain a nuclear delivery capability in the German air force after the Tornado is gone."

U.S. politics, on the other hand, may be moving in the opposite direction. After President Obama, who in 2009 promised to seek "a world without nuclear weapons,"  was caught off-microphone in Seoul last month telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he could be more flexible after the November election on the missile defense issue, Republican candidate Mitt Romney blasted him as an appeaser. "President Obama signaled that he's going to cave to Russia on missile defense," he said. "But the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be flexible in a second term." Romney's immediate attack wasn't just election-year politics. His distrust of Russia appears to be deep-seated.

After the Obama administration reached a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2010, Romney wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that branded the treaty as "his worst foreign policy mistake yet." The agreement, which will reduce the number of long-range missiles that assure mutual destruction of both countries in any nuclear war, also limited the re-use of old missile silos in a Star Wars-type missile defense system.

Romney's Cold War mentality resurfaced during a follow-up interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer after Obama's gaffe in Seoul. Russia, Romney said, "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

"When Romney comes out and says Russia is our greatest strategic foe, it translates into maintaining the existing nuclear complex," said Hurlburt of the National Security Network, which supports arms control talks. "And if you build in all the other plans to modernize the nuclear complex, then you're talking about real money."

Two decades beyond the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia are still brandishing more than 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons on either side of an Iron Curtain that no longer exists.   This outdated nuclear standoff at the heart of Europe is costing cash-strapped governments on both sides of the Atlantic billions of dollars, rubles and Euros annually, money that is desperately needed for other things including deficit reduction. And it's not getting less expensive.

     
The Fiscal Times FREE Newsletter
     
The U.S. and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for instance, over the next few years plan to update their aging jet fighter fleets. They will need to go through the costly steps of building the F-35 Joint Strike fighter "dual capable" if it is going to be able to deliver nuclear weapons, which experts say could cost up to $10 million a plane. Tight-fisted Germany, meanwhile, will need to spend an estimated $400 million should it replace its aging fleet of Tornado jetfighters with nuclear-capable copies of the Eurofighter

That's not a lot of money in the larger scheme of things. But in an era where every European government is reducing its contributions to NATO, that could leave the U.S. holding the bag for maintaining a policy designed to fight a war from the mid-20th century. Even Pentagon planners are open to new talks to reduce tactical nuclear weapons, given the budget pressures they are under. "They'd much rather have ships and drones – things with a demonstrated use, not tactical nukes," said Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, a Washington-based think tank. "But all that has to take place in negotiations with Russia."

RELATED: 10 Years and $24 Billion: Just Two New Ships!

Yet there is little political will in either Washington or Moscow right now to challenge the status quo. Some of NATO's newest members – who just happen to be Russia's immediate neighbors and formerly under its boot heels – believe NATO nukes serve as an implicit guarantee that the U.S. and NATO will be there should Russia revert to its old ways. 

The Russians, meanwhile, are growing increasingly testy over NATO plans to install a missile defense shield aimed at Iran. Missile defense, an outgrowth of the 1980s "Star Wars" program that the U.S. still finances to the tune of more than $10 billion a year, is viewed as a strategic threat by Russia and its military is demanding either a legally binding pledge to never aim the shield at Russia or a jointly operated system. Barring those assurances, they have promised to deploy some of their aging tactical nuclear weapons closer to Europe as a countermeasure.

Those issues won't be on the front burner when the 28 NATO heads of state meet in Chicago next month. They will focus mostly on next year's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan and how to deal with Syria and Iran. The alliance will avoid making significant changes in its "Deterrence and Defense Posture Review," which outlines the rationale for the U.S. maintaining the five airbases in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey that house about 200 tactical nuclear warheads. But pressure is mounting from Europe for a change, and it's not just coming from countries facing severe budget crises. Germany may be under conservative leadership, but its elites are united around eliminating nuclear weapons from German soil.

"Prevailing public sentiment in Germany is strongly antinuclear, and the German government is now also committed to ending reliance on nuclear power generation," noted a recent paper on "Nuclear Weapons in Europe and the Future of NATO" from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington-based think tank. "Barring a major crisis with Russia or Iran, it is very hard to see any future Germany government proposing, and the Bundestag agreeing, to sustain a nuclear delivery capability in the German air force after the Tornado is gone."

U.S. politics, on the other hand, may be moving in the opposite direction. After President Obama, who in 2009 promised to seek "a world without nuclear weapons,"  was caught off-microphone in Seoul last month telling Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that he could be more flexible after the November election on the missile defense issue, Republican candidate Mitt Romney blasted him as an appeaser. "President Obama signaled that he's going to cave to Russia on missile defense," he said. "But the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be flexible in a second term." Romney's immediate attack wasn't just election-year politics. His distrust of Russia appears to be deep-seated.

After the Obama administration reached a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2010, Romney wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that branded the treaty as "his worst foreign policy mistake yet." The agreement, which will reduce the number of long-range missiles that assure mutual destruction of both countries in any nuclear war, also limited the re-use of old missile silos in a Star Wars-type missile defense system.

Romney's Cold War mentality resurfaced during a follow-up interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer after Obama's gaffe in Seoul. Russia, Romney said, "is without question our number one geopolitical foe. They fight every cause for the world's worst actors."

"When Romney comes out and says Russia is our greatest strategic foe, it translates into maintaining the existing nuclear complex," said Hurlburt of the National Security Network, which supports arms control talks. "And if you build in all the other plans to modernize the nuclear complex, then you're talking about real money."

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/19/How-Cold-War-Weapons-Can-Nuke-the-Economy.aspx#page2

dudge

Citaat van: andré herc op 14/04/2012 | 23:53 uur
Italian navy to loose 26 ships in the next 5 years

Bad times for the italian navy, in the next 5 years are going to be retired 26 ships (6 only in 2012).

-4 Maestrale class frigates
-3 Soldati class light frigates
-3 Lerici class mine hunters
-6 Minerva corvettes
-4 small training ships for cadets
-1 Stromboli class AOR
-1 Submarine rescue ship
-4 tugboats

In the same timeframe (more or less) only 8 new vessels will join the fleet

-6 FREMM frigates
-1 new submarine rescue ship
-1 AOR
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?211417-Italian-navy-to-loose-26-ships-in-the-next-5-years
http://www.difesa.it/Sala_Stampa/ras...012&pdfIndex=8

En toch lijkt het capability verlies wel mee te vallen.
De 4 Maestrale en 3 soldati class worden vervangen door 6 FREMM's, schepen die veel meer capabel zijn, en dus in vrijwel gelijke aantallen (van 7 naar 6).
De mine-hunters kan wel een probleem zijn, zoveel van die dingen hebben de Italianen niet, en elk NATO land is daarop aan het bezuinigen, wordt dat niet steeds meer een zwakke plek?
De 6 minerva corvetten is jammer, maar het zijn erg kleine schepen. Zonde, zeker voor de Italianen die wel wat kwantiteit kunnen gebruiken, vooral in de bescherming van de kleine eilandjes die ze overal hebben. In strikt militaire zin is het de vraag of er echt een capaciteit verloren gaat, of dat het gat vooral valt in de lagere taken als visserij en immigratiecontrole.
De 4 trainingschepen kunnen ze mogelijk ook wel missen. Met de instroom van de nieuwe klassen (horizonte, FREMM, Carvour) neemt ook het benodigde personeel af. De nieuwe schepen hebben gewoon minder personeel nodig, dus logisch dat er ook minder trainingsvaartuigen nodig zijn.
De AOR en onderzeeër reddingsboot worden 1 op 1 vervangen.
De sleepboten, tja, die dingen zijn, als ze echt gemist worden, makkelijk te vervangen, zijn immers geen oorlogsbodems.

Al met al denk ik dus, op basis van dit artikel, dat de Italianen, ondanks de dramatische cijfers, dit stuk best wel netjes doen.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Marc66 op 15/04/2012 | 00:18 uur
Het land heeft ook iets meer water rondom zich liggen en enkele landen waarbij enige oplettendheid noodzakelijk is.


Daarnaast loopt het land nog "een paar jaar" achter op de Nederlandse bezuinigingswoede... (wij doen immers niets anders in de afgelopen twee decenia)  :sick: