Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

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

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

Harald

Putin Calls for New Long-Range Bomber and UAVs

Russia must start development of a long-range bomber aircraft, President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday at a meeting on defense orders.

"We have to develop work on the new PAK-DA long-range bomber aircraft for Long-Range Aviation. I know how expensive and complex this is. We have talked about this many times with ministers, and with the head of the General Staff. The task is not easy from a scientific-technical standpoint, but we need to start work," Putin said.

If bomber development work is not started soon, Russia might miss the boat, Putin said.

A new long-range cruise missile has already been adopted for these aircraft, he said, adding that the "tactical level" is in need of deep modernization.

The president also said the A-100 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) project should be implemented within the next five years.

The new AWACS plane will have the capability to detect and track long-range airborne and ground-based targets.

Russia operates a mixed fleet of 63 aging Tu-95MS turboprop missile carriers, and just 13 Tu-160 bombers.

Russia must also develop a range of military unmanned air vehicles (UAV) including strike and reconnaissance types, Putin said.

"We need a program for unmanned aircraft. Experts say this is a most important area of development in aviation," he said. "We need a range of all types, including automated strike aircraft, reconnaissance and other types," Putin added.
Russia plans to spend around 400 billion rubles ($13 billion) on UAV development in the next eight years.

Putin's call for a new bomber comes just a week after Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who has responsibility for the military-industrial complex, appeared to pour cold water on the need for a new bomber, in remarks carried in Izvestia newspaper.



Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/putin-calls-for-new-long-range-bomber-and-uavs-43171/#ixzz1xqkc4Yzr

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Cutting missile system leaves warships at risk

The Royal Navy's warships will be vulnerable to enemy attack after a key project that allows ships to fire each other's weapons was dropped.

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

7:00AM BST 09 Jun 2012

The revolutionary Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), which has taken 12 years to plan and already cost £45 million, would have allowed ships tracking a low-flying jet or missile to pass the data to the targeted vessel, allowing it to launch defensive missiles, or for them to be launched by remote control.


The decision was criticised by a Navy commander who said it could mean placing the new billion-pound aircraft carriers in harm's way. "The Navy knows savings have to be made, but the Forces have been asked to do more with less," said a Navy commander.

"Furthermore, with the coastal environment being the one more likely to operate in during future conflicts you need to have as much reaction time as possible if you're putting £1 billion ships in harm's way."

The system is vital because enemy warships and incoming missiles can sometimes be masked by hilly coastal areas — such as in the Falklands, where the terrain of San Carlos Water meant that an incoming Exocet would not have been seen before it was too late.

With CEC, a destroyer further out to sea could follow the missile's track then fire the threatened warship's defensive missiles by remote control. As early as January this year Peter Luff, the defence equipment minister, told Parliament that CEC would be fitted to the £1 billion Type 45 destroyers in 2018 and then the estimated 13 future Type 26 Global Combat Ships. The system would cost just £24 million to defend each ship.

CEC defences were also meant to mitigate the loss of reducing the Type 45 fleet from eight to just six ships.

"The effectiveness of such platforms would be significantly diminished if the CEC is not provided," a report by the National Audit Office said.

News that the £500 million project has been dropped will also be a further blow to the ability for the Navy to operate alongside US ships.

"The decision to axe the CEC programme calls into question prior assumptions used to justify reductions in the Royal Navy's surface combatant force," said Richard Scott , the Navy expert for Jane's Defence Weekly.

"CEC would also have provided a significant improvement in the Navy's ability to undertake anti-air warfare operations in coalition with the US Navy."

A MoD spokesman said following a "comprehensive assessment of CEC" it was "not necessary to commit to purchasing the capability at this stage".

But he added: "As the Defence Secretary made clear earlier this week, the MoD budget has headroom of £8 billion over the next 10 years for potential new programmes."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9320778/Cutting-missile-system-leaves-warships-at-risk.html

Elzenga

#1084
Citaat van: Oorlogsvis op 04/06/2012 | 15:18 uur
Nou.....als wij daar bijvoorbeeld continu twee fregatten in een samenwerkingsverband moeten stationeren dan hebben we zowieso tekort aan fregatten. De strategie van het aandachtsveld verplaatsen richting Azie is een juiste zaak, maar of Europa hierin meekan met al die ziekelijke bezuinigingen ?...denk het niet :devil:
En toch is het denk ik wel een goede zaak en iets om te bepleiten...en vooral de noodzaak "uit te leggen". Want het kan natuurlijk niet zo zijn dat het gros van onze overzeese producten van daar komen of onze producten die kant op gaan...over het water...en we zo meteen afhankelijk zijn van anderen om die strategische vaarwegen te beschermen (en wat "betalen" wij daar dan voor?!). Daarom ligt hier een stevig lobby-onderwerp.

Het is in ieder geval een belangrijke reden waarom ik al jaren pleit voor een maritieme oriëntatie van (in ieder geval) de Nederlandse Krijgsmacht en dus versterking van de Marine en haar capaciteit ver van huis te opereren...samen met andere EU-lidstaten. En ja, daarvoor zal het defensiebudget moeten stijgen...misschien niet naar de bekende 2%, maar wel in de buurt. Maar goed, ga er maar aanstaan dit mensen wijs te maken. Die denken dat al hun welvaart en welzijn vanzelfsprekend is. Al lijkt de huidige crisis al wat te veranderen...maar dan denkt men niet direct aan defensie in deze. Of als bezuinigingspost. Misschien moet Rob de Wijk zijn boek gratis weggeven ;)

Reinier

Het gaat er niet om dat Europa ook haar troepen/ schepen/ focus verplaatst naar het Oosten, als we dat nog zouden kunnen (...)

Strekking van het verhaal is; VS ziet Europa niet meer als een van de belangrijkste gebieden in de wereld (terecht) en haalt deels van haar militaire aanwezig hier weg. Europa zal dus meer op haar zelf zijn aangewezen wat betreft defensie.
Was het al moeilijk genoeg voor Europa om de figuurlijke defensie broek op te houden tot de VS ons nog wel voor de volle 100% steunden. Na de afbraak periode van de afgelopen 10-15 jaar op Europese defensie gebied zal het nog moeilijker worden.

Maar gelukkig, onze politici weten en wisten dat er nooit meer oorlog zou komen in Europa dus waar heb je een goed defensie apparaat voor nodig?

Blijf het bijzonder vinden dat politici weten hoe de toekomst er uit gaat zien. Gelukkig wisten onze wijze bestuurders dat ook over de Euro, vandaar dat de noodplannen allang klaar lagen en wordt de crisis op een adequate manier aangepakt!
Ja, die les hebben ze goed onthouden. Na de vorige crisis in de jaren '20 en '30 van de vorige eeuw brak er oorlog uit in Europa. Toen zagen ze geen heil meer in een goed getraind en geoutilleerd leger en werd er voortdurend bezuinigd op onze defensie, tot dat het te laat was.

Zo dom en naïef zijn we nu natuurlijk niet meer!  :silent:

Oorlogsvis

Nou.....als wij daar bijvoorbeeld continu twee fregatten in een samenwerkingsverband moeten stationeren dan hebben we zowieso tekort aan fregatten. De strategie van het aandachtsveld verplaatsen richting Azie is een juiste zaak, maar of Europa hierin meekan met al die ziekelijke bezuinigingen ?...denk het niet :devil:

Harald

'Europe must rethink defence' after US naval shift to Asia

France said Sunday Europe needed to rethink its defence strategy as the US repositions the majority of its naval fleet to the Pacific.

French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said questions relating to Europe's defence framework have emerged due to the US shift, and are also exacerbated by Washington's defence spending cut.

"In the coming 10 years, the US budget for defence is going to be diminished by about $500 billion," he said at a news conference after attending the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security summit in Singapore.

"On the other hand, the United States have announced that they would give a priority to the Asia-Pacific region. Somewhere there will be a hole and it will be in Europe," he added.

Addressing the conference Saturday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Washington would gradually shift its naval fleet so that by 2020 it would have 60 percent of its ships in the Pacific, up from the current 50 percent.

Currently, the US has a 50/50 split between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, which covers Europe.

The decision to deploy more ships to the Pacific, along with expanding a network of military partnerships in the region, was part of a "steady, deliberate" effort to bolster the US role in an area deemed vital to America's future, Panetta said.

The move reflects US concern over China's rising economic and military might but Panetta insisted the strategy was not a challenge to Beijing.

Le Drian said European nations had to reassess their defence situation after Panetta's remarks.

"This means the Europeans must take into account this very solemn speech and Europeans must ask themselves how they conceive their future defenee always in the framework of the Atlantic Alliance," he said.

The United States is a key member of the 28-nation, Brussels-based North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/europe-must-rethink-defence-after-us-naval-shift-to-asia-42961/#ixzz1wp2ssz00

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Asia Pacific News         

US sees strategic role for Vietnam's southern port
Posted: 03 June 2012 2049 hrs

CAM RANH BAY, Vietnam: US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Sunday a former port used by US forces in the Vietnam War could play a pivotal role in the American military's shift towards the Asia-Pacific.

Panetta's visit to Cam Ranh Bay was the first by a Pentagon chief since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, and the highly symbolic trip reflected Washington's efforts to deepen ties with its former enemy as it seeks to counter China's growing power.

"Access for US naval ships into this facility is a key component of this relationship and we see a tremendous potential here," he told reporters on the deck of the USNS Richard E. Byrd, an American naval cargo ship currently at the port.

With new plans to shift the majority of the US naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020, Panetta described the deep-water harbour as strategically vital.

"It will be particularly important to be able to work with partners like Vietnam, to be able to use harbours like this, as we move our ships from our ports on the West Coast, (and) our stations here in the Pacific," he said.

Cam Rahn Bay is one the region's best natural harbours and the United States sees it an ideal spot to bolster an American naval presence in the contested South China Sea.

Vietnam recently started allowing foreign navies, including the United States, to use Cam Rahn Bay to resupply and undergo repairs. But the number of visits per year is restricted, and US commanders would like to have expanded access to the harbour, possibly including warships, analysts say.

Panetta's trip reflected the transformation of US relations with Vietnam as well as a growing rivalry between China and the United States, with the South China Sea at the centre of the competition.

Looking out on a bay that was once teeming with US naval ships during the peak of the Vietnam war, Panetta spoke of the "arc of history" in which a bitter war had given way to a new era.

"For me personally, this is a very emotional moment," he said.

The Pentagon chief said "a great deal of blood was spilled in this war on all sides," but he hoped that "out of all of that sacrifice, we can build a strong partnership between both of our countries that looks to the future."

The two countries signed a memorandum on defence cooperation last year and Panetta will meet with high-ranking Vietnamese officials, including the defence minister, in Hanoi during his two-day visit to discuss how to fulfil the agreement.

"We've come a long way, particularly with regards to our defence relationship," he said in the blazing sunshine on deck, adding that now he wanted "to take this relationship to the next level."

Cam Ranh Bay was one of three main hubs used by US forces in the war. The Vietnamese later leased the area to the Soviet Union, which used it during the Cold War, but the Russians left the base in 2002.

The Pentagon's plan to send more ships to the Pacific, unveiled Saturday during a speech by Panetta at a security summit in Singapore, reflects US concern over China's rising economic and military might. But Panetta insisted the strategy was not a challenge to Beijing.

China claims all of the South China Sea, which is believed to encompass huge oil and gas reserves. One-third of global seaborne trade passes through the region.

Panetta, who is on a nine-day regional tour, also said the US wants to work with Vietnam on "maritime issues," including on a code of conduct for all nations using the South China Sea, and on improving "freedom of navigation in our oceans."

Hanoi and Beijing, which have rival claims to the Spratly Islands and a long-standing dispute over the Paracel island group, have frequent diplomatic spats over fishing rights and oil exploration in the area.

Analysts say a more aggressive approach from China in the South China Sea has prompted Vietnam to forge closer defence cooperation with its former foe the United States.

-AFP/ac

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1205330/1/.html

dudge

Citaat van: wired op 03/06/2012 | 09:51 uur
If history is any judge, the development and production of up to 100 new Long-Range Strike Bombers has a high probability of ending disastrously. Every time the Air Force has tried to buy a new heavy warplane to replace the 1960s-vintage B-52, it has ended up spending tens of billions of dollars for a dwindling number of aircraft.

In the '50s and '60s the Air Force built nearly 800 B-52s for just $70 million apiece in today's dollars. The first bomber meant to replace the B-52, the '80s-vintage swing-wing B-1, ended up costing more than $200 million per plane. The third effort, the stealthy B-2 (pictured), shattered cost records with its eye-watering $3-billion-a-pop unit price. Today the Air Force possesses just 60 B-1s and 20 B-2s. The 70 surviving B-52s still form the backbone of the bomber fleet, more than 50 years after they entered service. All three bomber types have been heavily involved in aerial campaigns over Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in the past 15 years.

En dit lijkt mij niet alleen bij de US Bombercommand een probleem te zijn, maar bij heel veel Amerikaanse programma's. Toch vrij problematisch dat nu voor sommige secties door de kritische bodem gezakt wordt. Lijkt een signaal dat er echt eens iets moet gebeuren. Vraag, wat? Is het een logische ontwikkeling omdat apparatuur complexer wordt, of zit er toch meer achter?

dudge

#1078
Bombs Away: How the Air Force Sold Its Risky New $55 Billion Plane

In an instant, four tons of steel and explosives slammed into the 522-foot-long warship Schenectady, blowing it apart in a cataclysm of smoke, dust and sound. Overhead, a pair of U.S. Air Force Boeing B-52 bombers orbited, one of them having just released four laser-guided bombs. The huge, eight-engine warplanes had flown directly from Louisiana to attack the decommissioned Navy landing ship as part of an exercise near Hawaii on Nov. 23, 2004.

Schenectady's dramatic destruction marked a turning point in the Pentagon's approach to aerial warfare, and led directly to one of the flying branch's riskiest-ever investments. The sinking of the Schenectady by the Air Force was meant to prove to the flying branch's reluctant Pentagon masters that bombers could play an important role in a major ocean battle against China and its gigantic navy. In underscoring bombers' usefulness, the Hawaii demonstration was also part of the Air Force's efforts to get the Defense Department to sign off on a new bomber program. Two years later, the Air Force got its wish when the Pentagon finally gave the go-ahead for the so-called "Next-Generation Bomber."

But that program foundered and was cancelled three years later. After a change in leadership in the Defense Department, the Air Force once more pushed for a new bomber initiative  — and, again, got it. This year the Pentagon launched a potentially $55-billion effort to build a better bomber, one capable of replacing the venerable B-52 and preserving the long-range, heavy strike prowess the Air Force demonstrated that day off Hawaii eight years ago.

The "Long-Range Strike Bomber" program is a subject of great concern inside the Pentagon, and the topic of my latest investigative feature for the Center for Public Integrity. (The Atlantic also has a version of my story.) Even more than the Air Force's notoriously expensive stealth fighters, bombers are susceptible to program delays, budget overruns, cutbacks and skyrocketing costs. For half a century, bombers have been a symbol of the Air Force's overwhelming firepower ... and a poster child for Pentagon waste.

If history is any judge, the development and production of up to 100 new Long-Range Strike Bombers has a high probability of ending disastrously. Every time the Air Force has tried to buy a new heavy warplane to replace the 1960s-vintage B-52, it has ended up spending tens of billions of dollars for a dwindling number of aircraft.

In the '50s and '60s the Air Force built nearly 800 B-52s for just $70 million apiece in today's dollars. The first bomber meant to replace the B-52, the '80s-vintage swing-wing B-1, ended up costing more than $200 million per plane. The third effort, the stealthy B-2 (pictured), shattered cost records with its eye-watering $3-billion-a-pop unit price. Today the Air Force possesses just 60 B-1s and 20 B-2s. The 70 surviving B-52s still form the backbone of the bomber fleet, more than 50 years after they entered service. All three bomber types have been heavily involved in aerial campaigns over Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in the past 15 years.

Even so, the Air Force's inability to replace the B-52 at reasonable cost led the Pentagon at one time to essentially abandon bomber development. As recently as 1999, the Defense Department had no plans to buy a new bomber before 2037. But the Air Force, nervously observing the rapid growth of the Chinese military, believed it needed a new bomber to stay ahead in the Pacific. The orchestrated destruction of the Schenectady was part of the Air Force-led campaign that helped convince the Pentagon that bombers were critical to winning any future air war against China. Sinking the old Navy ship was meant to prove that the Air Force could defeat a Chinese invasion fleet steaming towards Taiwan, according to retired Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, who helped organize the 2004 demonstration.

Today Deptula is part of a group of current and retired senior officers who have spoken out on behalf of Air Force bombers. "They allow you to project power globally without projecting vulnerability," Deptula says of the heavy warplanes. In other words, bombers can deliver massive firepower without the need to deploy a big, vulnerable ground force.

Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006, was convinced by the bomber advocates' arguments and gave the flying branch permission to develop the so-called "Next-Generation Bomber." But that new plane design quickly grew to be as complex — and potentially as expensive — as the $3-billion-a-copy B-2. Robert Gates, who took over from the disgraced Rumsfeld, was aghast. "It makes little sense to pursue a future bomber – a prospective B-3, if you will – in a way that repeats [the B-2's] history," Gates said. In 2009 he cancelled the Next-Generation Bomber. Gates advised the Air Force to try again with a more affordable design.

The air service followed Gates' advice, but waited until the recalcitrant Pentagon chief and his closest advisers, including Marine general and noted bomber skeptic James Cartwright, retired in mid-2011. The Air Force found Gates' successor Leon Panetta more amenable to a potentially pricey new bomber program. With the Pentagon on board, the Air Force also lobbied Congress for support, and in the 2012 defense budget legislators ponied up $297 million to start work on the Long Range Strike Bomber's blueprints. That sum was $100 million more than the Air Force originally requested in its 2012 budget proposal. In essence, Congress is doubling down on the Air Force's risky bomber bet.

Mindful of its poor track record in developing bombers and still stinging from Gates' public rebuke, the Air Force has vowed the Long-Range Strike Bomber will be different than previous models. "We are ... cautious," Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said. "Cautious not to repeat the painful experience of previous Air Force bomber programs." The Pentagon has promised to cancel the new bomber again if projected development and purchase costs exceed $55 billion. To keep costs down, the Air Force says it's using only existing hardware in the new warplane. Nothing will be invented from scratch, like it was for the cutting-edge B-1 and B-2.

But there are good reasons to be very, very skeptical of the Air Force's assurances. For in addition to possessing traditional attributes such as long range and heavy payload, the flying branch wants the Long-Range Strike Bomber to include an optional robotic mode. With the flip of a switch, the new plane should be able to transform from a normal manned aircraft to one that can be flown remotely by crews on the ground.

That's meant to give the bomber the best attributes of a killer drone (long endurance, no risk to aircrews) and a manned warplane (greater flexibility and the ability to respond to a fast-acting enemy). But "optional manning," as it's known, has never been attempted on such a large scale before. It represents a big unknown in a program the Air Force insists will rely only on well-understood technologies.

"The new bomber will be both less expensive and more capable than its predecessor," Deptula says. If he's right, the Air Force could begin re-equipping with Long-Range Strike Bombers in around 10 years, sustaining for decades the promise of massive, long-range firepower that those ancient B-52s demonstrated near Hawaii that day eight years ago. If he's wrong, then the historical trend will continue. The Air Force will spend more and more on new bombers, with less and less to show for it.

Read the full story here.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/airforce-bomber-gamble/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WiredDangerRoom+%28Blog+-+Danger+Room%29

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

US to shift majority of warships to Asia: Panetta

AFP | 2 hours ago

SINGAPORE: The United States will shift the bulk of its naval fleet to the Pacific by 2020 as part of a new strategic focus on Asia, Pentagon chief Leon Panetta told a summit in Singapore on Saturday.

The decision to deploy more ships to the Pacific Ocean, along with expanding a network of military partnerships, was part of a "steady, deliberate" effort to bolster the US role in an area deemed vital to America's future, he said.

And he insisted the switch in strategy was not a challenge to China, saying both countries had a common interest in promoting security and trade in the region.

Panetta said "by 2020, the Navy will re-posture its forces from today's roughly 50/50 per cent split between the Pacific and the Atlantic to about a 60/40 split between those oceans.

"That will include six aircraft carriers in this region, a majority of our cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships, and submarines." The US Navy currently has a fleet of 285 ships, with about half of those vessels deployed or assigned to the Pacific.

Although the total size of the overall fleet may decline in coming years depending on budget pressures, Pentagon officials said the number of naval ships in the Pacific would rise in absolute terms.

The United States also planned to expand military exercises in the Pacific and to conduct more port visits over a wider area extending to the Indian Ocean.

Panetta was speaking to mainly Asian defence officials and officers from 27 countries at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual summit organised by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Unlike previous summits, China chose not to send a high-level delegation to the event, prompting speculation as to what lay behind the move.

Since President Barack Obama unveiled plans in January to shift towards Asia, the Pentagon has offered up few details about how it intends to achieve its goal.

Saturday's announcement on the future of the US fleet provided the clearest evidence yet of a shift to Asia, and the speech appeared designed to reassure allies that Washington will back its much-publicised "pivot" to Asia with tangible action.

But US Senator John McCain, attending the summit in Singapore, said he was concerned the US Navy lacked the resources to carry out Obama's vision.

"I think the commitment is excellent but the reality is the defence cuts that this administration is contemplating will make it very difficult to maintain that kind of commitment," McCain told reporters.

In his speech, Panetta said budget woes in Washington would not affect the plan to tilt towards Asia, which he said would take years to fully realise.

The United States planned new investments in capabilities needed "to project power and operate in the Asia-Pacific," including radar-evading fighter jets, a new long-distance bomber, electronic warfare and missile defences, he said.

"But make no mistake – in a steady, deliberate, and sustainable way – the United States military is rebalancing and is bringing an enhanced capability and development to this vital region," he added.

Amid a growing US-China rivalry, American officials privately acknowledge the push for a larger military footprint is meant to reinforce US diplomacy when confronting Beijing's assertive stance in the South China Sea.

But Panetta insisted that Washington wanted dialogue with Beijing and not conflict.

"Some view the increased emphasis by the United States on the Asia-Pacific region as some kind of challenge to China. I reject that view entirely," he said.

"Our effort to renew and intensify our involvement in Asia is fully compatible... with the development and growth of China. Indeed, increased US involvement in this region will benefit China as it advances our shared security and prosperity for the future." In laying out core US principles in the region, Panetta made clear Washington opposed any attempt by Beijing to make unilateral moves in its push for territorial rights in the South China Sea, where a number of countries have overlapping claims.

Disputes had to be resolved through agreed-upon rules among all countries and based on international law, he said.

http://dawn.com/2012/06/02/us-to-shift-most-of-naval-fleet-to-pacific-by-2020-panetta/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

This Is How The Huge Defense Budget Cuts Will Shape The US Military

Walter Hickey|Jun. 1, 2012, 8:47 PM|1,920|9

Wednesday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter gave a talk to the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank that develops an immense amount of defense policy in D.C.

While he was there and speaking to a room full of defense insiders, wonks, academics and professionals, Carter opened up about the future of the Department of Defense, specifically what's getting the axe with recent budget cuts, which branches are getting slimmed, where the United States is concentrating its military power, and — the biggest question on everyone's mind — what the Department of Defense is going to do after we leave Afghanistan.

Here are the biggest takeaways.

The Pentagon isn't even bothering to prepare for the upcoming defense cuts

Remember after the debt ceiling debacle last summer, when Congress enacted mandatory, across the board cuts in Defense because an agreement could not be reached? Well, the DoD is so certain that none of that will happen, they're not even preparing for the cuts. Even more, Carter told the AEI that unless the Office of Management and Budget directs them to make plans for the cuts later this summer,  they really don't plan to. The DoD is just that confident that the cuts are bull.

The Pentagon is putting every single thing on the table for cutting

This one isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser for the AEI, but Carter said that with Defense cuts coming up — these cuts unrelated to the sequester, just typical postwar budget contraction — nothing is safe. The DoD will review most of its programs, some existing since the Cold War, for budget constriction and cuts. While this sounds like typical budget-hawk lingo, Carter dwelled on this point for a while, and later backed it up with significant examples of material cuts on actual programs.

They're moving everything into the Pacific

Carter confirmed what most of us already know, that the DoD intends to move the United States armed forces into the Pacific in a huge way. But he did give huge details. The Navy is actually going to expand despite the cuts, and the Deputy Secretary says that the DoD is shifting its Naval presence to the Pacific. While cuts continue back east, the Air Force will see no cuts in Tactical Air support in the Asia-Pacific region. While the Marine Corps will significantly shrink overall, Carter said that there would be "no reduction in Marine Corps present west of the international date line," plus a new rotation in Australia.

What comes out ahead

One rule on what to cut came directly from President Obama him self; Don't cut things just because they are new and thus easier to cut. Carter said that this mentality mean that things like cyber, special operations forces, unmanned systems (think drones), and space initiatives should not be cut because they were recent additions with shallow roots. In fact, Carter said, those actually came out ahead after cuts.

What's getting dumped

C-130's are being largely phased out of certain theaters of national defense use in favor of newer, "multi-role aircraft" such as the F-35. The Navy will decomission many of its older ships as they become increasingly obsolete and expensive to maintain. The Army and Marines will undergo "the most titanic transitions as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars wind down." Both of those branches will see a decreased emphasis on counter-insurgency and a growing emphasis on a "wider spectrum of capabilities," and needless to say a significant shrinkage in personnel.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ashton-carter-deputy-secretary-of-defense-paints-the-future-of-the-us-military-2012-6#ixzz1wca8SF9b

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

NATO: Death by a thousand little spending cuts?

Can a debt-ridden U.S. still afford to pick up the cheque?

by Luiza Ch. Savage on Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:36pm - 2 Comments

The sobering reality became clear before the NATO summit even began. For a day and a half, the leaders of the world's biggest economies hunkered down at the woodsy presidential retreat of Camp David, huddled around circular tables sharing frank details of the fragile state of the global economy and how in Europe, the situation could get much, much worse.

There, Prime Minister Stephen Harper slept in a small rustic cabin named Rosebud, where Soviet security guards were housed when Nikita Khrushchev met with Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1958. (Harper's aides bunked in a nearby firehouse.) But the threat hovering over this meeting was economic. Ahead of a conference to decide how to keep the security alliance of Western democracies relevant two decades after the end of the Cold War, it was clear the piggy bank was empty.

When the security summit itself got rolling, NATO's members agreed to an endgame to the war in Afghanistan. (Harper confirmed that Canadian troops would leave by March 2014, and pledged $110 million annually for three years to help pay the $4.1-billion annual bill allowing the Afghans to maintain their "own" military.) But the allies did not agree to spend more on their own defence budgets, something Washington has been asking them to do for years. Going forward, that is the issue facing the winner of the 2012 presidential election. In a world that looks likely to deliver more humanitarian crises like Libya—and at a time of fiscal tightening in Europe—can the debt-ridden U.S. still afford to pick up the cheque?

It has been almost a year since former U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates, who served both Bush and Obama, focused his final speech on blasting NATO allies who are "apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources to be serious and capable partners in their own defence." NATO allies contribute to the common budget according to a formula based on the size of their economies. Last year, the U.S. covered 22 per cent of the budget, and Canada covered close to six per cent. But major NATO efforts, like the air war in Libya, require the devotion of national forces, and only five countries spend the agreed upon two per cent of their national budgets on their own defence capabilities, Gates noted at the time. That number has now fallen to only three countries. Meanwhile, 18 European nations have seen military spending drop by more than 10 per cent since 2008. And more cuts are coming: Britain plans to cut its defence spending by 7.5 per cent over the next few years, and Germany by about 10 per cent by 2015. Meanwhile, military spending by both Russia and China has been rising.

At a U.S. Senate hearing prior to Chicago, Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker asked what the Obama administration could do to "cause this to be a true alliance—not one of us, again, providing security services, and [NATO allies] being the consumers." The Obama administration points to Libya, which they consider a lesson to Europe in the dangers of under-resourcing NATO. When Washington joined the mission at least ostensibly aimed at protecting Libyan civilians from a massacre, the war-weary Americans entered with a caveat: they would perform in a support role, while allies like France and Britain would take the lead. But even though a Canadian commanded the mission, and Europeans flew the bombing missions aimed at Libyan forces, the exercise revealed major weaknesses in the alliance. The allies ran out of bombs—the kind of precision-guided munitions necessary when it's important to hit tanks, not the school next to them. And they had to depend on the U.S. for most in-air refuelling and reconnaissance for target selection; the Americans also fired their own specialized missiles aimed at suppressing Libyan air defences both from unmanned drones and fixed-wing piloted aircraft. Such awkward details have led some critics to dismiss NATO's supposedly leading role in the effort, and the United States's posture of mere support, as misleading advertising.

"While every alliance member voted for the Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission," Gates noted in last June's fiery speech. "Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can't. The military capabilities simply aren't there." A survey of 60 officials in Europe and the U.S. done in advance of the Chicago summit by the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, found the same thing: an overwhelming majority believed the mission could not have taken place without the U.S., and most predicted the alliance would not have the ability to carry it out alone.

And so, Philip Gordon, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, told the Senate hearing, the U.S. is "now able to say, 'Well, there's the example: if you don't continue to invest in advanced fighter planes, precision-guided munitions and intelligence assets, then you won't be able to do this in future, and you can't expect the United States to do it for you.' "

And the worry in Washington is that Libya is just the beginning. With the Arab awakening, and increasing instability across the Middle East and North Africa, U.S. officials fear more and more such operations lie in NATO's future.

But the allies' response to Washington's entreaties, lectures and threats has not been to provide more spending, but the precise opposite: to seek to do more with less—"security in an age of austerity," as NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen put it in Chicago. Rasmussen pledged to reduce the number of NATO headquarters from 11 to seven, cut the number of posts by more than 30 per cent, and reduce the overall size of the Brussels headquarters. The allies also agreed to take part in an initiative called "smart defence," aimed at increasing co-operation and coordination among member states, and to purchase more shared equipment for the alliance, including five of the Global Hawk drones used in Libya, and bomb-clearing robots. Smart defence's crown jewel is a $1-billion European missile defence system. The co-operative effort would see the U.S. provide the bulk of the necessary technology; Turkey, a radar station; Spain and the Netherlands would hand over radar technology; Germany would contribute a base to serve as a command-and-control centre.

These new capabilities are expected to "allow NATO allies to diminish reliance on U.S. assets," said a Canadian Department of National Defence official. But some observers say the moves are too modest. The Transatlantic Council's NATO specialist Jorge Benitez predicts "greater friction and division within the alliance" when the next humanitarian crisis crops up on Europe's doorstep. As in Libya, "the Europeans will be interested in crisis management," says Benitez, but "the U.S. will say: 'You want to buy things on the NATO credit card? We're about to cut the credit card.' "

Even before the current financial problems, European allies had been cutting national security spending—by 20 per cent since the Cold War, in part because of a lack of public support, said Benitez. Those clamouring to get involved in missions to protect human rights and women's rights, to prevent future Rwandas and Srebrenicas, are exactly the same people who "don't want to fund institutions like NATO," he says, adding he was "disappointed" by the summit, even by Rasmussen's "smart defence" project. It's "better than nothing," he concedes, "but I have yet to be convinced smart defence will substantively resolve the defence capability gap between the U.S. and Europe," he warned.

Meanwhile, domestic political pressures intruded on the international summit, even as Obama played host to allies in Chicago. As the meetings got under way, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney penned an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune blaming the President for setting a bad example. "The administration's irresponsible defence cuts are clearing the way for our partners to do even less," he wrote. Romney, who routinely campaigns on the notion of "American exceptionalism" and is fond of calling the U.S. "the hope of the earth," cited "an Iranian regime with nuclear ambitions, an unpredictable North Korea, a revanchist Russia, a China spending furiously on its own military, to name but a few of the major challenges looming before us" as evidence that "the NATO alliance must retain the capacity to act."

For Canada's part, the Harper government has been increasing the size of the Canadian Forces and acquiring new equipment. But Canada has not been immune to cuts. Last June, Ottawa announced it was pulling out of a successful NATO air surveillance program, known as AWACS, to cut costs.

At the conference, Harper conceded that the United States remained, perhaps too much, the "indispensable partner" of the alliance. "I do share the President's concern that the United States does often still share too much of the burden," Harper said, when asked about allied spending. "The world always has a lot to say to the Americans about how they should be doing this or that," he added. "We should all be prepared to contribute." Financial pressures on many countries, "including the United States," he added, are "going to make collective action and collective responsibility more critical than ever."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/29/nato-death-by-a-thousand-little-spending-cuts/

Lynxian

Die is makkelijk. Halveer het budget en je hebt nog steeds het sterkte leger ter wereld. Dus of het voor de veteranen nou zo geruststellend is... :P

andré herc

#1073
Romney belooft veteranen 'het sterktste leger ter wereld'

De Republikeinse presidentskandidaat Mitt Romney heeft tijdens een toespraak aan veteranen beloofd dat hij een leger in stand zal houden dat 'met geen enkele vergelijkbare kracht, waar dan ook ter wereld' te vergelijken is. .

Romney deed zijn uitspraken in San Diego op Memorial Day, de dag waarop Amerika zijn omgekomen militairen herdenkt. De toespraak van Romney stond dan ook officieel niet te boek als campagnebijeenkomst, maar de Republikein deed zijn best de verschillen tussen hem en president Barack Obama zo veel mogelijk uit te venten.

Romney waarschuwde voor het beeld dat Amerika steeds zwakker wordt. Volgens Romney moeten de Verenigde Staten het sterkste leger ter wereld hebben om oorlogen te winnen en om ze te voorkomen. Senator John McCain - de vorige Republikeinse presidentskandidaat en gedecoreerd oorlogsveteraan - noemde Romney 'volledig geschikt' om als hoogste legerleider op te treden.

Obama eerde vandaag in Washington de veteranen.

Romney is veel populairder onder veteranen dan Obama. Een peiling van Gallup laat zien dat 58 procent van de veteranen Romney steunt, tegenover slechts 34 procent Obama. Veteranen zijn een belangrijke groep kiezers in de Verenigde Staten, ze maken zo'n 13 procent van de bevolking uit.

volkskrant.nl
28/05/12, 22:23
Den Haag stop met afbreken van NL Defensie, en investeer in een eigen C-17.