Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Zie ook: Antwoord #1111 Gepost op: 21/05/2012 | 11:48 uur »

Heb ik gelezen. Het is nu dus formeel. 

En dat is voor Europa goed nieuws.

[Lex]

Zie ook: Antwoord #1111 Gepost op: 21/05/2012 | 11:48 uur »

Heb ik gelezen. Het is nu dus formeel. 

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Dat is goed nieuws voor de UK, misschien een idee voor Nederland, maarja dan MOET er wel een conservatieve partij bestaan in Nederland.

Betreft: "The replacement of Trident will come a step closer this week as ministers start work on new submarines to carry Britain's nuclear weapons"

Ik vindt het prima... maar met de Groene Khmer in Nederland krijgen we dit vast niet gerealiseerd.

[Marc66]

Dat is goed nieuws voor de UK, misschien een idee voor Nederland, maarja dan MOET er wel een conservatieve partij bestaan in Nederland.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Het VK spendeert £350 miljoen aan de ontwikkeling van nieuwe onderzeeboten. De contracten gaan naar bedrijven in het VK om werkgelegenheid te redden cq te creëren.
BBC radio, 22 mei.

Zie ook: Antwoord #1111 Gepost op: 21/05/2012 | 11:48 uur »

[Lex]

Het VK spendeert £350 miljoen aan de ontwikkeling van nieuwe onderzeeboten. De contracten gaan naar bedrijven in het VK om werkgelegenheid te redden cq te creëren.
BBC radio, 22 mei.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Navy Needs Both LCS Types For War With China, Iran

By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

Published: May 21, 2012

WASHINGTON: While the Littoral Combat Ship is not suited for the front lines of a war with China, it would provide vital protection to US supply lines in such conflict, said Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Work, and against Iran, LCS would be in the battle from "day one," with eight LCSs ultimately operating out of Bahrain. Indeed, the two potential theaters of war are so different that the Navy may consider focusing the "much more maneuverable" Lockheed Martin version of the LCS on fighting fast attack boats in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf, while the very different General Dynamics design, with its larger flight deck and fuel tanks, operates primarily in the vast reaches of the Pacific.

"We like having two options," said Work, one of the Navy's most passionate advocates of the controversial LCS, speaking this afternoon at the libertarian Cato Institute, where three other panelists all questioned the Navy's decision to buy two distinctly different designs. The Navy might one day have to choose one over the other "if the bottom falls out of the budget," Work told reporters afterwards, or if one design proves simply superior across the board after several years of real-world experience.

Those scenarios aside, however, Work said, "we're committed to two different classes" – a rare official acknowledgment that the two LCS designs are not mere variants of a single class of ship but two different classes altogether. Work rejected the idea that buying only one LCS design would be significantly more cost-efficient, arguing that the planned 27-28 buy of each version is far more ships than many Navy ship classes in the past and quite large enough to get efficiencies of scale in spare parts, maintenance, and training. Besides, Work said, the Navy is addressing the biggest incompatibility already by moving both versions to the same electronics for their combat systems and communications.

Most public and Congressional criticism so far has focused on LCS-1 Independence, built by Lockheed Martin and its partner Marinette Marine on the Great Lakes. So far LCS-2 Independence, built by General Dynamics and Austal on the Gulf Coast, has taken far less flak: "Unfortunately, I haven't got my hands on any LCS-2 whistleblowers" – yet – said Ben Freeman of the Project On Government Oversight, which has led the charge against LCS-1, speaking at the same event as Work.

Work made sure to tout each version's distinct advantages. LCS-1 looks like a conventional warship but at high speeds operates like a giant speedboat, its steel hull skimming over the waves. LCS-2 is an all-aluminum "trimaran" whose triple hull supports an extraordinarily broad flight deck for helicopters.

"LCS-2 has an enormous capability as far as aviation," Work said, as well as longer range. That's a powerful combination in the Pacific, where he saw the LCS's primary wartime mission not as challenging the Chinese fleet and land-based defenses head-on but as protecting the fleet's long and vulnerable supply lines. "What you need is something to escort your combat logistics ships," Work said, particularly against the threat of submarines. The LCS "mission module" for anti-submarine warfare, originally intended to form a relatively static barrier zone against enemy subs, is being redesigned with this much more mobile long-range escort mission in mind, Work told reporters.

By contrast, "LCS-1 is really our swarm killer," Work said, being "much more maneuverable" to take on large numbers of fast attack boats. That's a favorite Iranian tactic, and in the narrow confines of the Gulf, LCS-1's shorter range would be much less of a problem in the Pacific. In addition, compared to LCS-2's all-aluminum design, LCS-1's steel hull makes it much easier to upgrade the main gun from 57 mm to 76 mm, although Work thinks that a smaller gun with more ammunition is still a better bet against swarms of small boats.

So, Work speculated, "maybe over time the LCS-2 becomes the Pacific ship," while LCS-1 operates mainly in the Atlantic fleet – although he took care to tell reporters afterwards this division of labor was strictly "hypothetical."

What's not hypothetical is that the very different demands of the two theaters make for important differences in how the Navy would use the LCS. Against China, said Work, attempting to clarify earlier remarks by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, "what he was saying was you weren't going to send the LCS into the Western Pacific," where Chinese land-based missiles and aircraft pose the most intense threat. Instead, said Work, LCS would be further out to sea watching for Chinese submarines that might threaten the Navy's long supply lines across the Pacific. "It would be operating as a combat logistics force escort," he said. "It would still be in combat."

By contrast, against Iran, "on day one in the Gulf this ship will be fighting in the [fast attack boat] threat underneath the air defense umbrella of the fleet," Work said. LCS would serve as a kind of naval skirmish line to keep Iranian small boats away from the Navy's destroyers, cruisers, and carriers, which would in turn protect the LCS force against airstrikes and land-based missiles.

In either theater, Work emphasized, "This ship will sail in the fleet, it is a warship, it will be ready for war, and I guarantee you that sailors who fight this ship are going to be darn glad they're on it."

No matter what, two LCS – one of each type – are already in the fleet and two more on their way, with twenty more – ten of each – under contract. So, said the Congressional Budget Office's naval expert Eric Labs, "We're going to have a bunch of LCS's around, we're going to have at least a minimum of 24." But as those current contracts wind up, said Labs, speaking at the same event as Work, "come 2015, the Navy's going to have another decision point, [to] continue both types of ships or just one" – or neither.

Work understands that the burden of proof is on the Navy here. "This ship is so different, it's so different from anything we've put to sea," he said. "We had to prove it, we have to show everyone."

http://defense.aol.com/2012/05/21/navy-needs-both-lcs-types-for-war-with-china-iran-robert-work/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

U.K. Sets £160 Billion, 10-Year Defense Equipment Plan

By Robert Wall

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

May 21 , 2012

Robert Wall/London

Taking money away from a healthy program to pay for cost overruns on a broken one, only to leave both crippled, is a standard defense budgeting practice worldwide. The U.K. is hoping that a new financial reserve fund will break that habit.

As part of the £160 billion ($253 billion) the U.K. plans to spend on defense equipment and services in the next decade, it is earmarking several billion pounds to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Of the total, slightly less than £152 billion has been allocated to specific budget lines, including more than £4 billion for the reserve. Another £8 billion is not allocated against specific accounts. The reserve is designed to give some flexibility to manage cost increases without affecting other projects.

The funding level is spelled out in Program Review 12 (PR12) in which Defense Secretary Philip Hammond vows to have brought into equilibrium equipment plans and actual available funding after years of a mismatch between the two. Balancing the books has been a priority for Hammond, who says the National Audit Office will be able to review the balanced-budget claim, including by looking at commercially sensitive information. That assessment is expected to be made public.

In Hammond's view, the sustainable equipment program "gives industry the confidence to invest."

The funding being set aside includes an extra £4 billion for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance projects (such as the Solomon intelligence data storage and fusion system and the carrier-based Crowsnest airborne early warning efforts) and £7 billion for complex weapons, mostly for previously committed efforts. Eurofighter Typhoon upgrades also are being funded, says Hammond, without giving details of which enhancements are planned. However, the money is likely to help support the fielding of additional ground-attack capabilities and an active, electronically scanned array radar, although approval from other Eurofighter partner countries will still be needed.

The budget will cover the already announced purchase of 14 Boeing CH-47 Chinooks and an eighth C-17, as well as three RC-135 Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft (called AirSeeker). The purchase of 23 A400M military airlifters and 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelers also is being backed.

On the helicopter front, Hammond says Wildcat buys are being funded, as are Merlin helicopter upgrades, studies to marinize the Merlin fleet, an Apache attack-helicopter life extension to keep them in service past 2025, and upgrades of 24 Pumas, slightly below the almost 30 once planned. More than half the Pumas have already been modified.

Underpinning the road map is a plan to increase by 1% in real terms equipment spending from 2015 on. Research and technology outlays will not fall any further, according to Hammond.

"Cultural" acquisition changes are another priority, and Hammond says he hopes to adopt some of the benefits of the urgent operational requirements process. The effort is being backed by a planned initiative to reform the Defense Equipment & Support organization, with an announcement due before the summer recess.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_21_2012_p26-458478.xml&p=2

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Obama geeft Europa veeg uit de pan over defensiebudgetten

Bewerkt door: Steven Peeters − 21/05/12, 19u16  − Bron: belga.be

De Amerikaanse president Barack Obama heeft de Europese staats- en regeringsleiders in Chicago "zeer duidelijk bekritiseerd" over hun krimpende defensiebudgetten. "Voor Obama is het moment gekomen dat de landen van de EU zich beter organiseren en een bijkomende inspanning te leveren", zo liet premier Elio Di Rupo optekenen, in de marge van de grote NAVO-top in de VS.

De VS nemen binnen de NAVO nog steeds 77 procent van de financiële inspanningen voor hun rekening. "Maar ook de Amerikaanse begroting staat onder druk", kreeg ook defensieminister De Crem van zijn VS-collega Leon Panetta te horen.

"De VS kan en wil zijn investeringen in defensie niet op hetzelfde niveau blijven dragen. De premier en de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken weten dat we daar in de toekomst rekening mee zullen moeten houden", aldus De Crem. Hij haalde daarbij ook de suggestie van Panetta aan om de Belgische besparingen door een terugtrekking uit Afghanistan te herinvesteren in nieuwe technologische capaciteiten en andere buitenlandse operaties.

Melsbroek
Meer algemeen mikt de NAVO op nauwere militaire samenwerking tussen de bondgenoten om de budgettaire krapte het hoofd te bieden. Ruim twintig projecten in die zin kregen in Chicago groen licht. België toonde daarbij zijn interesse om mee te stappen in een gezamenlijke aankoop van robots om bermbommen te ontmantelen en in de collectieve ontwikkeling van militaire simulatiesoftware, bevestigde De Crem.

Tot slot heeft de defensieminister de militaire luchthaven van Melsbroek nog aangeboden als uitvalsbasis voor de nieuwe vliegtuigen die in EU-verband gekocht zullen worden om in de lucht te kunnen bijtanken. Erg concreet is dat project echter nog niet, en bovendien heeft ook Frankrijk al een standplaats aangeboden.

De NAVO mag dan wel op zoek zijn naar een smak geld om de lonen van Afghaanse militairen en agenten te betalen na 2014, dat betekent niet dat de beloofde Belgische 12 miljoen euro daarvoor zal dienen. "Het zijn nog steeds wij die geld geven en nog steeds wij die beslissen", zette premier Elio Di Rupo op een persontmoeting in Chicago de puntjes op de i.
     
4,1 miljard dollar
Eind 2014 trekken alle buitenlandse gevechtstroepen uit Afghanistan weg. De eigen militairen en agenten zullen dan de veiligheid in het land in handen moeten nemen. Dat kost echter handenvol geld dat de Afghanen niet hebben. De internationale gemeenschap zal dus minstens tien jaar lang stevig moeten bijdragen aan het prijskaartje van 4,1 miljard dollar.

Het Belgische kernkabinet besliste deze week om maximaal 12 miljoen euro opzij te zetten voor hulp aan Afghanistan na 2014. Geld dat moet gaan naar zaken als de heropbouw van het land, de uitbouw van democratische structuren en eventueel de opleiding van politiemensen. In de marge van de NAVO-top in Chicago lieten bronnen binnen het bondgenootschap echter verstaan dat de vraag om 12 miljoen euro van België louter bedoeld was voor de lonen en werkingskosten van de Afghaanse veiligheidsdiensten.
     
Geen blanco cheque
Maar daar wil premier Di Rupo dus niet in meestappen. "Ik begrijp dat er in de entourage van de secretaris-generaal mensen zijn die een blanco cheque zouden willen krijgen", stelde hij op een persbriefing. "Maar het zijn nog steeds wij die geld geven en nog steeds wij die beslissen."
     
Vanuit de andere bondgenoten kreeg Di Rupo naar eigen zeggen geen enkele opmerking over de Belgische bijdrage en de eis om het geld meteen voor specifieke doelstellingen vast te leggen. Welke die zullen zijn, zal pas beslist worden naarmate het einde van 2014 nadert.

Bezoek Obama
In de marge van de NAVO-top in Chicago heeft premier Elio Di Rupo de Amerikaanse president Barack Obama uitgenodigd voor een bezoek aan België. "Indien ik herverkozen wordt", luidde het antwoord volgens de eerste minister. Dat zou dan meteen het eerste bezoek van president Obama zijn aan ons land.

http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/990/Buitenland/article/detail/1441812/2012/05/21/Obama-geeft-Europa-veeg-uit-de-pan-over-defensiebudgetten.dhtml

[Elzenga]

Ik denk dat dit absoluut een brug te ver is. (maar wie weet)

Ik kan me haast niets anders voorstellen....dan dat de Britten afhankelijk blijven van wat 1 van onze grootste economische concurrenten gaat worden en feitelijk al is. Daar hebben de Britten als EU-lidstaat en liggend in Europa toch echt meer strategische gedeelde belangen met de Fransen als met de Amerikanen. De Fransen en Britten zullen immers het Europese nucleaire antwoord/afschrikking moeten leveren. Het idee dat we nog onder de Amerikaanse nucleaire "paraplu" verblijven vind ik echt een illusie en waanvoorstelling die men nog steeds (en vanuit Amerikaans oogpunt snap ik dat heel goed) overeind probeert te houden (o.a. via de NAVO). Maar als er kernraketten op Europa neerkomen denkt de Amerikaanse president wel tig keer na voor hij zijn nucleaire arsenaal inzet ter vergelding. Zeker als de agressor ook Amerika kan treffen. Dus ik voorzie dat Europa/EU zelf zijn "umbrella" moet ontwikkelen en versterken. En dan lijkt me een nauwere Franse en Britse samenwerking zeer verstandig en dus wenselijk.     

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Hopelijk in de toekomst een Brits-Franse vervanger voor hun beider nucleaire wapens.

Ik denk dat dit absoluut een brug te ver is. (maar wie weet)

[Elzenga]

Hopelijk in de toekomst een Brits-Franse vervanger voor hun beider nucleaire wapens.

[dudge]

Jammer dat niet wordt samengewerkt met dat andere land in Europa dat deze capaciteit heeft. Dat had de mogelijkheid gegeven een grotere serie te bouwen, en kosten te besparen. De optie van de lib-dem backbenchers klinkt  ook zo gek nog niet trouwens.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ministers approve £350 million contract for Trident replacement

The replacement of Trident will come a step closer this week as ministers start work on new submarines to carry Britain's nuclear weapons.
By James Kirkup, in Chicago

10:00PM BST 20 May 2012

The Ministry of Defence will announce this week that it has placed £350 million of contracts for the design of new nuclear-armed submarines.

British defence firms will be asked to begin work on the nuclear-propulsion systems for a new generation of submarines.

The move comes despite Liberal Democrat attempts to shift the Coalition away from buying a like-for-like replacement for the Trident system of long-range missiles based on submarines.

The contracts are the first to be announced since Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that he had balanced the Defence budget, allowing new equipment orders to be placed.

The Trident system involves inter-continental missiles based on Vanguard-class submarines, which are now nearing the end of their working lives.

The first of the four Vanguards in service had been due to be retired in 2022. But ministers announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010 that the boats' lives will be extended.

On the current timetable, new British nuclear-armed subs are not due in service until 2028.

That means the final decision about ordering new boats does not have to be taken until 2016, after the next general election. That has raised doubts about whether the programme will go ahead.

A referendum on Scottish independence expected in 2014 could also complicate nuclear policy. The Vanguards are currently based in Scotland, but the Scottish National Party has said that an independent Scotland would not be home to nuclear weapons.

Ministers have not yet said how many new nuclear subs will be ordered. The current fleet of four allows the UK to ensure that one nuclear boat is always at sea, a policy known as continuous at-sea deterrence.

Despite Lib Dem doubts, David Cameron has insisted that the UK will uphold CASD when the successor to Trident is ordered.

Nick Harvey, a Liberal Democrat Defence minister, has been considering alternatives to a direct replacement for the Trident system.

One option being pushed by Lib Dem backbenchers would be smaller and less powerful nuclear missiles, which could be fired from the Navy's existing Astute-class attack submarines.

But the decision to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on designing new nuclear-armed submarines weighs heavily against that option.

Among the companies expected to win design contracts this week are BAe Systems and Rolls Royce. The MoD estimates that the contracts will sustain or create as many as 1,900 jobs in the UK.

Britain is going ahead with Trident renewal – likely to cost at least £20 billion – despite making deep cuts in the defence budget.

Mr Cameron yesterday told a Nato summit in Chicago that Britain's SDSR process shows that alliance members can increase their military firepower despite pressure on their defence budgets.

The summit discussed plans for "smart defence", where smaller Nato members will pool their capabilities to make the most of their military resources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9278387/Ministers-approve-350-million-contract-for-Trident-replacement.html

[Lynxian]

Wat dan, bijna 320.000 man personeel?