Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Hammond - UK Would Welcome Enhanced Defence Relationship with Germany

(Source: U.K Ministry of Defence; issued May 3, 2012)
 
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond spoke about how Germany and Britain are responding to today's security during a speech in Berlin yesterday, 2 May 2012.

Mr Hammond was hosted by the Deutsche GesellschaftfürAuswärtigePolitik (German Council on Foreign Relations) in Berlin, and his speech was titled 'Shared Security: Transforming Defence to Face the Future'.

In his speech, Mr Hammond explained that, unlike during the Cold War, a defensive crouch posture or 'Fortress Europe' will not meet the needs of national or regional security in this new era. This means intervening beyond the borders of the European Union when necessary.

He also emphasised that with the United States beginning to focus on Asia, Germany should join with the UK and France in transforming their armed forces and generate both the military capability and political will to deploy military resources more widely in future in support of NATO, the EU and coalition operations.

Mr Hammond, reflecting on changes in Berlin over the past 40 years, said that the reunification of the city, with many of the old certainties and familiar features disappearing, was a metaphor for the wider changes that have taken place in the 20 years since the Wall came down, across the globe, and in the strategic security environment in particular. He said:

"The Cold War imposed order and a degree of certainty... the enemy was known and was pretty predictable.

"In divided Europe, NATO and the Warsaw Pact understood the boundaries and operated by a set of rules and understandings.

"But in pure power-balance terms, we have swapped the certainty of a known and predictable enemy for a world of shifting power balances, emerging, independent challengers, and diverse non-state threats.

"So that a myriad of lesser, but nonetheless potentially devastating threats, emerge to make our societies in some ways less safe, less secure, and less certain in facing the future."

Facing the future

Mr Hammond said that this unpredictability and rapid change in the threats we face makes it all the more important that our respective armed forces, and our collective defence arrangements, are correctly configured to meet the requirements of today - and prepared, at the same time, for what is around the next corner.

The central argument in his speech, Mr Hammond said, was this:

"The responsibility of European nations to defend their citizens can no longer be discharged by a strategy of homeland defence and a 'Fortress Europe'.

"The threats we face are no longer territorial, so a passive defence of national territory is no longer adequate protection for our citizens.

"Our security requires that we do not sit back and let threats come to us, but that we project power to meet them - wherever in the world they are forming."

Mr Hammond said, therefore, that the NATO Alliance, and the European part of it in particular, must continue to develop together the capability and the political will to act when necessary - to project power, including, but not limited to, military power, and to deploy it rapidly when we must.

The need for transformation

Mr Hammond talked about Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR being a coalition success, and, for the people of Libya, a liberation they can justly claim to have seen through themselves.

It has reconfirmed the utility of NATO as the most successful tool for collective defence ever created, he affirmed, adding:

"But the Libya operation also cruelly exposed the imbalances and weaknesses in the Alliance and thus the scale of the task facing European NATO nations.

"Even with the very limited nature of the Libya campaign, the nations of Europe could not have undertaken this operation without the US shouldering much of the weight.

"We know what the problems are. Too many allies are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to NATO. Too many countries are failing to build and maintain appropriate capabilities to meet the new threats we face, or to make them available for operations."

Mr Hammond said that while we have known about these deficiencies for many years, we can no longer afford to carry on as before, because the United States has made clear that it intends to reflect in its strategic posture the growing importance of the developing challenges in the Pacific:

"Let me be clear about this - it is in Europe's interest that the United States rises to the challenge that the emergence of China as a global power presents and we should support the decisions the US has made.

"But that means we, the nations of Europe, must take on more responsibility for our own backyard; shouldering the major burden in the Balkans and the Mediterranean, but also being prepared, if necessary, to take a bigger role in relation to North Africa and the Middle East.

"This isn't about the United States walking away; this is about the nations of Europe taking more of the strain of our collective defence in our own region. Responding to the threats that most directly impact on us."

Fiscal realities

Mr Hammond acknowledged the 'fiscal challenges', saying:

"Without strong economies and sound public finances it will be impossible to sustain in the long term the military capability required across Europe to maintain collective defence and, when necessary, project power to confront threats as they form abroad.

"Yet, in the long run, all NATO members, if they benefit from collective defence, must contribute appropriately to it.

"Each of us must live up to the responsibility to fund national defence properly as a contribution to the Alliance - a responsibility which we reconfirmed as recently as 2010 at the Lisbon Summit.

"But in the short term - when pressures on national budgets are so severe - it is frankly a waste of breath to call for more defence spending to bridge the gap between what the Alliance needs and what the Alliance has. So, for now, more money is not going to be the answer."

Mr Hammond said therefore that we must do things differently:

• maximising the capability we can squeeze out of the resources we have.

• prioritising ruthlessly; specialising aggressively and collaborating unsentimentally.

• investing in capability that is fully deployable, and available for collective defence action - if necessary outside Europe's borders.

• working together to do more, with less.

Collective Defence

Mr Hammond said that the UK's National Security Strategy and Germany's Defence Policy Guidelines come to the same conclusion: to tackle the threats we share in common we need to act in common through all the institutions that exist to provide us with a collective response - the UN, NATO, and the EU among them:

"The challenge is to produce extra military effect, and do it swiftly, without duplicating effort or reinventing proven structures that already exist," Mr Hammond said.

"This will need to begin with a clear-sighted assessment of the current state of NATO's collective competence, taking account of what we know of reductions already planned and how these will impact on current capabilities. And a willingness to recognise the gap between that capability and NATO's stated level of ambition.

"This will provide a baseline against which to take the right decisions: greater pooling and sharing of capabilities; mission, role and geographic specialisation; greater sharing of technology; co-operation on logistics; and more collaborative training.

Multilayered Defence

For Britain, Mr Hammond said, 'Smart Defence' is also about making the Alliance more flexible, encouraging collaboration among groups of Allies and with partners outside the Alliance:

"We need an approach that allows natural bilateral partnerships or regional groupings within the Alliance and across its boundaries to flourish - adding value to the capabilities available to the Alliance as a whole."

Britain is actively pursuing such collaborative initiatives, Mr Hammond said, citing the new Northern Group of nations, including Germany, the Baltic and Nordic countries as well as the UK, and the Franco-British Defence Treaties as part of this process.

And the UK would welcome an enhanced defence and security relationship with Germany, Mr Hammond added, based on the areas where we can best add to Alliance capability through bilateral co-operation:

"We should work towards common positions in NATO and the EU, identifying reasons for any disagreements and tackling them head on, while building on the many areas of agreement as a foundation of our future co-operation."

Capability and deployability

Mr Hammond spoke about how the British Armed Forces that will emerge from our Defence Review will be formidable, flexible and adaptable - equipped with some of the best and most advanced technology in the world, supported by the fourth largest defence budget in the world, meeting in full our NATO responsibilities.

He said the watchword for the transformation process has been capability, not size, adding:

"This focus on capability rather than size is one of the most positive outcomes, I believe, that is emerging from the German transformation programme.

"A new phase and a significant step forward in Germany's post-Cold-War reconfiguration to face the future symbolised by the commitment made to the mission in Afghanistan.

"For both Britain and Germany, the test of transformation will be the ability to generate the level of military capability set out in our plans.

"But it will also rely, in Germany in particular, on the ability to generate the political will and public support for the deployment of military resources more widely in the future in support of Alliance operations beyond our borders.

"By refocusing existing budgetary resources on more deployable capabilities, Germany has probably a greater capacity than any other European NATO partner to contribute to short-term enhancement of the Alliance's capabilities."

In conclusion, Mr Hammond said that it is in all our interests to encourage Germany to realise that potential.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/134978/uk-wants-closer-defense-ties-with-germany.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Russia Orders More S-300 SAM Missiles

MOSCOW, April 28 (RIA Novosti)

The Russian Defense Ministry has resumed large-scale procurements of modernized S-300V surface-to-air missile systems, the manufacturer said on Saturday.

"The State Defense Order through 2020 provides for significant volumes of procurement of modernized S-300V air defense systems," Almaz-Antei's general director Vladislav Menshchikov said.

Almaz-Antei's former design bureau chief Igor Ashurbeili previously said S-300 production for the needs of the Russian military had stopped and that there were only export contracts.

However, in early March the Defense Ministry signed a three-year deal with Almaz-Antei for delivery of S-300V4 air defense missile systems.

The S-300 system is a family of long-range air defense missile systems capable of engaging all types of airborne targets including UAVs, helicopters and planes, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles.

Almaz-Antei said in early April it would build a new air defense systems plant in the Nizhny Novgorod region by 2015.

The company manufactures S-300 and S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems among other products.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120428/173113385.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

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.

Je zou toch denken dat "de haantjes" inmiddels weten dat het moeilijk is om van uit "de min" naar een positief saldo te komen, beter is dan een kleine plus om dit later weer uit te bouwen.

[Ace1]

Type 22 death row: symptom of Britain's self-destruction



4 Type 22 frigates on 'death row' Devonport, July 2011, Photo: Keith Reed
The harsh reality of the government's "strategic defence review". Amongst the most depressing sights in the UK today, HMS Campbeltown, Chatham, Cornwall and Cumberland lie at Devonport in various stages of dismemberment being stripped of secret formula radar-absorbent paint, weapons and other useful or sensitive equipment ready for scrapping. With at least 5-10 years good service left in them (HMS Campbeltown had multi-million£ refit as recently as 2009!), they were suddenly axed by a government with a dogmatic fixation on short-term cost savings and no understanding of maritime power. Although these ships date from the 1980s and were designed incorporating lessons from the Falklands War, they were still very capable warships and until recently were serving around the world protecting Britain's interests. Devonport naval base, the largest in Western Europe, lies half-deserted with few ships to support or refit. Its skilled workforce shrinks and another valuable national asset built up over centuries is left to wither. While many countries are investing in their navies and recognise the importance of maritime power, Britain which once dominated the globe through sea-power is self-destructing, slashing its Navy and throwing away assets and trained people that it may never be able to replace.

The Type 26 Frigate programme is crucial to the future of the Royal Navy.

The demise of these 4 frigates would be fairly unremarkable if there were replacements ready to come forward but there are no frigates under construction in the UK only the vague promise of the Type 26 Frigates which are supposed to start arriving in around 9 years from now! BAe Systems, the corporate giant that has the sole monopoly on UK warship construction, was awarded the contract to begin design of the Type 26 Frigate in March 2010. There are plans for 'up to 18′ of these ships including an ani-submarine version and a more general purpose version. Given BAe System's track record and an MoD that has consistently over-complicated and moved the goals posts during big procurement projects, it will not be surprising if costs spiral, delays occur and the Royal Navy receives less than the 18 promised.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wordpress/type-22-death-row-a-sign-of-britains-self-destruction

[Lynxian]

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)]

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

[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)]

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.