Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Waarbij de Britten al flink hebben ingeleverd, nu weer een stovl schiet gewoon niet op.

Eerst maar eens zien of een advies ook als strategische keuze wordt over genomen.

Het voordeel zou wel zijn dat beide nieuwe carriers gebruikt kunnen worden.

We zullen het voor de Paasen weten (wellicht al deze week).

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

UK fighter choice risks French entente

By Carola Hoyos, Defence Correspondent

David Cameron's widely expected volte-face on which fighter jet Britain should buy threatens to undermine his much-vaunted defence partnership with France.

Politicians and military analysts say the U-turn would put in peril the ability of both nations to project the power that comes with having an aircraft carrier able to travel anywhere at any time.

The government is due to disclose which version of the Joint Strike Fighter – the B or the C variant – it intends to buy before Easter but is widely though to have already decided that its current choice, which would require a retrofit of Britain's aircraft carrier, could prove more expensive than predicted and would therefore be unworkable.

Mr Cameron first changed the UK's order 18 months ago in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, switching to the C variant from Labour's original decision to go with the B variant. The review made clear that the switch was driven in large part by the need for the UK's carriers to be able to accommodate the fighter jets of allied nations, in particular the US and France.

The expected decision to shift back to buying the original choice – Lockheed Martin's F-35 B variant, prized for its ability to land vertically but less interoperable with French and US carriers – is being closely watched by the French government. The concern in Paris is that France and Britain will be unable to share carriers.

Etienne de Durand, an analyst at Institut français des relations internationales, the French think-tank, said the British U-turn was being taken in France as a sign of fickleness. "It is very hard to trust the British," he said.

He warned that French and UK naval credibility was at stake and noted that, given the budget squeeze caused by the economic downturn, the choice for the two countries' military capabilities was simple: either share it or lose it.

To share carriers so that one can be used when the other is undergoing the frequent repair and retrofit breaks to which carriers are subject, the UK would have to choose a jet and carrier programme that allowed conventional fighter jets to land on its deck.

Douglas Barrie, an analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: "If the UK moved back to the B version, with the design implications for the carrier it would mean that French navy Rafale fighter aircraft would not be able to land or take off from the British ship." Many long-range US fighters jets would also be precluded.

Mr Cameron made exactly this point when he changed the UK's order the first time, in the Strategic Defence and Security Review released in late 2010. Mr Cameron overturned Labour's decision to go with the B variant, announcing that the UK would buy the C variant and that its carrier would be retrofitted with a catapult and the cable arresting gear so it could carry French and US aircraft.

He argued that it was also necessary to ensure the UK had round-the-clock carrier capability and the chance to join the multinational military operations of the future.

The SDSR said: "A single carrier needs to be fully effective. As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth [Britain's new carrier] will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it.

"Pursuit of closer partnership is a core strategic principle for the Strategic Defence and Security Review because it is clear that the UK will in most circumstances act militarily as part of a wider coalition. We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear."

It went on to say: "This should both ensure continuous carrier-strike availability and reduce the overall carrier protection requirements on the rest of the fleet."

General Charles Wald, former deputy commander of US European Command, said Britain faced an unfortunate challenge with its carrier decision. "It's all about force projection and presence. If you don't have the ability to put your military out wherever you need to project it, whether it be Asia or off the coast of India or the Middle East, you give up a lot from a nation," he said.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1ae3aaa0-72b6-11e1-9be9-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk/feed//product#axzz1phRQbVG0

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Russian Air Force Adopts New Cruise Missile

16:32 20/03/2012

MOSCOW, March 20 (RIA Novosti, Alexander Stelliferovsky)

A new cruise missile has entered service with the Russian Air Force's strategic long-range arms division, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said on Tuesday.

He did not provide any details, only saying it was an air-launched long range missile.

AF chief Col Gen Alexander Zelin previously said the new cruise missile was developed by the Taktitcheskoye Raketnoye Vooruzhenie (Tactical Missile) defense corporation and that its specifications were secret. He said the new missiles would also be installed in fifth-generation fighters.

Douglas Barrie, an air warfare analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, said the new weapon was likely to be "either the Kh-555 or Kh-101/102."

The Kh-555 is a new conventionally-armed variant of the Kh-55 nuclear-armed cruise missile, which has been in service since the 1984 on Tu-95 and Tu-160 bombers.

Kh-101 is a stealthy nuclear armed cruise-missile under development by the Raduga design bureau, along with a conventionally-armed variant (Kh-102). Globalsecurity.org claims the weapon was test-fired in October 1998. Some reports claim the weapon is itself a derivative of Kh-555.

Serdyukov also said Russia's fleet of Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95MS Bear strategic bombers will be modernized.

Defense Ministry spokesman Vladimir Drik earlier said the AF's strategic long-range arms division will receive more than 10 modernized Tu-160M Blackjack bombers by 2020.

The new bombers will be adapted to carry advanced cruise missiles and bombs.

Zelin said in January the AF will soon deploy an advanced tactical air-to-air missile that will greatly enhance its operational effectiveness. The missile will be carried by MiG-31BM Foxhound supersonic interceptors/fighters and will subsequently be used by other warplanes.

Zelin did not identify the missile but experts believe it could be the K-37M, also known as RVV-BD, or AA-X-13 Arrow as it is known to NATO.

The K-prefix denotes a weapon in development while the M indicates a modification. An export variant of the weapon, known as RVV-BD, was shown at MAKS 2011. The BD suffix may stand for the Russian words bolshoi dalnosti, or long range.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120320/172284223.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Medvedev: Anti-missile system to counter US shield by 2017

email story to a friendprint version
Published: 20 March, 2012, 16:02

Rocket launch by the Pantsir-S surface-to-air missile system during an exercise (air defense conference) of the Air Defense soldiers. Ashuluk firing ground, Astrakhan region. (RIA Novosti / Mikhail Fomichev)

The Russian president has ordered the military forces to be seriously re-equipped so that the country can counter the US missile defense system in Europe after it is deployed.

Dmitry Medvedev made this announcement at a Defense Ministry meeting in Moscow.

"We are not closing the doors for communication, but we really need to prepare ourselves to the change of situation. We need to be fully armed by 2017-2018 and could answer within the framework of my address made in November last year," Medvedev said.

The president was referring to a speech in which he made clear that Russia could make a disproportionate answer to the US missile defense – in the form of newer missiles that can easily penetrate the defense and repositioning of the strike forces so that the missile defense itself could be easily destroyed if such need arises.

Medvedev also said that the suggestions to participate in the missile defense program were not helpful in the case of the US-European plans as the system would still weaken Russia's military potential and tilt the strategic balance in the world.

After the president's speech at the roundtable, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced that his ministry had already begun implementing measures in response to the missile defense plans.

"The situation with the US and NATO missile defense plans is not easy. The Defense Ministry has begun implementing military-technical measures approved by the Russian president," Serdyukov told a meeting of the Defense Ministry on Tuesday.

At the same time, the minister echoed the president in the readiness to continue the dialogue with foreign partners. The official said that Russia will be holding an international conference on missile defense in Moscow on May 3-4 and promised that the country's position will be further clarified at this meeting.

http://rt.com/politics/orders-re-equipment-missile-defense-981/

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

dinsdag 20 maart 2012



door Bruno Tersago

Griekenland grootste wapenimporteur van de EU

ATHENE - Op 19 maart publiceerde SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) zijn jaarlijks rapport over de wapentransfers over de hele wereld. Dit keer werd de periode 2007-2011 onder de loep genomen. Eerste opvallend feit: het volume aan wereldwijde wapenstransfers is in deze periode met 24 procent toegenomen in vergelijking met 2002-2006. En Griekenland staat op de 10de plaats.

Het failliete Griekenland staat wereldwijd op de 10de plaats in de lijst van wapenimporteurs en is daarmee de grootste invoerder van wapens in de Europese Unie. Samen met het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Noorwegen staan deze drie Europese landen zelfs in de top-20.

De cijfers

Griekenland verminderde zijn wapeninvoer met 18 procent in vergelijking met de periode 2002-2006, toen het nog de vierde grootste invoerder ter wereld was. Het land heeft geen bestellingen voor conventionele wapens geplaatst in 2011, maar ontving wel de vier Super Vita fast attack crafts van het Verenigd Koninkrijk (reeds voordien betaald) en wapensystemen voor deze schepen vanuit Italië en Nederland.

Griekenland ontving ook al een eerste lading van de 20 NH-90-helikopters die het in Frankrijk had besteld. Er loopt nog steeds een bestelling voor vijf type-214-onderzeeërs die vanuit Duitsland komen.

Griekenland is een goede klant; dat weet men in Europa. Het land koopt 13 procent van alle wapens die in Duitsland worden geproduceerd en is daarmee de beste klant van de Duitsers; het koopt ook 10 procent van alle wapens die in Frankrijk worden geproduceerd, waarmee het de tweede beste klant van de Fransen is.


"Het land koopt 13 procent van alle wapens die in Duitsland worden geproduceerd en is daarmee de beste klant van de Duitsers; het koopt ook 10 procent van alle wapens die in Frankrijk worden geproduceerd, waarmee het de tweede beste klant van de Fransen is"

Voor een land dat aan de rand van de financiële afgrond staat, zijn dit hallucinante cijfers: het gaat om miljarden euro's. De Grieken moeten nu al maanden horen, zeker van de Duitsers, dat ze minder boven hun stand moeten leven en dat ze nog meer de broekriem moeten aanhalen. Duits minister van Financiën, Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU), gaf onlangs in een interview aan dat hij vindt dat hij daarmee niet eens streng is geweest voor de Grieken.

Besparen op defensie

Er wordt dus op alles bespaard in Griekenland, behalve op de uitgaven voor defensie. Integendeel: er gaan nu stemmen op om de dienstplicht in Griekenland opnieuw te verlengen, om zo de werkloosheidscijfers onder de jongeren naar beneden te halen.

En wat horen we vanuit Brussel? Wordt daar aandacht besteed aan de Griekse defensie-uitgaven? Het blijft oorverdovend stil binnen de Europese Commissie, een interventie van Daniël Cohn-Bendit niet te na gesproken. Is het bovendien toeval dat in de periode van 2009 tot 2011 Evangelos Venizelos minister van Defensie was?

Deze man was, tot zondag, minister van Financiën in de regering van Loukas Papadimos en is nu de nieuwe PASOK-voorzitter. Deze man is verantwoordelijk voor de zwaarste maatregelen die Griekenland sinds decennia heeft genomen. Uit de mond van Venizelos horen we nooit dat er moet worden gesneden in de uitgaven voor defensie.

Duitsland en Frankrijk houden de kaken stevig op elkaar natuurlijk: als Griekenland geen wapens meer koopt, dreigt dat hun hele wapenindustrie grondig te ontwrichten.

De Turkse dreiging

Telkens het thema van defensie-uitgaven in Griekenland dreigt aangesneden te worden, duiken er berichten op in de media van een Turks onderzoeksschip dat boringen doet op de tectonische platen die zich op Grieks grondgebied bevinden, onder het mom van onderzoek naar aardbevingen.

Of erger nog: er wordt dan melding gemaakt van Turkse gevechtsvliegtuigen die het Griekse luchtruim zijn binnengedrongen, of Turkse oorlogsschepen die in de territoriale wateren varen. Het is een feit dat dit soort dingen gebeuren en misschien gaat het om meer dan plaagstoten van het Turkse leger.

Maar zijn Griekenland en Turkije niet samen lid van de NAVO? Zou één NAVO-lid ooit een ander aanvallen? En zou Europa zo maar toelaten dat Griekenland door Turkije aangevallen wordt (mocht Turkije daar al zin in hebben, want dat is nog lang niet zeker)? Zou dat de Europese solidariteit zijn?

In ieder geval blijft het erg bizar dat een land, dat zo goed als bankroet is, de grootste wapenimporteur van de EU is. Het is vreemd dat Europa daar geen punt van schijnt te maken.

Bruno Tersago

http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2012/03/20/griekenland-grootste-wapenimporteur-van-de-eu

[Ace1]

Misschien (weer eens) een interessante order voor Damen?  

Nee wordt waarschijnlijk BAE Systems Australië of Austal.

[Marc66]

Misschien (weer eens) een interessante order voor Damen? 

[Ace1]

and an off-shore support ship for $130 million.

bedoeld men met een off-shore support ship een OPV?

[Marc66]

Hmm..., misschien omdat Azie iets dichter bij Oceanie ligt dan Europa?

Overigens ben ik van mening dat ook Nederland uiteindelijk wel (weer) meer aan defensie zal gaan besteden, maar dat duurt nog zeker een jaar of 25 - 50. Nederland loopt (nl. altijd) achter 

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Australië gaat  maar door met uitbreiden van hun Defensie capaciteit om jaloers van te worden

Daar snappen ze dat de aandacht vershuift naar Azië, in Den Haag (en de rest van Europa) moeten ze de wekker nog zetten.

[andré herc]

Defence boost heavy-lift and amphibious capability with new ship, C-17 aircraft

by: Mark Dodd
From:The Australian
March 19, 20123:48PM

AUSTRALIAN Defence Force heavy-lift and amphibious capability has been boosted with the purchase of a sixth C-17 globemaster cargo plane at a cost of $280 million and an off-shore support ship for $130 million.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/defence-boost-heavy-lift-and-amphibious-capability-with-new-ship-c-17-aircraft/story-e6frg8yo-1226304178374
Australië gaat  maar door met uitbreiden van hun Defensie capaciteit om jaloers van te worden

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Cost of refitting Royal Navy aircraft carrier trebles

The costs of refitting a Royal Navy aircraft carrier so it can be used by a new generation of fighter jets have more than trebled, defence sources have told The Daily Telegraph.

Harding, Defence Correspondent

8:05PM GMT 12 Mar 2012

Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion.

Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model. But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence's original proposals.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, believes there is not enough money in the budget to afford the £300 million a year to carry out the work over six years.

"We are certainly looking at what's affordable and what can be done in terms of risk and cost," said an MoD official. "If you have an unaffordable programme you cannot ignore it." The move is likely to be embarrassing for the Government as the changes were at the heart of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. It will also heighten criticism of the Government for disbanding the fleet of Harrier jets and selling them to US Marine Corps for "peanuts".

Under the new plans, the Government is expected to choose the jump-jet version of the JSF, even though the take-off and landing model can fly further and carry more bombs.

The decision will also mean an end to plans for joint-carrier operations with French and American ships as they are only equipped to handle conventional fighters. To take off and land on HMS Prince of Wales, the vessel needed to be fitted with a catapult system to launch the aircraft and a "trap" to slow planes down and stop them when they land.

The MoD has earmarked up to £80 million for the conversion feasibility study and half the money has been spent.

Pressure is mounting on ministers to make a decision because of the time it will take to refit the carrier. More than 200 Navy sailors and fliers are about to begin training on US and French carriers to ensure the British ships have qualified crews when launched. Mr Hammond's decision, expected at the end of this month, could be helped after manufacturers said technical problems with the jump-jet fighter were largely resolved.

An MoD spokesman said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed."

The MoD has spent $2 billion on the JSF development costs and plans to buy 138 more at almost $90 million each.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9139029/Cost-of-refitting-Royal-Navy-aircraft-carrier-trebles.html

[Hyperion]

Ach, ik zie de politiek ze ook nog wel eens wegdoen...

En dan? Onze eigen capaciteit ontwikkelen?

Dat is volgens de politiek net als tanks.... zo vorige eeuws!

Ja want oorlog komt er nooit meer toch?

[Lynxian]

Ach, ik zie de politiek ze ook nog wel eens wegdoen...

En dan? Onze eigen capaciteit ontwikkelen?

Dat ondersteunt geen kwakkelende dijken en helpt geen dictators in Afrika, dus ik neem aan dat je zelf ook wel snapt dat we zoiets aggressiefs niet gaan ontwikkelen?

Oh, sorry. Zat even in Haagse modus...

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ach, ik zie de politiek ze ook nog wel eens wegdoen...

En dan? Onze eigen capaciteit ontwikkelen?

Dat is volgens de politiek net als tanks.... zo vorige eeuws!