Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

A new generation of 37,000-tonne tankers is to be ordered for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) to support future Royal Navy operations around the globe, the MOD has announced today.

Flink bezuinigen en toch investeren waar het nodig is

De omschrijving heeft toch wel iets weg van een JSS maar dan 10.000 ton groter!

[andré herc]

Defence

News Article

MOD to order four new RFA tankers

An Equipment and Logistics news article

22 Feb 12

A new generation of 37,000-tonne tankers is to be ordered for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) to support future Royal Navy operations around the globe, the MOD has announced today.


The new Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) tankers will maintain the Royal Navy's ability to refuel at sea and will provide fuel to warships and task groups.

They will support deployed amphibious, land and air forces close to the shore, will be able to operate helicopters, and are planned to enter service from 2016, replacing existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary single-hulled tankers.

At over 200 metres long, the four tankers will be approximately the same length as 14 double-decker buses and be able to pump enough fuel to fill two olympic-sized swimming pools in an hour.

Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, Peter Luff, announced that Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) is the Government's preferred bidder for the deal. This represents the best value for taxpayers' money, with £452m to be spent on the four new vessels to support the Royal Navy on operations around the world.

A number of British companies took part in the competition, but none submitted a final bid for the build contract. In light of this, the best option for Defence, and value for money for taxpayers, is for the tankers to be constructed in South Korea by DSME.

voor meer zie link

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ModToOrderFourNewRfaTankers.htm
Flink bezuinigen en toch investeren waar het nodig is

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Carriers' precise future is still up in the air

Published on Monday 20 February 2012 15:51

As building work on the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers progresses at a rate of knots, exactly how the ships will be put to use when they enter service in 2020 is not fully known.

The contract for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, the largest warships ever built for the navy, was announced with much fanfare back in 2008.

The 65,000-tonne warships, which will be based in Portsmouth, were initially estimated to cost £3.9bn and enter service in 2014 and 2016.

But almost four years later, design changes and a government-ordered delay has seen costs bloat to £5.2bn.

And that's not the end to the rising costs of the project after the government decided to change the type of fast jets it wants for the carriers in 2010's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

Initially, ministers wanted the jump-jet variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the F-35B, which is in development in the US.

Like the navy's old Harrier jets, F-35Bs are designed to use their engines to hover on take-offs and landings.

But now the UK has plumped for the cheaper F-35C JSF jet which needs a conventional run-up and requires expensive catapult and arrestor gear to take off and land from a ship's deck.

Ministers have said it will cost an extra £1.2bn per ship to fit the gear and the Ministry of Defence is conducting a study to decide whether it can afford to fit both carriers or just one with the equipment.

The study is due to end in December, but sources say it is likely that the second carrier, Prince of Wales, will be the one fitted with the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System being developed by General Atomics in the US.

This is because of difficulties in retro-fitting Queen Elizabeth now after so much of the construction work for her has already been done.

The first carrier would therefore initially enter service as a so-called helicopter carrier without any jets able to fly from her flight deck. That is if she enters service at all.

In the SDSR, Prime Minister David Cameron said one of the ships will be mothballed to start with to save cash. The MoD will not confirm which carrier it will mothball until it completes its study in December.

But sources say it's likely that Queen Elizabeth will be the one kept in reserve.

This has drawn strong criticism, including from MP Thomas Docherty, a member of the Commons Defence Select Committee, who warned: 'When we eventually get a functioning aircraft carrier, it will only be part-time. We will only be able to operate it for perhaps 150 days of the year, so we must be really hopeful that those who seek to attack us only do it on the five or six months a year when we are able to respond.

'It reminds me of Asterix the Gaul and the scene where he comes to Britain and the British have gone home at 5 o'clock to have their tea.'

Defence minister Gerald Howarth told The News back in August last year that he hoped the decision could be reversed come 2015 so both carriers could enter service.

But this optimism has been blunted following a report by parliament's Public Accounts Committee this month which warned the MoD will struggle to increase its budget by one per cent post-2015.

The report said: 'In the light of current economic conditions that assumption may be unrealistic.'

This is not to mention the significant challenges being faced by defence firm Lockheed Martin which is running the JSF programme.

Last year, a prototype F-35C failed a series of ship landing tests in Florida because the distance between the plane's tailhook and the arrestor wire which catches it on the deck was too far apart.

It was the latest setback in the global jets project to supply JSF planes to 10 countries, which at $380bn is the most expensive military-industrial programme ever.

The UK has already sunk more than £2bn into the JSF scheme, but the developers stress the design problems can be overcome. That has not stopped dissenting voices within the navy calling for a squadron of different aircraft to be procured as an interim replacement for F-35C.

Sources say the MoD has drafted contingency plans to loan US F-18 super hornets or French Rafale jets to be used from the new carrier until the F-35s are ready. It's understood around a dozen navy pilots are currently on exchange tours with US and French forces to practice flying those nations' planes.

It's also been suggested that the government may revert back to its original order for F-35B jets, which would negate the need to invest in catapult and arrestor gear for the new carriers.

This was denied by the MoD, which said it is '100 per cent committed' to the F-35Cs.

However, at a time when global powers are cutting military spending – which saw the US Department of Defense postpone its order for 179 JSF jets and Italy slash its number of F-35s on order from 131 to 90 last week – the planes may end up costing Britain twice as much than the estimated $80m per aircraft quoted back in 2002.

The UK has indicated it aims to buy 138 F-35 jets. But the MoD has said the navy will have only six jets by the time the carriers are due to come into service in 2020. The navy will still only have 12 F-35s by 2023.

An MoD spokeswoman said: 'The more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter fast jet (F-35C) will begin operating from our aircraft carrier from 2020, with six UK jets available for operations. By 2023, this number will increase to 12 UK jets onboard and we will be able to work with our allies to increase that number because of the interoperability that the carrier variant joint strike fighter allows.'

Lockheed Martin's US executives flew to the UK last week – including the company's senior vice president Patrick Dewar – and met the head of the navy, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, and other MoD officials at a dinner aboard HMS Victory in Portsmouth.

Speaking to The News, the First Sea Lord refused to be drawn on whether the navy is looking to loan F-18s or Rafales while it waits for its F-35s.

He said: 'The navy is committed to the F-35 programme, but more importantly so is the government. The policy position of the government is to have fixed-wing aircraft from the sea and the SDSR made it clear that was going to be F-35. We will have F-35 on our carriers in the future.'

Lockheed's UK chief executive Stephen Ball said the tailhook problems with the F-35C were being addressed.

He said: 'The program is in the development phase and you have to expect some of these developmental glitches as you go along, but there's no fundamental technological problems with the aeroplane. It's hitting all of its test points. It's coming back from most test flights without any issues.

'The issues with the tailhook has been blown out of all proportion. It's a minor technical issue which we have a fix for already. That's why you have a test program, for that sort of thing.'

Asked if he was concerned the MoD may opt to bring in other aircraft for its new carriers, Mr Ball said: 'Those are issues for the MoD to wrestle with.'

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/lifestyle/carriers_precise_future_is_still_up_in_the_air_1_3541250

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

In het euroleger verdedigt Frankrijk onze landsgrens

Als je zijn pistool wegbezuinigt, heb je dan de politieagent nog nodig? Het is de toestand van Europese legers, geteisterd door bezuinigingen. De krijgsmachten worden kleiner en kleiner. Wat houden we over?

De eurocrisis maakt het verleidelijk nog meer mannen in camouflageplakken weg te saneren en hun speelgoed te verkopen. Maar dan kan Europa z'n krijgsmachten wel opdoeken. Nu is de economische grootmacht al volstrekt afhankelijk van militaire supermacht Amerika.

Zie Libië. Steenrijke Europese landen proberen een armlastige dictator uit zijn zandbak te jagen. Maar na een paar maanden bombarderen zijn de bommen op en de vliegtuigen versleten. De Amerikanen moeten helpen (net als bij het openingssalvo van kruisraketten).

Louter een gummiknuppel
Het probleem? Europese landen willen nu allemaal een eigen stoere politieagent uitrusten met robuuste dienstauto en zwaar kaliber pistool. Dat lukt niet. Dus heeft Europa een klasje agenten in gammele roestbakken, versleten uniformen en hebben sommige dienders louter een gummiknuppel.

De krijgsmachten zullen de taken moeten verdelen. Duitsland levert de dienstauto, Italianen het uniform, Tsjechië het pistool en Frankrijk de zonnebril. Dat vindt niemand leuk, want iedereen wil z'n eigen politieauto besturen. Soevereiniteit heet dat.

De Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken schreef een advies over soevereiniteit en Europese defensiesamenwerking. Over de Nederlandse soevereiniteit is de Adviesraad kort: die bestaat niet meer. De Nederlandse krijgsmacht kan in z'n eentje toch niks meer, dus wat mekkeren we nou. We trekken alleen ten strijde tegen dictators of piraten met anderen.

Samen met de Belgen
Dus lekker samenwerken. Samen vliegtuigen huren, soldaatjes trainen, kogels inkopen. Nederland doet dat natuurlijk ook. We delen marineschepen met België, een legerkorps met Duitsland en amfibische stoottroepen met de Britten.

Maar taakspecialisatie gaat verder. Welk onderdeel van de Europese defensie zou Nederland op zich moeten nemen? En waarmee moeten we stoppen? De Adviesraad is daar heel voorzichtig over. We kunnen de verdediging van onze kust en ons luchtruim delen met de Belgen. Tja, dat is een heel klein stapje. Maar zouden we ooit onze landsgrenzen durven te laten verdedigen door Duitsers of Fransen?

Rinze Benedictus

http://925.nl/archief/2012/02/17/in-het-euroleger-verdedigt-frankrijk-onze-landsgrens

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

France and Britain find defence a unifying force

Anglo-French declaration reflects need for military co-operation at time of budget cuts and shifting US attentions

Richard Norton-Taylor

guardian.co.uk, Friday 17 February 2012 17.36 GMT

They may row over the euro, compete like tigers over the sale of fighters to India, but there is one area in which Britain and France can co-operate for both political and pragmatic reasons. That is defence – where the US has made it clear that Europeans will in future have to look after themselves as Washington turns its attention to the Pacific, and China in particular.

France and Britain account for nearly half of Europe's defence spending, Friday's joint declaration on security and defence proudly points out. For decades, even through the heavy Gaullist periods, the two countries respected each other's armed forces – and no others in Europe. Severe pressure on national defence budgets have brought them closer together as last year's treaties on security co-operation made clear.

The two countries worked well together in the skies over Libya and David Cameron clearly appreciates Nicolas Sarkozy's bullish foreign policy.

But the practical significance of Friday's declaration was being played down – while it trumpets the idea of a "joint force headquarters", there is as yet no agreement where that should be based, Whitehall officials said. And the declaration made no mention of continuing commitment to Afghanistan. Sarkozy last month announced that French troops would no longer have a combat role after the end of 2013, a year earlier that the UK and US timetable.

Nevertheless, there are obvious candidates for co-operation. One is the production of unmanned drones. British and French firms have been slow to respond to the fast-growing demand for these surveillance and weapons systems.

BAE of Britain and Dassault of France – locked in battle over the sale of fighter jets to India – will now join forces to produce combat drones.

At sea, the British used to laugh at the French for only having one aircraft carrier which always seemed to be going wrong. Now, the British have none, waiting for the construction of two redesigned so that they will be equipped with a catapult and arrestor gear system similar to those adopted by the French.

Dassault's Rafale aircraft – which the Indians have say they prefer to BAE's Eurofighter/Typhoon – would be able to land on Britain's new carriers while the Royal Navy continues to wait for the promised, much-delayed and increasingly expensive, joint strike fighter.

The aim, said Friday's declaration is to have "by the early 2020s, the ability to deploy a UK-French integrated carrier strike group incorporating assets owned by both countries".

On the ground, the two countries' armies have been conducting more and more exercises. Later this year, a large French-UK exercise, Corsican Lion, will take place in the Mediterranean and involve sea, land and air forces. Britain's relationship with France is taking on a very military flavour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/17/france-britain-declaration-defence-cooperation?newsfeed=true

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Parijs en Londen werken aan drones

PARIJS - Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië gaan op militair gebied samenwerken om onbemande vliegtuigen te ontwikkelen, een vliegdekschip te bouwen en samen toezicht te houden op kernwapens. De samenwerking moet voor beide landen forse besparingen opleveren.

De Franse president Nicolas Sarkozy en de Britse premier David Cameron gaven vrijdag een persconferentie om de samenwerking toe te lichten. Britse en Franse bedrijven hebben al contracten ter waarde van omgerekend ruim zeshonderd miljoen euro getekend om samen Britse kernreactoren te bouwen. Geen ander land haalt zoveel van zijn energie uit kernsplitsing als Frankrijk en het land beschikt dan ook over veel kennis op het gebied van kernenergie. "Volgens mij hebben Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië niet meer zo hecht samengewerkt sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog", zei Cameron.

Cameron en Sarkozy bespraken ook de ontwikkeling van twee soorten onbemande vliegtuigen, de zogenoemde drones. Het gaat om een onbewapende (MALE) en een bewapende drone (UCAV). De ontwikkeling van de MALE moet in 2020 zijn voltooid. De eerste UCAV rolt als alles goed gaat in 2030 van de band, aldus de Franse minister van defensie Gérard Longuet.

Edward Hunt, een expert op het gebied van defensie, zei dat de bewapende drone de concurrentie zou kunnen aangaan met de toestellen uit de Verenigde Staten en Israël. Hij zei echter wel dat de samenwerking voor een aantal uitdagingen staat. "We moeten nog maar zien of er de komende tien jaar voldoende politieke wil is om het ontwerpen en testen te voltooien."

Volgens Longuet hebben Groot-Brittannië en Frankrijk hun plannen voor nieuwe kernonderzeeërs teruggeschroefd, maar willen de twee landen rond 2020 een gezamenlijk vliegdekschip in gebruik nemen. Daarnaast willen Londen en Parijs nauwer samenwerken bij het veiligstellen van het wereldwijde kernwapenarsenaal.

geplaatst:
17-02-2012 - 17.45

http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2012/februari/17/parijs-en-londen-werken-aan-drones

Zullen beide Engelse carriers dan toch volwaardige schepen worden?

[Lex]

Nauwere militaire banden UK en Frankrijk

PARIJS -  Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië gaan nauwer samenwerken bij militaire operaties en op het gebied van kernenergie. Dat hebben de Britse premier David Cameron en de Franse president Nicolas Sarkozy vrijdag besloten op een top in Parijs.

De twee Europese leiders hebben onder meer besloten sneller vaart te maken met het opzetten van een gezamenlijk controle- en commandocentrum voor militaire operaties, aldus de BBC. Cameron sprak van ,,een echte doorbraak". Hij zei dat Frankrijk en Groot-Brittannië meer militaire slagkracht zullen krijgen. Ook zijn ze het eens geworden over het leveren van meer inspanningen bij de gezamenlijke ontwikkeling van een nieuw type onbemande gevechtsvliegtuigen.

Ook op het gebied van nucleaire energie gaan Londen en Parijs nauwer samenwerken. Het gaat daarbij onder meer om het toezien op veiligheid en op gezamenlijk onderzoek. De samenwerking moet 1500 banen in Groot-Brittannië creëren.

In december was de relatie tussen Cameron en Sarkozy ernstig verstoord. Op een EU-top sprak Cameron een veto uit over een nieuw EU-verdrag met strengere begrotingsregels. Dat verdrag was voorgesteld door de Duitse bondskanselier Angela Merkel en Sarkozy.

Sarkozy zei vrijdag dat er nooit spanningen op het persoonlijke vlak tussen hemzelf en Sarkozy zijn geweest. Cameron sprak over ,,een ongelooflijke sterke relatie op basis van gezamenlijke belangen".

Telegraaf,
vr 17 feb 2012, 14:56

[Lex]

Wel apart, de VS lijken maar een heel beperkte MCM vloot te hebben.
Waar hebben ze de rest verstopt? 
Ik kan er maar 14 vinden namelijk...

Kijk ook eens onder MH53E Sea Dragon. 

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

A commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF);

Replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent;

The Mine Counter Measure Vessels (MCMV) operating in the Gulf; and

U.K. Special Operations Forces.

Wel apart, de VS lijken maar een heel beperkte MCM vloot te hebben.
Waar hebben ze de rest verstopt? 
Ik kan er maar 14 vinden namelijk...

De MCM vloot van de Amerikanen (werd iig in de jaren 90 van de vorige eeuw aangevuld) met CH53's... of ze dat nu nog doen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_HCV0xk2F4&feature=related

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

The Obama–Cameron Summit Must Advance U.S.–U.K. Defense CooperationBy Luke Coffey
February 16, 2012

President Obama will host British Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House on March 13–14. The official visit will be dominated by the eurozone crisis, developments in Syria, Iran's nuclear program, and Afghanistan. For the U.K., the Falkland Islands will also be an important agenda item. In addition, this visit will be an important opportunity for the two leaders to discuss the U.S.–U.K. defense relationship in light of recent defense cuts on both sides of the Atlantic.

Defense and the Special Relationship   

Winston Churchill made it clear during his 1946 Iron Curtain Speech that the Special Relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is first and foremost based on defense cooperation. Sixty-six years later, the U.K. is the number one military partner for the United States. Britain is probably the only country under whose command the U.S. military will happily place U.S. service personnel. At present, U.S.–U.K. cooperation is at its closest in Afghanistan, where Britain has approximately 10,000 troops on the ground. The ratification in the U.S. Senate of the U.S.–U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty also demonstrates the importance of the relationship. The challenge now will be to implement this treaty.

Cuts, Cuts, and More Cuts   

The U.S.–U.K. defense relationship today is framed in the context of defense cuts. In 2010, the U.K. announced defense cuts of close to 20 percent when factoring in the cost of the nuclear deterrent and the £38 billion budgetary gap resulting from years of under-investment. The Pentagon has just announced cuts of $487 billion over the next 10 years while delaying important equipment programs and reducing the number of service personnel by 100,000. These cuts weaken American leadership and creditability in Europe when trying to persuade U.S. allies, including the United Kingdom, that their defense cuts have gone too far. 

U.S. Defense Cuts Undermine the Special Relationship   

During the U.K.'s 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, there were four areas the U.S. requested that the U.K. protect from cuts:

A commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF);

Replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent;

The Mine Counter Measure Vessels (MCMV) operating in the Gulf; and

U.K. Special Operations Forces.
Paradoxically, due to recent U.S. cuts, two of the four capabilities the U.S. wanted the U.K. to protect from defense cuts—the JSF and the nuclear deterrent—are now at risk.

Due to budgetary concerns, the U.K. has already delayed the in-service date of the JSF. The U.S. delay of five years for 179 JSF aircraft may encourage the U.K. to delay its purchase even further. It is too early to tell if the delay in the Ohio Class replacement program will impact the timely delivery of the Common Missile Compartment (CMC) jointly developed by the U.S. and the U.K. This is a critical part of the U.K.'s deterrent replacement program. If the CMC is delayed, this could mean delays in Britain's replacement nuclear deterrent.

Cooperation Around the World   

When Obama and Cameron meet, they should work out strategies for approaching several upcoming meetings and decisions.

Afghanistan and the Chicago Summit. The NATO summit in Chicago in May will focus on Afghanistan. Recently, the Obama Administration has sent signals that the end of combat operations may come as early as 2013 instead of 2015, the date agreed upon at the 2010 Lisbon Summit. The U.K. will soon make a decision on troop numbers in Afghanistan when its National Security Council meets later this year. The mixed signals from Washington could encourage the U.K. to decide on an earlier withdrawal date. As the second-largest troop contributor after the U.S., what the U.K. does in Afghanistan is closely watched across Europe. Once the U.K. starts to withdraw troops in meaningful numbers, European countries will follow in droves.

America and the Asia–Pacific Region. With the Obama Administration's new defense focus in the Asia–Pacific region, many in the U.K. are wondering what this means for the Special Relationship. Today, there is little U.S.–U.K. strategic cooperation in the Asia–Pacific region when compared to Europe or the Middle East. The U.K. is part of the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA)[1] and maintains good bilateral relations with Australia and New Zealand, both important U.S. partners. Furthermore, there are 17 members of the Commonwealth with whom the U.K. has a close relationship in the Pacific Command area of responsibility. Increased U.S.–U.K. cooperation on a strategic level would benefit both countries.

NATO and European Defense. NATO is suffering from a lack of political will and resources. Even though defense resources in Europe are scarce, the French and Germans have moved to create more European Union (EU) defense structures that will compete with NATO. Some EU members are even calling for the creation of a permanent EU military headquarters. This would be an unnecessary duplication of what is already provided by national governments and NATO. This is a waste of resources that could otherwise go to NATO.

Time to Speak Up and Recommit

The Obama Administration should:

Reverse defense cuts that dramatically harm U.S.–U.K. defense cooperation. As a sign of the importance of the Special Relationship, President Obama should reverse any U.S. defense cuts that impact British defense capability. In particular, the decisions to delay the purchase of the JSF by five years and the two-year delay to the Ohio Class replacement should be reversed.
Reaffirm America's commitment to the transition strategy outlined at the 2010 NATO Lisbon Summit. President Obama must clarify the U.S. position on Afghanistan withdrawal. It is bad enough there is a politically driven and arbitrarily established deadline of 2015 for the end of combat operations in Afghanistan. Hinting that the U.S. may leave Afghanistan earlier sends the wrong message to U.S. allies, the Afghans, and the Taliban. 
Encourage U.S.–U.K. strategic cooperation in the Asia–Pacific region. President Obama should task the Pentagon with finding creative ways to involve the U.K. in its Pacific strategy. One proposal could be to make available more staff posts to British officers at Pacific Command (PACOM), as is already the case at Central Command (CENTCOM). Another would be to expand U.S. military activities with both the U.K. and its Pacific Commonwealth partners (including Canada, as well as Australia and New Zealand).
Make U.S. unhappiness on EU defense initiatives known. President Obama should publicly support British opposition to the creation of a permanent EU military headquarters that would divert scarce resources away from NATO. At a time when NATO is downsizing the number of military headquarters, the EU should not be increasing it.
Give assurances on the Falklands. In addition to making U.S. support for British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands public, President Obama should offer assurances of U.S. military support to the U.K.—at a minimum on the same level as provided during the 1982 Falklands War. This could also include backfilling the British air-bridge to Afghanistan if the U.K. needed to divert strategic airlift to the South Atlantic in the event of a crisis.
Make the Special Relationship Special   

It is in America's interest to have a strong British military partner. On the military level, the desire to increase cooperation is there. President Obama and Prime Minister Cameron need to help facilitate this cooperation. Like all relationships, the U.S.–U.K. defense relationship needs nurturing and direction. Both leaders should use this visit as an opportunity to expand military cooperation.

Luke Coffey is the Margaret Thatcher Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/obama-cameron-summit-must-advance-us-uk-defense-cooperation

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

11.000 militairen VS uit Europa
»
Amerikaanse militairen op een basis in het Italiaanse Vicenza
US Army Africa - Flickr / Creative Commons by Toegevoegd: vrijdag 17 feb 2012, 00:15

Het Amerikaanse leger trekt 11.000 militairen terug uit Europa. Dat is bijna twee keer zoveel als vorige maand werd aangekondigd door de Amerikaanse minister van Defensie, Leon Panetta. De Verenigde Staten halen de troepen weg uit Europa vanwege de bezuinigingen op het Defensiebudget en een verschuiving van de aandacht naar Azië.

De militairen zijn gelegerd op bases in Duitsland en Italië. Het gaat onder meer om twee infanteriebrigades en een luchtmachteenheid. Na hun vertrek blijven er nog zo'n 70.000 militairen over, verspreid over heel Europa.

De VS benadrukte dat de band met de NAVO-bondgenoten sterk zal blijven. De bedoeling is dat de achtergebleven troepen gaan rouleren over verschillende bases in Europa.

Bron: NOS

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Amerikanen trekken 11.000 militairen terug uit Duitsland en Italië

Meer dan elfduizend Amerikaanse militairen die momenteel nog gestationeerd zijn in Duitsland en Italië zullen terug naar hun thuisland moeten. Dat is het directe gevolg van de besparingen op Defensie en de nieuwe strategische prioriteiten van de Verenigde Staten.

De terugtrekking zal gefaseerd gebeuren. Twee infanteriebrigades in Duitsland, de 170ste en 172ste, telkens goed voor 3.850 militairen, zullen dit en volgend jaar worden opgedoekt. Ook de luchtvloot wordt afgebouwd. Op de luchtmachtbasis Aviano in Italië verdwijnen toestellen en 336 bemanningsleden.

De VS hebben 81.000 militairen gestationeerd in Europa. Het grootste deel daarvan bevindt zich in Duitsland. (adb)

17/02/12 07u07

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/960/Buitenland/article/detail/1396021/2012/02/17/Amerikanen-trekken-11-000-militairen-terug-uit-Duitsland-en-Italie.dhtml

[IPA NG]

We hebben eeuwen lang leiders gehad (met periodieke uitzonderingen) die begrepen dat de wereld niet eindigt aan het strand van Hoek van Holland en bij de Grolsche bierbrouwerij in Enschede.

Ach, maar dat eindigde toch ook eigenlijk al met Wilhelmina...

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ik zie weer hang naar de oude invloedsferen. NL blijft weer erg op de achtergrond en af en toe een beetje meelopen. Voor zo'n klein landje waren we vroeger veel groter. Waarschijnlijk betere leiders met een fatsoenlijke visie (op de lange termijn).

We hebben eeuwen lang leiders gehad (met periodieke uitzonderingen) die begrepen dat de wereld niet eindigt aan het strand van Hoek van Holland en bij de Grolsche bierbrouwerij in Enschede.

[Enforcer]

Jij denkt dat 'invloedsferen' ooit weg zijn geweest?
Nederland zou ook nu wel een flinke rol kunnen spelen, maar dan moeten we dat willen en durven. Vroeger waren we trouwens vooral ook erg groot omdat we de macht op zee hadden, en dat was alles. Tot de britten de Navigation act afkondigde, maar dat is een ander verhaal.

Het is minder, zeer zeker voor NL. Als je ziet wat ze met de marine doen is het diep triest. Het maakt zeer duidelijk dat er een enorm gebrek aan visie en daadkracht is. De marine heeft juist slagkracht en aantallen nodig om de NL belangen te kunnen dienen. Met daarbij een extra mariniersbataljon en om binnen het budget te blijven, dan maar een LMB bataljon minder. (maar ja, dat is een ander topic).

Maar laat NL dat voorbeeld van Camerkozy maar volgen. Liever volgen, dan als een mak schaap aan de kan schaapachtig blijven te kijken.