Ontwikkelingen defensie(beleid) Europese Unie (EU)

[Ace1]

Spanish aircraft carrier's end could be near

En zo gaat ook de Europese carrier capaciteit naar de haaien.

In het slechtse geval:

UK -1 of -2
Fr - 1
Sp -1

Nog even we slaan ook maritiem geen deuk meer in een pakje boter.

Jurrien je vergeet dat italie ook nog 2 carriers heeft?

[dudge]

Spanish aircraft carrier's end could be near

En zo gaat ook de Europese carrier capaciteit naar de haaien.

In het slechtse geval:

UK -1 of -2
Fr - 1
Sp -1

Nog even we slaan ook maritiem geen deuk meer in een pakje boter.

Dat ding van spanje wordt voor een deel vervangen door de capaciteiten van de juan carlos. En naast de carrier zijn ook de vliegtuigen belangrijk. Misschien voor de britten een kans om hun stomme gap te fillen.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Spanish aircraft carrier's end could be near

En zo gaat ook de Europese carrier capaciteit naar de haaien.

In het slechtse geval:

UK -1 of -2
Fr - 1
Sp -1

Nog even we slaan ook maritiem geen deuk meer in een pakje boter.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Spanish aircraft carrier's end could be near

Saturday, 12 May 2012

Principe de Asturias
SPAIN'S Navy is considering mothballing the Principe de Asturias aircraft carrier as well as six Santa Maria-class frigates.

The ships would remain on "restricted duties" awaiting a return to operational duties, Navy sources said.

This could be the first step towards decommissioning the ships, experts believe. The medium term economic situation was unlikely to improve and ships deteriorate quickly when not in constant use, they pointed out.

The vessels' age also meant that they would require such substantial refits before returning to active service that this might not be cost-effective.

By 2018 the Principe de Asturias will be 30 years old - the usual extent of a warship's life cycle.

Nine years ago it was due for a complete refit which was never carried out, owing to the €400 million this would have cost.

The aircraft carrier now requires increasing repairs and much of its equipment is obsolete. Meanwhile, military spending has been reduced by almost 25 per cent over the last four years.

The €6,316 million allocated to Defence in this year's budget was 8.84 per cent less than in 2011.

Days at sea for Navy vessels were cut from 49 to 40 and their fuel allowance reduced by 44 per cent.

The Principe de Asturias' activities are now very limited and the aircraft carrier no longer participates in international manoeuvres.

These are restricted to exercises near the Rota naval base like those carried out last month in Cadiz Bay for pilots qualifying to fly Harrier jump jets.

Any decision regarding the Principe de Asturias would be taken "at the very highest political level", Navy insiders revealed. It is Spain's only aircraft carrier and a significant deterrent, the same sources argued.

Its mere presence in a conflict area would be one of the most convincing political messages it was possible to send, they claimed.

By Linda Hall

http://www.euroweeklynews.com/news/axarquia-malaga-east/92464-spanish-aircraft-carriers-end-could-be-near

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Berlin told to buy more bombs

By Lee Wild, 10 May 2012

The global military landscape is changing fast. Asia will spend more on defence this year than Europe and, by 2035, the Chinese will be buying more guns, bullets and bombs than anyone else. Understandably nervous, and with the threat from pesky Russian communists gone, the Americans have gone off to point their missiles at Beijing. So, left to fight its own battles, Europe needs a coordinated strategy and the money to fund it. But unless military scrooges like Germany pay more, British taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill, warns the House of Lords EU committee.

With economies in ruins and without US military leadership Europe looks rudderless and hardly capable of managing its own military affairs. Indeed, with money troubles and President Obama's refocus on Asia in mind, peers urge Europe to "keep America's engagement by stepping up to the mark itself."

But the signs aren't good. Former national security adviser Sir Peter Ricketts told peers that every European country involved in the Libya campaign had run short of weapons, except Britain. The Americans must have had their heads in their hands.

European Defence Agency stats on military spend as a percentage of GDP are telling. Britain tops the table in 2010 with 2.6 per cent, but it's the bankrupt Greeks who take second place, holding off the mighty Cyprus in third. Members of NATO are committed to spending 2 per cent of their budgets on defence, yet Germany is 14th with 1.3 per cent, four places behind the warmongering Fins! They spent the same this year, too.

And it gets worse for the Germans. Between 2002 and 2011, a quarter of Greece's arms imports came from the Fatherland, and almost 15 per cent of its military exports head straight for Athens. Greek MP Dimitris Papadimoulis has also accused German giants Ferrostaal and Siemens of bribing Greek officials.

"Despite being Europe's economic powerhouse, and having a large defence budget in absolute terms, Germany does not pull it weight in military operations," says the Lords committee. "Historical and cultural objections...must be overcome if the EU is to have an effective security and defence policy." Former US ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns told peers that Germany had become "a drag on NATO".

It certainly has. Initial cold feet over Afghanistan and giving Libya a miss was unacceptable. Its past is no longer an excuse. There's no poster of Kaiser Wilhelm on Merkel's wall, yet her subjects are edgy. When asked about the German perspective, Dr Christian Moelling of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a think tank, asked: "If Germany spent 2% of its GDP, or €50bn, on defence, would others feel threatened?"

Of course not, though naval races should be avoided at all costs, and let the French keep Alsace-Lorraine.

Peers rightly acknowledge "defence in Europe is not a tidy affair." Better coordination means better cooperation, but governments are falling like dominos and spending more on guns isn't a vote-winner. UK taxpayers bankrolled £36bn of arms spending in 2010, more than anywhere else in Europe. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute we're the fourth largest defence spender in the world and, even after budget cuts, we'll spend about £34bn on both this year and next.

France is close behind, and has played a crucial role militarily since Sarkozy came to power - French warplanes were first to strike at Colonel Gaddafi last year. However, its gung-ho days look over now that Francois Hollande is in the hot seat. The inexperienced socialist has already promised to pull French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012, one year early.

Crucially, though, it is the willingness of the 21 members with joint EU and NATO membership to deploy forces that will make or break Europe's military reputation in the 21st century. It's quite clear that without some sort of consensus, the burden of responsibility will fall on Britain's shoulders. "The UK and France should lead efforts to strengthen European defence capabilities," say peers. "If they do not, they will find themselves having to contribute a disproportionate share of forces to European defence and security operations."

Amazingly, of the 1.7m military personnel in Europe, just 66,000 are currently deployed, and that could halve when troops leave Afghanistan in 2014. Hopefully, the willingness of smaller states like Slovakia and Slovenia to be "good Europeans" and do their bit will embarrass Germany into action.

For British defence companies, this report is pretty neutral. Countries tend to spend most of their military budget on domestic suppliers, driven by job and investment priorities. That means dozens of hugely expensive weapons programmes running side-by-side. Indeed, four types of combat aircraft - the Joint Strike Fighter, Eurofighter, Gripen and Rafale – are all under development by EU member states.

It may upset the Lords who call for a more efficient European military machine, but it's great news for investors to hear that all of our listed defence contractors have a piece of kit on at least one of these jets. BAE Systems helps make three of them and, along with other UK suppliers, produces over a third of the Typhoon. Fitting, then, that they'll be protecting us during this summer's Olympics.

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2012/05/10/comment/chronic-investor-blog/berlin-told-to-buy-more-bombs-k3f3OOtqZeQnAF68wLfLaM/article.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Defence may be sore point in ties with France

By James Blitz in London and Ben Hall in Paris

Since François Hollande's election as French president on Sunday, much of the focus in Britain has been on potential tension with David Cameron over their differing approaches to fiscal policy and financial regulation.

Yet the biggest test of their relationship may turn out to have nothing to do with economics and the eurozone. Instead, it will be whether they can maintain the strong alliance on foreign and defence policy that the prime minister forged with Nicolas Sarkozy when he was president.

In the past 15 years, the Franco-British defence relationship has had its ups and downs. One high point came in 1998 when Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac, then president, declared a commitment to defence collaboration at St Malo. But that foundered in 2003 when they fell out over the Iraq war.

In 2010 and 2011 Mr Cameron and Mr Sarkozy rekindled the collaboration, signing treaties to pool and share a range of defence capabilities, including aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons technology. They jointly championed the mission to topple Colonel Muammer Gaddafi in Libya and have worked in tandem on Iran's nuclear ambitions and the Syrian crackdown.

Some UK officials now wonder whether the relationship is again heading for the doldrums. "Things were not always easy between Cameron and Sarkozy, especially on European Union policy," says a senior British official. "But there was an instinctive meeting of minds on all the hard security matters. Things could now get a lot bumpier."

Several issues will define the defence relationship. The first is Mr Hollande's plan to withdraw French combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, ahead of schedule. That will not affect Britain's commitment to staying in Helmand until the end of 2014. However, too fast a withdrawal would put pressure on US forces in eastern Afghanistan. That would undermine US and UK trust in France as a reliable military partner, say some experts.

A second issue is whether Mr Hollande maintains Mr Sarkozy's commitment to Nato and the relationship with the US and UK or whether France will revert to its traditional stance of seeking stronger EU defence collaboration through Brussels institutions.

Such a move seems unlikely. Last month, Jean-Yves Le Drian, the Socialist president of the Brittany region who is now tipped to become defence minister, visited London to reassure UK defence officials that Mr Hollande remained committed to Nato and the Franco-British defence treaties.

That said, some experts believe the UK-France relationship is bound to wane, if only because France is likely to slash defence spending.

"Hollande will have to push through major cuts to the French defence budget to meet the goal of balancing the books in five years," says Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank.

"That is bound to raise doubts about whether France can invest in collaborative Franco-British defence projects in future."

A third threat is that the UK is likely to revise its decision to buy a version of the F-35 fast jet that is launched using catapults and arrester equipment.

That would have allowed France to operate its Rafale jets from the new UK aircraft carrier. However, for cost reasons Mr Cameron will now revert to buying a vertical take-off and landing version of the F-35. That will significantly harm interoperability at the end of this decade, say experts.

However, one former UK diplomat says: "The reality is that if there is a crisis in the Balkans or a humanitarian catastrophe in north Africa, it will be the UK and France to the fore. They are the two major European military powers in the region. That will not change."

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012.

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Norway nurtures closer military ties to Sweden


May 8, 2012   

Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide has called Sweden "our foremost partner within military material," especially rolling stock, and is backing up the claim with around NOK 10 billion worth of defense purchases.

Just four years ago, Sweden was angry and disappointed when Norway opted to buy US-built fighter jets instead of the Swedish SAAB Gripen. Now, reports newspaper Aftenposten, relations have been eased following orders for, among other things, new armoured tanks and artillery.

Eide, after meetings with Sweden's Defense Minister Karin Enström, called the orders part of an important renewal for Norway's Telemark battalion, while Enström said Sweden's defense industry depends on exports. "Our production can strengthen our cooperation further," she said.

Eide denied the orders, the largest Norway's army has made for many years, were meant to heal wounds after Norway rejected Sweden's fighter jets. "We're buying the material because it's good and best suits our needs," he said. Eide added, though, that it "added an extra dimension" that the material is Swedish, because that helps build up a Nordic industrial base.

Norway is a member of NATO but not a member of the EU, while Sweden is in the EU but not NATO. That makes the relations more special, but Eide stressed that "Norway and Sweden have lots of confidence in one another."

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2012/05/08/norway-nurtures-closer-military-ties-to-sweden/

[Oorlogsvis]

Die Spanjaarden begrijpen het tenminste ! mogen ze hier wel eens een voorbeeld aan nemen.

[dudge]

"Spaanse besparingen ontzien uitgaven defensie"

Het kan dus toch; uitgaven op ontwikkelingssamenwerking met de helft halveren.

Maar om nu te zeggen dat defensie in Spanje wordt ontzien met slechts 8,8% besparingen....

Relatief ontzien, zoals onze defensie relatief hard is aangepakt. Trouwens een goede zet, met de werkloosheid die zo hoog is, wil je niet een groot aantal militairen ontslaan. De bezuinigingen die wel plaatsvinden in spanje lijken, volgens dit bericht, het personeel ook voor een groot deel te ontzien.

[Reinier]

"Spaanse besparingen ontzien uitgaven defensie"

Het kan dus toch; uitgaven op ontwikkelingssamenwerking met de helft halveren.

Maar om nu te zeggen dat defensie in Spanje wordt ontzien met slechts 8,8% besparingen....

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

maandag 7 mei 2012

door IPS , Inés Benítez

Spaanse besparingen ontzien uitgaven defensie

MÁLAGA — Bij de forse besparingen die de Spaanse regering doorvoert, wordt defensie het minst hard getroffen. Ontwikkelingssamenwerking krijgt de zwaarste klappen.

De centrumrechtse regering van Mariano Rajoy snoeit dit jaar gemiddeld 16,9 procent in de overheidsuitgaven. Defensie moet slechts 8,8 procent inleveren. De regering heeft immers de ambitie "de overheidsfinanciën weer gezond te maken en het imago van Spanje in het buitenland te herstellen", zegt defensieminister Pedro Argüelles. Dat buitenlandse imago hangt voor een deel af van de Spaanse betalingsverplichtingen, en die situeren zich vaak op het terrein van defensie.

Minder ontwikkelingssamenwerking

De wereldwijde economisch-financiële crisis treft Spanje bijzonder hard. Het land is in recessie, de werkloosheid treft nu al meer dan vijf miljoen mensen, bijna een kwart van de actieve bevolking.

De regering-Rajoy probeert het begrotingstekort dit jaar te verminderen van 8,5 procent (van het bbp) naar 5,3 procent. De zwaarst getroffen slachtoffers zijn de sociale sector en het onderwijs.

Ontwikkelingssamenwerking moet 54 procent inleveren, de grootste besparing op de hele begroting.

Volgens de koepelvereniging van Spaanse ontwikkelingsorganisaties (Congde) was dat te vermijden als men meer had gesneden in defensie en in reddingsoperaties voor de banken.

Gezondheidscentra sluiten

"Heel het systeem van ontwikkelingssamenwerking wordt in twijfel getrokken", zegt Congde-voorzitter Mercedes Ruiz-Giménez. Deze "willekeurige bezuinigingen zullen een impact hebben op de hulp aan miljoenen mensen."

"Besparen (op ontwikkelingssamenwerking) is bijzonder pijnlijk, maar anders moeten we snijden in de pensioenen en gezondheidscentra sluiten", zegt José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil, minister van Buitenlandse Zaken en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking.

Pure "demagogie", antwoordt Ruiz-Giménez, want "het gaat hier niet over een confrontatie tussen het sociale beleid in Spanje en de hulp aan de armste sectoren in de landen van het Zuiden." Ze vraagt zich af "waarom men niet zwaarder bezuinigd heeft in andere ministeries."

"Ontwikkelingssamenwerking is geen aalmoes en ook geen luxe in tijden van overvloed maar een ethische verantwoordelijkheid."

Eurofighter

De besparingen op defensie hebben vooral gevolgen voor de speciale wapenprogramma's. Die dalen van 204 miljoen vorig jaar naar minder dan 5 miljoen euro dit jaar, geld "voor onze bijdrage in de operationele kosten in de verschillende internationale agentschappen", zegt Argüelles.

Er worden dit jaar geen nieuwe wapenprogramma's gestart behalve voor onderdelen voor het gevechtsvliegtuig Eurofighter EF-2000, waarvoor het ministerie van Industrie 309 miljoen euro op tafel legt.

Volgens Argüelles moet defensie tot 2025 27 miljard euro betalen in het kader van speciale wapenprogramma's. Daarvan moet dit jaar 2,4 miljard euro betaald worden.

De buitenlandse missies kosten 766 miljoen euro. Spanje neemt deel aan missies in Afghanistan, Libanon, Somalië, Bosnië en Herzegovina en op de Middellandse Zee.

Er gaat ook 94,3 miljoen euro naar de operaties in Libië.

http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2012/05/07/spaanse-besparingen-ontzien-uitgaven-defensie

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Ik vind dat Elzenga hier een punt heeft (kan hebben). Wat mij betreft kijken we het even aan; samenvoegen kan altijd nog.

Rob
Forumbeheerder

Ik kan mij hier in vinden, al zal er vast een mengelmoes gecreëerd worden van defensie (beleid) binnen de EU in relatie tot ontwikkeligen binnen de NAVO, iets wat ook geen probeem is door de grote verwevenheid.

[KapiteinRob]

Ik vind dat Elzenga hier een punt heeft (kan hebben). Wat mij betreft kijken we het even aan; samenvoegen kan altijd nog.

Rob
Forumbeheerder

[Elzenga]

Het lijkt me veel verstandiger hier een apart topic voor te openen....het gaat hier immers om defensiebeleid van een grote organisatie als de EU...of daaraan gerelateerd. Ontwikkelingen binnen de NAVO worden ook gebundeld. Ik vind de link die je plaatst meer voor beleid en begrotingen van de specifieke niet-Nederlandse landen.

[Ace1]

Daar hebben we al een posting over.


http://www.defensieforum.nl/Forum/defensie_nieuws_media_internationaal/defensiebegrotingen_en_problematiek_niet_nl-t10103.0.html#new