Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[IPA NG]

Ik vind dit allemaal redenen waarom wij het niet kunnen veroorloven om ook te gaan bezuinigen.

[witilimi]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8049674/Navy-to-reduce-to-smallest-size-ever-to-save-carriers.html
Navy to reduce to smallest size ever to save carriers
The Navy is set to be reduced to the smallest size in its history after admirals yesterday offered drastic reductions in the fleet in order to save two new aircraft carriers from defence cuts.
By Thomas Harding and James Kirkup Daily Telegraph

Under the plans, the number of warships would be cut by almost half to just 25, with frigates, destroyers, submarines, minesweepers and all amphibious craft scrapped.
Even if built, the new carriers could sail without any British aircraft to fly from them after admirals "mortgaged everything" to persuade ministers not to abandon the £5.2 billion programme. The ships could also be delayed for years and redesigned to save money, defence sources have disclosed.
In a final appeal to the National Security Council, Navy chiefs yesterday offered to make cuts that would reduce the senior service to its smallest since the time of Henry VIII.
One new aircraft carrier is already under construction, but the fate of the second has emerged as the central issue of the Government's Strategic Defence and Security Review, which is supposed to frame military planning for the next decade.
With less than two weeks until the review is due to report, government spokesmen last night insisted that "no decisions have been taken" on the second carrier.
A meeting of senior Cabinet members yesterday stopped short of a formal decision on the carrier order, although insiders now believe both ships will be built. However, the timetable and the specification for the carriers remain in the balance.
Options still on the table include delaying delivery by several years and redesigning one or both ships to carry cheaper jets or even helicopters. Alternatively, the second carrier could be built but put on "extended readiness", effectively mothballed as soon as it was completed.
Army commanders and General Sir David Richards, the new Chief of the Defence Staff, have questioned the cost of the carriers and their potential military value.
The Navy has argued that having two carriers is vital if Britain is to retain its place as a top-rank military power. Its case has been bolstered by the procurement contracts for the carriers that commit the Government to place alternative work with the shipyards even if a carrier is abandoned.
It is understood that the Navy has offered to slim down to as few as 12 surface ships, leaving it with six Type 45 destroyers and six Type 23 frigates. In addition, its submarine fleet would reduce to seven Astute hunter-killers plus the four Trident nuclear deterrent boats. With the two carriers, this would reduce the fleet by half from its current total of 42 ships.
"If we want the two carriers it means we have to mortgage everything and by that I mean reducing the fleet by almost a half," said a senior Navy source.
Navy analysts warned that the cuts would mean Britain reducing its fleet to the size of the Italian navy and almost half the size of the French.
Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, warned in a letter leaked to The Daily Telegraph last week that the Navy could lose its entire amphibious landing capability and be unable to mount even a relatively small-scale operation such as the intervention in Sierra Leone. To prevent that outcome, ministers have discussed reconfiguring the first new carrier as a helicopter platform that would also carry Royal Marine commandos. The carrier would then ultimately replace the existing helicopter ship, HMS Ocean.
Navy sources have said that the reduction would mean Britain would find it "extremely difficult" to protect sea lanes on which 90 per cent of the country's trade relies.
It would also have to drop either anti-piracy patrols in the Middle East, protecting oil platforms in the Gulf or counter-narcotics operations in the Caribbean.
As well as defining strategic needs, ministers are trying to cut the £37 billion annual defence budget as part of the Coalition's deficit reduction plan. Even though those cuts are likely to be held well below 10 per cent, Dr Fox still has to fund a £38 billion "black hole" in the military order book.
The carriers are currently designed to carry specially built Short Take-Off Vertical Landing Jets, which are significantly more expensive than conventional catapult-launched fighters.
One option discussed at the council was delaying at least one of the new carriers and equipping it with a catapult.
Ministers debated that option to allow "interoperability" with other nations, including France and the US, whose carrier-based jets are catapult-launched.
A row has broken out over the fate of the Harrier and Tornado warplanes. One type of jet is almost certain to be retired early. The RAF, which controls the Tornado fleet, wants the Harriers scrapped. The Navy wants them saved. The row remains unresolved and retiring the Harriers remains a strong possibility.
That could mean carriers enter service even though Britain lacked warplanes to fly from them. To fill the "capability gap", the UK would have to borrow jets from an ally.
A No 10 spokesman said: "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

Admiraal Nelson zal zich nu wel 10 keer in zijn graf omdraaien

[Lex]

Mirage 2000D Upgrade, Tanker Fall In French Cuts

LONDON — France is facing the prospect of real capability gaps as the country adjusts its defense spending to try to bring down its mounting budget deficit.
As part of its first concrete action, the government announced Sept. 29 it plans to curtail defense outlays by €1.3 billion (U.S. $1.77 billion) over three years. The move, expected for months, is nonetheless significant because it reverses several years of increasing defense spending, even if only modestly at times.
But military officials worry the cutback is merely a first step. For instance, the French air force was hoping to start fielding a midlife update for the Mirage 2000D soon. That program has now been delayed and is not planned to emerge until 2017-18. One senior military official is concerned the program may never emerge.
Other programs that were expected to begin next year are the acquisition of 14 new air tankers and the start of acquisition of a Ceres signal intelligence satellite system.
The Mirage 2000D delay could lead to a capability gap after the retirement of the Mirage F1, with its Astac tactical electronic intelligence pod. The Astac pod was to transition to the Mirage 2000D at the time of the midlife upgrade, but now discussions are underway on whether the Rafale's Spectra electronic warfare suite could be upgraded to take on the task. In either case, a capability gap will exist, the official says.
The new French spending plan calls for annual buys of 11 Rafales per year for both the navy and the air force. Next year's deliveries should bring the fleet to 104 units handed over. Delivery of six more Reco NG reconnaissance pods for Rafale also are planned — the system is set to make its combat debut in Afghanistan next year.
The 2011 budget calls for spending of €30 billion, increasing by around €500 million in each of the two following years. Equipment spending is planned at around €16 billion, down from €17 billion last year. It is due to increase in 2012 to €16.8 billion and reach €17.4 billion in 2013.
Much of the focus of new orders in 2011 will be on upgrades and maintaining existing equipment. The spending plan calls for funding modernization of three C-135 tankers, made necessary in part by the delay in moving forward on the refueling aircraft acquisition. Two Falcon 50s will also be modified into maritime patrol aircraft and seven Cougar helicopters are also to be overhauled.
Next year should also see the first French delivery of a NH90 helicopter in the TTH transport configuration for the army, plus the delivery of four more NFH90 maritime helos — the first were handed over this year — which also are to become operational in 2011. Six Tiger attack helos also are due for delivery.
Other equipment highlights for 2011 include the redelivery of an upgraded C160 Gabriel signals intelligence aircraft and two upgraded E3 Awacs.
In the missile arena, 2011 should see the final ASMPA nuclear tactical missile handed over, as well as delivery of 70 MICA air-to-air weapons, two SAMP/T air- and missile defense systems, and 100 Aster 30 and 10 Aster 15 missiles.
France also is maintaining its military space activities, a focus area in recent years, despite the Ceres delay. An extra 60 Syracuse III terminals are to be delivered, and final funding will be provided for two new optical imaging satellites for the Musis program.
Industry also will benefit from €2 billion in stimulus money to be funded by a special bond issue. About €1.5 billion will go to support new civil aircraft and helicopter developments and the rest is for an Ariane 5 launch vehicle follow-on and new satellite developments.

Aviation Week, oct 1th 2010

[Lex]

..... Het toestel werd gekocht door MAD Africa uit Brussel, die ook nog een dertigtal militaire helikopters van het Belgische leger kocht. Die werden onder meer doorverkocht aan Madagascar en Nederland.

De A-109 heli's waar het hier om gaat zijn verkocht aan een transportbedrijf in NL, die ze vervolgens weer in de verkoop heeft gegooid.
Het gaat om van Vliet transport in Spijkernisse.

[Lex]

Defensie zet Airbus te koop die nog tot november moet vliegen

Het ministerie van Defensie heeft zijn tweede Airbus A310 begin september te koop gesteld, terwijl het toestel nog tot eind november dienst moet doen. Zo is in militaire kringen bevestigd. Het toestel staat reeds sinds 7 september te koop op de website enot.publicprocurement.be.

De A310-222 wordt verkocht met een reservereactor en verscheidene wisselstukken. Geïnteresseerden hebben tot 15 oktober de tijd om een bod te doen.

De eerste Airbus A310 werd in augustus 2009 uit dienst genomen. Het toestel werd gekocht door MAD Africa uit Brussel, die ook nog een dertigtal militaire helikopters van het Belgische leger kocht. Die werden onder meer doorverkocht aan Madagascar en Nederland.

De twee Airbussen dateren uit 1985 en werden in 1997 door Defensie aangekocht. In totaal hebben ze elk meer dan 35.000 vlieguren. Ze kwamen de laatste jaren echter vooral in het nieuws door defecten die militairen en ministers aan de grond hielden.

Sinds november werden ze vervangen door een Airbus A330 die van een Portugese leasingmaatschappij gehuurd wordt.

Belga, maandag 27 september 2010, 16u04

[Reinier]

The future of British defence
Into the storm
The government's strategic defence review—and impending cuts to the defence budget—will define Britain's approach to security for a decade and beyond

Sep 9th 2010

ON SEPTEMBER 17th the newly formed National Security Council (NSC), chaired by the prime minister, David Cameron, will begin discussing how to cut Britain's defence budget. The conversation will be informed by the Strategic Defence and Security Review, which the coalition government embarked upon within weeks of taking office. Whereas the last such exercise, completed by the Labour government in 1998, took over a year to conclude, this one must be finished by October 20th, when the coalition will announce the results of its overall review of public spending. The outcome of these deliberations will define not just the shape of Britain's armed forces, but also its role in the world and sense of itself as a nation.

It is not just the rush that is making this such a difficult and painful process. Britain's annual defence budget is around £40 billion ($62 billion), including the extra cash (£4.6 billion this year) that the Treasury provides for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is munificent by international standards—Britain ranks third in global defence spending, behind America and China. But defence benefited much less than other departments from the largesse of the boom years (see chart). The Labour government was ignobly reluctant to meet the costs of its lengthy military engagements.

It also abjectly failed to reform the wasteful procurement regime at the Ministry of Defence (MoD). As Liam Fox, the Conservative defence secretary, has argued, even by Labour's profligate standards, the financial situation he inherited is unique. In a speech last month, Dr Fox identified "an unfunded liability in defence of around £37 billion over the next ten years." Under Labour, the MoD ordered equipment costing over £20 billion, "without ever having an idea whether the budget would be able to afford it".

All that created a chasm between Britain's military ambitions and its capacity (or willingness) to pay for them. Now an overstretched defence budget faces a massive cut: as part of the bid to address Britain's fiscal deficit, defence faces a cumulative squeeze of between 10% and 20% over five years. The result is some very hard and worryingly hurried choices. Since Britain is America's most important military ally, they will be keenly awaited in the Pentagon, as well as Whitehall.

Were Britain prepared to sacrifice some of its global influence and prestige, those choices would be easier. Some argue that the real threats to Britain's security—invasion or attack by a powerful state—have rarely been smaller, and that defence spending should decline accordingly. Many, including quite a few Liberal Democrats, the Tories' coalition partners, would like Britain to get out of the business of projecting large-scale military force overseas. Instead, they argue, Britain should humbly focus on meeting the collective security obligations imposed by NATO membership, limiting its expeditionary goals to humanitarian interventions approved by the United Nations, rather like Canada and some of the Scandinavian countries.

There is not the slightest sign, however, that the government intends to reappraise Britain's traditional ability to "punch above its weight" militarily and diplomatically. In another recent speech Dr Fox said that the country needed "robust and well-equipped armed forces, capable of intervening abroad whenever necessary." But whether Dr Fox, a right-winger with neoconservative leanings, can reconcile that aim with the demands of an impatient Treasury is questionable. His strained relationships with the three most powerful members of the NSC—Mr Cameron, George Osborne, the chancellor of the exchequer, and William Hague, the foreign secretary—may also affect the wrangling.


Fighting the next war

Dr Fox and the NSC must begin by balancing Britain's current obligations in Afghanistan with the challenges of the future. According to Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI, a think-tank, even though continuing operations in Afghanistan are notionally funded by the Treasury, the campaign is still absorbing about 30% of the MoD's budget. That is because sustaining roughly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan ties up many times that number in training and support. That means the army will perforce be largely protected from the immediate savings the government is looking for—increasing pressure on the other services.

Yet the fact that Britain has recently been involved in two troop-heavy counter-insurgency campaigns does not mean that all or even most future conflicts will be similar. In ten or 20 years the threat from jihadi terrorists operating from failed states may have receded. Iran could trigger a nuclear-arms race in the Middle East. Violent competition over scarce resources may erupt with or between emerging superpowers, such as China and India. And so on into the unknown unknowns.

One obvious approach would be to inflict equal pain on each of the services. But Dr Fox has described that method as "intellectually indefensible and strategically dangerous". He also rejects the idea of simply trying to do what Britain does now, but with less money, since that would mean neglecting investment in new fields such as cyber-warfare. Dr Fox is sounding radical—perhaps too radical, given the uncertainty about future threats.

Up to 40 separate studies of defence expenditure are close to completion, which will be submitted to the NSC's small secretariat, led by the new national security adviser, Sir Peter Ricketts, a former head of the Foreign Office. The indications are that the individual services are reluctant to compromise. The army is arguing that big reductions in its size would lead to a collapse in morale, particularly among officers who would see their career prospects diminished. The navy insists that it is already at or near the minimum needed to be a coherent maritime force (it already has less than a tenth of the number of ships it boasted in 1945). As for the Royal Air Force (RAF), it stubbornly clings to a view of itself as a miniature version of the American Air Force.

One of the gravest problems is the way a number of very large procurement programmes are bunched together over the next few years. They include the purchase of 40 more Typhoon aeroplanes for the RAF for around £2.8 billion; two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers that are due to come into service in 2016 and 2018, at a cost of £5.2 billion; the 138 F-35 strike fighters that go with the carriers (about £10 billion); seven Astute-class attack submarines, the first three of which cost £4 billion; and the £20 billion programme to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The RAF looks certain to be hit hard. Douglas Barrie, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, reckons that the air force will shrink dramatically, losing perhaps 200 jets through the early retirement of Tornadoes and Harriers and a scaling back of the plan for a 160-strong Typhoon fleet. Attack helicopters and unmanned drones will increasingly be used to support ground operations instead. The order for F-35 jets, which are to be shared between the navy and the air force, looks certain to be more than halved to around 60, saving more than £5 billion in purchase costs and at least as much in maintenance.

Theoretically, one or both of the navy's aircraft carriers could be cancelled. That would drastically reduce Britain's expeditionary capability; but the advanced state of construction, the amount of money already spent and the 10,000 or so jobs at stake make it unlikely. Ditching just one of them is impractical, since two are needed if one is to be continuously available for operations. Despite some excitable recent talk of sharing a carrier with France, the difficulty of agreeing what to do with such a shared vessel make that idea unworkable. Dr Fox has ruled it out, though he is exploring other areas of co-operation.


The conspiracy of optimism

The most controversial programme of all is the replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear submarines (Dr Fox has wasted political capital in a fruitless row with the Treasury about who should pay for the renewal). The coalition is committed to keeping the deterrent, albeit with the reluctant support of the Lib Dems. But it may be possible to delay ordering the new boats by several years, and to make do with three submarines rather than the current four. That would put back the costs and save several billion pounds. Alternatives to Trident, such as converting an attack submarine to do the job, seem likely to be dismissed on grounds of cost and effectiveness.

And despite Afghanistan, the army will not escape entirely. A growing emphasis on special forces in ground warfare, combined with rising scepticism about the future utility of heavy armour should allow two or three battalions of infantry to be eliminated, the mothballing of most of the army's main battle tanks and thus big savings in manpower and logistical support. A smaller army—comprising perhaps 95,000 soldiers rather than the current 107,000—would also make it possible to repatriate most of the roughly 19,000 British troops still stationed in Germany without building new bases or housing.

Less sexy than those headline cuts, but just as important, are the savings to be made in the way the MoD itself operates. Above all, it needs a rational procurement policy. An independent report it commissioned last year described a "conspiracy of optimism" between the services, the defence establishment and industry. Knowing that major programmes are rarely cancelled outright, each of the armed forces has a systematic incentive both to underestimate the likely cost of equipment and to aim for the highest possible specification regardless of risk. The results are routine delays and vast cost overruns.

So there is a pressing need to bring order and sanity to Britain's overstretched defence budget. But that cannot be achieved overnight. Given the ten-year time horizon that defence planning requires, attempting severe cuts too quickly may be risky militarily and financially, since it might prove costlier to revive needed capabilities in the future than to preserve them now. That will be the message that Dr Fox will take to his colleagues on the NSC. It may well fall on deaf ears. The government's priority is the deficit, not a sensible defence review.

Bron: The Economist
http://www.economist.com/node/16994358

[KapiteinRob]

Defensie zou daarom hebben besloten om een groot deel van de administratieve taken door burgers te laten overnemen. Die krijgen alleen salaris uitbetaald, geen toeslag.

Hoewel we het hier over Britse defensie hebben, vraag ik me af op wat voor toeslagen dan gedoeld wordt. Daarbij neem ik aan dat net als in NL in de UK nog steeds een behoorlijk aantal administratieve functies operationeel zijn. En op de non-operationele functies zitten al vaak burgers en is er de ruimte voor collega's met de meer operationele dienstvakken om ook een "niet operationele functie" te vervullen zodat die niet continu van hot naar haar moeten vliegen.

Dat gezegd hebbende mogen ze mijn huidige functie zo omklappen naar burger en mij daarop geplaatst een burgerkloffie aan laten trekken. Dan werk ik op die stoel wel door tot mijn 67e....... 

[andré herc]

Einde Duitse dienstplicht in zicht

BERLIJN - De Duitse dienstplicht verdwijnt nu vrijwel zeker. De Duitse CSU-leider Horst Seehofer heeft zijn verzet tegen afschaffing opgegeven, meldde hij zaterdag in het Duitse tijdschrijft Der Spiegel.

Seehofer ziet geen noodzaak meer voor de dienstplicht in vredestijd. Per jaar moeten enkele duizenden Duitse jongemannen moeten zes maanden lang de zogeheten Wehrpflicht vervullen.

Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (Defensie) had vorige maand voorgesteld om drastisch te bezuinigen op het leger. De dienstplicht moest daarbij plaatsmaken voor een vrijwilligersdienst en het aantal beroepsmilitairen zou flink omlaag gaan van 245.000 tot 163.500.

Leider Seehoder van regeringspartij CSU wil echter wel meer beroeps- en vrijwillige soldaten behouden dan voorgesteld. De CSU denkt eerder aan totaal 185.000 man voor de zogeheten Bundeswehr. Daarvan zouden er 15.000 vrijwilligers moeten zijn. (ANP)

Za 11 september, 15 u 47

ad.nl

[Elzenga]

Het bewuste artikel...

Defence spending: thousands of troops to be cut

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 10:01PM BST 10 Sep 2010

The cuts, which are part of the strategic defence review, will lead to a substantial reduction in the size of the Army, which will also have to give up many of its tanks and armoured vehicles. Soldiers could also be ordered to serve longer on the front line in Afghanistan, and be given less time to recuperate between tours.

Senior ministers are poised to make the first painful decisions on cuts next week as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Daily Telegraph has learnt that deep cuts to military manpower are high on the agenda.

The Armed Forces have about 180,000 uniformed personnel, but can keep a fighting force in the field of barely one twentieth of that. Paying for housing and supporting uniformed personnel is one of the biggest drains on the £36 billion Ministry of Defence budget.

According to the review, employing each uniformed serviceman was 50 per cent more expensive than employing an MoD civil servant, and twice as costly as the average civil servant. Many Armed Forces personnel carrying out administrative roles could be replaced by civilians, ministers were told.

The review also concluded provisionally that:

    * Cutting the size of the Army would make it easier to honour a Tory pledge to bring troops out of Germany. But Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, was advised that an early exit could potentially increase costs since the forces there currently would need new British bases.

    * The Trident nuclear deterrent should be replaced with another four-submarine deterrent. However, the Trident vessels could be kept in service longer to delay spending on the replacement.

    * The Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers were likely to be approved, costing more than £5 billion. However, the type and number of aircraft they would carry remained the subject of debate.

    * Dr Fox was said to be winning an argument with the Treasury to have capital spending for defence set out for 10 years instead of four, allowing better long-term planning of equipment procurement.

    * There would be "winners" from the review, however. Some of the money saved would be spent on improving Britain's "cyber-warfare" capabilities and expanding Special Forces units. There would also be extra investment in technology to counter mines and other "passive" weapons such as roadside bombs.

The Coalition's spending cuts meant that the MoD budget was likely to be cut by almost a fifth. Defence officials calculated that each 20,000 reduction in Forces manpower would save £1 billion in the first year, and larger amounts in subsequent years from reduced pension and wage costs.

As the largest of the three services, the Army was likely to bear the brunt of the cuts. Commanders would be told to "do more with less" and increase "force generation" ratios, which determine the total number of troops required to field a specified front line force.

Currently, an Army of almost 100,000 was required to sustain a force of about 10,000 in Afghanistan, partly due to the time required for training before each six-month tour and recuperation time afterwards.

Military rules known as Harmony Guidelines dictate that units should have 24 months at home after every operational tour. However, those rules treated a six-month posting in locations such as Cyprus in the same way as tour in Afghanistan.

The National Security Committee, chaired by David Cameron, is expected to consider the details of the proposed cuts next week.

"This review is going to be painful, much worse than most people realise," said one senior source.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7995646/Defence-spending-thousands-of-troops-to-be-cut.html

[andré herc]

Banen Britse militairen op de tocht

Toegevoegd: zaterdag 11 sep 2010, 10:23

Tienduizenden Britse militairen dreigen hun baan kwijt te raken. De Britse krant The Daily Telegraph heeft van bronnen binnen Defensie gehoord dat er fors bezuinigd moet worden.

Veel militairen bij de landmacht, de luchtmacht en de marine doen louter administratief werk. Maar omdat zij een uniform dragen krijgen zij een forse vergoeding voor huisvesting en levensonderhoud, net als de militairen die veldwerk doen.

Defensie zou daarom hebben besloten om een groot deel van de administratieve taken door burgers te laten overnemen. Die krijgen alleen salaris uitbetaald, geen toeslagen

nos.nl

[andré herc]

Italy Eyes Defense Cuts

Sep 10, 2010

By Andy Nativi
Genoa


Italy is not immune to the defense cuts that are spreading across Europe. While the government has yet to present a plan for reducing military spending, Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa has revealed highlights of the reductions he will announce by the end of October.

The finance minister plans to impose across-the-board cuts of 10% to the budget of every ministry. This will meet the government's goal of reducing spending by €29 billion ($36.8 billion) from 2011-13.

La Russa deflected measures that would have affected military pay, but had to accept reductions that have not been welcomed by service personnel. These include such expenses as trips abroad for training and meetings.

So far the ax has not affected the €1.5 billion Italy spends annually on international missions, which is outside the defense budget. In July, parliament approved the extension of current missions to the end of the year without cuts. This is important because Italy is conducting a surge in Afghanistan, which will bring 4,000 soldiers in theater by the end of 2010, along with 800 vehicles and 32 aircraft. This mission alone requires €366 million to year-end.

Funds will continue to be provided for operations in Lebanon, where 1,800 soldiers are deployed; stabilization missions in the Balkans, which account for 1,200 troops; and other peacekeeping activities. But it is clear that maintaining these funding levels will be difficult next year, and La Russa says he will try to reduce the Balkans commitment. Italy recently turned down command of the NATO mission in Kosovo, which would have required at least 100 troops. Even if NATO is eager to disengage from Kosovo, the situation on the ground has worsened, with renewed clashes between Serbian minorities and the Albanian majority following affirmation of Kosovo independence. This could affect plans to reduce troop levels. (For a report on conditions in Belgrade, see DTI July/August, p. 52.)

La Russa also announced plans to reduce the size of the military to 180,000 from 190,000. This is more of a tactical announcement, since the force is already around 185,000 due to a slowdown in the enlistment of new soldiers and reenlistments. The minister hinted at personnel reform, saying there are too many senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and higher-ranking officers. A broad cut of civilian personnel is envisioned, as well.

La Russa pledged to cancel, reduce or postpone procurement programs to achieve €5 billion in savings. The minister points as an example to the proposed acquisition of 25 Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3B aircraft, which will be canceled, saving at least €2 billion. In May Eurofighter delivered a price proposal for 124 Tranche 3B aircraft—valued at around €8 billion and including options in weapons and system integration—to the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, which acts on behalf of the U.K., Germany, Italy and Spain. The contract is to be signed in 2011. Under the original umbrella contract, Italy was planning to buy 121 Typhoons but will now stop at 96, unless it can sell some Tranche 1 aircraft to a foreign customer.

Another air force program that has been deferred is acquisition of a sigint/intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance system, to be jointly operated with the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. The platform, a Gulfstream G550, has been specified, and there is a competition underway between Lockheed Martin and Israel Aerospace Industries to provide mission systems.

No decision has been taken on the number of F-35 aircraft that Italy will acquire for the air force and navy, with a tentative combined requirement of 135 A and B versions.

La Russa also wants to end procurement of Fremm multimission frigates at six vessels rather than 10. The navy needs them to replace as many as 12 frigates, some already worn out. The minister has not mentioned a program termination, but wants to defer the decision to procure the remaining four vessels in 2013, possibly selling them to international buyers.

Procurement savings from these efforts will not be immediate. Since almost all program payments are spread over a number of years, the €5 billion of savings could be achieved only in the mid-term.

These moves will have a major impact on Italy's defense industry and be scrutinized by parliament, which has asked for a wide-ranging defense restructuring instead of cuts and cost reductions.


aviationweek.com

[mikemans]

Defensie zou prima binnen budget kunnen blijven als met dat budget slechts dagene gedaan zou worden dat ook bijdraagt aan het efficient en effectief invullen van de gestelde doelen. Teveel van het budget gaat echter verloren aan economische en/of sociaal maatschappelijke doelen c.q. invulling geven aan individuele belangen (semi corruptie).

Dit uit zich voornamelijk in het te duur aanschaffen van niet benodigt materieel (irrationele aanschaf) en kapitaalvernietiging (vervangen van materieel dat nog niet aan vervanging toe is).

[Reinier]

Goed artikel!
De problemen die de Britten hebben, zijn vergelijkbaar met de problemen die wij hebben.

Het grote probleem is dat, zowel de Britten als wij, de politiek aan de ene kant een flexibele krijgsmacht willen hebben met "boots on the ground" en "winning hearts and minds". En aan de andere kant defensie die best de taak van veredelde Rode Kruis wilt uitvoeren, maar ook nog materieel achter de hand moet hebben voor verdediging eigen land/ belangen of grondgebied elders (Falklands, Antillen, etc).
Beide taken/ scenario's liggen ver uit elkaar en kosten veel geld.

Echter bij een flexibele krijgsmacht, in de ogen van politici, horen geen (grote aantallen) tanks, fregatten, onderzeeërs, etc etc. Daar win je immers "the hearts and minds" niet mee. Daarentegen ziet defensie nog wel plaats voor fregatten, tanks, etc. Wellicht logisch en goed te onderbouwen, echter waar defensie de fout in gaat, is dat zij nog steeds als tijdens de Koude Oorlog het beste van het beste willen hebben (deels logisch), maar defensie materieel wordt steeds duurder. Een goed voorbeeld is de JSF.
Dus met krimpend defensie budget en stijgende prijzen van materieel (...) volgt logischer wijze dat er steeds minder kan worden aangeschaft.

Wat moet je doen als defensie die zowel een flexibele als een "traditionele" krijgsmacht taken moeten vervullen met een krimpend budget?
Toch maar de JSF aanschaffen al is maar de helft van het aantal dat je zou willen hebben? Er is behoeft aan 2 vliegdekschepen, maar geld voor maar 1?

Stalin zei al;  "kwantiteit is een kwaliteit op zich". Dus gaan we straks voor €4,5 miljard 45 JSF's aanschaffen of 90 Saab GNG? Is 1 JSF beter dan 2 Saab's? Waarom een heel nieuw ontwerp maken voor 1 JSS voor (...) als je voor de helft van het geld ook een 'simpele' bevoorrader kan bouwen? De JSF is misschien iets beter dan een Saab of Eurofighter, maar is dat 2 keer zoveel geld waard en heb je dat klein beetje extra nodig?

Het inkrimpen van de krijgsmacht heeft defensie zelf in de hand, alleen moeten ze zich afvragen; gaan we voor materieel dat misschien 10% beter is dan het alternatief of kiezen we voor het alternatief maar dan 2 maal zoveel in aantal?

[hudinie]

Mooi stuk om te lezen Dudge, ....ook in de UK is geen visie lijkt het..vindt dat de Britse krijgsmacht de laatste 10 jaar al genoeg heeft ingeleverd, ze waren er zelf bij met Desert Storm met hun Desert Rats..en nu fors bezuinigen op de gemech eenheden ?

[Mourning]

Dudge, bedankt voor het plaatsen van dat stuk! (thumbsup)