Defensiebegrotingen en -problematiek, niet NL

[Harald]

Hoe was het ook alweer : F-35B - F-35C - F-35B - nu weer F-35C ???

UK Might Stick With the F-35C

So remember a few weeks ago when news emerged that Britain was looking at backtracking on its plans to buy the F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter for its new carriers that are set to be equipped with new electromagnetic catapults and next generation arrestor gear? You know, the Royal Navy might go back to ordering the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B and build its carriers without cats and traps due in order to save money.

Well, the U.S. Navy — who is spearheading development on the new catapults, known as EMALS for its Ford class aircraft carriers —  has assured London that it will cost way less than the Biritish bean counters think it will to equip the Royal Navy's new carriers with cats and traps. The best part, if the effort to develop the EMALS falters, the U.S. will foot the bill, not the Brits. Let's hope the system keeps doing well.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/2012/03/26/uk-might-stick-with-the-f-35c/#ixzz1qIWQ4jin
Defense.org

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

French Navy Commissions the Experimental Patrol Vessel L'Adroit

The French navy has commissioned the Gowind-class OPV L'Adroit, developed and built by DCNS, which it will test for a range of missions during the next three years. (DCNS photo)
On March 19, the French Navy commissioned the experimental patrol vessel L'Adroit.

Fitted with a significant number of technical innovations, the ship was handed over to the navy on Oct. 21, 2011, for a three-year trial period, during which she will carry out a wide variety of naval missions such as fisheries inspection and protection, anti-drugs operations, environmental protection, humanitarian assistance, and search and rescue at sea.

Crewed by two full crews which alternate ever four months, L'Adroit is designed to remain at sea for extended periods -- up to 220 days per year. With an overall length of 87 meters, the experimental patrol vessel L'Adroit has a range of 8,000 nautical miles. It can remain at sea for over three weeks at a stretch, sail at speeds of up to 21 knots, and operate both helicopters and drones.

She requires a crew of only 30 officers and ratings, and can in addition also carry up to 30 passengers.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/133746/french-navy-commissions-experimental-opv.html

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

The World's Biggest Nuclear Submarine Is Also One of the Sneakiest

While the Red October may not have been an actual submarine, the Russian Typhoon class that it's based on certainly is. Turns out, Hollywood didn't have to embellish many details for the film—Typhoons really can sneak up on you.

The Typhoon is a class of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines developed by the USSR and deployed throughout the 1980s. The fleet of six submarines were built at the Severodvinsk Shipyard on the White Sea.

The largest submarines ever constructed, they measure 175 meters long with a submerged displacement of 48,000 tons. The Typhoon class is capable of staying submerged for up to three months at a time.

These massive ships employ a five-layer, pressurized hull—the outermost of which is covered in sound-dampening plates—which allows the ship to dive to a maximum depth of 400 meters. The five-layer style also allows for an overall wider design than a conventional submarine. This helps create the necessary living space for the Typhoon's crew of 160 sailors, and it provides additional protection against hull breaches.

A Typhoon class sub is powered by two OK-650 pressurized-water nuclear reactors, each of which provides an excess of 250,000 HP. This allows the subs to reach a top speed of 22 knots on the surface and 27 knots when submerged.

The Typhoon was designed to compete with America's Ohio class subs, which were capable of carrying up to 192 100-kiloton nuclear warheads. Typhoons carried a primary cache of 20 RSM-52 SLBMs, each of which contained up to 10 MIRV warheads. These missiles were designed so that a Russian sub would be able to launch them safely and discreetly from beneath the ocean's surface. The missiles were also capable of breaking through Arctic ice floes during launch.

The missile systems that the Typhoon class use are reaching the end of their service lives. Three of the ships have been retired, two have been placed on reserve, and the flagship of the Typhoon fleet, the TK-208 Dmitry Donskoy, has been retrofitted and is in field testing with a new weapon system. [Typhoon Class Wiki, Naval Technology, Russian Forces Image: Bellona foundation]

http://gizmodo.com/5895441/the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-submarine-is-also-one-of-the-sneakiest

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Scrapping Trident 'would save £84bn'
23 March 2012

Cancelling the like-for-like replacement of the UK's nuclear deterrent would save £83.5bn over the next 50 years, according to a report produced for the British American Security Information Council (BASIC).

Defence economist professor Keith Hartley was commissioned to investigate the skills, employment, technology and regional impacts of various options regarding replacement of the deterrent, including the option of not replacing Trident at all.

Hartley estimated that the costs of the like-for-like replacement of the system until 2062 would amount to an average of £1.86bn a year, including maintenance.

Government estimates currently put the capital costs of designing and building the submarines at over £20bn.

Replacing the existing deterrent with a cruise missile system based around four new Astute class submarines would cost around £56.5bn over the same period, Hartley wrote, although he acknowledged it would be a less effective deterrent.

The consequences of outright cancellation of the system would include difficulties in maintaining the submarine engineering skills base, and Hartley recommended that engineers should be given alternative work in submarine maintenance or, if possible, the building of surface ships between orders for hunter-killer submarines.

Ultimately, he wrote, the skills and employment impacts of Trident were not "the main policy objectives" of defence procurement and that the submarine industry had ample time to adjust to any cancellation.

"Such procurements are about the contributions of various equipment programmes to UK security, protection and peace," he wrote.

"...Even with a Trident cancellation in 2016, there will remain substantial work on the Astute class SSNs to around 2024/25 resulting in an adjustment period of some 8-10 years. Such a lengthy adjustment period allows time for appropriate public policies to be introduced to ease any adjustment costs."

BASIC's Trident Commission, led by former defence secretaries Malcolm Rifkind and Des Browne, as well as former Lib Dem leader Menzies Campbell, is currently carrying out a study of options for Britain's nuclear deterrent, including alternative systems and the effects of cancellation.

The commission's study is separate to a review of alternative systems currently being carried out by the Cabinet Office, reporting to Liberal Democrat Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey.

Earlier this week the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament created an online game which highlighted what the CND believe would have to be cut in order fund the capital costs of replacing the Trident programme.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19271

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

EU praat over militaire samenwerking

BRUSSEL - De Europese ministers van defensie hebben donderdag gesproken over het mogelijk samenvoegen van militaire middelen. De bijeenkomst was ingegeven door de dalende Europese defensiebegrotingen en het feit dat de krijgsmacht van de Verenigde Staten zich meer gaat toeleggen op Azië en het Midden-Oosten.

De 27 lidstaten van de Europese Unie geven gezamenlijk jaarlijks zo'n tweehonderd miljard euro uit aan defensie. Alleen de Verenigde Staten steken meer geld in hun krijgsmacht. De gefragmenteerde staat van commandostructuren en de Europese defensie-industrie maken het echter schier onmogelijk schaalvoordelen te behalen bij de aankoop van militair materieel.

Het geld dat Europese landen in defensie steken is de afgelopen tien jaar met zo'n vijftien procent gedaald. De bezuinigingen die momenteel worden doorgevoerd om de financiële crisis het hoofd te bieden betekenen dat de Europese krijgsmachten nog meer moeten inleveren. De aankondiging van de VS dat het land zich meer op gebieden buiten Europa wil richten bemoeilijkt de zaak nog verder voor Europa.

Volgens EU-functionarissen zullen de ministers een aantal aanbevelingen van het Europese Defensie Agentschap (EDA) binnenkort goedkeuren. Het EDA beveelt aan om onder meer samen te werken op het gebied van tankvliegtuigen, medische eenheden en logistiek.

Naast de toekomst van het Europese defensiebeleid spraken de ministers ook over de missies die de EU momenteel heeft lopen, zoals de marinemissie voor de kust van Somalië. Deze missie heeft het aantal aanvallen door piraten doen afnemen en verlenging ervan is een prioriteit, aldus ingewijden. Daarnaast spraken de ministers ook over het trainingsprogramma voor het Somalische leger en de vredesoperatie in Bosnië.

De secretaris-generaal van de NAVO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was ook bij de vergadering aanwezig. Hij zei dat het bondgenootschap zijn eigen anti-piraterijmissie genaamd Ocean Shield waarschijnlijk zal verlengen.

http://www.nd.nl/artikelen/2012/maart/22/eu-praat-over-militaire-samenwerking

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

'Men' mag dan wel 'plannen hebben', dit wil echter niet zeggen dat die ook gerealiseerd worden...
Kosten... om het ding te ontwerpen en te bouwen, wie gaat ze (mogen) kopen, en wie gaat ze kunnen betalen...

Aan de bijbehoren de plaatjes te zien, zijn het al behoorlijk gedateerde plannen (misschien is er iets nieuws over te vinden), op de plaatjes zien we naast de V22 de Boeing variant van de JSF, de X34.

[ARM-WAP]

Kleine correctie de V-22 Osprey kan ook opstijgen en landen van een schip met jumpjet.
Overigens heb ik ergens gelezen dat men ook plannen had-heeft voor een  V-22 Osprey AWACS

'Men' mag dan wel 'plannen hebben', dit wil echter niet zeggen dat die ook gerealiseerd worden...
Kosten... om het ding te ontwerpen en te bouwen, wie gaat ze (mogen) kopen, en wie gaat ze kunnen betalen...

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Slechts één Sea King inzetbaar voor reddingen op zee

donderdag 22 maart 2012, 06u25

Momenteel kan slechts één van de vier beschikbare Sea King-helikopters worden ingezet voor reddingsoperaties op zee. Dat zegt Dirk Deboodt van de de ACOD Defensie, die daarover een bezorgde mail stuurde naar de burgemeesters van alle kustgemeenten. Dat meldt De Morgen.

De Sea Kings die vandaag nog altijd reddingsacties op zee uitvoeren, zijn 35 jaar oud. De helikopters zijn zo verouderd dat ze in de lucht houden een huzarenstukje is, zegt Deboodt. 'Normaal moesten ze in 2013 uit omloop worden genomen. Aangezien die toestellen einde levensduur zijn, worden er ook geen grote kosten meer aan verricht en is het behelpen op een zo goedkoop mogelijke manier', klinkt het.

De man is naar eigen zeggen bezorgd, 'niet alleen voor het welzijn van het defensiepersoneel, maar ook van de bevolking.' Daarom richtte hij zich in een brief aan alle burgemeesters van de kustgemeenten. Daarin wijst hij op het feit dat 'slechts een van de vier beschikbare Sea Kings inzetbaar is, terwijl er normaal gezien twee - één actief en één stand-by - moeten zijn'.

Defensie wil de huidige situatie officieel bevestigen noch ontkennen. 'Ik moet u meedelen dat wij niet de gewoonte hebben om te communiceren over de operationaliteit van onze wapensystemen noch van ons materieel', luidt het in een officiële mail. Een hoge militaire bron bevestigt het verhaal, maar wijst erop dat het probleem snel zal verholpen zijn.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=DMF20120322_013

[Ace1]

Da's dan ook het enige voordeel van die B-versie.
Andere toestellen (C, Rafale M, Hornet, Hawkeyes) kunnen er niet op landen.

Ik vind het idee maar niets...

Kleine correctie de V-22 Osprey kan ook opstijgen en landen van een schip met jumpjet.
Overigens heb ik ergens gelezen dat men ook plannen had-heeft voor een  V-22 Osprey AWACS

[jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)]

Building the world's most advanced ships was never going to be plain sailing

By Will Cook

PUBLISHED: 13:46 GMT, 21 March 2012 | UPDATED: 13:46 GMT, 21 March 2012

It's news to reassure anyone who's worried that the sovereignty of the people and penguins of Port Stanley has been put at risk by government defence cuts.

Defence sources have told the Evening Standard newspaper that Britain's two new Queen Elizabeth class carriers – currently under construction – are 'unnecessarily large for the needs of the Royal Navy'.

'Unnecessarily large': An artist's impression of a Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier, two of which are under construction for the Royal Navy
There is even the suggestion that the 'decision to go for vast new vessels could have been due to a desire to outdo the French'.
If reading that awakened jingoistic stirrings in your breast, I regret they will be short-lived. This is a programme beset by embarrassing, costly, and well-publicised setbacks. As a result the Royal Navy has been left woefully under-equipped in comparison to the old foe of Trafalgar.

Retired: The decommissioning of HMS Ark Royal (pictured) has left the navy without a working aircraft carrier
In retiring HMS Ark Royal, and converting HMS Illustrious to a helicopter platform, the Strategic Defence and Security review left Britain without an aircraft carrier capability. Delays to the new carriers have pushed their launch date back to 2018 at the earliest.

But problems have dogged the aircraft intended to fly from the carriers as much as the ships themselves. The MoD originally intended to purchase the 'jump jet' (F35-B) variant of the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter, but under the Strategic Defence and Security Review it was decided that the second carrier, HMS Prince of Wales, would instead be fitted with catapults and arrestor wires designed to launch the longer-range, conventional version of the aircraft (the F35-C) . This was intended to allow American or French fighters to land on the carrier.

Offloading: One Queen Elizabeth class carrier may be sold to replace the aging French carrier Charles De Gaulle (pictured)
On which subject, it was also decided that after the second carrier was completed, the first (HMS Queen Elizabeth), could be sold to a 'close ally'. No prizes for guessing whom. France's nuclear-powered carrier Charles de Gaulle is fast approaching the end of its service life.

Now it has been revealed that the conversion of just one of the carriers to the catapult configuration could cost £2bn, and may push the completion date back to 2027. This news comes just months after Lockheed Martin began tests on the catapult-launched version of the F35. Tests that went badly. As in fundamental-design-flaw badly.

Design flaw: The Lockheed Martin F35 Joint Strike Fighter
It is in this context that the Government is expected to sign off a reversion of the carriers to their original configuration, and the resumption of the procurement process for the F35-B jump jet. This is much to the glee of Labour, who were in government when the original agreement was signed. It is less to the glee of the taxpayer, who will still be on the line for the £250m cost of reversing the work already done.

However there is hope. The savings made by reverting back to the original design could allow both carriers to become fully operational after all. Although there is the slight problem that HMS Queen Elizabeth is now being fitted to carry helicopters. More costly work to be reversed right there.
More...Cameron's warplane shot down as cost of converting aircraft carriers to fly them trebles
'Defence cuts mean we could not retake the Falkland with our 'dire Navy'', claims military chief who secured islands 30 years ago

But if the embattled Falklanders can hold on until 2018 the Royal Navy might, just might, be the proud owner of the two most advanced vessels the world has ever seen.

And isn't that the point? Nations shouldn't embark on projects of this scale with one eye on the purse strings. These 650,000-ton, 280 metre-long behemoths are of a complexity and size never attempted (the US Nimitz class carriers are larger, but certainly less advanced). There were always going to be delays, reversals, indecision and acrimony. The Government should press on, and the money should be found.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2118143/Building-worlds-advanced-ships-going-plain-sailing.html#ixzz1pn7zSbVN

[ARM-WAP]

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

Da's dan ook het enige voordeel van die B-versie.
Andere toestellen (C, Rafale M, Hornet, Hawkeyes) kunnen er niet op landen.

Ik vind het idee maar niets...

[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/