This is a discussion on Danish Defence budget agreement 2010-2014 within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Some key points.
Leo2A5DK reduced from 57 to 34.
Army fire support to be reduced by disbanding M109A3.
Army SHORAD ...
So there is a country that cuts it's military even worse that mine, pfffeeww.
Seriously this is bad for Denmark, especcialy in the crisis.
Now jobs will be lost.
Personnel numbers seem to remain about the same and the overall budget is also similar... So word on replacement capability is missing! Fire support for a brigade (Archers?)? New maritime helos? Missiles for the frigates?
But the army organic anti-armour and anti-air was a surprise...
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
I have this feeling that within 10 years you will not have any tank or howitzer left.
And I think it will be the same in my country.
And they will retire ALL M109's without replacement?
So you guys will have to do it with 60mm mortars?!
The acq budget will have to be spent on something. Money was allocated in the last budget for co-development of the Archer, though the money ended up being spent on extras for the CV90mkiii's... I would expect they're still on.
In fact, perhaps only half of the 76 M109 were in use...
On the positive side, basing will remian the same.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Hah, I just logged on to Pm you about this important matter Grand Danois!
But since the thread is here so..
What do you think about the cut of our F-16 from 48 to 30? I think that it will severely harm our capabilites.
Right now all our F-16 fighter pilots struggle with keeping the minimum flight time above the required. Such as drastic cut WILL compromise the flight time of these pilots. To fire a great number of valuable pilots would seem idiotic to me, they have a great knowledge about certain things and are an important military asset.
He! It actually looks like as a fighter acq discussion will get more than 10 comments this time .
48 fighters are actually quite a lot for a country like DK. QRA + some training plus 4 + 4 expeditionary is doable with 30, but doesn't leave much room. I believe the RDAF has said that 30 is the absolute minimum.
The agreement is not "fact" until voted upon by parliament, but since 98% is behind it, expect it to pass as is. Just that they have agreed upon it means that this is what's going to happen. OTOH it also means that the time schedule for the fighter acq is pretty much chiseled in stone, since they have the people socialist party included in it; to deny them maneuver room when it's time for type selection.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
I see that it is much more doable if this cut is integrated with the transition from F-16 to the next fighter plane.
My main concern is that we only buy 30 of the next fighter jets.
What will happen to all the pilots that will get affected by this? They are quite worth some in both money (~ 17 mio. DKK for their training/education) and know how.
Though it can be hard to say what the minimum number of fighter planes that would be OPTIMAL I feel that 30 F-16 is simply too low.
The deal will with most likely influence my possible future as fighter pilot in the RDAF.
I have considered writing a lengtly letter to some parties with a smaller analysis and recommendation of using more time on these important matters, that this decision should me taken with much care.
First of all, as I understand it the budget will get a 15% increase during the next 5 years. (plus 5 times 600M DKr + 500M combared to a budget of today of 22Bn Dkr)
Quote:
Army fire support to be reduced by disbanding M109A3.
Which are very old machines, and completely useless in the type of wars the danish defense can expect to get involved in (ie. afgh)
The GMLRS cabability looks like it will be upgraded and re-introduced. Which in my book is a clear strengthening of the usefull fire surport cabability of the army (going from zero use to something usefull).
Quote:
Reduction in no of Standard flex units.
One lost Stanflex compared to the introduction of 5 large frigates in this and the last budget is overall still a massive strengthening of the navy.
Quote:
Army SHORAD to be disbanded (Stinger)
This kind of airdefense isn't exactly something that's a great demand for in the types of wars we expect to fight.
The reduction of tanks, fennecs and planes are sad, but again... the use? As I understand it the main problem in deploying f16s aren't the numbers - but the money.
First of all, as I understand it the budget will get a 15% increase during the next 5 years. (plus 5 times 600M DKr + 500M combared to a budget of today of 22Bn Dkr)
And then you adjust for CPI and then you have 0% increase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
Which are very old machines, and completely useless in the type of wars the danish defense can expect to get involved in (ie. afgh)
The GMLRS cabability looks like it will be upgraded and re-introduced. Which in my book is a clear strengthening of the usefull fire surport cabability of the army (going from zero use to something usefull).
Yes, the M109 are done and not really relevant. The GMLRS is useful, so is Archer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
One lost Stanflex compared to the introduction of 5 large frigates in this and the last budget is overall still a massive strengthening of the navy.
Erm... the frigates replaces 5 submarines, some minelayers, Willemoes and some Flyvefisken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
This kind of airdefense isn't exactly something that's a great demand for in the types of wars we expect to fight.
Organic AA vs CM and helos and UAVs are very relevant for well-rounded entry-level reaction force units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palnatoke
The reduction of tanks, fennecs and planes are sad, but again... the use? As I understand it the main problem in deploying f16s aren't the numbers - but the money.
I actually think it's a good agreement, however, the 92(?) Stinger sections could have been halved, there is really not that much savings to be had here.
And there is a feeling of "jam tomorrow" behind it as well. Let's see.
________________ "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
The new money is still better than the usual 0% increase....
With a second thought, I agree with you on the AD, stingers or something else, it's a capacity we should have.
In regard to the navy, I believe that the navy is far more relevant in surporting the foreign policy, now and more so in the future, than it has been in a long time. I think we should have spendt more money and kept/got new subs, but the budget is sadly quite limited.
While I like that the defense tries to be as relevant as possible, there is a danger that the millitary gets too focussed on the task at hand. It's not optimal that we build a defense that can only handle a mission like the one in Afgh.
IMO, they could just use the surplus Leos for oversea deployment.
Just put a mine protection package and possibly some goodies from the PSO project onto them and then put them into storage.
Would make deployment easier as they will have a better availability and one can use them without having to destroy the structure of the only operational tank unit left.
I don't know, but my guess is that the army remains focussed on achiving an ability to deploy a, hopefully, brigade sized force pieced together from different types of units in order to tailor it to the speciffic mission (this socalled "toolbox concept") - as I understand it.
If that's correct, we can expect every weapon system to be dimensioned to surport exactly that and not more.
Hopefully, important cabability increases in the coming budget is the adding of tactical transports (merlins) and the CW9035.
Waylander
I think it's the other way around, They think something like:" we want to be able to deploy no more than N tanks to an overseas deployment - how many tanks do we need to do that?"
But the problem is that with so few active tanks, every tank send abroad means that training at home gets severely damaged.
I mean sometime they may want to deploy more than 4 tanks at a time.
Getting 8-12 tanks out of an active fleet of 34 is defenitely going to hurt.
The units at home then may very well only train for the current oversea mission without any capacities left for conventional training.
This could lead to a loss in capabilities as it is the mindest and training which is hard to get back and not the equipment in times of need.
.
