Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Germany

This is a discussion on Germany within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; That's it. It will be hard enough to get the supply system going smoothly again after some money saving measures ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old April 16th, 2017   #31
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
That's it. It will be hard enough to get the supply system going smoothly again after some money saving measures left several major weapons systems in a supply limbo where availability rates dropped due to parts not being available.

Fully equipped units, enough spare parts, restocked munitions depots, adequate training allocations and some moderate capability (re)gains will be hard to achieve with a 1,5% budget. One would need to go into the 2%+ realm to really add some numbers.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2017   #32
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,988
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
I don't think anyone's going "How can we spend all this money?".
To quote our foreign minister: "I don't know where we're supposed to park all those aircraft carriers we'd have to buy to get to two percent".

Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
It's more a question of "At least we'll now be able to pay for the things we need".
Not really. The MoD drafted a wishlist a while ago. Said wishlist had items worth 130 billion Euro to be procured within the next 15 (!) years - on top of previous expenditure, calling for an 80% increase in investment into new items during that time.
Her concept would push the intended budget to around 39 billion Euro per year - and even if we double that extra for overhead we'd only be at most at 44 billion. That would be 1.40% of our GDP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Newly planned naval expansion will also require a spending increase.
The entirety of investment into new ships in the next six to eight years, with the planned expansion, is worth somewhere around 7 billion Euro (MKS180, K130, two submarines and new oilers). Around 10% of von der Leyen's wishlist during that time, and yes, most of that already was on the wishlist - if perhaps a bit later. Only thing that wasn't were the K130.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
Fully equipped units, enough spare parts, restocked munitions depots, adequate training allocations and some moderate capability (re)gains will be hard to achieve with a 1,5% budget.
1.5% means the Bundeswehr would have 47 billion Euro, ten billion more than in 2017. Even if we give vdL her full wishlist we could still quadruple expenditure on Kapitel 1406 (maintenance and spare parts procurement) and Kapitel 1416 Titel 554 08 (ammunition procurement) of Einzelplan 14.

2%? 2% are 63 billion Euro with the current economy. 67 billion USD. The same as Russia.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16th, 2017   #33
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,998
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
2%? 2% are 63 billion Euro with the current economy. 67 billion USD. The same as Russia.
More then Russia. Russia is reducing spending. That having been said, there's a big difference between spending 60 billion a year for the past two decades, and starting to spend that money tomorrow.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17th, 2017   #34
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 46
Threads:
...........

Last edited by Atasas; April 19th, 2017 at 08:40 AM.
Atasas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #35
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,988
Threads:
Germany does have a programme for a future combat air system (which, like the British and French programmes is named FCAS) and is developing a successor for Tornado under the title NextGenWS within that. Optionally manned command fighter plus UCAVs, intended for strategic operations. Timeframe 2030s, like for France and the UK.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #36
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Threads:
Likely to align more with French requirements than UK, but potentially a shade too early for both to fully engage.
Vulcan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #37
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kato View Post
To quote our foreign minister: "I don't know where we're supposed to park all those aircraft carriers we'd have to buy to get to two percent".


Not really. The MoD drafted a wishlist a while ago. Said wishlist had items worth 130 billion Euro to be procured within the next 15 (!) years - on top of previous expenditure, calling for an 80% increase in investment into new items during that time.
Her concept would push the intended budget to around 39 billion Euro per year - and even if we double that extra for overhead we'd only be at most at 44 billion. That would be 1.40% of our GDP.


The entirety of investment into new ships in the next six to eight years, with the planned expansion, is worth somewhere around 7 billion Euro (MKS180, K130, two submarines and new oilers). Around 10% of von der Leyen's wishlist during that time, and yes, most of that already was on the wishlist - if perhaps a bit later. Only thing that wasn't were the K130.


1.5% means the Bundeswehr would have 47 billion Euro, ten billion more than in 2017. Even if we give vdL her full wishlist we could still quadruple expenditure on Kapitel 1406 (maintenance and spare parts procurement) and Kapitel 1416 Titel 554 08 (ammunition procurement) of Einzelplan 14.

2%? 2% are 63 billion Euro with the current economy. 67 billion USD. The same as Russia.
I stand corrected. Very nice breakup as always. Does this wishlist includes bringing current units up to 100% inventory?

As for quadrupling training and ammunition budgets. That's probably the bare minimum to bring stocks up to acceptable levels including the expensive stuff and planning for some of it to go boom because of Russian missiles and air attacks.

And additional training is sorely needed. Especially brigade+ strength including longer marches with multinational training sessions afterwards. Basically what has been done a few times in battlegroup strength in the recent past.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #38
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Waylander's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kiel, Schleswig-Holstein
Posts: 4,940
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atasas View Post
One prolonged (failure) of development in aviation industry apart (F35's) and market influences, meant NATO members being held at ransom for better armaments development, however "contradictory" to US policy and... "recent Mr Trumps- NATO budget trick on chancellor".
To clarify- in political and economic sense all NATO members must pay ridiculous amounts of money for mediocre products, whilst IE of RF costs are way lower, be it slightly behind on technology.

Budgets and money figures etc are not equal.

One "item", that I have kept my eye on
Welcome to OCCAR .. or as little as official press ever allowed to have published about it.

Back to impressive UAV system BARRACUDA
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...ver-ua-425335/

I can not understand Bundeswehr not pushing for more own development products, as everything only indicates future of most types battles to be via long range air superiority, be it maned or not.
(I deliberately excluded f35 in this context.)
Well, when one looks at the money burning machine that is the US land forces procurement system I am not that sad about German procurements.

The only major land warfare system which got successfully put into service after the Abrams is the Stryker family. And that is a mediocre design compared to modern western european ones. Crusader, FCS, GCV, EFV, etc. all got cancelled with nothing to show for. In the same time frame the Bundeswehr introduced the Puma, PzH2000, Fennek and Boxer.

And the sea aspect doesn't seem too shabby either. It's not like the US yards are really cheap or all that innovative. The less talked about the LCS debacle the better.

And while aircraft projects weren't all that stellar in the time and budget compartment they at least kept our industry alive. And by the time of it's introduction neither the Tornado nor the EF were hopelessly disadvantaged compared to their competitors of the time.

The US is really good at throwing lots of money at problems but they are for the most part not a shining example of effective procurement projects.
Waylander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #39
Banned Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 46
Threads:
........

Last edited by Atasas; April 19th, 2017 at 08:38 AM.
Atasas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18th, 2017   #40
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,988
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander View Post
Does this wishlist includes bringing current units up to 100% inventory?
With major equipment there's a trick to that. Simple example: the 95 extra Leopards to be bought are enough that at 70% dynamisches Verfügbarkeitsmanagement you can exactly equip the 5 active tank battalions we currently have at 100% inventory.
Same goes e.g. for the artillery (12 extra howitzers resulting in 71 ready at 70% for 68 planned out in current structure...), for MARS (by formally no longer equipping any reserve batteries), for IFVs (8 battalions at 100%) etc.

In other words, we abandon the dynamisches Verfügbarkeitsmanagement there but acknowledge that 30% won't be mission-ready anyway at any time and hence buy extra equipment to make up for that so we can cycle through the active equipment for 100% readiness.
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2017   #41
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
The US-Germany rift appears to be widening. Way to go Donald, giving Putin his first wedge into NATO. Any guesses to how long the lineup to send troops to support US troops in Afghanistan will be as his tweets continue?
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 31st, 2017   #42
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,748
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
The US-Germany rift appears to be widening. Way to go Donald, giving Putin his first wedge into NATO. Any guesses to how long the lineup to send troops to support US troops in Afghanistan will be as his tweets continue?
The problem will be that it will cause more permanent rifts, Trump seems to be making touchy situations worse.

McCain is in Australia trying the bridge the gap between the US and Australia (which honestly was not a big rift to begin with but merely posturing over a Obama deal). Making all sorts of long term reassurances.

I am not sure it will be possible to manage some of the European views.

At least Germany seems to be taking some prudent measures to ensure logistics and avalibility. It would seem to be cheap insurance.

I wonder if Germany will shift some of its resources around Latvia and Lithuania.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2nd, 2017   #43
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant General
kato's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,988
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
I wonder if Germany will shift some of its resources around Latvia and Lithuania.
Unlikely in the short term. The battlegroup in Lithuania was only just completed last week with the arrival of the Norwegians.

Don't have much other troops up there right now. Air Patrol in Estonia was just handed over to Spain a month ago (after 8 months deployment), about the same time that EX Summer Shield in Latvia - which had a NBC Defense platoon and some JFST teams participating - concluded.

P.S.: BALTOPS 2017 started yesterday though. Usual German contribution is about twice what we have in the Baltics right now...
kato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2017   #44
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
StingrayOZ's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2,748
Threads:
German cabinet recommends moving Bundeswehr from Incirlik base | News | DW | 07.06.2017

Found this interesting about Germany moving equipment and people out of Turkey.

Of course there are other issues, such as working in Turkey. Jordan might be politically easier to operate out of.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2017   #45
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,342
Threads:
Excellent decision Germany, the rest of NATO should take note. Turkey is no longer reliable as an ally.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.