German Defence Acquisition to change?

[buglerbilly]

German Defence Minister Vows to Improve Future Acquisition Policy


The German Defence Minister at his inaugural visits to the Navy.

Military and Political Necessities: Does protection end where protectionism begins?

08:44 GMT, March 15, 2010 defpro.com | Last week, German Defence Minister Dr. Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg made an inaugural visit to the German Navy. The visit aboard the “Mecklenburg-Vorpommern” frigate in itself was rather unremarkable, as inaugural visits tend to be. However, in light of the Navy’s future requirements and general budget issues, zu Guttenberg made a strong statement against lobbyism in defence procurement, so far more or less unheeded by the media.

Indeed there have been enough issues during the past days and weeks with more potential to attract the general attention: the agreement on the funding for the A400M transport aircraft, the pull-out of the Northrop Grumman/EADS team from the US tanker competition, and the ongoing investigation of the Kunduz air strike which has troubled zu Guttenberg since the very first days of his office as German Defence Minister.

In the midst of the fog of war, stirred on these major industry-political and security-political battlefields, zu Guttenberg vowed to improve the future German acquisition policy. While watching the display of naval capabilities, staged by the Navy on this special occasion, he stated: “The questions that have to be asked are: ‘What is being required?’, ‘Which are the alternatives?’, ‘Which of the alternatives is economically priced while still providing the required performance?’ These are aspects that have to be at the centre of attention rather than the sound volume of a lobbyist.”

While any hopes placed into the thought that this will revolutionise the future German acquisition policy is nothing more than wishful thinking, one has to keep in mind the complexity of defence procurement. The multi-million and multi-billion defence programmes are generally amalgamated with a range of very national issues, including jobs, financial interdependencies and the future of domestic industrial capabilities.

Weighing Military Requirements and Political Necessities

The debate on what is often strikingly described as “lobbyism” has a number of references to actuality. But in the case of the Navy the most prominent example currently is the construction of the third Type 702 Berlin-class replenishment ship, categorised as Einsatzgruppenversorger (EGV) in Germany. While the first two ships are deployed with the German Navy since 2001/02, the procurement of a third ship has been inked in late 2008 for a price of approximately €350 million. This is about three times as much as the price of the first two ships of this class and, reportedly, far more expensive than it would have been to purchase comparable ships abroad.

Moreover, experts question if this ship will provide the Navy with the capabilities which are urgently required to support current and future operations. Chief of Staff of the German Navy, Vice Admiral Wolfgang Nolting, said during the Minister’s visit: “First and foremost, we need a platform which can transport soldiers of the Army or the Air Force from Germany to the area of operation.” Although this requirement is not new and has been repeatedly voiced (Germany has a general lack of own transportation means, including both air-lift and sea-lift capabilities), the decision to order a third ship also has to be considered in light of the ailing shipbuilding industry in Germany. Military and civil orders from national and international customers are increasingly diminishing and more and more shipbuilders have to declare bankruptcy, putting on the line thousands of jobs and the economic future of entire regions in northern Germany.

Lobbyism does not only flourish due to an allegedly increasing greed of companies and shareholders. Diminishing budgets, growing international competition and domestic structural problems created an uncomfortable environment for companies throughout the entire defence market, compared to the prosperous days during the first four to five decades after World War II. Today, lobbyism can be considered as just another standard marketing tool. But it is up to the political and military decision-makers to adequately differentiate in their judgement of military requirements and political as well as financial necessities.

The Two Sides of Political Reasoning

European politicians recently criticised the industry-political environment in the competition for the next US tanker aircraft. According to Financial Times, on Friday, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy and UK’s Gordon Brown joined forces to attack the US for alleged protectionism in the tanker tender. As defpro.com reported last week (see http://www.defpro.com/daily/details/525/), German politicians voiced the same accusations.

But the same politicians tend to forget their own decisions in European defence programmes. Questions have been raised about the economical sense and the military capabilities provided by platforms such as the A400M or the NH90 helicopter. However, many problems that have led to the significant delay in the A400M programme are not due to technical difficulties but, rather, are due to political decisions that created unnecessary challenges for the industry.

The result is a heated discussion among politicians, industry and defence experts questioning the military capability of the ordered equipment and accusing companies of shortcomings and delays. Considering the requirements of armed forces deployed to high-intensity operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, one can understand why many voices are asking if military capabilities and protection end where political protectionism begins. However, it must not be forgotten that it is the political side that issues the military, technical and financial requirements for any defence programme and awards the contracts. In a free market it is not the supplier that should be blamed for what the customer buys.

----
By Nicolas von Kospoth, Managing Editor

(The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of defpro.com)

[buglerbilly]

German Soldiers Under-Equipped and Under-Trained, Says Politician

(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued April 6, 2010)

A leading defense expert has criticized the training received by German Bundeswehr soldiers being sent to Afghanistan. This was in response to an attack in Kunduz last week, where militants killed three German soldiers.

Germany's out-going parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces, Reinhold Robbe, on Tuesday publicly criticized the way German soldiers are trained before being sent to Afghanistan.

In addition to agreeing with Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's recent arguments that Germany's involvement in Afghanistan is "war", Robbe told German public broadcaster ARD that soldiers were insufficiently trained to operate armored vehicles.
"Our soldiers need thorough training with these vehicles - before they are sent to Afghanistan to use them in combat situations. They must be confident enough that they can operate them in their sleep," Robbe said.

This comes in response to an attack last Friday against a German patrol in northern Afghanistan, which saw Taliban militants kill three German soldiers and wound eight others.

The attack in Kunduz began when the German patrol was on a mine-clearing mission, using the exact vehicles that Robbe said soldiers were ill-prepared to use.

Strictly a military issue?

In response to Robbe's criticism, the foreign affairs advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democrat Party, Ruprecht Polenz, said that the specifics of armament and military training were determined by the military itself, and not politicians.

"I admit we politicians are mere laymen when it comes to specific military issues. With regard to operational matters, we simply listen to the military's demands." Polenz said.

He added, however, that the government was "confident" that it was supplying troops with the best possible equipment.

Heinz Schulte, editor-in-chief of the Griephan Global Security Magazine, agrees with Polenz, saying the complaints of armies with regard to equipment are no "new practice."

"It is a general rule that armies complain about not having the right equipment or that they haven't got enough training. So I think this is not germane to the German situation. I think it's a general problem, because normally armies have the equipment that was optimized for the last war," Schulte told Deutsche Welle.

Always room for improvement

Indeed, the general consensus is that Germany provides its military with state-of-the-art protection and equipment.

However, according to Schulte, reservations with the training of soldiers on that equipment remain.

"There are sufficient numbers of armored vehicles but not enough of the same sort in Germany - for training. These vehicles are being procured at the moment, but it takes time, because you don't have mass quantity of these vehicles and it takes quite a while to get them off the production line," he said.

Schulte said the important thing to take from the current political debate were suggestions that can enhance the safety of German troops in Afghanistan. He insisted that there were always ways to improve the state of the military, especially with regard to the training of soldiers.

"Germany puts a tremendous amount of effort towards supplying its troops with state-of-the-art protection, but there is always room for improvement. And, if there are valid criticisms, then that has to be rectified immediately."

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

Committee to Examine Future German Armed Forces Structure Gets Started


Zu Guttenberg (right) and Weise introduce the new committee.

Germany establishes committee to tailor Bundeswehr structure to future requirements

08:26 GMT, April 14, 2010 defpro.com | Back in 1998 the world looked very differently from now, in particular, for the German Armed Forces (Bundeswehr). The administration, then consisting of the social democratic and the green party, jointly declared that “German foreign policy is a peace policy”. Naturally, this has not changed in the general approach of the administrations elected since. However, the realities of the tasks and challenges of German Armed Forces have changed substantially. Since 11 September 2001 and NATO’s decision to support the US in the Alliance’s first case of collective defence, the Bundeswehr has been propelled into a new age. Despite having made first experiences with large-scale deployment scenarios in the Balkans during the late 90’s, the Afghan theatre represented an entirely new challenge.

The changing and increasing threats, growing budget difficulties as well as the obvious structural shortcomings in meeting the demands of a modern army, involved in the largest current military operation abroad, pushed the German government to establish a committee to analyse a possible restructuring of the Bundeswehr’s leadership and administrative structures. The German Ministry of Defence (MoD) emphasises that, in particular, military operations abroad have highlighted the need for a structural optimisation of the Bundeswehr. Defence Minister Dr. Karl-Theodor Freiherr zu Guttenberg said on Monday: “Although the Bundeswehr has already run through a significant transformation process – which in some extent has been successfully accomplished –, future challenges are not sufficiently reflected in the current structures, from my point of view.

Back in January, the Defence Minister announced a “relentless analysis without taboos.” Indeed, this will be necessary to overcome structures that have evolved over time and with an entirely different alignment. In fact, it is the challenge to lead the German Armed Forces out of the structures of the Cold War towards those necessary to successfully carry out military operations in various locations across the globe and to be able to react rapidly and flexible in response of changing threats and scenarios. In light of the difficult budget situation, the reform committee, headed by the Chairman of the Federal Employment Office and Army Reserve Colonel, Frank-Jürgen Weise, will also devise possible solutions to optimally use the available resources in terms of personnel and money.

The MoD emphasises that the aim is not to reinvent the Bundeswehr but, rather, to shape the current structures in a more efficient way. This was underlined by the Defence Minister’s statement that, for instance, the co-operation of the Armed Forces and the industry “currently is not satisfying”. It is not conceivable, yet, how the committee will be able to tackle the latter, very sensitive issue in the time available: the committee is scheduled to present its assessment and suggestions until late 2010.

The German Defence Minister’s move comes amid defence and security politically difficult times. While the contribution of the German Armed Forces to the ISAF operation is regularly lauded by the US political and military leadership, the call for more troops and to assume more responsibility is heard just as frequently. The latest of these appeals was expressed today. The ISAF and US Forces Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal told a German newspaper that he will summon the German government to provide better combat training to the soldiers deployed to Afghanistan. On a visit to Germany next week, McChrystal will ask for a “significant contribution” of the Bundeswehr to the upcoming major offensive in the north of country. On the occasion of a recent visit to Kunduz, McChrystal told the German military leadership that he expected the German soldiers to be better adjusted to the requirements of the US strategy.

Today, German Defence Minister zu Guttenberg arrived in Afghanistan for a surprise visit of the German troops in the north of the war-torn country. He will, in particular, focus on receiving more information on the recent attack on a Bundeswehr patrol, having caused the death of three soldiers, as well as on receiving feedback on equipment requirements of the deployed forces. The fatal ambush of 2 April 2010 has triggered a hot debate in Germany on the state of the equipment and training of the soldiers. A number of defence experts, including the former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Gen (rtd.) Harald Kujat, criticised the lack of equipment in Afghanistan, including main battle tanks, artillery forces and attack helicopters. Kujat said in early April that the German government did not learn any lesson from past attacks and, in particular, of the Kunduz air strike that has caused a significant number of civilian casualties. According to Kujat, this is due to “a lack of understanding of the requirements on the ground and ignorance of the necessities of the Armed Forces.”

German politicians of the governing parties called for the deployment of Leopard 2 main battle tanks as well as of PzH2000 self-propelled howitzers. According to the politicians, this would increase the Bundeswehr’s show of force in Afghanistan and its ability to provide fire-support. Indeed, other armed forces in Afghanistan have made positive experiences with the deployment of heavy forces. In particular, the Canadian forces have lauded the capabilities and the support provided by the Leopard 2 in Afghanistan. Canada’s Defence Minister said in 2009: “Those Leopard tanks are lifesavers. They are game changers and we want to get those tanks where they can be used to save lives and to further the aims of the mission.” Furthermore, the French Army deployed its CAESAR artillery system in 2009 and the Dutch use the PzH2000 in Afghanistan, both system providing vital fire-support to its troops.

Despite all these positive experiences of allied forces with the use of heavy forces in Afghanistan, the German Defence Minister dismissed any plans to deploy main battle tanks. He recently slammed any such suggestions by saying that the Afghan bridges would collapse under the weight of the 60-ton main battle tank and that its deployment would currently not make any sense at all.

Nevertheless, during today's visit to Mazar-i-Sharif, zu Guttenberg announced that the German Armed Forces would send two PzH2000 howitzers, TOW anti-tank missiles as well as additional Marder infantry fighting vehicles to Afghanistan as fast as possible. He added that further measures will be taken in the near future, without going into details. As the combat activities in the region are expected to intensify with the planned summer offensive, these assets and the increased fire-power will prove to be very valuable for supporting the soldiers.

It remains to be seen what the result of the committees work will be and which lessons they suggest to learn from past events as well as, perhaps, the summer offensive. A committee established ten years ago by then-Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping and headed by the former Federal President Richard von Weizsäcker already called for a stronger alignment of the Bundeswehr towards military operations abroad. In fact, von Weizsäcker advised to reduce the size of the Armed Forces to a total of 240.000 soldiers, however, with 140.000 troops available for deployment. The first suggestion has been implemented, the second seems to have been ignored. According to the MoD, not more than 10.000 soldiers of the Bundeswehr could currently be deployed to operations abroad, representing a 4% share of the total force. The Defence Minister acknowledged that this performance is not sufficient.

----
By Nicolas von Kospoth, Managing Editor