european security and defence - april 2016.pdf

7/26/2019 European Security and Defence - April 2016.pdf

1/84

April2016

www.eurosd.comISSN16177983

P o l i t i c s A r m e d F o r c e s P r o c u r e m e n t T e c h n o l o g y

7.90

2/2016

Defending

the Gulf

The Obama Legacy and BeyondThe 2016 presidential campaign in the United States isdominated by foreign and security policy.

Submarine Weapons and SensorsNew developments will influence the future balance ofthe worlds naval forces.

Security&Defence

European

COUNTRY FOCUS:SWEDEN

E

S&D

I n t e r n a t i o n a l S e c u r i t y a n d D e f e n c e J o u r n a l


2/84

Photo:E

uro

fighter/GeoffreyLee

When youre in a hostile environment, miles from a safe landingarea, the last thing you need is a question mark about reliability.

I had complete confidence in the EJ200 engines,allowing me to focus on the combat task.

UK RAF Wing Commander in Libya

The EJ200: the engine

that gets you home.

With cutting-edge technology and

unrivalled build quality, the EJ200

has proven time and again to be

the most reliable engine in its class.

To find out how our market-

leading design and maintenance

concept ensure that you will

always be able to fulfil your

operational requirements,

visit us at www.eurojet.de


3/84

3April 2016 European Security & Defence

Editorial

The declared compromise which DavidCameron snatched from the Heads ofState and Government of the other 27EU Member States in a 30-hour negotia-tion marathon enables him to plead forthe remaining of his country in the Un-ion while saving face. While he hurriedto a cabinet meeting in London beforeannouncing the date for the Brexit Ref-erendum, the consternated heads ofthe EU bureaucracy tried to keep theircomposure. What matters is that allstayed at the negotiating table, meantCouncil President Donald Tusk, as if hos-tile conflict parties had come togetherto cautiously agree upon a ceasefire.Commission President Jean-ClaudeJuncker gave free rein to his ironic vein:The UK has always enjoyed a certainspecial status in the EU. Todays agree-ment once again underlined it.In David Camerons interpretation, thisagreement is however more than justthe continuation of a tradition that al-

lowed the British, as also some otherMember States, to claim certain excep-tions from a few rules for themselves.Rather, it marks a red line which the EUcannot trespass if the United Kingdomis to remain further under its roof. Weshall never join the euro. We shall neverbe part of a euro rescue programme,never be part of a passport-free area,of a European army or a European su-perstate, made Cameron unmistakablyclear in a press conference. The majorityof the British citizens seems to supportthis position not to allow any further un-dermining of the national sovereignty byBrussels. On 23 June, they will now havea choice. Do they consider the agree-ment achieved in Brussels to be reliableenough to still vote against an exit fromthe EU? Or do they fear that it is nomore than a tactic trick to continue pur-suing the integration process after thereferendum? So far, it seems as if theelectors will follow the recommendationof the Prime Minister and most Britishbusinesses and shy away from the riskof a Brexit. However, it is no longer

only left-wing or right-wing populiststhat would like to turn their back on theEU. Six government members supportthe campaign for an exit. They havebeen joined by the popular London LordMayor Boris Johnson who is seen as apossible successor to Cameron. He isstill concerned about further centralisa-tion of competences by the EU and thecreeping superimposition of British lawby European legislation.The EU is well advised not to under-estimate the symbolic effect of theagreement reached with London. Aconspicuous question mark has beenput behind the certainty with which afurther progressing integration towarda European Federal State in Brussels wasmasqueraded as a dictate of historicalreason. In this respect, the UK is nottreading its own particular path. Also inmany other Member States, scepticismhas grown as to whether Europe is stillon the right track. Almost everywhere in

Europe, the political landscape has seentectonic shifts in recent years. In a fewcountries, this has even had an effecton the composition and orientation ofgovernments. This trend is also accom-panied by new evaluations as to the roleof the EU and in what direction it is todevelop. Nevertheless, it is principally notquestioned per se. Its economic effortto effectively promote the wealth of theEuropeans through the single market isundisputed. One does not need to fear areturn to national eccentricity in this area.In other areas, however, it is difficult forit to provide a comparable proof of itsachievements, not least in the field of de-fence, for which NATO alone can providean answer to current crises. The citizensprimarily still view national parliamentsand governments as democratically legiti-mated, which they also hold responsiblefor the internal and external security oftheir country. The EU will not fail. Be-cause things are politically desirable onlyif they are also feasible, the EU will haveto redefine its role.Peter Bossdorf

The UK Does not Follow

an Isolated Avenue


4/84

4 European Security & Defence April 2016

Content

SHORAD and VSHORAD systems are used to engage

low-altitude air threats, primarily helicopters and

low-flying close air support. An overview of systems

in use and new developments Page 57

Insertion of Special Forces

In recent years the nature of warfare has changed

dramatically. Military units, equipment and standard

operating procedures are being constantly adapted to

address new threats. Page 60

Short and Very Short Range Air Defence

SECURITY POLICY

10 Europe and NATO The Need to Take Responsibility Ton van Loon

16 The Obama Legacy and Beyond Foreign Policy in the 2016 US Presidential Elections Sidney E. Dean


22 Back on Track Swedish Security Alignment Thomas Bauer

27 Swedish Defence in a ChangingSecurity Environment

Micael Bydn

31 We plan to operate GRIPEN E until at least,and most likely beyond 2040.

Interview with Major General Mats Helgesson,

Chief of Staff of the Swedish Air Force34 At the FMV we manage around

800 programmes each year. Interview with Lieutenant General Gran

Mrtensson, Director General, FMV

36 A New Security Environment: Implicationsfor the Swedish Defence Industrial Base

Robert Limmergrd

ARMED FORCES

38 The Slovak Armed Forces and New Dynamicsin Global Security

Milan Maxim

42 10 Years of System Life Cycle Management in NATO Peter Janatschek

47 Military Training Shifting Priorities Trevor Nash

ARMAMENT & TECHNOLOGY

49 Defence Programmes & Requirements in theGulf States

David Saw

53 TIGER Combat Helicopter Multinational Capability Enhancement

Markus Lnnig

57 Short and Very Short Range Air Defence Doug Richardson

60 Successful Insertion Needs the Best Tools Tim Guest

63 PIRANHA 5 The New 8x8 Armoured Vehiclefor the Spanish Army

Nuria Fernndez

INDUSTRY & MARKETS

67 Submarine Weapons and Sensors Trends and Developments

Bob Nugent

73 Combat Aircraft in EuropeMultiple Markets and Multiple Choices

David Saw

78 We expect to provide much more local content inour projects and products.

Interview with Hseyin Avar, Head, Department

of Land Platforms, Turkish Undersecretariat forDefense Industries (SSM)


5/84

COLUMNS

3 Editorial

6 Periscope

23 Masthead

80 Firms & Faces

82 Preview

COUNTRY FOCUS:SWEDEN VIEWPOINT FROM

15

Athens:On the verge of explosion Dimitrios Angelopoulos

21 Copenhagen:I have no plan B1 But Has There Ever Been a Plan A?

J. Bo Leimand

Security Policy

Armed Forces Procurement

Defence Industry Pages 22-37


6/84

Periscope


New Small Drone LooksLike a Hawk(df) The Spanish company EXPAL has de-veloped and integrated a small UAV withthe shape of a bird of prey: SHEPHERD. Thisis an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) withmultiple applications in the fields of de-fence and security, mainly in observation,surveillance and protection missions. TheSHEPHERD takes the role of an advancedobserver and in combination with EXPALsTECHFIRE information system for indirectfire support, gives many additional optionsto military users. Its great capacity to glideand its silent engine make it almost imper-ceptible in this type of mission. SHEPHERDis equipped with cameras and a geoloca-tion software that enhances it to accom-

plish observation and surveillance opera-tions such as, border control, fire-fightingand counter drug trafficking.

First Australian AEGIS-Equipped Air WarfareDestroyer(df) Lockheed Martins Integrated TestTeam (ITT) begins AEGIS combat system in-tegration and testing aboard the Royal Aus-tralian Navys (RAN) first AEGIS-equippedAir Warfare Destroyer (AWD), HMASHOBART. This milestone represents a sig-nificant step towards Australias HOBARTclass destroyers joining the AEGIS interna-tional fleet. The HOBART class destroyersare being built under Australias SEA 4000programme, which will ultimately deliver

three advanced multirole ships. Theseships will be Australias first ships to beequipped with Lockheed Martins AEGISWeapon System including the SPY-1D(V)radar. When paired with the MK 41 VerticalLaunching System, AEGIS is capable of de-livering missiles for every mission and threatenvironment in naval warfare. The RAN

has received the Lockheed Martin AEGISBaseline 8 configuration, which integratescommercial-off-the-shelf technology andopen architecture into the combat system.

Type 26 GlobalCombat Ship(df) The UK Ministry of Defence has award-ed BAE Systems a 590 million contractto progress the Type 26 Global CombatShip programme. This decision followsthe UK Governments commitment in the

Strategic Defence and Security Review tobuy eight of the advanced anti-submarinewarfare ships. Effective from April 2016,the 15-month contract extends the cur-

rent demonstration phase ensuring con-tinued momentum to further mature thedetailed design of the Type 26 ships andto manufacture key equipment for the firstthree ships. These highly advanced shipswill help keep Britain safe and support ourshipbuilding industry, Defence SecretaryMichael Fallon said. Investing in them ispart of our plan to increase defence spend-ing so our armed forces have the mostmodern equipment they need. The Type26 Global Combat Ship will in time replacethe Type 23 frigates. Globally deployable,it will be capable of undertaking a widerange of roles from high intensity warfareto humanitarian assistance, either operat-ing independently or as part of a task force.

(Photo:AustraliaDefence)

(Photo:BAESystems)


7/84


FREEDOM Class LCS(df) The U.S. Navy has awarded an indus-try team led by Lockheed Martin a contractfor one fully funded FREEDOM class LittoralCombat Ship (LCS). The contract award in-cludes funding for seaframe construction,systems integration and testing. LCS 25 willbe the 11th ship procured under the 2010block buy contract and the 13th Freedom-class variant overall. LCS 25 is scheduled fordelivery to the Navy in 2020. The LockheedMartin-led industry team is currently infull-rate production of the FREEDOM classvariant, and has delivered three ships to theU.S. Navy as of now. There are seven shipsin various stages of construction at Fincan-tieri Marinette Marine, with three more inlong-lead production. The first two ships,

Electro-Magnetics (HPEM). This allowscontrolling the electronics of mini-dronesby using electromagnetic pulses to causemission abort. Regardless of the controlmethod used (autonomous or radio-controlled), the mini-drone becomes in-operable when hit by a HPEM pulse atdistances of up to several hundred metersand triggers the fail-safe function. Diehlscounter-UAS system offers the possibilityof scalable range and the ability to inter-cept entire swarms of mini-drones simul-taneously. It has proven its reliability dur-ing the G7 summit in Elmau. Diehls HPEMsystems do not cause harm to individualsand have already been used for stoppingcars and protecting large events like theOlympic Games.

Sweden Refurbishes 262Combat Vehicles 90(df) The Swedish government has award-ed HB Utveckling AB, a joint venture be-tween BAE Systems Bofors AB, part ofBAE Systems Weapons Systems, and BAESystems Hgglunds AB, a contract to re-furbish 262 Combat Vehicles 90 (CV90)for the Swedish Army. The companys

work will include refurbishing the chassis

and upgrading the vehicles survivabilityand turrets, as well as enhancing combatsystem performance. Together, these ef-forts will help increase the vehicles lifes-pan in support of Army capabilities. TheSwedish Army has a fleet of 509 CV90s.Other countries currently using the vehicleare Norway, Denmark, Finland, Estonia,the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Workstarts immediately with deliveries begin-ning in 2018 and running through 2020.CV90 is a family of Swedish tracked com-bat vehicles designed by FMV, BAE SystemsHgglunds, and BAE Systems WeaponsSystems, with more than 4 million engi-neering hours contributing to the devel-opment of this advanced Infantry FightingVehicle (IFV). The Swedish version of theIFV is outfitted with a turret equipped witha 40 mm automatic cannon.

Protection againstMini-Drones(df) Easy to acquire but hard to fight: mini-drones are a growing threat to militaryand police forces and to political meetingsand mass events. In the past countermeas-

ure systems based on interference withradio signals and GPS jamming/spoofing.Nowadays, this does not provide reliableprotection. Diehl Defence has developeda countermeasure based on High-Power

Close Combat Symposium19-21July 2016 Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham

For details please visit www.symposiaatshrivenham.com/cc

[email protected] or call +44(0)1793 785648

Follow us on Twitter @SympatShriv

(Photo:BAESystems)

(Photo:DiehlDefence)


8/84

Periscope


USS FREEDOM and USS FORT WORTH, havedemonstrated the FREEDOM variants valueto the fleet with two successful operationaldeployments to Southeast Asia, sailingsince delivery more than 180,000 nauticalmiles combined. The FREEDOM variantssteel monohull design is based on a proven,survivable design recognized for its stabil-ity and reliability. With 40% reconfigurableshipboard space, the hull is ideally suited toaccommodate additional lethality and sur-vivability upgrades.

Kuwait Signs Contract for28 Eurofighter TYPHOONs(jh) The contract signature for 22 single-seatand six twin-seat aircraft followed the an-nouncement of an agreement between theState of Kuwait and the Italian Government

for the procurement of the aircraft on 11September 2015. The aircraft will be deliv-ered according to Tranche 3 standard andwill be equipped with the E-Scan radar.

The contract confirms the State of Kuwaitas the eighth customer in the programmeand as the third customer in the Gulf Regionnext to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia andthe Sultanate of Oman.Speaking on behalf of the consortium andits Eurofighter partner companies the CEOof Eurofighter, Volker Paltzo, said: We aredelighted to officially welcome the State ofKuwait as a new member of the Eurofighterfamily. The confirmation of this order is fur-ther testament of the growing interest in theEurofighter TYPHOON in the Gulf Region. Itwill enable Kuwait to benefit from the criti-cal mass being developed in the Gulf andthe many advantages that it brings to anair force in terms of interoperability, training

and in-service support.Since entry into service of the first Eurofight-er TYPHOON at the end of 2003, more than470 aircraft have been delivered to six na-tions: Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy,Spain, Austria and Saudi Arabia. The Kuwaitorder follows an order by Oman in Decem-ber 2012 for twelve aircraft. EurofighterTyphoon is currently in service at 22 opera-tional units and up to now, the whole fleethas completed more than 330,000 flyinghours worldwide.

India Acquires CombatProven Missiles(df) The Indian Ministry of Defence hassigned an agreement with the U.S. Depart-

ment of Defense to acquire STINGER air-to-air missiles made by Raytheon. As part of thedeal, India will receive 245 Stinger air-to-airmissiles along with launchers and engineer-ing support. Indias STINGER acquisition ispart of a 2.7 billion deal with the U.S. thatincludes combat helicopters, weapons, ra-dars and electronic warfare suites. Thecombination of supersonic speed, agility,highly accurate guidance and control sys-tem and lethal warhead makes STINGER acombat proven capability against helicop-ters, UAVs, cruise missiles and fixed-wingaircraft. STINGER not only has a surface-to-air capability from land and sea, but also anair-to-air capability that can be integratedinto most fixed- or rotary-wing platforms.India joins nations around the globe whorecognize that air-to-air STINGER can be a

key component of attack and light attackhelicopter mission configurations, saidDuane Gooden, Raytheon Land WarfareSystems vice president. STINGER signifi-cantly improves the ability of the aircraft tosuccessfully perform todays missions whilecountering existing threats.

Stemme Introduces ISRAircraft(jh) The German company Reiner StemmeUtility Air Systems introduced the newQ01 reconnaissance aircraft at Schn-hagen airport near Berlin in March. Thesensor platform has been developed on

order to the armed forces of Qatar asan OPV (Optionally Piloted Vehicle) whichcan either be flown by a pilot on boardor remotely controlled from a ground

station via a data link. The aircraft ispowered by a 3l diesel engine and hasbeen laid out for ATOL operations (Auto-matic Take-Off and Landing). The Emir-ate of Qatar has 17 systems on order,and the first prototype has successfullycompleted its maiden flight, equippedwith a camera, an electro-optical sensorand a radar from Thales. The aircraft is10m long, has a wing span of 20m. anda payload capacity of 1,000kg., of whichup to 680kg. can be used in support ofa flight time of up to 50 hours. Opera-tional applications planned by the Qatariforces include border and sea space sur-veillance and reconnaissance as well assurveillance missions in the scope of the

2022 FIFA World Cup. Although the de-velopment has been paid for by the Stateof Qatar Reiner Stemme company retainsthe full marketing rights.

Third Nation Orders AW159Navy Helicopter(df) Finmeccanica has been awarded a con-tract to supply the Philippine Navy with twoAgustaWestland AW159 helicopters. Theaircraft will be built in and delivered fromthe United Kingdom in 2018. The order,valued over 100M, includes training andmulti-year support and adds to those of theUnited Kingdom and the Republic of Korea,bringing the total orders for AW159s to 72.The two helicopters will be primarily dedi-cated to anti-submarine warfare and anti-

surface warfare roles. The helicopters willalso be capable of performing other roles in-cluding search and rescue, maritime securityand maritime surveillance. The AW159 is alatest generation, multi-role, multi-mission,maritime and utility helicopter. Designedas successor to the LYNX, which still holdsthe 400 km/h world speed record, the newmodel further expands its naval capabilitiesand performance. The AW159 features astate-of-the-art cockpit with four large dis-plays as well as integrated avionics and mis-sion systems allowing the crews enhancedcapability and operational effectiveness.

Swiss Combat TrainingCentres Operated by RUAG

(gwh) Following a contract from the FederalOffice for Defence Procurement (armasu-isse), RUAG Defence will continue operatingthe combat training centres in Switzerlandfor the next five years. The contract includesmanagement, operation of the centres sys-tem platforms, technical service, logistics,infrastructure and property management.These centres are state-of-the-art trainingfacilities equipped with the latest systemsfor simulating soldiers, weapon systemsand buildings integrated in different combatenvironments. The systems include train-as-you-fight training in a realistic environ-ment, providing optimal preparation to sol-diers for any future deployment, and alsoincludes vehicles and MOUT infrastructure.

(Photo:Eurofighter) (P

hoto:Finmeccan

ica)

(Photo:J.Hensel)


9/84

Since its establishment in 1988, FNSS hasbecome one of the leading manufactur-er and supplier of tracked and wheeledarmoured combat vehicles and theirweapon systems for the Turkish and alliedarmed forces with its tailored, reliable, andaffordable land combat system solutions.Up to day, FNSS has completed deliver-ies of over 2,700 tracked vehicles, someproduced based on technology transferprogrammes in various countries. Today,FNSS operates three major productionsites worldwide.

The project portfolio of FNSS includes: The delivery of 270 ACV-15 and ACV-

19 tracked armoured combat vehicles

each for the Malaysian armed forces.The vehicles were produced locally inMalaysia based on technology transferby FNSS.

The production of 257 8x8 vehicleseach for Malaysian Army. The serialproduction is currently ongoing at theDRB-HICOM Defence TechnologiesSdnBhd (DEFTECH) facilities in Ma-laysia. The required technologies aretransferred by FNSS. This is the largestdefence export contract of the Turkishdefence industry.

The sales and modernisation of M113tracked vehicles for the Philippines.

(Photo:FNSS)

The development of a medium-weighttank with PT Pindad, a facility ownedby the Indonesian Government.

Beside tracked and wheeled armouredcombat vehicles, the FNSS product range

also includes engineering vehicles such asthe Armored Amphibious Assault Bridge(AAAB) and the Amphibious ArmoredCombat Earthmover (AACE). As a ferry,the AAAB system can transport a MLC 21tracked vehicle, while a two-bay ferry AAABis capable of carrying MLC70 T vehicles. Bydeploying the ramps, which are carriedby AAABs hydraulic crane, and couplingthree AAABs from ramp to ramp, MLC100W vehicles can be transported on rivers orlakes. When 12 AAAB systems are coupledtogether from ramp to ramp, it can form a150 m bridge suitable for the crossing ofMLC100 W and MLC70 T vehicles. For spe-

cific missions nu-merous AAABs canbe coupled togeth-er to cross widerdistances. AAB isin the inventoryof Turkish ArmedForces. AACE is anamphibious, ar-moured, tracked,combat earthmov-er designed for

the preparation of river banks during rivercrossing missions. It is capable of perform-ing bulldozing, rough grading, excavating,hauling, and scraping operations. As op-posed to standard heavy-duty vehicles;

AACE can increase its working capacity bytaking in soil into its ballast canister. The bal-last canister can be discharged any time, asnecessary. FNSS also designs and produces:25 mm, 12.7 mm and 40 mm stabilisedone manned turrets and 30 mm mannedand unmanned turrets. Its SHARPSHOOTERone-manned turret is being used by TurkishArmed Forces and by a number of exportcustomers, including Malaysia.Today, FNSS is a recognised land systemsdesign house for the Turkish Ministry ofNational Defence's Undersecretariat forDefence Industries (SSM), as well as alliedcountries.

FNSS: Projects in Southeast Asia

Published in cooperation with the Association of

the German Army (Frderkreis Deutsches Heer e.V.)

102 pages, English

14.80 (incl. VAT, plus shipping)

New Brochure

Armoured Infantry FightingVehicle Puma

Content:

Concept

System

Technologies

Integrated Logistic Support/Training

Future Trends

MITTLER REPORT VERLAG GMBH Baunscheidtstrae 11 53113 Bonn GermanyFax: +49 228 35 00 871 [email protected] www.mittler-report-shop.de

18

Concept

AIFV Puma Procurement and ServiceUse Control under One Umbrella

Avarietyof coordinatedorganiza-tional measures and processesisrequiredinorder toleadadefenceproject fromthe first ideasand con-ceptstoa qual ifiedweaponsystem,whichcanbe operatedsafelyandisacceptedbyitsusers. Thebasicframe-

workfor this is laiddownin there-visedCustomer Product Management(CPM, rev.) Procedures for Require-ment Identification,Procurement andIn-ServiceSupport intheBundeswehr.

Theimplementationof theAIFVPu-maproject lieswithintheresponsibilityof theFederalOffice of BundeswehrEquipment, Information Technologyand In-Service Support (BAAINBw).As public purchaser, it enters intoagreements with contractors and

inc losecoordinationwiththefutureuser andindustry performs compli-ancedemonstrationwith thesupportof its technical centers and researchinstitutes.InOctober 2012,the BAA-INBw was established in the courseof the Bundeswehr reorientation. Itcombines the procurement activitiesof the former Federal Office of De-fense Technology and Procurementas well as the material responsibility

for operationalviabilityof theformerin-service support offices. This new,end-to-endresponsibilitywith regardto Bundeswehr equipment fromproject implementationand procure-ment toserviceuse controltodisposalpermitsmoreeffec tiveandshorterprocesses.

Project developmentoverview

Alreadyin1996,the firstrequirementsfor thereal izationof anewarmoredinfantryfighting vehiclewere formu-latedandbasic conceptualideasweredeveloped.Inthe year 2000,the pro-jectwastransferredinto theCPM.Theanalysisphasewasconc ludedintheyear 2002 with the approval of theFinal Functional Requirement (FFR).In this document, the requirementsof theuser (inthiscasethe GermanArmy) werelaiddownformingt heba-sisfor thesubsequent riskreductionphase.Theaim of thisriskreductionphasewasthe development of acom-pletesystem demonstrator includingthe proof of productibility and per-formanceinaccordancewiththe FinalFunctionalRequirement.To thisend,a development/risk reduction phasecontract wasconcludedbetween thepublic purchaser and the companyProjektSystem&Management GmbH(PSM).At theendof 2005,thecom-pletesystem demonstrator waspre-sentedandsubsequently tested.

At theendof 2004,a contract fortheprocurement of five pre-produc-tionvehiclesaswel las theoptionalproductionanddel iveryof 405pro-ductionvehicles wasconcludedwith

Oliver Mader

At present, the Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV) Puma is the largest individual project for

the German land forces and one of the most important defence projects of the Bundeswehr. The

AIFVPuma will soon supersedethe Marder AIFV, which has been in servicefor 42 years now. Due

to its performance, the AIFV Puma is about to set new standards in many areas.

Author:

TRDirDr.Oliver Mader

AIFVPuma DeputyProjectManager,BAAINBwK5.2

S005 production vehicle during a driving testatthe Bundeswehr

Technical CenterforGround Vehicle Systems, Engineerand General

Field Equipment(WTD41)

(Source:WTD41)

_ - _ .i . . :

10

Concept

ImportanceoftheArmouredInfantryFightingVehiclePumafortheCapabilityProfileoftheLandForces

SecurityenvironmentThe Bundeswehrs reorientation intherecent pastalso involved anu p-datedassessment of itstasksagainstthebackdropofthecurrent securityenvironment withtheaimof drawingconclusionsforthecapabilitiesof theforces. In thiscontext, the followingsecurity objectives ofGer

many con-tinu

e toapply unchanged:

thesecurityandprotectionofGer-mancitizens; the territorialintegrity andsover-eigntyof Germanyanditsallies; the fulfilment ofinternational re-

sponsibilities.Sincethe first conceptualconsider-

ationsconcerningtheAIFVPuma took

shape,thestrategicsecurityenviron-

ment hascontinued tochange. Con-flictprevention andcrisismanagement

operations, includingthefightagainstinternationalterrorism, areplayinganincreasinglyimportantroleinthetaskspectrumoftheBundeswehr. Never-theless, thetaskofn ationaldefenceascollectivedefencewithinthescop

eof

theNorthAtlanticAlliance continuestoformanintegralpart of acompre-

hensiveGermansecuritypolicy.Con-sideringthespectrum of tasks,theforceswillberequiredtocarryoutdi-

TeamofauthorsoftheFederalMinistryofDefence,

Directorate-GeneralforPlanningTheBundeswehrmustbeenabledtomeetcurrenttasksandexpectedfuturedevelopments. The

Bundeswehrsreorientationmustalsoandinparticularbealignedwithdifferentandvariedopera-

tions.Byenablingtheemploymentofarmedforcesacrosstheentireintensityspectrum, Germany

will beinapositiontomakeanadequatepolitical andmilitarycontributioninaccordancewithits

size,thusensuringitsinfluenceand,inparticular,itssayinplanninganddecisions.Onlythose

whooffer capabilitiesforacommonfulfilmentoftaskscantakepartinshaping theAlliance.

(DefencePolicyGuidelines,27May2011)

AIFVPumaduringtheintegratedcompliancedemonstration

(Pho

to:P

S M)

u _u _ .i

. . :

Defence Technology Review 4/2014


10/84


SECUR I T Y P OLI CY

will threaten not only our economy but allof our values2. Even he, probably, did notpredict the speed at which his commentswould become true. The consequence isthat while most missions outside NATO

have been seen as wars of choice, nowthey are becoming wars of necessity.Nations have become used to doing crisisresponse operations out of choice, andwith limited engagement in both time andvolume. To deal with the instability affect-ing our nations directly, it is very likely thatstabilization missions will be needed fora longer period of time and with muchgreater resolve. Politicians like to focus onshort term problems that can be resolved,but the speed at which instability is nowbeing imported will demand discussion onlonger-term solutions. After ISAF it wasoften heard that NATO (nations) have losttheir appetite for such big involvement.That is probably true; but the choice is notours anymore. We do not pick the crisis,the crisis imposes itself upon us.NATO, and especially its European nationsneed to recognize that it needs militarycapabilities that can deal with both geo-graphical, old school threats but alsowith new school, complex threats. It isnot a good idea to differentiate between(national or collective) defence forces andcrisis response forces. We need to have

forces that can serve our security inter-ests across the entire spectrum.The biggest change in the Europeanmindset that must occur is the under-standing, not only in words but also indeeds, that Europe must invest in its ownsecurity to defend its territory but alsoits wider security interests. Si vis pacem,para bellum.

Solidarity

The most crucial elements in collectivedefence are solidarity and cohesion. Ar-ticle 5 of NATO revolves around the ideathat an attack on one is an attack on all.During the Cold War no-one doubted the

bility. The influx of refugees and the impactof terrorist attacks (culminating in Paris andBrussels) show that security cannot be seenonly in geographical terms. Instability andwar in the Middle East and in Africa have an

immediate impact on Europe. ISIS or BokoHaram barbarism coupled with utterly cor-rupt and often equally barbaric regimeshave resulted in mass migration towardsEurope. We could have seen this coming

but we preferred to remain in a state ofdenial or, in the words of Thomas Gray,

Ignorance is bliss. The immediate impactof instability means we have to rethinkhow, and more importantly why we getinvolved.European interests are not merely geo-graphic in nature and therefore its defencecan also not be seen solely in geographicalterms. Not only the refugee problem butalso access to natural resources, freedomof navigation and of course terrorist safehavens are all very legitimate security con-cerns that are not necessarily geographicin nature. Frans Timmermans, currentVice Chairman of the European Commis-sion, said in 2014 that if we fail to exportstability, we will sooner rather than laterimport instability and if that happens it

Peace is not for free and requires hardwork and financial commitment. In the

words of Dutch defence minister JeannineHennis: Security comes at a price. Andour need for security justifies paying that

price. At some point, we may be forcedto act militarily in order to remain secureon the European continent1. Does thisimply a return to the Cold War? Of coursenot, but it does mean that there is a need

for a geographical defence of Europe, orin other words that Article 5 of NATO

is not obsolete. European NATO nationssuddenly realise that old-school NATO isstill very much needed.On the other hand, 2015 put the focus onanother threat to European peace and sta-

Europe and NATOThe Need to Take Responsibility

Ton van Loon

In 2014 Europe had to come to terms with the fact that not all of its neighbours are always nice.

The Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the shooting down of flight MH17 pointed out emphatically

that the illusion of eternal, and most of all cost-free, peace in Europe was just that: an illusion.

Au thorLieutenant General (retd.) Ton vanLoonstarted his military career in theDutch Army in 1977. He commandedon operations as a battalion com-mander in Kosovo (1999) an as a ma-jor general in Southern Afghanistan

(2006/2007). Before his retirement in2013 he commanded I. German Neth-erlands Corps.

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant propaganda photo showingmasked militants in Syria

(Photo:dpa)


11/84


S E C U RIT Y P O L IC Y

ment is the exception and multinationalcooperation the rule, this should be takeninto account in procedures and also inexercises4. Without smarter defence Eu-rope will become even more dependenton the US.The capabilities needed to deal with cri-ses either to defend European territoryor wider interests can only be providedcollectively. It is just not realistic to as-sume that the necessary capabilities canbe provided by nations on their own. Itis important to realize that true nationalindependence is vastly more expensive.Since it is highly unlikely that defencespending will increase, dependence onother nations is the norm: multinationalcooperation is no longer a choice, it isa fact.The second element that all crises havein common is their complex or hybridnature. In March 2015 at the EU inter-parliamentary meeting in Riga, FedericaMogherini, High Representative of theEuropean Union for Foreign Affairs and

Security Policy, talked about the new se-curity challenges posed by the so-called4th generations warfare, a hybrid war,which is manifested as a combination of ause of irregular and conventional militarymethods as well as elements from cyber,economic and information warfare, andpolitical pressure.The need for a comprehensive ap-proach in crisis operations is evident.Lessons learned from Afghanistan andother recent operations indicate thatthe more attention is given to the buildphase the higher the effectiveness ofmilitary involvement. Clearing and hold-ing can be done (primarily) by the mili-tary but the building needs to be done

ists with the VJTF, the idea of providinga spearhead force collectively can onlyfunction if the rest of the spear follows.To stay with the metaphor, it will alsoonly be effective with a strong athlete (orwarrior) wielding the spear.This attitude of treating NATO as a sepa-rate entity for which nations only takelimited responsibility has had a negativeeffect on the public perception of NATOscollective defence. In summer 2015 PewResearch Centre published a survey onNATO public opinion3. The survey askedNATO member publics, among others, ifthey believed that their country shouldcome to the aid of another member na-tion if that nation was attacked. Shock-ingly, in only two nations a majority re-plied yes and both these countries arenot European. This lack of solidarity is areal threat because it does take away thefoundation of collective deterrence andno European nation will be able to pro-tect itself on its own.At the Wales Summit in 2014 all 28 na-

tions agreed to reverse the trend of de-clining defence budgets and raise themover the coming decade. It is now timeto put our money where our mouth is.We cannot carry on hiding behind theAmericans; we must recognize that NATOis all 28 nations.Communitate valemus.

Interdependency

Operations will always have to be con-ducted in close partnership with othernations. Even for the US developing acoalition is the preferred course of ac-tion, while for the rest of NATO it is simplya fact of life. The German CHOD backin 2012 stated that if national deploy-

idea and that was the defining deterrentagainst an attack. In the 25 years afterthe fall of the Berlin wall Europe start-ing cashing in on the peace dividend.The arguments used to reduce defencespending not only resulted in insuffi-cient funding of military capabilities butalso in a common belief that NATO col-lective defence was not so relevant anymore. In the public opinion and in mainstream politics NATO became obsoleteand also a separate entity. If there was athreat, which no-one saw as very realis-tic, NATO would take care of it, so theindividual nations did not need to spendmoney on their own capabilities. This NA-TO became more and more synonymouswith the US, resulting in an enormouscapability gap. Today this gap is so bigthat Europe basically cannot deal with itsown security threats without the Ameri-cans leading. European investment in itsown security is also a precondition forUS engagement in Europe; if we are notwilling to take care of our own security,

how can we expect others to do so? It isvery unlikely that the US will continue toserve as the policeman of the worldespecially if Europeans remain reluctantto do anything for themselves.The introduction of the NRF back in 2002was an attempt to improve (European)nations capabilities. In the early days thisidea of providing a tool for transforma-tion was certainly a step in right direction,however nations started looking at theNRF as the default tool to deal with crisiswhich again allowed nations to step awayfrom their own responsibilities. Becausethe US did not become heavily involvedin the NRF very often the capabilities alsoproved to be marginal. The same risk ex-

Spanish Forces in NRF exercise Steadfast Jaguar 2006

(Photo:AndreasSteindl)


12/84


S E C U R IT Y P O L IC Y

Churchill once said: never let a goodcrisis go to waste. Europe currently hasmore than enough crises to provide awindow of opportunity for change.

Capabilities Development

The debate about building a Europeanmilitary, or not, is not the most importantissue. Europe needs to improve capabili-ties before we talk about how to bestorganize these capabilities. Since in theshort term the dependence on the Amer-icans will remain, it is probably better tobuild capabilities in NATO. In Afghanistanthe coalition effort was often referred toas US and NATO, perhaps we can cometo Europe and NATO to deal with thechallenges confronting primarily Europe.Assuming that European nations will

follow up on their promise in Wales toincrease defence spending the questionis then of course: On what should theyspend their money? The only way Europecan build capabilities that can provide areal European alternative to overrelianceon Americas leadership is through com-bined efforts. NATOs website says7:In these times of austerity, each euro,dollar or pound sterling counts. SmartDefence is a cooperative way of thinkingabout generating the modern defencecapabilities that the Alliance needs forthe future. In this renewed culture of co-operation, Allies are encouraged to worktogether to develop, acquire, operateand maintain military capabilities to un-dertake the Alliances essential core tasksagreed in NATOs Strategic Concept.That means harmonising requirements,

military culture. Military leaders need to

understand that they cannot make deci-sions without involving others. Their ef-fectiveness depends heavily on interactionwith other, non-military, actors. In thewords of General USMC James Mattis: ifyou cannot create harmony across servicelines, across coalition and national lines,and across civilian/military lines, you reallyneed to go home because your leadershipin todays age is obsolete.6

The same applies to national policies. Na-tions need to realize that national sover-eignty is important but has its limitations.Most European NATO nations can verysovereignly decide to say NO, saying yesis much less a sovereign decision becausethat depends on others saying yes as well.The good news is that the understand-ing that something needs to be doneurgently is widely shared. Winston

(primarily) by non-military actors. This

implies that military actions need to becarefully nested with actions by other ac-tors and logically this implies a need fordialogue between all involved actors. NA-TO now commonly talks about its contri-bution to the comprehensive approach,indicating that it is not the military thatshould be in the lead.The consequence of the need for a widerstructure within which the military contri-bution must fit, is the fact that military ac-tion is dependent on actions by others. Ifthe building does not take place the clearand hold cannot be very effective. Themilitary then taking over the responsibilityfor the building as well is not a preferablesolution. The PRTs in ISAF worked betterif they had a strong civilian, developmentand diplomatic, involvement. On the otherside of the spectrum building somethingwithout creating and keeping a secureenvironment also does not work well. De-velopment without security and especiallyspending development money without ac-countability can even be counterproduc-tive5. The military can be the enabler forother actors but needs to realize that these

other actors will provide the decisive effect.A potential Russian threat to NATO wouldhave a hybrid nature. It is very unlikely thatRussia would use military force alone if itwere to attack NATO. In this sense it ishighly unlikely that the Cold War scenariowill ever return. Dealing with such a hybridthreat would also involve other actors forinstance to deal with a dissatisfied Russianminority that could be exploited. Thinkingabout comprehensive approach, and NA-TO contribution, is therefore not obsolete.On the contrary it is more important thanever that we develop solid mechanisms forcross domain synergy.The new paradigm therefore is interde-pendency which requires a change in

The Netherlands uses the same artillery gun as Germany (PzH2000)but because of modifications the 18 Dutch guns are no longerinterchangeable with the Germans.

A U.S. Air Force technical sergeant establishes satellite communicationswith the tactical operations centre during a dismounted patrol inAfghanistan. The U.S. Mission Partner Network and the NATO FutureMission Network will expand the coalition interoperability capabilitiesof the Afghan Mission Network.

(Photo:U.S.

AirForce)

(Photo:defensiekrant)


13/84



(EATC) is a good example of substan-tially increasing capabilities by workingtogether. A similar approach could alsobe used to provide logistic capabilities.The NATO Joint Logistic Support Group(JLSG) concept provides a framework butneeds real capabilities such as containerhandling equipment, forklift trucks andall the other less sexy logistical equip-ment without which no operation caneven begin. Enablers are also needed inthe intelligence field. This involves sur-veillance tools such as RPVs and satellitesbut also HUMINT. Because of the hy-brid nature of most, if not all, conflicts,CIMIC or CMI is also a crucial enablerthat requires investment. Perhaps thearea in which improvements are neededurgently is the cyber domain. Not onlyto defend against cyber-attacks but

also to understand how social media isused, and abused, to influence people.Cyber surveillance will have to becomepart of intelligence and info-ops. Re-search and capability development inthe cyber domain is essential, which also

involves a less naive approach to internetsecurity.At this point it is also important to under-line that increasing defence spending atthe expense of development or diploma-cy is not a good idea. Comprehensivenessis the only way forward, defence withoutdevelopment makes as little sense as de-velopment without defence. Hardcoredefenders of strict separation betweenthe military and other actors need to real-ize that much more can be done by syn-chronizing efforts. The current refugeecrisis cannot be dealt with by defendingthe borders, or by building walls, alone.

Interdependency requires a different wayof organizing command, from a vertical,command-driven approach to a morehorizontal, networked approach. Systemssupporting such fundamentally differentthinking about command need to be:Firstly, multinational in design. If weknow we can only operate in multina-tional teams then why do we persist inbuilding expensive C2 systems national-ly? Not only does this cost money, it alsois a waste of valuable training time. At theoperational level of command (Corps andabove) every staff officer will work in amultinational setting because virtually allHQs at that level are multinational.Secondly, much more open than todayssystems. To work in a networked envi-ronment we need to able to talk to eachother. In the US military the development

of a Mission Partner Environment (MPE)which replaces what was known as Fu-ture Mission Network (FMN) is a step inthat direction. Based on experience inAfghanistan (Afghanistan Mission Net-work) the idea is to build a system ena-

bling commanders to work with partners(other nations and other actors) in a com-mon security domain.It would be a big step towards real capa-bilities to combine forces in Europe if wecould decide to build ONE functioningCIS system. Interdependence requires achange in mindset, away from nationaland military stovepipes. Of course somethings will need to remain secret but be-ing able to communicate should not suf-fer from unnecessary secrecy.The second big improvement wouldbe a substantial increase in enablers.The European Air Transport Command

pooling and sharing capabilities, settingpriorities and coordinating efforts better.National efforts to build capabilitiesshould be coordinated. If every nationbuys new main battle tanks but no me-devac helicopters the shortfalls will notbe addressed. Coordination is also neces-sary to avoid every nation defining theirown requirements resulting in the pro-curement of the same helicopter (NH90)in a multitude of different versions whichthen is 4 times more expensive than itsUS competitor (BLACKHAWK). The sameapplies to modifications to the sameequipment that make seamless exchangeno longer possible. The Netherlandsuses the same artillery gun as Germany(PzH2000) but because of modificationsthe 18 Dutch guns are no longer inter-changeable with the Germans. This has

an effect on ammunition, on spare partsand of course on training, all adding tothe costs.Quick successes can be achieved withoutgreat effort, if national procurement iscoordinated at an early stage. This how-ever requires a more humble approachtowards procurement. The concept ofsmart buyer suggesting military pro-curement agencies need to know allthere is to know about the equipmentthat is going to be procured was a goodidea when nations were buying largequantities (hundreds if not thousands)of pieces of equipment. With the muchlower numbers procured today it is veryunlikely that every single nation can haveall the knowledge needed to really buysmart. It is much more likely that becauseeveryone wants something else we willbe buying very costly equipment that iseven more expensive to operate becausesmall numbers automatically mean highcosts for spare parts. Military equipmentneeds to meet different requirements ofcourse but are they really that differentfor every nation and do we really need a

military solution for every problem? Uti-lizing existing technology and coordinat-ing requirements make so much sense itis hard to explain why it does not happenmore often.Until now multinational procurement co-operation was mainly seen as a way toreduce costs. That also needs to change.More bang for the buck is clearly a goodthing but we need more bang not lessbuck.

Areas for Improvement

The most obvious area where inter-dependence has to lead to a rethink ofcapabilities is command and control.

The European Air Transport Command (EATC) is a good example of

substantially increasing capabilities by working together.

(Photo:EATC)


14/84



most of all shows how nationalist, evenprovincial, our thinking has become. TheNew-Years eve events in Cologne, Ham-burg, Stuttgart, Zrich and even Helsinkihave primarily led to a call to build higherwalls along national boundaries insteadof trying to think about the origin of theproblem. How is it possible that youngmen in this day and age believe they canget away with this kind of behaviour?The outrage is not that this happened inEurope but that we only care if it does.Europe needs to reinvent itself aroundits values and needs to understand thatretreating behind iron curtains or Dutchdykes does not work.However, recognizing that Europe as aconcept is currently at a popularity low,this is probably not going to happen soonand it is even less likely that a single Eu-

ropean defence concept can be devel-oped. Given this sobering fact, it wouldstill make sense to have the developmentof European abilities as a cornerstone ofevery white paper. In recent operationsthe military have often functioned as acatalyst or the crucial enabler, perhapsleading by example could work hereas well. Maybe every new white papershould have a paragraph about how thedevelopment of European capabilities isgoing to be achieved.Finally, which capabilities we need mightbe a less relevant question then how dowe achieve them. Do we need new sub-marines? Probably yes, but do we reallyneed three northern European nationsdeveloping their own, different subma-rines? If we build the same one, spareparts can be shared, development costsreduced, through-life costs minimisedand training executed together... It is justa thought.

gates. But if the enemy shows up it is toolate to build up the military. That funda-mental dilemma will not go away. Whitepapers need to acknowledge that wecan never predict exactly what is needed:flexibility is therefore a cornerstone forany security policy.The current German white paper processuses a series of meetings with stakehold-ers (participation meetings) in which thebasis is laid for a broad public accept-ance for an effective military. Interest-ingly these stakeholder meetings look atdefence from various angles, asking thequestion What do we want defence todo? from different perspectives.9Askingthe question could be a big step towardsdeveloping consensus on the capabilitiesrequired. Broad discussion on this topiccan also lead to a much better public un-derstanding of the role of the military.

Conclusion

The modern world changes at such atempo that it is very hard to plan ahead.

A few cardinal points remain, however: Future military capabilities will have torely on others. Joint, multinational andinteragency must be elements of any de-fence development programme. Interdependency requires a fundamen-tal change in mindset, focussing muchmore on enabling than on commanding. Without enablers nothing works: mili-tary capability development must takethat into account.Perhaps the most important certainty isthat having a credible military is the bestguarantee that we will not need to useit. Such a credible deterrent can howeveronly be built together, and that, today, isthe biggest problem. The refugee crisis

At the height of the crisis, even last Oc-tober, WFP was not able to raise all thefunds needed to feed the Syrian refugeesin the region8. When refugees in an areaare not receiving enough to survive weshould not be surprised that they try tomove somewhere else.Europe needs to repair, at least partially,undue reductions in the military. Highend fighting units are needed, on land,at sea and in the air. The idea that a light,gendarmerie-style force would meet allour needs is misguided. Air defence, anti-submarine warfare, air-to-air combat areall back on the table but without enablersnone of these can make a real difference.The same is true for cross-domain coordi-nation, because without comprehensive-ness the effect of military involvementwill be limited. Investing in capable CMIunits is another way of providing much-needed enabling capabilities. Nationsthat provide critical enablers might pro-vide less glamorous capabilities but in theend these capabilities will decide if a mis-sion is possible or not.

White Papers

Predicting the future has unsurprisinglyproven to be very difficult. Attemptingto define the threats and then calculat-ing the capabilities needed to deal withthem has not been very successful. Onone hand, threats change at such a pacethat planning ahead has just not beenpossible. But often the wish was fatherto the thought, risks that resulted in highcosts could easily be written down to ac-commodate yet another budget cut. Theproblem with the military is that it is veryhard to explain why a capable militaryis needed when the enemy is not at the

The refugee crisis most of all shows how nationalist,even provincial, our thinking has become.

Footnotes

1 Speech during the Future Force Conferencein March 2015

2 Free translation from Dutch of the HJ Schoo

lecture by Frans Timmermans on 2 Septem-ber 2014.3 http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/10/1-

nato-public-opinion-wary-of-russia-leery-of-action-on-ukraine/Note: not all NATO nations were included.

4 Translated from speech given by GeneralVolker Wieker, October 2012, BundeswehrTagung Strausberg. Original in German:Wenn der nationale Einsatz die Ausnahmeund das Wirken im multinationalen Ver-bund die Regel ist, mssen unsere Curriculadas in der Ausbildung bercksichtigen unddie internationalen Verfahren im Fhrung-sprozess zu Grunde legen.

5 See among others. Linda Polman, The CrisisCaravan, Metropolitan Books, September2010.

6 Quoted from http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/fp/mission_command_fp.pdf

7 http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/top-ics_84268.htm8 http://www.wfp.org/emergencies/syria9 http://www.bmvg.de

(Photo:EU)


15/84


Viewpoint fromAthens

Following the EU-Turkey agreement, European Union foreignministers have given Greece a three-month ultimatum to rem-

edy deficiencies in controlling the influx of migrants, mostly fromTurkey. The European Commission is threatening to remove Greecefrom the Schengen Zone of visa-free travel if Greece fails to remedythe problem by mid-May.The deficiencies found by the European Commission are thatGreece failed to properly register and fingerprint migrants whenthey arrived at the Greek islands in the Aegean Sea.The agreement finalises the one-for-one principle that EU lead-ers and Turkey provisionally agreed on 7 March: all new irregularmigrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands will be returnedto Turkey; and for every Syrian returned to Turkey from Greek is-lands, another Syrian will be resettled from Turkey to the EU. Thistemporary link between resettlement and return is feasible up to alimit of 72,000 using the EUs existing resettlement and relocationcommitments, under which respectively 18,000 and 54,000 placesremain available.Another measure adopted to try to slow the flow of migrants fromTurkey to Greece is being taken not by the European Union but bythe North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATOs job will notbe about stopping or pushing back refugee boats, accordingto NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Instead, they will beprimarily tasked to provide Turkish and Greek coastguards and the

EU border agency Frontex with information on human traffickingand criminal networks operating in the eastern Mediterranean.Defence Minister Kammenos announced that Hellenic army and airforce engineers will assist in setting up hotspots on the islands ofLesbos, Chios, Kos, Samos and Leros. Dozens of relocation centreshave also been established, mainly at ex-army camps on the Greekmainland, administered and guarded by the army.Fights among stranded refugees in Piraeus and in Idomeni, Lesbosand Chios, are a daily issue between Afghans and Syrians with oc-casional serious injuries. More than 55,000 refugees and migrantsare stranded in Greece after the Balkan countries closed their bor-ders to the massive influx of refugees. The recent terrorist attack inBrussels makes the issue more complicated.Greeces financial crisis is in a kind of remission, as it has been out ofthe headlines for a while. But Greece still owes 200 billion euros inloans and 50% of young people are unemployed. Capital controlson banks are still in place, and Greek people can only withdraw a

Dimitrios AngelopoulosM.Sc.

Advisor on Defence andSecurity issues

maximum of 60 Euros per day from their bank accounts. So thefinancial crisis is far from over, and the mixture of the financial crisisand the refugee crisis has the potential to be explosive.The stand-off between the government and international lend-ers continues. After almost six months of talks, the situation isstill unresolved. Greece has implemented only about half of themeasures it signed up to last summer, say European Union (EU)officials. The representatives of the troika the European Com-mission, IMF and European Central Bank (ECB) returned toAthens intending to reach a deal that would unlock another size-able tranche of bail-out funding, enabling Greece to repay 9.3billion ($12.8 billion) of bonds maturing in May, and start planninga return to the international financial markets with a modest bondissue later this year.As a result of the huge economic and financial crisis, Greeces de-fence expenditures have been reduced from 3.1% of GDP to thecurrent figure of 2.1% of GDP. But this is actually a 29% reductionin relative terms and an additional reduction in absolute terms be-cause it is connected to a smaller GDP. It is also argued that 73% ofGreeces defence budget is for personnel costs alone. That figureis pre-crisis: the current figure according to the InternationalInstitute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is 57%.The Greek parliament has passed the 2016 budget featuring taxincreases and spending cuts demanded by international lenders

under the cash-strapped countrys third bailout package.The 2016 budget foresees 5.7 billion (USD 6.2 billion) in pub-lic spending cuts, including 500 million (USD 543 million) fromdefence and 1.8 billion (USD 1.95 billion) from pensions. It alsocomprises tax hikes of over 2 billion (USD 2.17 billion).The governmental coalition led by Prime Minister Tsipras andcomposed of the leftist Syriza and the right-wing junior coalitionpartner ANEL, lead by Defence Minister Panos Kammenos is notcapable of managing the refugee and financial crisis issues, whilethe main opposition party New Democracy, led by Kyriakos Mit-sotakis, does not contribute any significant proposals that mightresolve the problems a fact that continuously strengthens theGolden Dawn far right party.The Greek people have suffered a lot during the last six years be-cause of the enforced austerity measures and the huge unemploy-ment, and they are now completely desperate: Greece is on theverge of exploding...

On the vergeof explosion


16/84



reluctant legislators to support the blanketauthorisation of military action which led tothe Iraq invasion of 2003.However, by 2007/2008 popular criticismof the Iraq War was growing. Barack Oba-ma was able to leverage this dissatisfaction.While his expertise and experience clearlylay with domestic issues, Senator Obamascampaign placed considerable focus onforeign policy. He emphasised the fact thathe had publicly opposed the Iraq War evenbefore his election to the US Senate. Duringhis campaign he conducted a high-profileeight nation tour ranging from Afghanistanto the United Kingdom, including a much-publicised rally in Berlin designed to showAmerican voters that he could communi-cate effectively with foreign nations. Majortenets of candidate Obamas foreign policyplatform included: an orderly withdrawalof military forces from Iraq, while continu-ing to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban;strengthening the US armed forces byadding 92,000 ground troops, while beingmore selective about when and where toactually use military force; globally securingnuclear weapons and preventing the pro-

liferation of weapons of mass destruction;and (re-)building alliances and partnershipsto cooperatively address the challenges ofthe 21st century. Obamas multilateralistapproach to diplomacy specifically statedthat the United States, despite its super-power status, should subordinate itself fullyto international law and should deal withforeign nations as sovereign equals.

Foreign Policy Shaped byEvents

During his first term in office PresidentObama initially pursued this multilateralistagenda, and attempted to improve rela-tions with Russia and the Islamic world as

The 9/11 Factor

Then came 9/11. Americans had long as-sumed that, with the exception of nuclearmissiles, United States territory was immune

to attack. The last hostile act of any signifi-cance had been the British burning of Wash-ington DC during the War of 1812. Thissense of security was stripped away on 11September 2001. The public, normally skep-tical of excessive foreign engagement andreluctant to engage in major military con-flicts, elevated national security to a newpriority. The spectre of weapons of massdestruction in the hands of rogue statesand terrorists became magnified beyond re-ality. This popular sentiment prompted even

The last person elected president witha strong foreign policy portfolio was

George H.W. Bush in 1988. During his ree-lection campaign in 1992 President Bushemphasised his expertise, remarking that

his opponents sum foreign policy experi-ence consisted of eating at the restaurantchain International House of Pancakes.That opponent Bill Clinton defeatedBush by a six percent margin.

The Obama Legacy and BeyondForeign Policy in the 2016 US Presidential Elections

Sidney E. Dean

Traditionally, foreign policy plays a subordinate role during United States presidential elections. There have

been exceptions. Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952 partly because of his campaign pledge to end the

Korean War. Vietnam War protests marked the campaigns of 1968. But by and large American voters have

displayed much greater interest in economic policy and so-called social issues (encompassing everything

from race relations to abortion rights). In this vein, foreign or security policy experience and expertise have

rarely been vital attributes for presidential candidates.

Au thor

Sidney E. Deanis President

of Transatlantic Euro-AmericanMultimedia LLC.

Before 9/11 Americans had long assumed that, with the exception ofnuclear missiles, United States territory was immune to attack.

Photo:UsCoastGuard


17/84



to denounce the nuclear accord and thereturn of frozen Irani assets, describing thetreaty as a victory for Americas enemies.

The Obama Legacy

Ironically, Obamas foreign policy has beenattacked by both the left and the right.While he did significantly reduce the USmilitary presence in Afghanistan and Iraq,the continued deployment of thousands ofadvisors, trainers and anti-terrorism spe-cialists has disappointed supporters whohoped for a complete end to US involve-ment here. The same goes for his expandeddeployment of drone strikes to kill suspect-ed terrorists. For their part, Republicanshave spent the past seven years criticisingwhat they perceive as a lack of leadershipand assertiveness, calling his foreign and

security policy indecisive and hesitant.The presidents supporters counter, prais-ing Mr. Obama as a leader who thinks be-fore he acts and who rejects short-term orsimplistic responses to complex challeng-es. Yet it cannot be denied that PresidentObama has repeatedly vacillated, reversingcourse on issues or seeing himself forced toact after prolonged reluctance. His unfor-tunate evaluation of ISIS as a JV (i.e. jun-ior league) threat still haunts him today. Heinitially opposed intervention in the Libyancivil war, but was persuaded to change hisposition by the concerted efforts of Brit-ish Prime Minister David Cameron, FrenchPresident Francois Hollande, and Secretaryof State Hillary Clinton. Was this a case ofsupporting allies, or a case of failed leader-ship? Given the subsequent destabilisationof Libya, Obamas initial skepticism regard-

ise to withdraw during Obamas first termin office. This was extremely controversialat home, with many lawmakers criticisingthe withdrawal. By 2014 was forced to re-verse course, sending more than 3,000 USsoldiers back into Iraq, this time to combatISIS. Developments in Afghanistan followeda parallel course; in October of last year thepresident formally declared an open-endedUS troop presence in that country. Even ap-parent successes such as the internationalnuclear accord with Iran have proven tobe two-edged swords, with Iran continu-ing to conduct unauthorised missile tests forcing Obama to impose new sanctionsagainst Iran within weeks of lifting previoussanctions. Not surprisingly, the presidentscritics in Washington lost no opportunity

well as with traditional allies. Phrases suchas reset and new beginning were de-liberately chosen to describe the adminis-trations early foreign policy initiatives.But like most presidents before him, BarackObama learned that the best of intentionswill founder upon the shoals of reality. Re-lations with Russia reached a high pointin 2010, culminating in the new STARTaccords and Russian transit corridors forAmerican military supplies destined forAfghanistan. By 2013 a distinct chill set inover President Putins repressive policies athome and increasing assertiveness abroad,culminating in the 2014 Crimea invasion.The Middle East proved even more chal-lenging. The last US forces left Iraq in De-cember 2011, fulfilling the campaign prom-

US President Barack Obama and and the Russian President DmitryMedvedev signed the New START treaty in Prague, Czech Republic,

on 8 April 2010.

An F-16 FIGHTING FALCON from the 480th Fighter Squadron preparing for take-off from Spangdahlem Air Basein support of Operation ODYSSEY DAWN in March 2011. US President Obama initially opposed intervention inthe Libyan civil war.

Photo:USAF

PhotoWhiteHouse


18/84



ing beyond control. Overall this approachreflects a conviction that the United States,as superpower, remains strong enoughthat it can afford to bide its time ratherthan act rashly. Or to paraphrase TheodoreRoosevelt: walk softly, carry a big stick, butonly use it when necessary.

2016 The National SecurityElections

The 2016 presidential campaign continuesto be dominated by foreign and securitypolicy. Chinese and Russian assertiveness,constant violence by ISIS and other extrem-ist organisations, and the flood of refugeesfrom the Middle Eastern war zone continueto focus the publics attention. Interna-tional trade and economic policy has alsotaken a prominent spot, especially given

the protectionist policies espoused by con-tenders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.Through mid-March the presidential candi-dates had conducted a total of 20 debates.The word war was mentioned an aver-age of 24 times per debate! Peace wasmentioned twice per contest. China wasmentioned a total 178 times, Russia 122times. The so-called Islamic State takes theprize, with a total of 351 references during20 debates.Recent polls indicate that foreign policy(which is frequently conflated with nationalsecurity) is now one of the top prioritiesfor voters, especially among Republicans.Ongoing terrorist attacks keep popular in-terest high. Following the Paris attacks ofNovember 2015 a Reuters poll found thatterrorism had replaced the economy as topconcern for American voters. This was con-firmed after the 22 March attacks in Brus-sels, when a poll by Morning Consult found24 percent of respondents named nationalsecurity their highest priority, a jump ofseven percentage points. Tolerance forradical measures is rising in tandem withthe level of popular fear. A Reuters/Ipsos

poll released on 30 March found that 63percent of Americans replied that torturewould be justified to extract informationfrom suspected terrorists. This is a signifi-cant escalation from 2014, when only 45percent of US citizens expressed this view.

Republican Foreign PolicyPlatforms

Ironically, voters concern for foreign policydoes not translate to a preference for ex-perience or subject matter expertise. Re-publican candidates with the best creden-tials or the most developed foreign policyplatforms e.g. Senators Lindsay Grahamand Marco Rubio were eliminated in the

Asian coalition to contain Chinese expan-sionism, or his deployment of additionalmilitary forces to Europe to dissuade Rus-sian aggression with continued efforts at

cooperation with Moscow, Beijing and oth-ers on issues of common or global concern.His foreign policy can best be categorisedas Realpolitik, tempered by a basic Leit-motif that it is better to err on the sideof caution. The latter might be a personalattribute of the man Barack Obama, but itis certainly influenced by his conviction thatinsufficient reflection and excessive activ-ism contributed to the 2003 invasion of Iraqand to the post-invasion setbacks. Historymight find that President Obama missedopportunities to act quickly and eliminatea growing threat. It might equally find thathe resisted numerous temptations to actrashly, and thereby prevented medium-scale conflicts from automatically escalat-

ing intervention seems justified. And whilehis refusal to become directly involved inthe Syrian civil war seems the responsibleposition, his wavering regarding supplies

and training for democratic anti-Assad re-bels contributed to a power vacuum ulti-mately filled by Islamist groups.Of course this all begs the question: woulda more assertive foreign policy over thepast seven years have benefitted the UnitedStates or its allies? Or would such a policyhave escalated crises which have to datebeen contained at lower levels of intensity?President Obama despite the idealistictone of his first campaign and early yearsin office has largely displayed a flexibleapproach, adjusting positions as neces-sity dictates. US interests and resourcesare weighed carefully before decisions aremade. He has routinely balanced assertive-ness such as his attempt to build an East

Of the three remaining Republican candidates only Governor John

Kasich has notable expertise in security matters.

Donald Trumps views have been relegated to the radical fringe by almostall conservative foreign policy experts, but his public appeal endures.

Photo:johnkasich.com

Photo:PictureAlliance/ap


19/84


S E C U RI T Y P O L I C Y

primaries. Of the three remaining contend-ers only Governor John Kasich has notablecredentials (although best known as a fiscalexpert, he served 18 years on the HouseArmed Services Committee), and he is trail-ing his opponents by a wide margin.Donald Trumps views which range fromseizure of Iraqi oil fields to dissolution ofNATO and use of nuclear weapons on Eu-ropean soil have been relegated to theradical fringe by almost all conservativeforeign policy experts. Former generals,diplomats, and former defence and for-eign policy officials from past Republicanadministrations almost unanimously repu-diate Trump as uninformed, unqualified,and dangerous. Still, his simplistic (andunfounded) mantra that America doesntwin anymore, coupled with demands forEuropean, Asian and Middle Eastern allies

to pay for US military operations resonatewith voters who know little about interna-tional affairs.Senator Ted Cruz is more nuanced thanTrump, but advocates an extremely ag-gressive foreign policy based on asser-tive US leadership, a massive increasein defence spending, and repudiation ofcompromise (his top foreign policy priorityis to annul the Iran nuclear accords). Nu-

DEFENCE |TRAINING |SIMULATION |EDUCATION

The International Forum for the Military Simulation,Training and Education Community

www.itec.co.uk/facebookwww.itec.co.uk/linkedin@ITEC2016

For more information and to register for ITEC 2016,please visit: www.itec.co.ukor contact the team on+44 (0) 20 7384 7788or+1 718 474 3817

Organised bySilver SponsorPlatinum Sponsor

* Internal survey conducted in June 2015.

An Enterprise Approach; Beyond Training.

IN 2016, EXPECT:

2,300visitors & exhibitors

55countries represented

high-level briefings from120 expert speakers

4stream conference

M&S Technologies and Architectures

Enterprise Approach to Training andEducation (Enterprise & Procurement)

Dual Use Training Applications

hundreds of networkingopportunities across 3 days

Training and Education -Requirements to Solutions

91%of the 2015 delegates were verysatisfied with the conference*

Register today for ITEC at www.itec.co.uk

merous statements such ashis plan to carpetbomb ISISselectively point to gaps inhis knowledge of foreign andmilitary affairs. Like Trump,Cruz has expressed his willing-ness to tolerate dictators suchas Assad and Gaddafi. WhileCruz pledges to stand up forAmerican allies and interests,he summarises his philosophy:We need to judge each chal-lenge through the simple testof what is best for America. Be-cause what is best for Americais best for the world.John Kasichs foreign policyplatform is considerably moremainstream than his rivals. Attimes his statements are con-

tradictory. He opposes nation-building and active democrati-sation of other countries, sayingthe US should stay out of civilwars and not act as the worldspoliceman. On the other handhe criticises President Obamafor not ousting Assad. Kasich advocatesthe use of US ground forces to combat ISIS,but only in a coalition including European

and Middle Eastern partners. While regard-ing the Syrian refugee crisis as primarily aEuropean problem, he favours working

Senator Ted Cruz is more nuanced than Trump, butadvocates an extremely aggressive foreign policy.

Photo:dpa


20/84



with Europe to solve the issue while jointlystanding up for common values. In Asia, headvocates tougher sanctions on North Ko-rea and sharing conventional missile tech-nology with Japan and South Korea. Heseeks cooperation with China in order torestrain Pyongyang, but advocates a robustUS naval presence to deny Beijings claimsto the South China Sea.

Democratic Foreign PolicyPlatforms

Senator Bernie Sanders campaign em-phasises socio-economic issues while pre-senting a comparatively short foreign anddefence platform. He supports PresidentObamas deployment of additional forcesto Europe, and advocates working withNATO to secure eastern European allies

against Russian aggression. Overall he ad-vocates cuts to defence spending, includingspending on nuclear forces and decreas-ing Americas overseas military presence,and believes European allies should con-tribute more to the joint defence. Militaryoperations should be conducted in strongcoalitions with European and other allies.Sanders opposes further NATO expansionon the grounds it would be provocative to-ward Russia.Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton isthe most experienced candidate regardingforeign affairs a fact she consistently high-lights. Her expertise extends to defencepolicy. During her years in the Obama cabi-net Clinton was frequently known to ex-press more hawkish views than the defencesecretary. She continues this assertivenessduring the presidential campaign. Amongother things she has advocated imposing ano-fly zone over Syria despite the presenceof Russian military forces in that country aposition shared by her Republican oppo-nents but opposed by Sanders. She consist-ently emphasises the need for Washingtonto lead globally. She remains a strong ad-

vocate of the US commitment to NATO,and calls for a strong allied response toRussian aggression. While emphasising theneed for an assertive foreign policy she hasstated that security should not be achievedat the expense of democratic values andhuman rights.

Rolling the Dice

Together the five remaining candidatesrepresent four schools of foreign policy.While Donald Trumps world vision lackscohesion, his platform does display oneconsistent thread: money. Trump believeseconomic interests and deals are thekey to foreign policy issues, whether it be

demanding other nations pay the UnitedStates for security services rendered, orthreatening economic consequences if na-tions such as China fail to agree to Wash-

ingtons demands. Columnist Charles Krau-thammer, a leading conservative analystof US politics, has categorised Trump asa Neo-Mercantilist because of his fixationon money as a political force. Ted Cruzsuncompromising stance is clearly Unilat-eralist. Bernie Sanders foreign policy isbuilt around his domestic socio-economicplatform; energy and resources should bededicated to domestic reforms, while nu-merous trade and economic cooperationagreements would be endangered. Sand-ers can be classified as (at least borderline)

Isolationist. All three would likely introducetensions into current alliances and partner-ships, to varying degrees and in differentways.

Kasich and Clinton, by contrast, representa blend of Realist/Multilateralist schools. Aspresident, either would pursue a traditionalforeign policy, guided first and foremost byUS interests and Washingtons global pow-er status. Either candidate seems poisedto keep the United States engaged withthe world, maintaining alliances and com-mitments. While Kasich and Clinton haveboth criticised aspects of Barack Obamasforeign policy, their platforms indicate theywould pursue modified by generally con-sistent policies.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the most experiencedcandidate regarding foreign affairs.

Ph

oto:PictureAlliance/Newscom

Senator Bernie Sanders campaign presents a comparatively limitedforeign and defence platform.

Photo:senate.gov


21/84


The young sergeants and lieutenants have always been told tohave a plan B when the planning for a patrol or an attack as

experience shows that nothing ever goes as planned. This wisdomshould also be valid for our politicians. However, apparently it is not.Every time a new crisis shows up the first question is always: Wherehas that come from?, following which the fire-fighting starts. Thelast months have really been a lecture on poor handling of the crisishere in Europe. The more intelligent newspapers at least here inDenmark try to describe how we ended up in this situation, whatshould be done now and what should be done in the future. Thisreminds me of LTC Hal Moore, 1stBattalion, 7thUS Cavalry. He wasin a fierce fight with the Vietcong in Ia Drang Valley, the LZ X-Ray.When asked about his periods of seeming withdrawal, Moore saidthat he had been reflecting, asking himself three questions: Whatis happening? What is not happening? How can I influence the ac-tion? This is the essence of strategic leadership2.What will be the consequences of this lack of leadership? There

might be two options and they are not that beautiful. One is as de-scribed by Samuel P. Huntington in his book The Clash of Civiliza-tions and the Remaking of World Order. Already in 1992 Hunting-ton described the hypothesis that peoples cultural and religiousidentities would be the primary source of conflict in the post-ColdWar world. Is this what we are witnessing today? The other optionis the collapse of the welfare state known as the Nordic model. Thisis a concept of governance in which the state plays a key role in theprotection and promotion of the economic and social well-beingof its citizens. It was established in 1933 by the Danish Minister forSocial Welfare, Mr. Steincke, before immigrants, refugees and the1951 Geneva Convention were in the daily news from sunrise tosunset. Why does this matter right now in Copenhagen?From a purely economical view the taxpayers money can only bespent once and a member state of EU has to follow strict budgetrules. The dilemma arises when you want to buy new equipmentfor your armed forces like fighter aircraft, lorries, armoured person-

nel carriers, etc. Should you spend your money on this or shouldyou spend all the money on integration and welfare? At the sametime, the US Government is telling its NATO partners that theyshould spent at least 2% of their BNP while the New York Timesand others are telling the whole world that the Danes are the cruel-lest people on earth and should do much more for the immigrants.At one point one nearly felt guilty for the war in Syria and the otherhot spots in the Middle East.What does all this mean in a defence context? The Danish defencepolicy is historically based upon four-year long political agreementsbetween a broad coalition of parties. The current one has to berenewed in 2017. Now you can read in various articles that perhapswe should wait to decide on major defence investments until wehave the new agreement in place as this might also describe theoverall threats against Denmark and thereby indicate what kindof equipment is to be procured. When Denmark started to lookat and to invest development money into the Joint Strike Fighter

programme in 1998 the international situation was quite different.There was a tendency towards out of area operations, whereastoday we are faced with operations close to or inside the NATOarea of responsibility. This might mean that we have to tailor ourequipment to new scenarios again. Looking at the fighter competi-tion in Denmark the question is if we should buy a small number ofthe very expensive F-35, or if we should get a good deal on the F-18with 100 % offset compensation, or if we just should let the Dan-ish Home Guard take care of our territorial defence. The answer isblowing in the wind and maybe the decision makers have both aplan A and a Plan B. As Winston Churchill once said:Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

1 German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the German TV talk show Anne Will on28 February 2016.

2 Pp. 46-47 in HOPE is not a METHOD by Gordon R. Sullivan & Michael V. Harper(1997)

Viewpoint fromCopenhagen

J. Bo Leimand

I have no plan B1 But Has There Ever

Been a Plan A?


22/84



Since then, there has been a heated debatein Sweden about whether the implement-ed departure of the Swedish Armed Forces(SAF) in the 1990s from their primary mis-

sion of territorial defence to a containmentpolicy in the context of international op-erations like in Afghanistan or in Libya wasnot a mistake. The operational readinesswas strongly questioned by the pessimisticprognoses of its own senior officers up tothe High Command and the prospect ofimprovement does not seem very brighton account of the tensed budget situa-tion. For this reason, with the beginning ofthe Ukraine conflict in February 2014, the

on the banks of the Barents Sea. Officiallyannounced in the NATO-Russia Council asa counterterrorism manoeuvre, with Zapad2013, Moscow in fact wanted to prove

the revived clout of Russian alliances foroperations with geostrategic reach. Criti-cal voices in Poland, the Baltic States andin Scandinavia accused Moscow of hav-ing launched an attack on the Westernneighbouring states of the Baltic Sea. Themassive appearance of landing troops andspecial units in co-ordination with heavybomber units, submarine hunters and ma-rine units with the latest guided missilesunderpinned the accusations.

Disturbing signals have been heard inthe Baltic Sea region for a few years.

And what is meant with this are not thealleged submarine sightings that have been

fuelling speculations about Russian activi-ties in the Swedish territorial waters in themedia time and time again. Rather, it is theofficial statements and announcementsfrom Moscow that have been increas-ingly causing concern to the governmentin Stockholm. In September 2013, Rus-sia and Belarus had jointly mobilised over70,000 soldiers for the six-day large-scalemanoeuvre Zapad 2013 which was car-ried out both in the Baltic Sea region and

Back on TrackSwedish Security Alignment Thomas Bauer

No other European country has struggled so much with its internal security political identity and orienta-tion in recent years than Sweden. Overall, the Scandinavian area may rather lie on the edge of the new

confrontation line between the West and Russia under President Putin as perceived by the global public.

Nevertheless, with the Russian manoeuvres in the Baltic Sea region, Sweden has felt the concomitants of

Moscows new excessive drive for recognition directly on its doorstep. Time for a stock analysis.

In September 2013, Russia and Belarus had jointly mobilised over 70,000 soldiers for the Zapad 2013 in theBaltic Sea region and on the banks of the Barents Sea.

Photo:MoDRussia


23/84


question was how such a substantial de-

terioration of the military power of thecountry could happen within a few years.But this question could be answered rel-atively fast. Like many other Europeanstates after the fall of the Berlin Wall andthe end of the Cold War, Sweden hadsimply taken a break from dealing withthe strategic orientation of t

european security and defence - april 2016.pdf

Documents