Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 90

Thread: Bundeswehr Restructuring

  1. #31
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    Newest restructuring plan:

    The Bundeswehr will get a sixth force command, Cyber and Information Space (CIR) alongside the established ones (Army, Air Force, Navy, Medical, Joint Forces Support). The new command will have about 15-20,000 soldiers (initially: 13,500) and two division level commands under a MoD-level (three-star general) commander. The command will be about the same size and have the same regard as the Navy, for comparison - just with a different battlespace seen as equally important. IOC planned for early 2017.

    The two divisions to be embedded are:
    • Strategic Reconnaissance Command
    • Information Technology Command


    Aside from cyber warfare and IT security, the portfolio of the command is supposed to include military intelligence, operative communication (i.e. psychological warfare), geoinformation services and classic electronic warfare. Primary operative units are the four extant electronic warfare battalions and six battalions formed from existing command support units alongside a number of specialized "centers" within each division-level command. Most of the units come from the Joint Forces Support force and BWI (see below).

    Part of the reason - not quite publically - for the formation of "CIR" is likely that the contractor company BWI IT will come under full ownership of the Bundeswehr next year. BWI runs the Bundeswehr's IT services and secure networks.

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor SteveDaPirate's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Aug 13
    Location
    Kansas City, United States
    Posts
    1,221
    Creating the Cyber and Information Space command as a fully fledged arm of the Bundeswehr is a really interesting development. I know several countries have setup groups similar to USCYBERCOM that focus specifically on Cyber warfare, but this is the first I've heard of such an integrated organization focused on the Information space as a whole.

    I'll be curious to see how it works out as I can easily forsee others moving in that direction in the future.

  3. #33
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,944
    The Baltics have been doing it since the Estonian cyber attack but good to see the Krauts getting up to speed on their own account.

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    It goes a bit beyond what others have been doing since among others also strategic reconnaissance assets - i.e. e.g. the reconnaissance satellite network or the ELINT ships - as well as electronic warfare ground units - mobile jammers in APCs and such - will also be folded into it. There will also be specific bachelor and master courses at the Bundeswehr universities in considerable numbers btw.

    The reason really driving it are 71 million hostile access attempts on Bundeswehr systems during the last year, including 8.5 million "serious" attempts. There were only 142,000 comparable "serious" hostile attempts in 2014, 95% of which occured on systems deployed on missions abroad. While the absolute numbers are pretty irrelevant as far as scale goes, the sharp rise in the last year isn't.

  5. #35
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,944
    I am pleased to see others too realise the threats. Who do you suppose it may be?

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    Possibly at least partially a different direction than one might think.

    In one of the few orders in that direction that went public last year, the Regin trojan in particular was suspected to have been actively deployed against Bundeswehr units on missions. Regin is considered by the German government to have been developed by the GCHQ with NSA involvement.

    While there's deep embedding into NATO's soon-to-be-announced cyber warfare initiatives going on - it's currently suspected that they'll declare cyberspace a new battlespace for NATO in July - relevant documents with internal threat analyses and such are generally NOFORN, at least the one that was leaked. Given recent visits and speeches to that effect it's also likely Germany will seek cooperation partners outside NATO, in particular India.

    Funny enough part of the - non-classified - threat analysis for the parliamentary defense committee was a political science guy from King's College, London. He blamed Russia for about everything that ever happens in cyberspace.

  7. #37
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,581
    Welcome to the soon to be fully formed EU Army , etc etc ( but maybe without the UK ) .


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  8. #38
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,581
    Just in ?

    The EU Referendum
    21 mins ∑ Bishopstoke ∑
    German plot to keep EU army a SECRET till June 23 EXPOSED as plans drawn up in Berlin

    BRITISH Brexit campaigners have been boosted with news from Berlin that Germany is once more pushing for an EU army encompassing all 28 member states with a joint HQ and shared military planning.

    check the vid below

    https://youtu.be/kmu0D_pca1Q
    Last edited by tankie; 03 May 16, at 15:23.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  9. #39
    tankie Military Professional tankie's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Nov 06
    Location
    Darlington UK
    Posts
    14,581
    Zigg heil merkel ,, if your still around that is

    High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e90a080e-1...#ixzz47ybygfkR




    Germany to push for progress towards European army

    Alex Barker in Brussels and Stefan Wagstyl in Berlin



     Share





     Print


     Clip







     Comments




    Kurdish peshmerga fighters are seen during a Bundeswehr training session on March 1, 2016 in Munster, Germany. The Bundeswehr is supporting Kurdish peshmerga as well as Iraqi security forces with military training and weaponry to help them fight against the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq
    ©Getty

    Kurdish peshmerga fighter training with the German Bundeswehr

    Germany is to push for progress towards a European army by advocating a joint headquarters and shared military assets, according to defence plans that could ricochet into Britain’s EU referendum campaign.

    Although Berlin has long paid lip-service to forming a “European defence union”, the white paper is one of the most significant for Germany in recent years and may be seized by anti-integration Brexit campaigners as a sign where the bloc is heading.





    More

    On this topic
    Nato damned as ‘lightweight boxer’
    Nato warned of vulnerability to Moscow
    OSCE chief warns on weak Nato-Russia ties
    Medvedev warns of ‘new cold war’

    IN Europe
    Erdogan thrusts son-in-law into limelight
    Kenny wins narrow vote to remain Irish PM
    Erdogan defies EU call to reform terror law
    Pope urges EU leaders to revive integration

    Initially scheduled to emerge shortly before the June 23 referendum vote but now probably delayed to July, the draft paper seen by the Financial Times outlines steps to gradually co-ordinate Europe’s patchwork of national militaries and embark on permanent co-operation under common structures.

    In this and other areas, its tone reflects Germany’s growing clout and confidence in pursuing a foreign policy backed by elements of hard power. Initiatives range from strengthening cyberwarfare abilities to contentious proposals to relax the postwar restrictions on army operations within Germany.

    “German security policy has relevance — also far beyond our country,” the paper states. “Germany is willing to join early, decisively and substantially as a driving force in international debates . . . to take responsibility and assume leadership”.

    Jan Techau, a former defence official at Carnegie Europe, said: “This is the time of a new Germany. This is probably the first time a German defence white paper is something like important.”

    At the European level, the paper calls for “the use of all possibilities” available under EU treaties to establish deep co-operation between willing member states, create a joint civil-military headquarters for EU operations, a council of defence ministers, and better co-ordinate the production and sharing of military equipment.

    “The more we Europeans are ready to take on a greater share of the common burden and the more our American partner is prepared to go along the road of common decision-making, the further the transatlantic security partnership will develop greater intensity and richer results,” the paper states.

    BULLSHIT .FRAUD CORRUPTION .

    The creation of a European army is a long way off, but it is a strategic necessity to implement important steps to pave the way towards it now

    - Roderich Kiesewetter, Bundestag member

    Resistance to serious defence integration is well entrenched in many EU states and has hobbled efforts to make meaningful progress in common defence. Co-ordinated hard military power in Europe remains largely the preserve of Nato.

    However, about 37 EU security missions have been launched since 2003, including recent operations in Mali and against piracy. If vigorously pursued in Brussels, Germany’s call for joint civil military headquarters would be an important step in enhancing the bloc’s capabilities and ambitions.

    “The creation of a European army is a long way off, but it is a strategic necessity to implement important steps to pave the way towards it now,” wrote Roderich Kiesewetter, a Bundestag foreign affairs committee member, in a recent paper.

    Berlin is aware that its call for more European defence — long a bugbear of British Eurosceptics — could inadvertently resonate in the UK referendum campaign. Although publication was first expected in early June, this has been delayed to July, according to people familiar with the process.


    Their every instinct is to move towards European defence co-operation. The problem is that while they are unwilling to spend money, it is a dangerous fantasy that diverts money away from Nato

    - Liam Fox, former UK defence secretary and Brexit supporter

    Liam Fox, former UK defence secretary and Brexit supporter, said that “many in the European project see Nato as an impediment to ever closer union”.

    Mr Fox added: “Their every instinct is to move towards European defence co-operation. The problem is that while they are unwilling to spend money, it is a dangerous fantasy that diverts money away from Nato.”

    The paper says that the EU’s defence industry is “organised nationally and seriously fragmented”, raising costs, handicapping it in international competition and making it difficult for national militaries to operate together.

    “It is therefore necessary that military capabilities are jointly planned, developed, managed, procured and deployed to raise the interoperability of Europe’s defence forces and to further improve Europe’s capacity to act,” the paper states.


    In Depth

    UK’s EU referendum

    Jonathan McHugh illustration

    However it adds this should not impinge Germany’s “own technological sovereignty” over crucial technologies. It comes against the backdrop of a series of embarrassing equipment failures in recent years when Germany deployed its military overseas.

    The white paper also lands in the middle of the growing debate in Germany about whether the military should be deployed domestically in the event of terrorist attacks and other threats to law and order.

    While German troops already assist in civil emergencies, such as floods, and have helped in the refugee crisis, deployments to deal with violence or threats of violence have long been banned for fear of evoking Nazi-era practices. The draft proposes ending that ban given “the character and dynamic of current and future security-political threats”.


    Trust gets you killed, love gets you hurt, and being REAL gets you hated.

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
    Creating the Cyber and Information Space command as a fully fledged arm of the Bundeswehr is a really interesting development. I know several countries have setup groups similar to USCYBERCOM that focus specifically on Cyber warfare, but this is the first I've heard of such an integrated organization focused on the Information space as a whole.

    I'll be curious to see how it works out as I can easily forsee others moving in that direction in the future.
    Chinese have one too, though their cyber service also covers EW and satellite operations.

  11. #41
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    Which is the same scope that the German one has, and was probably one of the models looked at for defining that scope - although probably only for late developmental comparison, the Chinese "Strategic Support Force" command was only announced at the turn of the year after all.

    Somewhat interesting regarding satellite operations: the new concept unifies all Bundeswehr satellites under a single command for the first time. Previously, satcom (COMSATBw constellation) was handled by the IT office while recon (SAR-Lupe constellation, future SARah constellation and plug for Helios II) was unter the Strategic Reconnaissance Command and remote sensing (plugs for dual-use TerraSAR-X satellite and the RapidEye constellation) and navigation (GNSS systems) were handled by the geoinformation office.
    Last edited by kato; 08 May 16, at 01:18.

  12. #42
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,944
    Speaking of 'European armies' the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republik, Slovakia and Hungary) is preparing a 'multinational Battlegroup' known as V4 EU BAT. Training exercises will take place in November, operational language will be English (same as LITPOLUKRBRIG, the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian 'multinational brigade'). The difference is that LITPOLUKRBRIG is free to operate under NATO orders - as part of the 'rapid response force' etc while V4 EU BAT, as it's name implies is supposed to serve under an EU Command. One very obvious problem here was that there is no EU version of SACEUR or a permanent Staff, no other designated forces etc etc so while V4 EU BAT might be the best trained and equipped force in the area if all goes to hell they will be sitting in barracks waiting for an order that is never going to come.

    There are also discussions ongoing about the formation of a Romanian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian 'multinational Brigade' (http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...gade/83501138/) along the same lines as LITPOLUKRBRIG but not under NATO Command (as of course Ukraine is not a NATO member). So potentially there would have been three 'multinational forces' all operating under different Commands - one with no real Command at all. The decision was therefore taken to create 'permanent Committee' of all the nations contributing to these 'multinational forces' which in emergency - circumstances akin to a NATO Article 5 infraction - would appoint a Commander - a kind of Supreme Commander CEE. The various political workings of this - enlargement of Visegrad or an alternate political representative body - are still being argued by the politicos.

    I note this merely to underline how complicated (and in some cases nonsensical) setting up any multinational force can be - even in the limited area of Central and Eastern Europe, let alone among 26 EU members who are constantly out primarily for themselves and usually at each others throats. How would the Greeks feel about a German lead EU army? I just cannot realistically see it ever happening and frankly nor should it as it would exclude the US and be detrimental for the trans Atlantic alliance upon which Europe's defence still in large part depends.

  13. #43
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    there is no EU version of SACEUR or a permanent Staff
    Sure there is, it's just that no one knows. EUMS. DGEUMS is LtGen Wosolsobe, a German; DDGEUMS and CoS is RAdm Gluszko of the Polish Navy.

  14. #44
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Speaking of 'European armies' the Visegrad Group (Poland, Czech Republik, Slovakia and Hungary) is preparing a 'multinational Battlegroup' known as V4 EU BAT. Training exercises will take place in November, operational language will be English (same as LITPOLUKRBRIG, the Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian 'multinational brigade'). The difference is that LITPOLUKRBRIG is free to operate under NATO orders - as part of the 'rapid response force' etc while V4 EU BAT, as it's name implies is supposed to serve under an EU Command. One very obvious problem here was that there is no EU version of SACEUR or a permanent Staff, no other designated forces etc etc so while V4 EU BAT might be the best trained and equipped force in the area if all goes to hell they will be sitting in barracks waiting for an order that is never going to come.

    There are also discussions ongoing about the formation of a Romanian, Ukrainian and Bulgarian 'multinational Brigade' (http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...gade/83501138/) along the same lines as LITPOLUKRBRIG but not under NATO Command (as of course Ukraine is not a NATO member). So potentially there would have been three 'multinational forces' all operating under different Commands - one with no real Command at all. The decision was therefore taken to create 'permanent Committee' of all the nations contributing to these 'multinational forces' which in emergency - circumstances akin to a NATO Article 5 infraction - would appoint a Commander - a kind of Supreme Commander CEE. The various political workings of this - enlargement of Visegrad or an alternate political representative body - are still being argued by the politicos.

    I note this merely to underline how complicated (and in some cases nonsensical) setting up any multinational force can be - even in the limited area of Central and Eastern Europe, let alone among 26 EU members who are constantly out primarily for themselves and usually at each others throats. How would the Greeks feel about a German lead EU army? I just cannot realistically see it ever happening and frankly nor should it as it would exclude the US and be detrimental for the trans Atlantic alliance upon which Europe's defence still in large part depends.
    It looks good politically, at least.

    Do those multinational units have permanent bases?

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,804
    The "multinational battlegroups" are just formed from other units. They consist of an infantry battalion from the lead nation of each battlegroup reinforced with full-spectrum support forces. There's nominally always two concurrent multinational battlegroups formed in the EU, each from multiple rotating member nations, although since the beginning of 2015 the second spot has been left vacant. Typically the battlegroups have had around 1500 men each; German-led battlegroups are usually 2500-3500 men though, i.e. more small brigades - and the Visegrad (V4) battlegroup is intended to have the same size. This compensates for leaving the second spot vacant. The V4 battlegroup was on rotation since January this year and will be replaced next month by an Austrian-German-Czech battlegroup. Usually a battlegroup forms around 9-12 months before it goes into rotation, then begins joint training around 6-9 months ahead; some battlegroups attend in the same or a close layout on and off again over several years - the V4 battlegroup is planned to go into rotation in 2019 again.
    The battlegroups are formed as high-alert forces that can deploy within five days within a radius of 6000 km around Brussels, although there's some doubts that target can always be met. They have never been factually deployed, although there are occasional rumours for possible deployments (last one, three months ago, was Libya).

    The only remaining multinational higher-level force command with standing forces in Europe is Eurocorps. Its southern counterpart Eurofor was dissolved a couple years ago. Eurocorps maintains operational command over a single brigade (the Franco-German Brigade) in peace-time and has earmarked reserve units (a German, French and Spanish division each plus a second light infantry brigade, from Belgium) for growth to about 60,000 men.
    NATO maintains three corps-level commands in Europe for command of about 25,000 men each, none of which have standing forces - MNC NE with a Polish and Danish division each earmarked; 1 GE/NL Corps with a German division, two German-Dutch brigades and a Dutch brigade earmarked; and ARRC with around two British divisions. Poland and Greece are iirc the only ones to maintain independent national corps-level commands btw (i.e. separate corps-level commands not encompassing the entire force), in the Polish case without assigned forces.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WAB Staff Restructuring
    By Ironduke in forum WAB Information Center
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 19 Dec 10,, 17:20
  2. Old but still good, Staff Guidance on Defence Restructuring
    By Repatriated Canuck in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28 Apr 07,, 09:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •