Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 83

Thread: Bundeswehr Restructuring

  1. #46
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
    It looks good politically, at least.

    Do those multinational units have permanent bases?
    LITPOLUKRBRIG HQ is Lublin.

  2. #47
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...-idUSKCN0Y11ZV

    World | Tue May 10, 2016 11:03am EDT
    Related: World, Germany
    Germany expanding military ranks to counter Islamist, cyber threats

    Germany plans to add 7,000 military jobs and 4,400 civilians to its armed forces over the next seven years to help tackle demands such as cybersecurity and the fight against Islamic State, its defense minister said on Tuesday.

    Ursula von der Leyen said the move marked the first increase in the size of the German military since the end of the Cold War and was part of a broader campaign that has revamped the way the military buys equipment and prepares its budgets.

    "A quarter century of a shrinking military is over. It is time for the German armed forces to grow," she told reporters.

    Germany's armed forces totaled 800,000 military and civilian personnel at the time of German unification in 1990, but since have shrunk to a target of 185,000 troops and 56,000 civilians, according to German government officials.

    They said the goal now was to get away from the strict ceilings used in the past and move toward a more dynamic annual review of personnel needs.

    Officials said a recent comprehensive review had shown that the German military needed 14,300 additional troops to cope with new missions. These include the at-sea rescue of refugees, operations in support of a U.S.-led air strike campaign against Islamic State insurgents in Iraq and Syria, and backing operations against other Islamist militants in Mali.

    Of those, 5,000 would be filled through changes in existing personnel, with 7,000 to be added in new posts and the extension of existing contracts.

    Current plans would leave about 2,300 of the required military positions vacant, although that estimate could be adjusted next year, officials said.
    It's obviously all a lot more complicated than in that article, in particular the "changes in existing personnel". That describes mostly that civilian life integration schooling measures for soldiers will be - voluntarily - pushed past their service end, basically a service extension for them (which yields 1500 posts); and that about half of the current short-term flexible personnel will be assigned to posts. Both are mostly bookkeeping tricks.

    The "14,300 additional troops to cope with new missions" are distributed mostly in only three-digit numbers to:
    • buffing up the new Cyber and Information Space Command
    • the medical service, which among other things is set to receive 500 medics for deployment use
    • an additional naval infantry company for the Seebataillon that will be placed under Dutch command (with "boarding", i.e. ship security specialization - notably not with "coastal" specialization despite being integrated into an amphibious unit)
    • new multiple crew manning concepts for the navy (read: spare crews for F125 and MKS180 frigates and the U212A subs, which are planned out as typically 5 for 4 or 8 for 6 (crews for ships) concepts)
    • personnel for an additional deployable air transport base (although to me it's unclear whether they mean an additional deployable forward air base - operated by the air force, like the one we had in Uzbekistan till 2015, have in Senegal since 2013 and may possibly build up in Niger - or an additional forward air logistics turntable - operated by the Joint Forces Support Force, like the one we had in Turkey; both would be about the same size though)
    • an additional bridgebuilding engineer company
    • additional UAV/IMINT operating personnel (pilots, payload operators, analyzers - the latter in particular is currently a problem, since we forward-deploy those* and we're in three different theaters concurrently - Afghanistan, Syria/Iraq, Mali -, one more than previous concepts called for...)
    • an additional combat support company for the KSK Special Forces Command (read: forward fire support coordination; although this will be the hardest to fill, given the KSK have standards that lead to 20% of their posts not being filled for lack of recruits able to pass entry tests...)
    • additional troops for air defense troops (from 2021 - i.e. introduction of TLVS with its new radar and second effector system, even though that was supposed to reduce manpower requirements compared to current Patriot units...)

    The full list is apparently 96 such small measures. Probably only the CIR Command and possibly the Navy will receive several thousand soldiers. Other than that it's pretty spread out among all six services.


    * - we also forward-deploy UAV pilots and operators into theaters, unlike other countries. Not for lack of reach-back capability, but because this helps integration and embedment into the deployed troops regarding their needs and structure. And supposedly lowers PTSD.
    Last edited by kato; 11 May 16, at 06:51.

  3. #48
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,716

  4. #49
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    German perspective on that - and some insight - from 3 weeks ago:

    https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin...uk_mro_pau.pdf

    From the German perspective, a number of unresolved questions exist that should be answered before Berlin takes decisions to expand its participation in NATO missile defence.

    From the security perspective the threat analysis needs to be clarified. At the moment, there are different opinions about what NATO intends to defend against. It must also be asked whether the successful implementation of the Iran agreement would not offer sufficient reason to re-evaluate the scope and timeframe of the project.

    From the military perspective, the performance of the system should be assessed from different perspectives. Experience has already been gathered with intercepting short-range missiles. Defence against medium-range and intermediate-range missiles has only been tested in a handful of cases, and these were rarely based on realistic conditions. In this context, it is also important to ask to what extent Germany and other European NATO allies would be included in decisions to deploy or use missile defence systems in times of peace or crisis. Finally, in terms of including German frigates in the system, the possible negative impact on the German navy’s overall operational capability needs to be taken into account.

    From the alliance perspective, it should be considered whether and how NATO allies can better reconcile the different objectives associated with the creation of a missile defence system. The difficult process of deciding to deploy – and later withdraw – Patriot systems from Turkey is an indication of negative consequences differences over missile defences could have for the alliance’s cohesion. In particular, the question needs to be asked what influence Europe would have on the possible use of such capabilities in times of crisis.
    SWP is Germany's most renowned think tank on security politics and the largest think tank in that field in Europe. It's politically neutral.

  5. #50
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    Detail list on Bundeswehr enlargement has been published by the German Soldiers' Union DBwV:

    • Army gets 2485 military plus 0 civilian posts for fielding a sixth tank battalion, fully fielding battalion C4I*, improved forward logistics, additional special forces, airborne engineers and airborne reconnaissance, "reinforcing engineer, reconnaissance and artillery troops",
    • Air Force gets 930 military plus 0 civilian posts for a second forward-deployed air base (incl. additional ground security forces), enlarged air defense forces
    • Navy gets 1280 military plus 70 civilian posts for extra harbour security forces, an extra boarding company, creating a joint German/Dutch amphibious capability, completely fielding planned multiple crew concepts (for F123, F124, K130, A707 and A704 - i.e. the "other" ones!) and funding enlisted posts
    • Joint Forces Support Force (SKB) gets 1272 military plus 42 civilian posts for larger command support capacities for Multi-National Corps North-East (i.e. the NATO Corps for the Russian border), fully fielding battalion C4I, an extra bridgebuilding engineer company, an extra military police company, an extra command support company for NATO NRF SOCC and "structurally modifying the MAD" **.
    • Medical Service gets 960 military plus 175 civilian posts for enlargement of capacity for training and medical support, capacity adaption for medical support for deployments and enlarging number of specialist medical personnel for military hospitals.
    • Cyber and Information Space gets 1648 military and 316 civilian posts for establishing the initial planning group for the new service.
    • Central Administration (total 1865 military plus 3494.5 civilian !):
      • Personnel Department gets 1615 military plus 650 civilian posts for recruitment, personnel management, administrative handling of the European worktime laws and faster handling of cases of occupational injuries and disabilities (i.e. soldiers and veterans injured in the line of duty)
      • Procurement Department gets 195 military plus 435.5 civilian posts for procurement organization (of MKS180, TLVS and MALE UAVs), handling of large projects, better support of the current procurement agenda.
      • Infrastructure and Administration Department gets 55 military plus 2409 civilian posts for improving construction management, operating training grounds, firefighting and improved on-site support of forces.
    Bundeswehr-wide measures get 1906 military plus 767 civilian posts for "internal optimization", whatever that means.

    * offhand i think each Bn in the Army and SKB only have one command post active and a second cadred - which would be activated now.
    ** MAD is the Army's internal intelligence service. It'll be enlarged by over 10%, about the amount it lost in posts in the last ten years. Current focus of the MAD is on islamist tendencies of soldiers as there are currently 29 former Bundeswehr soldiers fighting for various factions in Syria and Iraq, including IS.
    Last edited by kato; 11 May 16, at 18:27.

  6. #51
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Mar 08
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    LITPOLUKRBRIG HQ is Lublin.
    Ah, thank you.

    I wonder if those four battalions (2 US, one German, one UK) in the Baltics and Poland will become four brigades by 2020 (or at least planned to)? Those things often tend to grow once you put them in.

  7. #52
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,716
    Upto NATO meeting in July (Warsawa 'summit'). Obama currently refuses to have permanent bases east of Germany ("provocative" etc) and will only go with rotation, thus all CEE nations, even the Bulgarians, are currently undertaking long term (or urgent in the case of Ukraine) military overhauls which are coordinated (or supposed to be) by a joint committee with NATO representation. The missile shield went active today in Romania.

  8. #53
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    Unlike things really change before July the German contribution in Lithuania will consist of a headquarters company for troops that will be rotated into the country. With combat companies from other NATO members.
    It should be noted in this regard that between 5000 and 6000 Bundeswehr soldiers are deployed to Eastern NATO annually for training during 15-20 maneuvers. And not just in the last year, before that too. Hidden persistent presence and all that.

  9. #54
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,716
    From the German perspective, a number of unresolved questions exist that should be answered before Berlin takes decisions to expand its participation in NATO missile defence.

    From the security perspective the threat analysis needs to be clarified. At the moment, there are different opinions about what NATO intends to defend against. It must also be asked whether the successful implementation of the Iran agreement would not offer sufficient reason to re-evaluate the scope and timeframe of the project.

    From the military perspective, the performance of the system should be assessed from different perspectives. Experience has already been gathered with intercepting short-range missiles. Defence against medium-range and intermediate-range missiles has only been tested in a handful of cases, and these were rarely based on realistic conditions. In this context, it is also important to ask to what extent Germany and other European NATO allies would be included in decisions to deploy or use missile defence systems in times of peace or crisis. Finally, in terms of including German frigates in the system, the possible negative impact on the German navy’s overall operational capability needs to be taken into account.

    From the alliance perspective, it should be considered whether and how NATO allies can better reconcile the different objectives associated with the creation of a missile defence system. The difficult process of deciding to deploy – and later withdraw – Patriot systems from Turkey is an indication of negative consequences differences over missile defences could have for the alliance’s cohesion. In particular, the question needs to be asked what influence Europe would have on the possible use of such capabilities in times of crisis.


    How is Chamberlain?

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    It's more Stanley Baldwin.

    Unless you mean towards the other side?

  11. #56
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    3,716
    Who's side is Germany on? All this meaningless waffle regarding missile shields indicates to me that you have not decided. I wear the armour and you the gown.

  12. #57
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    kato,

    Then what you are saying is that NATO has lost its relevancy and Donald Trump is right?

    It sure looks that way.

    As for the US decision not to place permanent bases east of Germany...we are facing our own downsize of forces. We simply don't have enough to go around to be stationed permanently forward. Not to mention to cost the US would have to incur to build the required infrastructure that would be needed.

    I don't think the American taxpayer is willing to pay for that...especially in light of the trends.

    http://www.janes.com/article/42685/a...efence-budgets

    I want to be clear. I am for a strong US presence within a strong NATO. I know NATO goes beyond military into the political and economic realms as well. But there has to be more than one hand on the oar.
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  13. #58
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Then what you are saying is that NATO has lost its relevancy
    I've been saying that - including here - for years. Of course it's not a black/white affair though. NATO has lost relevancy, but it is obviously not irrelevant.

    On the security politics side, for Germany, the European Union has largely replaced NATO functionally where applicable. NATO remains relevant to Germany only in a limited scope; for the most part it is seen as only a military alliance without any need to go beyond that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/...014C36_mlg.pdf

  14. #59
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,138
    kato, I could not open the link.

    I assume it tells me that the Bundeswehr has increased spending. Good.

    I was trying to prove my overall point on why we do not want to build permanent facilities in the East.

    So do you advocate that we pull out and leave Europe to the EU? Not snarky...serious question.
    "The genius of you Americans is that you make no clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing." - Gamal Abdel Nasser

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,570
    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    I assume it tells me that the Bundeswehr has increased spending. Good.
    Nah, it's a 2014 analysis by SWP that NATO should abandon such (US) demands as the 2% GDP target on military spending and instead focus spending debates on efficiency and a more holistic view on NATO capacities provided by member nations.

    Basically, it - openly - accuses Greece of inefficient defense spending, the various Eastern European nations of not providing the necessary backbone to their single-focus militaries for alliance operations and certain large-military NATO member nations (read: Poland) of not contributing to the alliance.

    SWP further pushes for framework nation contexts on alliance capabilities - forming NATO sub-groups - similar to the Visegrad group btw, and certain Western European nations - the UK, Germany, probably at some point France - taking over lead roles in such regional sub-groups. To some extent Germany is realizing this through bilateral cooperation frameworks with the Netherlands and to some extent other nations like Austria.

    The above PDF probably downloadable from here: http://www.swp-berlin.org/en/publica..._die_nato.html
    (wait a few seconds for the site to load)

    As for the Bundeswehr's budget - we just raised it another 4% this year. Like about every year. Except for the last two years we've had a zero-deficit budget - and our budgets are slim.
    Defense is currently about 10.8% of the German government's budget, which amounts to about 500 Euro per citizen (with 4000 Euro per citizen spent otherwise by the gov). In the USA defense amounts to about 1700 Euro per citizen, for comparison (with 9000 Euro per citizen spent otherwise by the gov, including 1200 Euro that the gov doesn't have). The really interesting thing in that is that when you subtract those 1200 from those 1700 you get... the exact same 500.

    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    So do you advocate that we pull out and leave Europe to the EU? Not snarky...serious question.
    That's a bit of a hen-egg-problem. The EU does not particularly focus on its military alliance component (which exists, especially since the EU swallowed the WEU military alliance) precisely because NATO is in place. If the WEU still existed in parallel - as a European defensive military alliance providing equal or closer ties than NATO, as it did - then I could see NATO being easily reduced to a mere bilateral mutual defense agreement between this European alliance and a hypothetical US/Canadian group. Things were pointing that way before.

    "Pull out" is a relative thing. To use Bush terms: New Europe depends on you. Old Europe doesn't. The difference being that Old Europe used to be in the WEU, and has other options in place...
    Last edited by kato; 13 May 16, at 17:05.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •