May. 16, 2013 - By NICK LEE-FRAMPTON - Defense News

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND — New Zealand’s spending on defense is little changed from the NZ $2.9 billion (then US $2.2 billion) for 2012-2013 to NZ $2.87 billion for 2013-2014.

The details, announced in the May 16 budget, include a marked reduction in spending on the Royal New Zealand Navy, a decrease in the Army’s budget and a modest increase for the Royal New Zealand Air Force.

Funding for the Navy drops from NZ $662 million to just under NZ $600 million.

Spending on the Army falls from NZ $845 million to NZ $810 million while the Air Force enjoys a surge from NZ $790 million to just over NZ $803 million.

However, there are rises and falls within all three services. For example, the Navy’s budget for the patrol force (including two offshore and four inshore patrol vessels) rises from NZ$126 million to NZ $131 million. The joint funding for the fleet tanker and the amphibious support ship Canterbury is raised from NZ $100 million to NZ $110 million.

At the same time, the littoral warfare support budget, which includes mine countermeasures, is reduced and the fiscal support for the Navy’s two Anzac-class frigates drops from NZ $338 million to NZ $325 million.

Reflecting New Zealand’s withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, the allocation for operationally deployed forces tumbles from NZ $65 million to just NZ $27.6 million.

The allowance for land combat support forces (which includes artillery, engineers and communications) is slightly reduced, whereas funding for Special Operations Forces is boosted from NZ $80 million to NZ $87 million.

The Air Force’s helicopters, the NH90s and A109s of 3 Squadron, enjoy an increase from NZ $221 million to NZ $246 million, while the naval helicopter force of Kaman Seasprites also shows a slight increase, from NZ $86 million to NZ $91 million.

The Air Force’s RNZAF’s fleet of six P-3K2 Orions, officially titled the Airborne Surveillance and Response Force, enjoys a marked increase in funds from NZ $182 million to almost NZ $203 million.

The Ministry of Defence is allocated more funds, too, rising from NZ $164 million to NZ $241 million.

20 May 2013 Defense Studies

The Royal Thai Navy will ask the cabinet to approve a budget of 13 billion baht for a new frigate to be built by a South Korean shipyard.

Navy chief Adm Surasak Rounroengrom said the Royal Thai Armed Forces Headquarters is scrutinising the budget proposal and later will forward it to the Ministry of Defence. Once approved, it will be submitted to the cabinet for consideration, he said.

A navy source said the navy had set up several sub-committees to coordinate with the Korea-based shipbuilding and offshore contractor.

A navy selection committee last month chose Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering to build the new frigate, a navy source said.

The company was one of two South Korean firms in the final round of bidding, organised by the navy panel.

Three other three foreign firms were eliminated in the previous rounds - from Spain, Italy and China.

The source said the high-capability frigate to be built by Daewoo would be based on the company’s type DX II frigate, which has a displacement of 5,000 tonnes, with modifications to meet the Thai navy’s special requirements.

The new navy ship will have a displacement of between 3,000 and 4,000 tonnes.  

Navy chief of staff Chakchai Phucharoenyot, who chaired the selection committee, earlier told the media the navy also asked the company to install a Combat Management System (CMS) which can be allied to the systems already installed in the frigates HTMS Naresuan and HTMS Taksin.

The new frigate, which would be the first South Korean-built naval vessel in the Thai fleet, is expected to be ready for commissioning in two years, Adm Chakchai said.

(Bangkok Post)

May 20, 2013 By Ross Babbage - Flashpoints

Is Australia’s new submarine program being driven by careful assessments of the country’s future defense strategy or more by short-term electoral considerations? This is a key question leading up to Australia’s national elections on September 14.

The Labor Party government revealed back in May 2012 that it had ruled out the option of a nuclear-powered submarine and commissioned detailed assessments of four conventionally-powered options:

-       An existing off-the-shelf foreign design.

-       A modified off-the-shelf foreign  design

-       An evolved Collins-class design

-       Development of a completely new submarine design in Australia.

Then, when Prime Minister Gillard released the 2013 Australian Defense White Paper on May 3, she announced she’d narrowed the options to the last two. The prime minister also confirmed her commitment to purchase 12 new submarines, which she said would be assembled in South Australia.  In addition, she revealed that the government had commissioned the development of a land-based facility to enable the full-scale testing of submarine propulsion, system integration and support services.

In order to provide sufficient time for this process of design, testing, construction and commissioning, the Minister for Defense, Stephen Smith revealed that the six existing Collins-Class submarines would be extended until at least 2038. No plans were released for the maintenance and upgrading of the Collins Class boats, nor estimates of the costs of operating these boats for 45 and possibly even 50 years.

In light of these developments, what are the main issues now confronting Australia’s new submarine program?

First, it should be noted that there is a strong prospect that the Australian government will change following the national elections in September and that the decisions announced in this month’s White Paper may not be sustained. The opposition parties have announced that if they return to government they will review all defense policies and publish a new White Paper within 18 months.

Second, whoever is in government during the next three years will be choosing the nature of the new submarine program at a time when the regional strategic environment is changing markedly. The most important shift is the substantial growth in China’s military capability and its assertiveness in a number of regional disputes. The Chinese defense budget has risen an average 14 percent annually during the last fifteen years, the PLA-Navy has launched some 50 new submarines since 1995 and Chinese cyber, intelligence and maritime operations have been widespread and deeply intrusive. Most of Australia’s allies and friends in Asia are worried and working to strengthen their defenses. United States and allied dominance of the Western Pacific can no longer be assured in the medium term. Moreover, in contrast to the Cold War, the focus of superpower competition is not on the other side of the world, but in Australia’s backyard.

These developments have fundamental implications for Australian defense strategy and for what prudence dictates the Australian Defense Forces should operate in the 2030-2060 timeframe. All Australian governments will prefer to focus on encouraging positive political and security partnerships with China, North Korea, India, Indonesia and other regional powers. However, given the continuing shift in the strategic balance, defense planners cannot overlook the possibility that in some future contingencies Australia might be subjected to serious coercion and even attack.

In these circumstances, Australian defense planners need to think deeply about the strategy they would employ if the country were directly challenged. Some commentators argue that Australia should focus on small, relatively inexpensive submarines that in a crisis could attempt to mount a barrier defense in Australia’s immediate approaches. The main problems with this strategy are that such a barrier defense would always be porous and it would not force a coercive major power to halt its attacks.

If the Australian Government wishes to have a strong capacity to deter and dissuade a major power, it needs to invest in more than barrier defenses. It needs the capacity to reach out at great distance and threaten targets that the opposing side’s decision-makers value most. Australia, as a non-nuclear weapon state, has only a few options for applying strong strategic leverage (and deterrence) over a long range. Powerful submarines, strong cyber capabilities, advanced air and special force strike capabilities and combined operations with the United States are the primary options.

This logic confers a special strategic importance to Australia’s submarine choice. The new submarines are not just another military capability. While transport aircraft, armored vehicles and supply ships all have important roles to play in the Australian Defense Force, they cannot generate the strategic leverage and the deterrence power of advanced long-range submarines. The types of submarines and associated underwater systems the next Australian cabinet selects will give the country a strong deterrent and leverage in future serious crises, or they will preclude it from having the necessary capacity to use underwater forces to defend Australia with anything but a porous barrier defense.

In the context of this strategic logic there are, unfortunately, no simple, easy or low cost options for a new class of submarines. The off-the-shelf European boats may appear to be relatively cheap but they fall far short of Australia’s operational needs. They are too small, their payload is too limited and their range and time on station is too short. They cannot easily be refitted with the advanced US-supplied combat data and other systems that are already fitted to the Collins boats. Hence they would not be easy to integrate into Australian or allied operations.

The evolved Collins option would provide a much larger submarine, with greater range, endurance and weapon loads. The evolved Collins would also provide a substantial boost to Australian industry. This option would come at a much higher cost and carry availability risk as the first of these boats would probably not be available until 2035.

The option of a completely new design submarine would permit the development and production of an even larger submarine – almost certainly the largest conventionally-powered submarine in the world. This option would place the greatest pressure on Australian industry. These boats would be optimized for long-range, long endurance operations but they would entail acceptance of even higher costs and higher levels of risk. New design boats would also take longer to design, develop and build with the first vessel probably not being commissioned until about 2038.

As with the evolved Collins option, these boats would also be “orphan” submarines in the sense that they would not be operated by any other navy and Australia would need to carry the very substantial design authority and other overhead costs for the full life of the class.

Some commentators have assumed that there is no penalty for Australia in proceeding slowly and cautiously with this program. The problem with this relaxed approach is that the Collins boats are wasting assets that are losing their technological advantage and growing much more costly to maintain. The Collins Class already imposes prohibitive costs on the budget to maintain and these are likely to continue growing. This raises the serious possibility that Australia may not be able to operate a credible submarine force through most of the 2020s and 2030s. Attempting to extend the life of the Collins boats is like trying to maintain a 1993 vintage racing car and expecting it to routinely win races until it is phased out of service in 2038 or 2045. This stretches credulity.

What Australia really needs is a class of large submarines that have been fully proven in another navy, are currently in series production and can perform all of the tasks that the Australian Government requires with low risk and high reliability. This submarine force needs to be available at a comparable cost to the evolved Collins and new design options and capable of operating seamlessly with United States forces. The first of Australia’s new submarines should also be available for commissioning within a decade.

Remarkably, there is a class of submarines that meets all of these requirements well; the United States Virginia Class. The only problem is that like the United States, Britain, Russia, France, China, India and Brazil, Australia would need to accommodate itself to operating submarines with nuclear propulsion.

Ross Babbage is Founder of the Kokoda Foundation and Managing Director of Strategy International (ACT) Pty Ltd.

21 mai 2013. Guysen News International

La Corée du Sud a déployé des dizaines de lance-missiles antichars israéliens de type Spike, (dits missiles Tamouz en Israël) achetés à la compagnie sécuritaire Rafael, à la frontière nord-coréenne, indique un responsable militaire sud-coréen officiel cité par l’agence Yonhap. Ces missiles chargés de protéger la frontière, ont été déployés dans les îles de Baengnyeong et de Yeonpyeong. Ils peuvent toucher l’artillerie du littoral nord-coréen. « Des dizaines de missiles peuvent détruire les infrastructures souterraines de Pyongyang et toucher des cibles mobiles », a ajouté ce responsable militaire.

21 May 2013 By Kang Seung-woo (Korea Times) – Pacific Sentinel

21 May 2013 By Joshua Lipes (RFA) – Pacific Sentinel

North Korea fired two projectiles into the ocean Monday, according to South Korean officials, defying warnings from the United Nations to refrain from escalating regional tensions after a series of launches over the weekend.

The South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) confirmed the firings from two locations on North Korea’s east coast, Agence France-Presse reported, adding that it was unclear whether the tests involved guided missiles or rockets from multiple launchers.

“North Korea launched two projectiles on Monday—one in the morning and the other in the afternoon," a JCS spokesman said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Monday’s launches were the sixth by North Korea in three days, after firing three missiles on Saturday and one on Sunday, all of which fell into the Sea of Japan—also known as the East Sea.

Some reports referred to the launched projectiles as missiles.

The two projectiles fired on Monday followed similar trajectories as the four previous launches over the weekend, officials at both the JCS and South Korean Defense Ministry said.

The weekend launches had drawn condemnation from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who warned Sunday of a “dangerous escalation” on the Korean Peninsula and urged Pyongyang to refrain from further actions.

Ban called for North Korea to return to negotiations in order to lower tensions in the region, which he said had heightened the risk of dangerous miscalculation.

South’s reaction

South Korea on Monday urged North Korea to stop firing missiles, saying that the launchings were raising tensions, regardless of whether they were intended to test new weapons or to demonstrate Pyongyang’s firepower.

The North's state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on Monday quoted an information bulletin by Pyongyang’s Secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea which angrily responded to criticism of what it called a “regular military exercise to bolster up the country's defense capability.”

It dismissed calls to end its launches as “another unpardonable challenge to [North Korea] and an undisguised provocation driving the situation on the Korean Peninsula to an extreme phase.”

North Korea has accused South Korea and the U.S. of escalating tensions on the peninsula following a series of small- and large-scale joint military drills in recent months which have featured nuclear-capable B2 stealth bombers and the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz.

Routine launch?

Test launches of short-range missiles by North Korea are fairly routine. The North last launched two such missiles into the sea in March.

Andrei Lankov, a North Korea expert at Kookmin University in Seoul, told RFA’s Korean Service that the recent launches were “nothing unusual.”

“The North Koreans have done it many times in the past, and are likely to do it again and again,” he said.

“Like any military force, the North Korean armed forces need to test their weapons and train their soldiers.”

He said that short-range missiles with conventional warheads “do not constitute any significant threat” and that the tests were likely not an attempt to draw attention from Washington or Seoul.

“If they need more tension, they are likely to resort to their old tactics of tension-building: bellicose rhetoric and, perhaps, long-range missile launches and nuclear tests,” Lankov said.

“Frankly, this seems to be much ado about nothing.”

Pyongyang launched a long-range rocket in December and conducted its third nuclear test in February.

Both tests were in violation of international sanctions that ban North Korea from developing missile or nuclear technology, prompting the U.N. Security Council to adopt even tougher measures against the country in March.

Pyongyang began issuing vitriolic war rhetoric after the new sanctions were imposed, raising ominous prospects of a nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula.

Earlier launches

North Korea has launched five long-range missiles or rockets over the past seven years and last December placed a satellite in orbit.

Pyongyang claimed the satellite was part of peaceful research, but critics said the launch amounted to a banned ballistic missile test that marked a major advance for the North's illicit nuclear weapons program.

Following Monday’s launches, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei called for the full implementation of relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions against its ally North Korea and called for dialogue in order to maintain peace and stability on the peninsula.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said at a news conference on Monday that North Korea had not “formally” breached any U.N. Security Council resolutions by test-firing short-range missiles over the last few days.

But he urged calm for the region and called for the resumption of aid-for-disarmament talks between the two Koreas, United States, China, Russia and Japan.

15 May 2013 Ministry of Defence

Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring is gearing up for a wide-ranging deployment to the Far East and beyond.

The air defence warship will demonstrate the Navy’s global reach during the nine-month deployment which includes contributing to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific, conducting science and technology trials in the Pacific, and representing the UK in Exercise Bersama Lima – part of the Five Power Defence Arrangements annual programme of exercises in the region.

The deployment will also allow Daring and her 190 crew to represent the UK at high-profile celebrations to mark the 100th anniversary of the Royal Australian Navy.

A series of port visits is also lined up for the warship to conduct regional defence engagement.

HMS Daring’s Commanding Officer, Commander Angus Essenhigh, said:

This exciting deployment will do much to build on existing alliances, establish and strengthen new relationships, and contribute to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific – a region in which Britain has historic trade and security links.

We will also remain ready to react to contingent operations should they arise.

HMS Daring will leave her home port of Portsmouth on 27 May.

SEOUL, 17 mai 2013 marine-oceans.com (AFP)

La Corée du Nord possèderait deux fois plus de lanceurs mobiles de missiles qu'estimé jusqu'à présent par le renseignement sud-coréen, révèle un rapport militaire publié vendredi par l'agence de presse Yonhap.

Pyongyang aurait ainsi 50 lanceurs de missiles de moyenne portée et 150 lanceurs de missiles de courte portée, et non pas 94 au total comme le pensait Séoul, croit savoir le Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA).

Selon cet organisme d'Etat, le Pentagone dispose des mêmes informations.

Un responsable de la défense américaine a indiqué début mai que le Nord avait retiré deux missiles de son site de lancement sur la côte est du pays dans un contexte de décrue des tensions sur la péninsule.

Tokyo et Séoul avaient accru leur défense antimissiles tandis que l'armée américaine avait déployé deux destroyers équipés d'armes antimissiles et de puissants radars pour contrer un possible lancement.

La péninsule coréenne a connu une de ses pires crises depuis plusieurs années, déclenchée par le tir réussi d'une fusée nord-coréenne en décembre et un 3e essai nucléaire en février auxquels la communauté internationale a répliqué par de nouvelles sanctions, entraînant la colère de Pyongyang.

16 May 2013 Pacific Sentinel

• The trucks will be used across the whole NZDF.
• Three sizes of truck will be purchased: 6 tonne 4x4, 9 tonne 6x6 and 15 tonne 8x8.
• The 6 tonne trucks have 240Kw engines, while the 6x6 and 8x8 variants have 324Kw engines. All engines are Euro 4 emissions compliant, which is the highest level that still allows efficient operations even if the fuel is of lower quality (such as might be found on operations).
• All trucks are fitted with high capacity electrical systems to future proof them for developments in communications and other electronic systems. They are all fitted with air conditioning to maximise crew efficiency in a wide range of temperatures..
• Variants to be purchased include trucks fitted with winches and cranes to allow completely independent operations, dump trucks, trucks fitted with specialised pallet and container handling equipment, and tractor/semi-trailer combinations to carry heavy vehicles and equipment.
• Specific components, including semi-trailers and dumper bodies, will be made in New Zealand.
• Although the trucks meet military requirements, over 80% of their components are used by civilian MAN vehicles. This commonality will allow for readily available maintenance support to the vehicles.
• Five training vehicles are arriving soon and will allow drivers and mechanics to train and qualify on the vehicles prior to the main fleet arriving.

2013-05-15 CRI

Ces derniers jours, l'information selon laquelle le premier porte-avions chinois, baptisé Liaoning, est prêt à larguer les amarres pour un voyage en haute mer a fait l'objet de l'attention des différents milieux. Avec la création officielle de la première force aérienne embarquée, il y a des analyses qui estiment que la Chine est en train d'accélérer le perfectionnement de la formation du groupe de combat du porte-avions et que le voyage en haute mer du Liaoning est entré au compte au rebours. Selon des experts militaires chinois, le Liaoning entreprendra en forme de flotte son premier voyage en haute mer et le genre des avions embarqués mérite plus d'attention que leur nombre.

Récemment, une série de photos et images du porte-avions, de son port d'attache et de la base des avions embarqués, révélés par des médias, ont fait faire des conjectures au monde extérieur. Le Liaoning effectuerait son voyage en haute mer et la durée pourrait atteindre un mois. Même certains médias estiment que ce premier voyage en haute mer s'effecturait en forme d'une flotte. Et peu auparavant, le porte-parole du ministère chinois de la Défense, Yang Yujun, avait déclaré que le porte-avions ne doit pas rester toujours dans son port d'attache. Le commissaire politique de ce porte-avions, Mei Wen avait aussi révélé que ce dernier entreprendait son voyage en haute mer en cours d'année. Et maintenant avec la création de la force aérienne embarquée à bord de porte-avions et l'amélioration des conditions techniques, il semble que le premier voyage en haute mer du Liaoning commencera.

Le professeur Fang Bing de l'Université de la Défense de Chine a estimé que la principale tâche de ce voyage en haute mer est de tester les divers équipements embarqués à bord de porte-avions et de pratiquer des expériences de décollage et d'atterissage effectifs des chasseurs J-15 embarqués dans des conditions de mer complexes. Cette sorte d'expériences sera plus importante que les armements pour la marine chinoise. Ecoutons M. Fang Bing :

« Si le Liaoning entreprenait son voyage en haute mer, ses principales tâches seraient d'abord d'essais, puis de l'entraînement. Pour les essais, ils consistent à tester sur le terrain les équipements embarqués dont les armes, les radars et les sonars, ainsi que les différents systèmes embarqués pour connaître leurs performances réelles. En outre, des essais réels en haute mer de décollage et d'atterissage des chasseurs J-15 et d'autres appareils nous permettraient de connaître leurs résultats. Pour l'entraînement, il s'agit des exercices d'étude. On va étudier l'organisation des exercices de décollage et d'atterrissage des appareils en haute mer, la coopération et coordination entre le porte-avions et d'autres bâtiments de guerre en haute mer. Je pense que par ces exercices en haute mer, on pourrait accumuler des expériences qui sont, pour la marine chinoise, plus importantes que le porte-avions et les appareils. »

Tout le monde sait que le niveau des appareils embarqués sont le principal symbole du niveau des armements du porte-avions. La capacité de combat des appareils embarqués détermine directement l'efficacité de combat du groupe de combat du porte-avions. Selon l'expert militaire Fang Bing, le nombre d'avions embarqués à bord du porte-avions Liaoning pour son premier voyage en haute mer n'est pas une chose importante, ce qui mérite attention, c'est le genre d'appareils embarqués à bord de ce porte-parole.

« Le nombre d'avions embarqués à bord du porte-avions n'est pas important, c'est pace qu'il s'agit en effet du premier voyage en haute mer du porte-avions. Selon moi, ce qui est important, c'est que le porte-avions pourrait sortir avec tous les genres d'avions. Il y aurait non seulement des appareils aux ailes fixes, mais aussi des hélicoptères embarqués. Parmi les appareils aux ailes fixes, il y aurait des chasseurs J-15 et des avions d'entraînement. En outre, parmi les hélicoptères embarqués, en plus d'hélicoptères anti-sous-marains, y a-t-il d'autres types d'hélicoptères ? par exemple des hélicoptères de sauvetage et surtout des hélicoptère pré-alarme. Si tous les genres d'appareils pourraient être embarqués, les facteurs nécessaires du groupe de combat du futur porte-avions seront complets. En tout cas, je trouve que la variété des appareils est plus importante que le nombre des appareils. »

May 16, 2013 ASDNews Source : The Boeing Company

    Indian Navy to receive 2 more P-8Is by end of 2013

    1st Boeing P-8I Maritime Patrol Aircraft Arrives in India

The first Boeing [NYSE: BA] P-8I long-range maritime reconnaissance and anti-submarine warfare aircraft arrived today, on schedule, at India Naval Station Rajali. The P-8I is one of eight aircraft Boeing is building for India as part of a contract awarded in 2009. 

“Boeing is proud to deliver this advanced aircraft to meet the Indian Navy’s unique maritime patrol requirements,” said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft. “The P-8I team, which includes our customer and Indian suppliers, has done a fantastic job working together, and we’re on track to deliver the next two P-8I aircraft later this year."

16.05.2013 par Philippe CHAPLEAU Lignes de Défense

On connaissait 13 à la douzaine. Voici la version australo-eurocopteresque: l'Australie avait commandé 46 exemplaires du MRH-90, une version de l'hélicoptère de transport européen NH-90. Trois ans de retard et quelques tensions entre le ministère de la Défense australien et Australian Aerospace, la filiale locale d'Eurocopter, ont failli déboucher sur un/des procès. Pour faire passer la pilule, le constructeur a décidé de donner un 47e exemplaire, gratuit! Beau geste!

On devrait exiger la même chose avec l'A400. Au pro rata des années de retard bien sûr.