Economist article: "Defence spending in a time of austerity"

.

Yet another noteworthy article, this time a recent one:

"Defence spending in a time of austerity

The chronic problem of exorbitantly expensive weapons is becoming acute"

The Economist

(The F-35 may still appear to stay below the trend,

but we'll see how that turns out in the next years.)

.

An old quote that still worries me

.

Germany has sixteen state and one federal secret service for the monitoring of domestic threats to the constitutional order. The literal translation of these agencies' names would sound like "Constitution protector".

They observe far left parties, far right parties and if I remember correctly also some sects and a bit organised crime. I really only care about the observation of extremist parties, though.

There was (admittedly, back in May) an article about the observation of the Linke, the German socialist party (which has few per cent seats in most parliaments here) and how representatives of that party decry this observation as politically motivated. The protest points at the many laws passed by mainstream party state and federal governments in Germany which didn't pass a check of the respective constitutional courts. Their conclusion; the government parties should be observed, for they violate the constitution.

Well, both sides have their point and honestly, I'd like to see whether we couldn't do without such domestic political spying.

The response of a Bavarian politician in an interview was worrying. He said

„Auch die Forderung, Deutschland solle aus der Nato austreten, beweist, dass die Beobachtung weiter sinnvoll ist.“

("The demand that Germany should leave the Nato also proves that the observation stays meaningful.")

source: Welt.de

Sorry, this is no reason for suspecting anti-constitutional tendencies at all.

The German constitution allows for the membership in such an alliance, but it doesn't demand membership in NATO and NATO is actually disposable for Germany's national security due to the Lisbon Treaty.

Germany is a sovereign country that can leave NATO if it wishes and that would not be the tiniest bit counter-constitutional.

I understand that a very right wing party's (in the German spectrum; in the U.S. political spectrum they would at most be a moderate Republicans) representative prefers a far left wing party to be labelled as possibly counter-constitutionalist, but said left-wing party has a point: The CSU itself has its own issues with the constitution, especially the federal one. The NATO-related point on the other hand was nothing but an embarrassment for its user.

Sven Ortmann

P.S.: 31 posts in a 31-day month. Don't expect me to keep this pace, I had a few free weeks this month.

.

Military procurement lessons (re)learned of the last decades

.

The series of procurement disasters around the world is long and impressive. Projects lasted far to long (some lasted for three decades), busted their budget badly, produced mediocre or unsafe equipment, didn't meet the forces' real needs, were cancelled after high R&D costs or a combination of several such failures.

It's astonishing that the problem isn't under control, for the lessons were learned and could be implemented:

* No cost-plus contracts that motivate the supplier to bust the original budget.

* Neutral yet competent cost estimates are necessary because pro-program persons and institutions downplay (lie about)  the costs.

* No political decision to stretch a program, for this increases the cost more than lending money for a timely program execution.

* Program managers need be loyal to the taxpayer, not to their project.

* Program managers need to be held responsible for (lack of) performance.

* Research and development need to be separated to keep technology risks down and avoid costly delays.

* The armed service needs to have the (technical) competence to define what it needs.

* Do not force multiple armed services to agree on a "joint" product. At least don't let them believe that they might get a custom development just for their service if there was no joint project. This never works out well.

* Do not allow "upgrades" that come close to the cost of a new product.

* Do not stare at the modernity of the product at the beginning of its operational service. Look at the average modernity over its lifetime. It may be better to replace mediocre products more often than to buy one super product and stick with it for a decade after its obsolescence.

* Small development cost items should be developed with industry capital.

* Off-the shelf products very often meet or exceed the requirements and should be bought.

* The state must not become soft and grant waivers over the original contract (build a tough reputation by enforcing contracts).

* Good contracts and requirements coupled with a tough procurement stance on the same allow for a very lax project supervision that doesn't burden the supplier with paperwork.

* Development requirements creep needs to be mostly avoided, this can be pone by requiring very high-level agreement for every change of requirements during a development project.

* Block special interests.

* Do not develop a product if you need only small quantities and could buy something off the shelf.

* "Perfect is the enemy of good."

* Do not allow your supplier to treat you as a low-priority customer. The taxpayer's interests deserve above-average engineers and priority!

* Do not allow suppliers to misunderstand the defence budget for a subsidy pool.

* Do not develop a major product in cooperation with the French. They will bail out once it becomes irrefutable that the product won't be "100% Made in France".

* Punish low performance of bidders in previous contracts by giving contracts to their competition.

* Do not encourage industrial concentration in mega corporations.

* Break up mega corporations with a competition protection act or by pressuring them to disintegrate into cooperating yet fully independent companies by withholding contracts.

* Last 10% of performance causes 30% of the costs, so KISS (keep it simple, stupid).

* Early development phase fixates 80% of costs (total development, per unit), so get it right soon.

* Think in the long term. Don't muddle through all the time, dare to standardise ideal calibres and vehicle families even if that's in contrast with existing inventories.

* Don't launch a development project if the future availability of funds for full development and production is questionable.

* Do not combine an whole army reform program into a bundle of development projects. Launch a development project for the link instead (communication standard and hardware).

* Do not allow fashions to take over your R&D department. Chase the proponents of fashions that violate common sense out of the ministry.

* Quality is overemphasized in peacetime, quantity is essential in wartime. Do not allow designs that are not affordable in quantity.

* Do not overemphasize platforms over ammunitions, spare parts and training funds.

* Use clear and honest information when informing parliament and public, do not misguide and conceal with 6+ definitions of "cost" or other trickery.

* Avoid one-trick ponies. Versatility is a value in itself.

* Demand and enforce that all public servants and soldiers involved in research or development or procurement projects sign a commitment with a huge contract penalty that keeps them from working directly or indirectly for the industry. Relieve those who reject it.

* Agree with the major opposition party if you're about to launch a development  & procurement project that is despite observing all these rules still expected to last longer than your government coalition.

I wrote this list in 30 minutes without dedicated research, just out of my memory. The lessons learned are really obvious. There are only two explanations for why military procurement efforts are still so often a mess: Incompetence and evil.
It looks to me as if politicians don't do their job, followed by lower ranks mixing incompetence, red tape caused by incompetence and inappropriate interests into the problem.

Any reform needs to be a top-down effort. It's therefore appropriate to hold politicians (especially minister of defence and his highest tier secretaries) responsible for every failure that began when they were in office. Such gross failures should haunt them even after their continued their political career in opposition or another office.

Sven Ortmann

.

New Vertical Axis Wind Turbine running with truck's energy!

A new kind of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine have been installed in France, near the A6 runway. It is activated by the truck's movement, wich deploy alot of energy when passing near the turbine. It is still an experimentation, but the France's governement have already invested some funds into this new wind turbine technology.

"Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?"

.

Here's another article which I cited very often, a kind of mythbuster piece:

"Who Says Dumb Artillery Rounds Can’t Kill Armor?"

By Major (Retired) George A. Durham

Field Artillery Journal, U.S.Army, Nov/Dec 2002

.(MBT demolished by indirect 155mm HE hit)

Unfree labour phantasies in German politics

.

(I'll try to keep my distaste for certain proposals and politicians well enough in check to write this piece objectively. It's a tough challenge, for sure!)

Three debates are raging  in German national politics these days;

(1) Reform of the conscription

(2) A provocative book about migrants in Germany

(3) Extending the operating periods for nuclear power plants

I'll discuss the first one (conscription is about to become suspended apparently).

Conservatives have fought hard for conscription in the 50's. A conscription-based Bundeswehr was part of the governments' Western integration grand strategy. The Bundeswehr was meant to contribute with 12 (of a total of 26) divisions for the defence of Western Europe, in Central Europe,  effectively buying Germany a place as almost normal country in the Western World (in combination European unification and reconciliation and cooperation policies with France) shortly after WW2.

It has apparently turned into a conservative party (CDU/CSU) doctrine and ideology since then, for conservatives are the most fierce defenders of conscription in Germany.

Here's an older blog post about conscription in Germany.

The most extreme and in my opinion despicable attempt to save this kind of unfree labour is a proposal of Lower Saxony's minister of the interior, Schünemann.

Nach den Vorstellungen von [...] Schünemann könnte die Dienstpflicht nicht nur in den Streitkräften, sondern auch in der Bundespolizei oder in Zivilschutzverbänden geleistet werden.

(According to the ideas of [...] Schünemann could the service not only be done in the armed forces, but also in the federal police or in civil defence organisations.)

(source: FAZ)

This would actually be legal under our constitution, but not everything that is allowed needs to be done. The constitution allows a lot, including much that Schünemann and his party would not want at all. In fact, the constitution demands plebiscites - which his party opposes fiercely.

- - - - -

The central problem is habituation.

Humans can get used to the greatest nonsense and damages.

Lean back, relax, free your mind. Imagine a world that hasn't seen conscription for generations. You should really muster your imagination and distance yourself from what you're used to.
No major power threatens our country, in fact no real power does. All is fine.

Suddenly, a politician makes his way into newspaper headlines with the idea to force our youth into unfree labour - underpaid, of course. He also wants to strip those who serve their unfree labour period in the military of some of their free speech rights.

Keep in mind; the military can easily make do without unfree labour, the federal police has never employed unfree labourers and the civil defence organisations don't need that either.

What would our reaction be?

My guess:

* We would draw parallels with the Nazis one year forced labour which they imposed on all young men. Many wouldn't hold back and call him a Nazi.

* We would point out that there's absolutely no necessity for unfree labour.

* We would point out that we want and have a free society, and unnecessary unfree labour is an assault on our civil liberties.

* We would protest as much as necessary to get this irresponsible politician gets fired from office.

Why doesn't this happen?

Simple: Germans got used to the abhorrent concept of conscription. They got used enough to it that many even tolerate it in times of no real threat whatsoever. Myths and lies have been formed and spread around conscription to defend it, the fact that almost only German-speaking country retain conscription in Europe isn't well-represented in news at all.

- - - - -

The German society is increasingly under burden of the long-term consequences of political decisions made in the 50's and 60's (and myths created in that period). This was a period of almost exclusive conservative-liberal governance and thus the conservatives stem against some reforms that would address these problems. Some problems aren't on the to-do list of any party because their roots have become so self-evident and unquestioned that  no party has an internal majority in favour of facing the issue. The export orientation and trade balance surplus is such a problem that has been turned into a strength in federal German mythology.

Conscription on the other hand is a legacy of the early Cold War and the Western integration grand strategy that keeps haunting and hurting us for no other reason than the fact that the party which fought for its introduction fights against its suspension, too.

Sven Ortmann
.

Mean maximum pressure paper

.

This is a 70's scientific paper on the mean maximum pressure (MMP) index including MMP values for historical vehicles.

http://rapidshare.com/files/414281026/Rowland.rar

It proved to be important in almost all discussions and conversations I've ever had on tracked vehicle soft surface performance.

It's just a technicality, but an interesting one.

(Grab it before Rapidshare deletes it!)

edit: new link (supposed to last longer):
http://hotfile.com/dl/65594578/4cce14e/Rowland2.rar.html

.

Schwerpunkt and "Klotzen, nicht kleckern!" - the balance problem

.

"Klotzen, nicht Kleckern! (Boot'em, don't spatter'em!) is one of many famous quotes of Guderian.It shows one example of the Clausewitzian concept of Schwerpunkt (concentrating forces to be strong enough for the decisive battle) in the art of war.

This concept is universally known and somewhat understood (there are misunderstandings!). The real challenge isn't to decide on a Schwerpunkt approach, but to balance between the Schwerpunkt and the other remaining forces.

Clausewitz understood that you need to leave a minimum of forces on duty elsewhere even while amassing forces for a decisive battle. World War battles show this very well; Reserves were sent to the location of offensives, but in fact most forces were left to guard other sections of the front line.

I mentioned Guderian, in part because he provides an interesting example for this challenge in procurement. The infantry of WW2 had great difficulties to advance against defenders on open terrain. The obvious solution was armour support, and thanks to a request/idea by von Manstein this armour support was developed in the form of the early assault gun; a normal tank with a casemate gun and high explosive grenades. Guderian opposed this, fearing for the strength of the armoured divisions; assault guns were competing for funds and production capacities.

Guderian was initially mostly successful, in this internal struggle for resources and the concentration on tanks for the fast troops instead of for infantry divisions is often cited as a superior decision of the Germans in comparison to the French decision to disperse many tanks as infantry support vehicles in 1940.

History didn't end in 1940 and neither did WW2. The actual history went on proving that assault guns were needed (and extremely successful). This was even acknowledged and understood by Guderian, whose armour branch never got enough tanks (but tank divisions were in fact partially equipped with assault guns late in the war) anyway.

The optimisation problem is evident: Back in 1940 the decisive action was the armoured spearhead in the centre an it needed almost all armoured strength. The infantry divisions didn't need to advance much for early operational success. The circumstances were different in 1942-1945 and required a difference balance.

"Klotzen, nicht kleckern!" is a maxim, but maxims must not replace thinking. Maximisation and minimisation are rarely the best idea; we should always strive for optimisation.

- - - - -

The Western forces of the 60's to 90's had a very important balance problem as well. They had to balance between "line" divisions (equivalent to the vast majority of German WW2 divisions, the infantry divisions) and the mobile operational strike forces (equivalent to the few armoured & motorised German divisions of WW2). Eventually, the former atrophied and the latter formed almost the whole for Western forces. The operational consequences of having no forces to establish and maintain a somewhat stable line were probably never understood.

The new post-2003 forces of Western nations have partially evolved away from this problem, as even the armoured forces (supposedly "Cold War dinosaurs") atrophied, leaving us mostly with support troops, the traditional strength of light infantry (mountain, airborne) and some motorised infantry.

We were lucky that the imbalance of the previous generation of forces was never truly tested and exposed in war. Let's hope that we'll be lucky enough to never see the present imbalance tested seriously before we inevitably get rid of it

The Schwerpunkt concept remains valid, but it requires a good balancing in every application. Those other forces that are not focused on the supposedly decisive action are essential and must not be reduced too much.

Sven Ortmann

photo: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-139-1112-17 / Knobloch, Ludwig / CC-BY-SA
.

Guns are (apparently) very sexy!

.

... sexy enough to not even need a chick for success!

A few days ago, on 23rd, I blogged about the first heavy calibre machinegun. This particular model isn't well-documented in the WWW or in books, and I blogged about it simply because I like to point out neglected or underestimated stuff.

The blog post wasn't the normal gun documentation, though. I attempted to put the gun in context and point out how important it could have been.

This blog post followed a period of increased visitor activity which was likely caused by a few links and an improved rate of blogging on my part.

Then happened the unexpected (yes, it was still unexpected despite all my previous experiences); the machine gun text plus a link to it at the Firearms Blog pushed this blog beyond 1,000 visitors in a day for the very first time (previous record was 991). In fact, it even reached 1,065 and 1,105 visitors on two days in a row.

It's incredibly frustrating. There are so many blogs and websites about hardware around, and it' really no wonder: That's what almost the whole audience seems to want. Trying to be smart, uncover some background stuff, tactics & operational art, military history - these topics don't have remotely the same attention as simple guns, guns, guns.

If you want to start a MilBlog with many visitors simply focus on guns, tanks, aircraft, ships and bigger guns. It's a foolproof plan.

Sven Ortmann
.

A Solar Powered ToothBrush!? WHAT IS HAPPENING?

There are Solar Panels everywhere : calculators, cell phones, etc. Now they are talking about developping some Solar Generated cloths! When will we stop this none sense? This is anything but ecologic, since all these gadgets will be throw away to the garbage in less than 5 years! If you think that a Solar Panel has a lifetime of more than 20 years, this is a total waste! Do I have to remind you that solar panels are made with alliminium, silicone and silicium? We don't want these to go in our garbages! When will they try to convince us that a Solar Powered ToothBrush is ecological? Please tell us what you think about this matter.

A British satire on military procurement

.

A very funny (albeit a bit old) British satire:


.

Roman multi tool

.

The "Roman Swiss Army Knife" multi tool exhibit received some attention early this year. It is a piece of great metal working (reminds me a bit of a Roman lock I saw in a German museum).

It's a good reminder for those interested in military history: Our knowledge of history is very fragmentary. Descriptions of historical societies and organisations tend to underestimate the capabilities and complexities that were achieved long before our times.

One example: An old mine was discovered somewhere in the Mediterranean region years ago (forgot the location). The people who found it believed that it was a 18th century mine because of the elaborate water pump system. It turned out to be almost two thousand years old.

Military historians can easily underestimate complexities because of our merely fragmentary understanding of earlier military forces. The bow is such an example. Mongol and even more so Janissary bows were very advanced (the contemporary English longbow is primitive by comparison) and archery was an art at a much higher level than for example a modern basic military training.

All Janissaries were supposed to be their own bowyer and arrow-maker (and this was achieved for many generations)! It required much training to be effective with a relatively low velocity arrow against moving man-sized targets in battle. A superficial look can easily lead to a low opinion of archers.

It's similar with the art of war. Yes, there was a low point in the art of war in Europe during the Dark Ages because of chivalry and arrogance excesses. The art of war - and especially the knowledge of ruses of war - was on the other hand quite advanced and interesting in Europe from Leuctra (371 BC) till Belisarius (560 AD) at least.

Sven Ortmann
.

Cracking down on corporate spying ! (?)

.

Germany had in the past few years a row of scandals with an identical theme: Corporations became bold enough to behave as if they were entitled to treat their employees like subjects. This concerned especially the spying on subjects, err, employees at work and in general.

This behaviour did fit well to the seemingly ever-increasing desire of the state itself to spy on the citizens.

This latter trend was stopped when the liberals joined the new federal government as junior partner. The coalition treaty between conservatives and liberals already pointed at this, and the new Minister of Justice was a strong signal that the liberals were serious (the same minister had resigned in the 90's from the same office in protest against a then new wire-tapping law).

The wait was long, but now the government even seems to attempt to turn back the trend a bit. The brazenness of the corporations was an easy target for this. The BMJ (Ministry of Justice) developed a bill to restrict such spying and surveillance.

BMJ speech transcript here.

This is good news, of course. There are some open questions, though.

I) Will this attempt to roll back extend to executive powers or will it be limited to corporate rights?

II) Will the discussion about Google Streetview discredit and distract those who fight for protection against spying too much? It looks like an utterly irrelevant and childish discussion to me.

III) Will the Merkel cabinet be able to act decisively on anything?

IV) Some laws of the aforementioned trend were enacted when conservatives were in power. Can they back-paddle?



Sven Ortmann
.

Guttenberg's five proposals

.

(Disclosure: My opinion on conscription.)

The German Minister of Defence v.Guttenberg has offered five proposals in the discussion about the conscription. He's expected to face the most resistance from his own party (the Bavarian CSU) - in part because of party politics (he's a rising star of the party and a threat to its chairman) and in part due to the dogmatic pro-conscription stance of the CDU/CSU.

Said conscription has turned into a farce because only a few ten thousand young men serve annually - and only so for six months due to the influence of the anti-conscription junior federal government coalition party (FDP, liberals).

Here are Guttenberg's five proposals:

Modell eins sieht einen Gesamtumfang von 205.000 Soldaten vor. Die Zahl der Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten wird in zwei Schritten bis 2012 auf 155.000 reduziert. Es bleibt bei 25.000 Grundwehrdienstleistenden W6 und 25.000 FWDL.
Modell zwei wäre die Radikalverkleinerung in drei Schritten bis 2013 auf 150.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten. Keine Wehrpflichtigen, keine Kurzdiener. Die Einberufungen enden 2011.

Modell drei: Ebenfalls vom kommenden Jahr an keine Einberufungen mehr, Abschmelzen in sechs Schritten bis 2016 auf 156.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten.
Modell vier: 156.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten (in sechs Schritten bis 2016) plus Freiwilligenkomponente von 7500 Kurzdienern. Guttenberg hat bereits deutlich gemacht, dass er sich auch vorstellen könne, diese Komponente auf bis zu 15.000 aufzustocken, wenn das Parlament das wünsche – ein Hinweis mit Appellcharakter an den Haushaltsausschuss.
Modell fünf mit insgesamt 210.000 Mann ähnelt Modell eins: 180.000 Berufs- und Zeitsoldaten plus 30.000 Grundwehrdienstleistende. Hier kursiert die Bewertung, dieser Ansatz wäre um zwei Milliarden Euro teurer als Modell 4.

(source: FAZ)

translation:

Model one envisions a total strength of 205,000 soldiers. The count of professional and volunteer soldiers will be reduced in two steps to 155,000 till 2012. It remains at 25,000 conscripts W6 (six months) and 25,000 extended term conscripts (conscripts who volunteered toe extend their service to up to 23 months).

Model two would be a radical shrinking in three steps  till 2013 down to 150,000 professional and volunteer soldiers. No conscripts, no short-service soldiers. The Bundeswehr would stop calling  conscripts in 2011.

Model three: Likewise no calls of conscripts beginning in 2011, reduction in six steps till 2016 down to 156,000 professional and volunteer soldiers.

Model four: 156,000 professional and volunteer soldiers (in six steps till 2016) plus volunteer component of 7,500 short service soldiers. Guttenberg has already expressed that he could expand this to 15,000 if the parliament wants it - a hint at the treasury committee.

Model five with a total of 210,000 men resembles model one: 180,000 professional and volunteer soldiers plus 30,000 conscripts. This is rumoured to be two billion Euros more expensive than model four.

(Explanation: I called those volunteers who volunteered for four (enlisted), eight (junior NCOs) or twelve  (junior officers) years. "Professional soldiers" was my translation for those NCOs and officers who either stayed in the Bundeswehr after that volunteer period or joined afterwards with needed civilian skills (such as doctors) - these continue to serve till retirement.)

It's big news that a debate about the Bundeswehr has made it into the first slot of evening TV news. Such discussions are rather rare.

The five models don't look promising, and it's most likely a waste of time to discuss them in detail for lack of detail and because they're just starting points for a discussion that's expected to last for months because Chancellor Merkel is incapable of quick decision-making (she prefers to play party politics instead of addressing issues).

The savings will likely be disappointing (model five's description already hints at it) and the impact on force structure may very well be disadvantageous. There was an expectation that new infantry units if not formations would be raised/reactivated because the parallel overseas missions have exposed the lack of light troops. This is extremely unlikely to happen in all five models.

I personally don't oppose all personnel or budget cuts for the Bundeswehr or frequent structural reforms.

Instead I'm all for doing it right: Cut the fat, reorganise to an efficient force optimised for its constitutional mission with the very low medium term level of threat and very strong alliances in mind. I fail to recognise this in the whole discussion.

Sven Ortmann
 
(photo: Bienert)

.

Breakthrough: Spray-On Solar Cell Technology : Your whole House can become a huge Solar Panel

Within the next 5 to 10 years, you may be able to coat your house (literally) in a Thin Film Solar-Cell Technology that is literally sprayed on, if Norwegian company EnSol gets its way. EnSol's power-generating spray-on film, which may hit the market as soon as 2016, can be applied on any surface--exterior walls, your fence, and even windows.

How, exactly, are you supposed to see through a window with solar technology on it? EnSol's application process for the coating Norwegian you adjust how much coating you want applied to the surface.

Instead of turning your house into a cave, you'll have slightly tinted windows that catch some 8-10% of the light and let the rest through. Or, if one side of your house received more sunlight than you like, you can increase the thickness of the coating, further reducing the amount of light that comes through the window.

Needless to say, EnSol has yet to release pricing information for its solar film, but the company plans to begin commercial production by 2016. EnSol is hoping to increase the solar film's efficiency to the point where it'll be able to convert around 20% of the energy it absorbs into energy you can use, which compared to other forms of energy is substantial.