Deterrence is about the adversary's impression of your capabilities compared to his perception of his capabilities.
Meanwhile, defence is about your actual capabilities compared to your adversary's actual capabilities.
Errors of judgment aside, the difference is mostly the difference between your communicated capabilities and your real capabilities (communicated + hidden).
- - - - -
Now imagine you're a political leader and have to issue a task to the armed forces. Will you tell them to focus on deterrence? Will you task them with deterrence AND defence?
To focus on deterrence requires to communicate your capabilities well, secrecy would serve only to protect your capabilities (code secrecy and such). You can jam the adversary's battlefield radios? Let him know! You can stop his anti-tank missiles? Let him know! This may be a quite expensive path, as it provokes an intense offence-defence spiral as your adversary will strive to defeat your capabilities once he understands them.
To order both attention on deterrence and defence makes things difficult and it's indeed not an accurate guidance for the armed services. As was shown above, to bolster defence may deteriorate deterrence, and vice versa. The armed services can only fully meet this order with a budget much superior to the adversary's.
To order a focus on defence leads down the path of secrecy. Your armed services would build up an arsenal of mean surprises, but that could provoke a fatal underestimation of their capabilities by your adversary - and thus to a war that's still disastrous to health, prosperity and even culture of your population.
- - - - -
What's the optimum? I consider just about every war to be a very bad event (exception; intervention against beyond reasonable doubt ongoing genocide), so I would want to avoid it. This requires effective deterrence. But the deterrence focus approach described above is excessively expensive in peacetime, and might actually fail to deter if you cannot afford it.
A smarter way might be to limit the
communication of capabilities to just the needed amount for short-term
deterrence, and convincingly communicate additional capabilities once
there's a heightened risk of war (remember, the task is deterrence) or when you suddenly become convinced of additional adversary capabilities (which would call for more communicated capability of your own to deter).
The smartest way is to turn your adversary away from hostility towards a stable peaceful co-existence in which both model you and your model adversary can live with each other and without wasting many resources on the capability to harm each other. Deterrence should be considered to be the price to pay to buy the time for developing such stable peaceful relations.
P.S.: This was written from the perspective of a power with superior resources that wants to avoid wasting resources. A power with somewhat inferior resources might try to deter by fostering uncertainty, promoting rumours and advantageous stereotypes instead of communicating real capabilities.
It happened slowly and mostly during the past decade, but so far I didn't write about it: There has been a change of guards in Sub-Saharan Africa. The once ubiquitous T-55 is no longer the go-to tank for African armies. An (East) African army that expects or fears an inter-state war in the next years instead imports 100+ T-72 tanks.
The concentration in East Africa is obvious. Angola is the one not East African country in this list (Congo is clearly in Central Africa, but large enough to border on East Africa, its main security issues are related to Rwanda/Burundi).
The price for a serviceable T-72 is sometimes said to be about 500,000 $, albeit corruption, updates and refurbishing can drive this up by much and the purchase of tanks with worn components can be much cheaper.
The operating expenses do no doubt severely restrict training until wartime, and thus it would be foolish to expect more than assault gun tactics (fire support for infantry, possibly ambushes against hostile tanks) from such tanks.
The much better protection of T-72s compared to T-55 means that the old inventories of ATGMs (which are almost certainly past shelf life and were most likely not stored optimally) are obsolete. Likewise, a RPG-7 without the rare 105 mm warhead is not really a defence against such tanks.
The import of T-72s is likely to provoke arms races in the region (see the example links above, with the suspicious focus on East Africa). The most expensive approach to arms racing - symmetrical arms racing - appears to be the favoured one. Well, tanks are versatile even in poorly-trained hands while dedicated anti-tank assets are rather specialised.
Armoured cars such as the classic AML-90 had great difficulties against T-55s, now even high-end armoured cars with a 105 mm gun would struggle to defeat a T-72 frontally (mostly the lower glacis is vulnerable to them).
The availability of munitions (in case of tanks mostly high explosive cartridges*) and spare parts is important for such countries. They must not make themselves dependent on supply from a single supplier such as France or the U.S., which appears to doom many developments of superficially efficient armoured fighting vehicles and AFV armaments from the West. The Jane's yearbooks on armour and artillery (upgrades) are full of examples of Western designs that found no or hardly any customers.
Meanwhile, the second-hand T-72s are so extremely widespread and the supply of spare parts and munitions is so diverse that T-72s almost look like a very manageable choice - if there wasn't the inability to economically sustain a decent amount of peacetime training.
P.S.: I still don't understand why the West never produced a 100mmx695R low recoil gun (that's the calibre of the ubiquitous T-55's D-10T tank gun) for 6x6 AFVs. The easy availability of HE cartridges for this calibre would have made this gun much more attractive than the weaker 90 mm and more powerful 105 mm calibres.
By the way, there's a similar change in regard to African Air Forces. Ethiopia and Eritrea purchased Russian supersonic combat aircraft and hired Russian mercenary pilots in the 90's for their '98-'00 war. Now Ethiopia invests in drones instead.
*: Tanks rarely shoot at other tanks, but a tank platoon can go through multiple full sets of HE cartridges in a single small battle for a small village. The HE consumption is enormous during infantry fire support. It is very likely that the African armies purchased rather many tanks (highly visible and prestigious) and rather small stocks of cartridges (hidden from sight, hardly ever mentioned in publications).
The hype around hypersonic missiles (the big ones, not the tank killers) implies or directly supposes that hypersonic missiles are an important innovation once in service.
This requires that
air-breathing cruise missiles either could not do the job for want of sufficient energy or would not penetrate defences
relatively normal (quasi-)ballistic missiles would not penetrate defences
Some hypersonic missiles might possibly have a range advantage over ballistic ones, but this is hardly a game-changer. A bigger yet still simpler ballistic missile could reach just as far.
Failure due to insufficient energy is unlikely. Cruise missiles can use a shaped charge precursor to penetrate very thick reinforced concrete objects and they can also use a shaped charge to insert an explosive warhead as a shot into the hole. This precursor shaped charge approach is by now ancient (WW2-era) technology, mass-produced for portable bunker-busting munitions and I suspect that a driver behind procurement of cruise missiles with such warheads isn't just military bunkers (munition depots and hardened aircraft shelters mostly), but also the destruction of bridge pillars.
This largely leaves the possibility that the air defence technology progress since the 1970's may have defeated subsonic terrain-following cruise missiles even if they're designed for radar stealth. The ballistic missile defence obsession since the 1980's (and especially since 1991) may furthermore have produced enough technological progress to defeat (quasi-)ballistic missiles.
This is not a binary issue, though. The existence of effective defences doesn't mean that an attacking missile wouldn't accomplish its mission. The costs, quantity, location and readiness are still hugely important factors.
So let's look at readiness.
I very, very strongly suppose that a large missile salvo at the beginning of a war would hit its targets to the limit of the technical reliability of the attacking missile systems. The defences would simply not be deployed and ready. Such a strategic surprise attack could easily be done even with slow cruise missiles. They might need 90 minutes to the last target, but that wouldn't matter much. Hardly any defences of a surprised country or alliance would activate properly within 90 minutes. Almost no fighters are equipped with actual air combat missiles in peacetime, for example. Air defence battery radars and air defence fire control cabins are parked in barracks; they're targets, not defences.
A surprise attack on NATO could take out the majority of European air power and just about every important bridge, about half of the European warships and hundreds of other high value targets. This wouldn't even be expensive; maybe € 2 bn of investment.
Such an aggressor would thus not expect to face much BMD capability for days, either. Only after maybe a week or two he'd face some BMD clusters that would protect certain critical areas (very likely large airbases, maybe a capital or a bridge). Normal air defences might by then protect military bridging over certain rivers, a port and a main supply route.
Would the ability to overcome these few BMD clusters with hypersonic missiles make much of a difference? I doubt it very much. The effect of a couple more hits on the conflict would be very small and a saturation attack of other missiles would very likely succeed even against deployed defences.
Hypersonic missiles may be interesting to bolster nuclear deterrence in face of BMD, and they might be relevant to carrier-centric naval warfare scenarios, but I see very little reason for any elevated relevance in European land warfare.
(This is merely a personal opinion, of course. I have no insider knowledge about technical capabilities of hypersonic missiles or air defences/BMD. Then again, my reasoning doesn't require either as critical input.)
Man kann viel erhoffen für die Verteidigungspolitik in einer Legislaturperiode, doch schon bescheidene Hoffnungen werden seit Jahrzehnten zuverlässig enttäuscht. Die Bundeswehr bedarf jedoch erheblicher Reparaturen nach Jahrzehnten des Herabwirtschaftens seit 1990, nachdem die Bundeswehr schon 1989 eigentlich bereits vielfach Die Note "Mangelhaft" in Ausrüstung, Doktrin und Bevorratung verdiente.
Hierzu beschuldige ich nicht vorrangig die Politiker. Das Hauptproblem stellt die Inkompetenz der Berufsoffziere und die kulturelle und organisatorische Nicht-Eignung der gesamten Organisationskultur oberhalb der Kompanieebenen dar. Die vielen offensichtlichen und katastrophalen Probleme gehen nicht darauf zurück, dass diese Leute nicht wissen, was funktioniert und was nicht:
Die Berufsoffiziere als Gruppe arbeiten schlicht systematisch in die falsche Richtung.
Wer als Politiker ohne viel Ahnung ins BMVg kommt und sich erhofft, das Berufsoffiziere ihm/ihr/es erzählen, was getan werden sollte, ist bereits verloren und nutzlos. Die Böcke sind am Gärtnern. Und die Böcke wählen die nächste Generation von Gärtnern aus und befördern sie.
Die Schuld der Politiker ist hauptsächlich, dass sie nie das Ruder herumgerissen haben. Mehr Geld auf die Bundeswehr zu ver(sch)wenden hätte nichts gebracht. Man sieht ja, wie nutzlos die Steigerung des Einzelplan 14 von 2014 zu 2019 um nominal ein Drittel war. Die Lage hat sich nicht verbessert.
- - - - -
Hier ist meine Liste an Top Prioritäten für eine behelfsweise Schnellreparatur der Bundeswehr innerhalb einer Legislaturperiode. Das wäre keine Generalüberholung, sondern Flicken dort, wo besonders große Hebel oder größte Verschwendung sind.
Zweifellos hat jeder eine eigene Liste und die Allermeisten hätten gewiss einen diplomatischeren Stil in der Formulierung, aber ich könnte jeden Punkt recht ausführlich mit Fakten begründen und meine Geduld und Nachsicht mit der Bürokratie ist erschöpft. Dass die hoch angesiedelten Rädchen der Bürokratie seltenst absichtlich sabotieren oder böse sind ändert nichts daran, dass durchgegriffen werden muss. Die Reihenfolge der Liste ist übrigens bedeutungslos.
Zerstörung aller Besatzungskrieg-spezifischen Geräte einschließlich Verbrennung aller persönlichen Tropentarn-Ausrüstungsgegenstände (bis auf Museumsstücke) in Freudenfeuern . Nie wieder Militärabenteuer außerhalb Europas!
Einstellungsstopp für den Sanitätsdienst und erst mal keine Übernahmen von Sanitätspersonal in das Berufssoldatentum. Der Sanitätsdienst ist katastrophal aufgebläht.
Begrenzung der Luftwaffen-Kampfaufgaben auf eine reduzierte Zahl von Eurofighter eines hohen Ausrüstungsstandes. Grund ist die weitgehende Nutzlosigkeit der vorhandenen 80er Jahre Flugabwehr und die zweifelhafte Durchsetzungsfähigkeit unserer Luftangriffe während der ersten Tage eines V-Falls.
Umorganisation des Heeres für ein Feldkorps mit vier ausbalancierten Feldbrigaden für das Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen (Panzerbataillon, PzGrenBtl, JägerBtl, PanzerartillerieBtl, UnterstützungsBtl einschließlich Pionieren) und einem Spähregiment einschließlich Fernspähern.
Dieses Feldkorps übt wie verrückt. Ausgebildet wird da nicht, nur geübt. Meisterschaft kommt von Übung. Auf dem Kasernengelände wird nur Material gewartet, repariert und gelagert. Üben, üben, üben (und angemessener Ausgleich durch zusätzliche Urlaubstage)!
Ausbildung von Heeressoldaten für das Feldkorps von Grundausbildung bis Verbandsausbildung im extrem beweglichen Gefecht der Verbundenen Waffen erfolgt außerhalb des Feldkorps, wofür mindestens ein weiterer vollständiger und identischer Brigadesatz Material benötigt wird (SaZ 6 oder Weiterverpflichtung nötig für Mannschaften des Feldkorps)
Alle Verbände des Feldkorps machen in Sommer und Winter jeweils unangekündigte Verlegeübungen nach Litauen oder Polen; 80% Einsatzbereitschaft von Material und Personal binnen 48 h vor Ort wird gefordert, Munition und Diesel für 48 Stunden Kampfeinsatz mitgebracht (alternativ Ballast statt Munition). Die Termine werden mit Polen vom Auswärtigen Amt abgesprochen und gegenüber dem BMVg bis zuletzt geheimgehalten. Ausgenommen sind Zeitfenster, in denen jeweils (nur) eine ganze Feldbrigade eine 16-Tage Urlaubsperiode hat.
Sofortauswahl eines Ensembles von Digitalfunkgeräten für das Heer, das sich bei einer vertrauenswürdigen Partnernation bereits bewährt hat (+Fähigkeit zur Emulation unserer Antik-Funkgeräte zwecks Funktion mit vorhandenen Peripheriegeräten). Dann direkte Beschaffung per Bundesgesetz, notfalls unter Mißachtung von EU-Recht (Ausschreibung auf Farce reduziert). Hier kann man nationalen Notstand und Recht auf Selbstverteidigung geltend machen, auch wenn das für europäische Verhältnisse vermutlich eine juristische Innovation wäre. Der Bundestag verabschiedet wissentlich ein verfassungs- oder EU-Recht-widriges Gesetz nach dem Anderen, das kann dann auch mal für einen guten Zweck riskieren. Vollausstattung von Feldkorps und entspr. Ausbildungsverbänden bis Ende der Legislaturperiode.
Entsprechend rabiate Beschaffung von genug Wärmebildvisieren (auf Waffe, für Infanterie) und typgleichen Monokular-IR-Handkameras (für Nicht-Kampftruppen-Unterführer des Feldkorps)
Sofortige Ausschreibung für ein RCWS (ferngesteuerte Waffenstation für Fahrzeuge) mit 7,62x51 mm bis 20x102 mm Waffe und guter Hunter-Killer Fähigkeit gegen Drohnen in der Luft und am Boden ohne Einsatz von aktiven Sensoren bei der Zielsuche. Preisrahmen niedriger bis mittlerer sechsstelliger Bereich/Stück bei zehntausenden zu beschaffenden RCWS (Beschaffungskooperation mehrerer Länder, aber ohne Einbringung von Sonderwünschen). Software und Hardwarekomponenten/Chippläne offengelegt. Denkbar wäre auch ein RCWS mit entsprechender Aufrüstmöglichkeit für Anti-Drohnen-Fähigkeiten.
Verdoppelung der Anzahl M3 Amphibien, alle einzusetzen in aktiven Verbänden nahe der Oder und ständig wechselnden Parkplätzen mit Sichtschutz gegen Satelliten und Agenten.
Wenn nach zwei Jahren auch nur bei einem einzigen eigentlich zu erträglichen Preisen beschaffbaren Ersatzteil Mangel herrscht, werden bis zur Abstellung des Mangels die Berufsoffiziere des Heeres jeden Monat dezimiert (zufällige 10% werden in die Wüste gefeuert) und die Zahl der Planstellen für Berufsoffiziere des Heeres 1:1 reduziert. Motivation ist alles!
Bau eines OHK Truppenübungsplatzes mit möblierten Wohn- und Gewerbegebäuden im Stil baltischer Siedlungen.* Realistische Bewegungs- und Sichthindernisse (sehr viele Bäume aus Stahl+Kunststoff, Kunststoffhecken, flache Gräben, Holzzäune, Gardinen, Polycarbonatfenster mit Stellen zur Simulation von Löcher schlagen und komplett einschlagen).
Die Division Schnelle Kräfte wird ersatzlos aufgelöst. Sie ist zur Bündnisverteidigung völlig ineffizient ausgerichtet. Auflösung der Heeresflieger und Außerdienststellung aller Heereshubschrauber, weil sie auf einem osteuropäischen Schlachtfeld nutzlose Ziele wären.
Alle Stäbe von Heeresverbänden werden um durchschnittlich 3/4 ihrer Offiziersplanstellen reduziert bzw. die Reduzierung in der Summe wird teils mit Auflösungen erreicht. Keine Aufstockung der anderen Stellen dieser Stäbe. Die personelle Verschlankung ermöglicht eine Beschleunigung, teils auch durch erzwungene Beschränkung von Aufgaben.
Internationale Ausschreibung für eine kinetische Panzerabwehrrakete (KE Durchschlagwirkung wie 120 mm DM63 ab spätestens 500 m, 90% Treffer auf 40 km/h fahrendes 2x2 m Ziel auf 500...2000 m Distanz, PLOS Autopilot); kein Entwicklungsbudget, sondern Festpreiskaufangebot für 4.000 Raketen für 1 Mrd € bis 2027, vorausgesetzt es werden Hard- und Softwareinterface bis Vertragsschluss spezifiziert. MELLS und alle anderen in Dienst stehenden PzAbwLFK sind konzeptionell 30+ Jahre alt und deshalb als längst technisch durch Gegenmaßnahmen entwertet und nutzlos gegen russische KPz zu betrachten.
Internationale Ausschreibung für ein Heeresflugabwehrsystem mit weniger als 400.000 € Munitionspreis je Abschuss einer Mach 0,75 Drohne auf 30k ft Höhe (bei rechnerischer Berücksichtigung von probability of kill).
Außer russischen, weißrussischen, nordkoreanischen und chinesischen Systemen muss binnen zwei Jahren ein System ausgewählt und der Vertrag unterschriftsreif sein (sofern überhaupt ein passendes Angebot vorliegt). Bei Nichterfüllung dieser Vorgabe halbjährliche Dezimierung aller Berufsoffiziere von Heer und Luftwaffe bis zur Erfüllung. Noch eine exzellente Motivationsmaßnahme für die Bürokraten, die sich Generale nennen.
Nichts, absolut gar nichts davon wird so oder ähnlich umgesetzt werden.
Ich habe peinlicherweise vergessen, den Aufbau von Munitionsvorräten zu erwähnen.
18 Rohre 155 mm je Brigade, 4 Brigaden, 5000 Schuss pro Rohr + Übungsmunition. 400,000 155 mm Granaten (80% HE insensitiv, 20% SMK multispektral) + 2 Mio MTLS Module. Entsprechend reichliche Bevorratung für 5,56 und 7,62 mm sowie 120 mm Mörser (80% HE-PFF insensitiv, 20% SMK multispektral). Übergangsweise auch beschleunigte Beschaffung von MELLS.
I know a field manual that described among other things how a tank should move through a landscape of open fields and woodland. The advice was to hug the edge of the woodland, as to become less visible at long ranges to anti-tank guided missile and main battle tank threats (at least in the visible spectrum).
It was a 180° wrong advice in case that RPGs are the greater threat; then the tank should strive to keep a safe distance from either left or right or if possible both woodland patches where RPG gunners may more likely hide than in foxholes on open ground from whence they could not retreat.
This is analogue to the situation of tanks in a drone threat-rich environment. Imagine autonomous killer drones capable of flying AND ground movement. Every tank would need to have at least one 360°x90° movable weapon station with 360°x90° threat detection sensors to enable a defence against drone threats that made it past friendly drones trying to kill off hostile drones, akin to how surface warships depend on a line of defence made up by fighters since 1942 (as their own anti-air defences cannot cope with many threats at a time).
Such tanks under drone threat would have too little defensive depth in closed terrain; their anti-drone defence might be effective out to 2 km, but they would be almost defenceless if a drone can attack from behind concealment at 50 m distance. A last ditch defence such as today's hard kill active defence suites might stop two or three drones even at such a distance, but hardly 10...20.
This scenario assumes extremely expensive, sophisticated, electronics- and sensors-packed tanks that would cost about € 20 million today (actual today's high end tanks cost about € 10 million). They would be limited to certain terrains and require a lot of support (drones more so than infantry and indirect fires, but also fuel, repairs, high capacity bridging and so on). That's a lot of necessary effort for assets with very restricting movement options.
What's on the upside? Tanks could still carry big, powerful armament (such as a 130 mm gun). Yes, that's about it. They could bring a big gun to the fight. Everything else is about bringing this gun into the fight without being suicidal. What can this gun do that you can't do without it? Missiles and drones could bring big explosive charges onto a target as well, also from the same (flat) angle. Missiles can mimic even a tank's Mach 5+ kinetic penetrator arrow (APFSDS munition), as the LOSAT program showed conclusively.
Missiles can be expected to be more expensive than tank gun-launched shells and penetrators because they require more stored chemical energy for propulsion and it would take a guided HE missile to substitute a dumb tank gun HE shell. So how many shots does it take till the more expensive munitions with cheaper platforms add up to the same total bill as the cheaper munitions with the more expensive competing platform (tank)? I wager it takes more than we could reasonably expect a tank to fire in wartime.
Moreover, tanks are associated with extremely high training expenses. To move fast on tracks wears out components quickly, the high density engines don't last very long and the fuel consumption is appalling as well. The very expensive electronics fail and require replacement when you carry them around for years in a tank with lots of vibrations, mechanical shocks and humidity.
In the end, there might be a way how we could continue to use tanks in a battlefield dominated by autonomous drones, but they may price themselves out of any sensible force structure. They might follow the path of the navies' destroyers and frigates; soldier on at great expense until an intense high-end war shows their unsuitability and marginal utility in any high threat environment.
Doomsayers have declared the end for the tank over and over again and it persists, but does it persist for good reason? Have we seen tanks justifying their expenses post-1967, ever? They provided some utility in some conflicts since, but this doesn't prove that we couldn't have had that utility by cheaper means as well. The mass destruction of tanks in 1973 and 1991 surely showed at least to the battle losers that their tanks weren't worth the expense. How well would the battle-winner tank forces have fared if the battle-losers had invested their resources more smartly?
Well, I wasn't too far off; the Avon CH15 is available at 508 grams since earlier this year and its bulk seems tolerable for all-the-time carry, unlike ordinary CBRN masks.
I remember that the "more performance, more performance, more performance" crowd that doesn't pay attention to weight dreamt of regular soldier clothes becoming NBC protection clothes since at least the 1990's. Regular long-time use NBC protection suits (I don't mean the simplistic overgarments or rubberised suits) are rather meant for no more than 24 hrs of continuous use IIRC.
- - - - -
Little remark about the summit to moderate climate change:
It's fashionable in certain countries to talk about climate change as a national security threat. That's bollocks, of course. People are talking like this in some countries because those countries are rather militaristic. To frame a challenge as somehow military-ish or equivalent to military defence/defense is in such countries a path to gain attention and to motivate. In some (militaristic) countries it's a lot easier to mobilise 0.1% GDP additional spending for some additional military expenditures than to invest in health, infrastructure or education or to help disabled or poor people. Only stupid people copy such rhetoric in non-militaristic countries, and then get hardly any attention for it. It's quite a litmus test IMO.
I've heard good things about the Rwandan army's proficiency before, and Rwanda's government has been making visible progress on some other areas as well.
They might have the highest quality military in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa.
A bulletproofed armoured car or APC for about 100,000 Euros.
One of the many existing third axle conversion kits for the base vehicle could easily extend the APC version to 2+8 seats plus have some other military-suitable modifications and the price would still be no worse than about 150,000 Euros bulk price per copy.
Compare this to the common procurement of 4x4 4-seat armoured vehicles of not much better protection for 400,000+ Euros that even some of the poor European countries had in the past two decades.
The current JLTV has comparable utility (and no doubt more protection, but does that difference really matter? How often would it encounter threats that B7 protection doesn't ward off as well?) It costs around 250,000 Euros in bulk purchase, but can cost twice that in small numbers.
This PDF is remarkable because it shows radar imagery of ships. The actual capabilities are likely not much greater than advertised. Imaging radar (synthetic aperture radar mode) can create imagery of ships that allows to discern between a freighter and a frigate, but you could not reliably tell one frigate class from another.
Das ist Unsinn für alle Orbitalsatelliten. Je näher an den Äquator, desto besser. Wenn man eine nationale Lösung haben will, dann baut ein Spezialschiff (Start) und mindestens ein Unterstützungsschiff (ggf. zwei wenn man mit wiederverwendbaren Raketen auf einem Schiff landen will) bzw baut welche um. Dann schließt man einen Kooperationsvertrag mit einem Land am Äquator (zum Beispiel Sao Tomé und Principe; schön harmlos, stabil und geographisch isoliert gegen Probleme in der Nachbarschaft) am Atlantik, sodass man die Raketen günstig per Schiff dorthin schaffen und am Äquator starten kann. Das geht dann mit Nutzung von Unterkünften, Büros und Flughafen an Land. Wenn die Kooperation mit dem Partnerland schlechter wird, kann man den Partner einfach wechseln, die aufwändige Infrastruktur ist ja auf den Schiffen beweglich. Allerschlimmstenfalls startet man von europäischen Gewässern aus.
Im Kontext des Funkgeräte-Megaskandals erscheint dieser alte Artikel in einem neuen, bitter-sarkastischem Licht.
- - - - -
Now looking at the size of this thing it seems I tried to fool myself with that whole "only one blog post per week" approach anyway. I'd have created four or more blog posts out of all this stuff before I started the "first Saturday of month link dump" series.
(I have too many blog post drafts ready to go, well into December. I'll thus publish this and maybe another in addition to the regular Saturday rhythm.)
Years ago - in ancient times before the Great Pandemic - I visited a small exhibition of old firefighting vehicles. Beautiful red & chrome trucks with special firefighting payloads. They were oldtimers, but in fantastic condition because they stood in firefighters' garages for decades.
I mean this literally. Most firefighting vehicles are hardly moving, like ever. There was a 1950's firefighting truck which had run only about 15,000 km until it was retired.
currently on offer: 42,656 km at 35 years age
For comparison; a logistics company can easily get 400,000 km out of a comparable vehicle in eight years.
The demands are thus very different. Firefighters don't need to care about fuel efficiency or durability in terms of kilometres driven. They need to care about longevity; seals and rubber components need to be either fine for decades of service or easily replaceable. Corrosion is not really a concern because they park their vehicles indoors.
Armies are similar to firefighters, save for the indoor parking. Some truck types remained in service for four decades, and not just the model; the individual trucks lasted that long.
A look at a platform for used military vehicles provides some anecdotal confirmation:
At the time of writing I see examples ranging from a 1988 4x4 truck with 2,014 km to a heavier 1993 4x4 truck with 130,198 km. A 1996 IVECO EuroTrakker is one of the heavier and more-used vehicles, 1996 and 85,910 km.
So basically the civilian businesses drive trucks much and wear them out in a few years, while the government rather has trucks in the inventory for training and 'just in case we need them when shit happens'.
This parallel existence of both philosophies is extremely wasteful. Here's an alternative truck strategy:
Talk to manufacturers of civilian trucks and tell them to keep longevity in mind.
Buy civilian vehicles after they've run about 200,000 km in less than 10 years.
Repaint them, modify the cab, install what payload the military needs.
Keep using them for another 30 years, adding only up to 150,000 km.*
Repair them when possible with spare parts recycled from spent civilian vehicles. Using a COTS** design has the benefit that you have an easy spare parts supply.
It should be mentioned that the construction site vehicles that would be most suitable for military use (due to 6x6 or 8x8 formulas) do not drive quite as much as logistics vehicles, but the concept still works with them.
The IVECO Trakker range has plenty 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8 models for civilian uses that are also reasonable choices for military uses, for example. Up to 200,000 km Trakkers can be had for much less than 100,000 € despite the current price peak for used motor vehicles.
The standard cab types are VERY similar to civilian Trakkers. Low budget armies might not be able to afford "tactical" trucks and instead make do with 6x6 and 8x8 "logistical" trucks, which have a little less off-road ability. Most army wheeled vehicles only need as off-road ability for hiding inside woodland or bypassing craters/wrecks on a road anyway. They don't need super gymnast suspensions.
I strongly suppose that the army bureaucracies with tight budgets and
no national truck manufacturers to subsidise by government contracts
could benefit greatly from such a strategy.
