German accounting authorities complain on F125 costs

[f-22fan12]

I have no problem with spending a lot of money on new ships, when they come out with a very advanced and capable ship.
We need new ships.


But I have a problem with doing this while the Bundeswehr as a whole is close to being bancrupt...
If nobody plans to increase the budget I think that the priorities are a little bot wrong.

But this is just MHO.

Germany as a country is not bankrupt. However, as you said, the military gets very little funding. (the budget is now 40 billion $) I think personally that 500 million Euros for a ship with capabilities like that is a pretty good deal.
I'm a pro-airforce guy.

 

[kato]

But I have a problem with doing this while the Bundeswehr as a whole is close to being bancrupt...

Personally, i think that's more of a mutual problem. The Bundeswehr pretty much plans projects for 120-130% of the budget they're actually going to get, then cut funding to low-priority projects and claim "we need those" and point at the excess.
There aren't any cuts in Bundeswehr funding, or much fluctuation at all. Haven't been since immediately after the end of the Cold War pretty much. There's a steady annual increase (€300 million), which pretty much accounts for inflation.

The Bundeswehr itself admits that recent modernization projects (like Eurofighter, or F124) also brought an increase in overall operating and maintenance costs, despite cutting numbers of these systems. That's where part of the problem lays. Hence also the push for significantly lower per-unit operating costs in more recent projects (F125 in particular for the Navy).

There's other stuff that can make you scratch your head. For example, the personnel numbers has been cut by 30% (both military and civilian) - yet the personnel cost has increased, due to a lot of positions now going to professionals or being outsourced - instead of using cheap conscripts.

 

[Waylander]

No, we don't. We don't have any SM-3 for the F124. That's what they want.
And PAC-3 interceptors for the Luftwaffe will also not be ordered in full quantity btw.

Of course the US Navy also only has had 23 SM-3 missiles delivered, with 9 fired in tests, so far. Each SM-3 missile currently comes at around $4 million (SM-2 Block IIIA for comparison: $1 million per missile).

I just quote myself.

Theater ballistic missile defense?
Upgrade the Patriots, that's it.
Maybe give the Sachsens the ability to fire SM-3.

What more do they want?

I know about the current status of our ABM capability. I just don't see the need for more than maybe a few more PAC-3s and upgrade the Sachsens so they can fire SM-3s.

And seriously I never thought that ABM capability is as much needed as some people say.
I don't think that, for example, Iran is going to fire a NBC-weapon onto a NATO country. Doing this would result in Iran ending as a big black plate of glass.
And if terrorists get a nuclear warhead into their hands they are not going to use a missile to deliver it. They are going to ship the warhead into Hamburg Harbour with a container and that's it.

I also see big problems in our personal policy. The number of civilian workers in the Bundeswehr hasn't shrinked enough.
And the current conscript system is a mess. Either I do it right or change completely to a full proffessional force.
But only drafting small parts of the available young men and than just use them for 9 month is ridicilous.
And don't let me begin with the topic of outsourcing. The Bundewehrfuhrpark is laughable and our maintenance crews have empty halls while civilian contractors repair the vehicles...

I also don't understand why maintenance costs are rising. Are the new system that much more complex or what?
Going by logic cutting numbers and using modern stuff instead of 30 years old equipment should, as you said, reduce maintenance costs.

 

[kato]

I also don't understand why maintenance costs are rising. Are the new system that much more complex or what?

BwPlan 2008, Pages 7-12.

The airforce states "rising system complexity", "high fixed cost percentages", and "outsourcing" as reasons. Overall maintenance costs stay about exactly the same, despite constant reductions in numbers.

The navy states "more maintenance due to high deployment amount", "re-evaluation of maintenance needs of new units" and "negative influences due to the changed market and contract situation in the German shipyard industry" (whatever that means). Overall maintenance costs fluctuate in theory, but for the next 5 years go through a clear sharp rising curve.

For the army, it's a bit more complex. In BwPlan 2007, a significant reduction was planned for maintenance - however, BwPlan 2008 suddenly tacks an extra €100 million onto it. Per year.
Reasons there are "general cost development", "higher efforts due to the age of systems and their changed roles", "higher maintenance costs of armed vehicles that replace older unarmed vehicles" (i think they mean Dingo and Multi especially), and, most importantly, that expected reductions through outsourcing - especially to HIL and the Bundeswehrfuhrpark - have not appeared.

Fourth corner is communications. These just go "we have no idea about what our costs will be, so we'll just say that we reduce them by 5% over the next 5 years".

Operating costs (fuel, energy etc) are set to stay pretty much constant. However, of course, market prices there have risen sharply. "To cover this extra cost, maintaining real estate and buildings has been restricted accordingly". That is, costs rise 20%? We'll just use 20% less, by not heating buildings this year. Or next year.

 

[Falstaff]

I know about the current status of our ABM capability. I just don't see the need for more than maybe a few more PAC-3s and upgrade the Sachsens so they can fire SM-3s.

And seriously I never thought that ABM capability is as much needed as some people say.

:lul
ABM capability on our ships is something that drives me nuts. I share your opinion on that and I think we have a lot of more pressing issues to deal with, apart from the fact that I can't see any sense in using a precious AAW-frigate (of only 3 + while the most intriguing feature of a modern navy is mobility) in a virtually stationary ABM role somewhere in the Mediterranean.

And if terrorists get a nuclear warhead into their hands they are not going to use a missile to deliver it. They are going to ship the warhead into Hamburg Harbour with a container and that's it.

Definitely agreed. And therefore it is much more important to a) control the sealanes with capable fighting and recce units and b) hit these dumba**** right where they are sitting (land attack capability).

I also see big problems in our personal policy. The number of civilian workers in the Bundeswehr hasn't shrinked enough.
And the current conscript system is a mess. Either I do it right or change completely to a full proffessional force.

And don't let me begin with the topic of outsourcing. The Bundewehrfuhrpark is laughable and our maintenance crews have empty halls while civilian contractors repair the vehicles...

Personally, i think that's more of a mutual problem. The Bundeswehr pretty much plans projects for 120-130% of the budget they're actually going to get, then cut funding to low-priority projects and claim "we need those" and point at the excess.

Never mind that there are missiles for the Sea Kings in stocks - not issued, since the capability is seen as not needed. Gives me a "huh?" too.

One could add quite a few points to that list...

And here we are... the whole system is a mess. We're starting things but not thinking them through to the end. We're building new capabilities and taking over new tasks without dealing with the consequences properly. And the Marine surely isn't the worst part of it
I don't think there is enough money already, but I also know a lot of the existing money is wasted. We need a sustainable and consistent approach for our forces and this then has to be funded properly.

I also don't understand why maintenance costs are rising. Are the new system that much more complex or what?
Going by logic cutting numbers and using modern stuff instead of 30 years old equipment should, as you said, reduce maintenance costs.

Well, I think that the rise in maintenance costs is a temporary issue really as both major programmes (EF and F-124) are in a state when both show their "Kinderkrankheiten" at the moment. I'm more into airforce stuff and I know that the EF's TCO are supposed to be way less than the e.g. the Tornados. When this weapon system is fully integrated and understood maintenance costs will be much lower than the Phantoms', MIG-29s' or the Tornados' despite the complexity. We all know the issues with the F-124 at the moment but we know it's a very complex system and I think we'll have to give it another 2-3 years until all mechanical and software issues are solved. Same applies to the K-130 and probably the MH-90, U-212 and the P-3C. We're introducing a lot at the same time, aren't we?

 

[contedicavour]

I'm always interested and often a bit amused at reading about inter-service rivalry when it comes at funding new programmes...
I'll try to give my opinion on the German procurement even if Waylander and Kato obviously know more than myself about this.

Army > as A-stan and Iraq have proven, heavy MBTs and artillery still play a major role in modern guerrilla warfare. I believe Germany has cut too much its force of MBTs. Modernizing a bit more Leo2s to A6 standard would be a priority for me. Equipment aside, I would spend more on professionalizing 100% of the soldiers so that they can operate in faraway peacekeeping missions.

Air Force > With the UK hesitating on Tranche 3 of the Typhoon, I'm worried about what Germany would do to complete transition from Phantom and Tornado to new equipment. If there aren't enough Typhoons then what ? F35s ? Also, while there will be a boost in mobility of troops with A400Ms I would invest more in mobility of assets, especially if delays keep on increasing on the Airbus A400. I'd focus on smaller planes that can land on unprepared terrain (our C27 or Casa's C295). I also feel there's a gap between the procured PAC3 and the future MEADS ATBM programme. Last but not least, Alphajets are getting really old (M346 ?)

Navy > 4 F125 are the minimum number required to replace 8 F122... Next, the German government needs to make up its mind on whether faraway peacekeeping missions require navy support or not. If no LPDs are built I don't see why the F124 DDGs (I've promoted them from FFG since they are DDG in all but name ) would require ATBM capability ?? Last but not least, I would also retire the remaining FACs and order 2-3 more K130s. They could prove very useful for overseas missions requiring coastal assets (why risk F123, 124 or 125 when a K130 can fulfil ASUW/coastal support missions ?).

At least, this is my vision from down south

cheers

 

[kato]

Army > as A-stan and Iraq have proven, heavy MBTs and artillery still play a major role in modern guerrilla warfare. I believe Germany has cut too much its force of MBTs. Modernizing a bit more Leo2s to A6 standard would be a priority for me.

Actually, a lot of people think that Germany doesn't have proper/enough light forces. And that it's a bit other things that are lacking currently - for example, there isn't any money to acquire new mortar carriers, so light forces now have their mortars on jeeps as an interim solution.

Equipment aside, I would spend more on professionalizing 100% of the soldiers so that they can operate in faraway peacekeeping missions.

The combat forces are pretty much 100% professionalized. Out of 250,000 soldiers, there are 30,000 conscripts which are pretty much all placed in staff positions, logistics, airforce ground personnel. A further 35,000 soldiers are "voluntary conscripts" with duty contracts for almost 2 years.

Air Force > With the UK hesitating on Tranche 3 of the Typhoon, I'm worried about what Germany would do to complete transition from Phantom and Tornado to new equipment. If there aren't enough Typhoons then what ? F35s ?

Short-to-mid term solution would be to extend the Tornado SLEP/MLU to more aircraft.

Also, while there will be a boost in mobility of troops with A400Ms I would invest more in mobility of assets, especially if delays keep on increasing on the Airbus A400. I'd focus on smaller planes that can land on unprepared terrain (our C27 or Casa's C295).

Agreed. Well, actually the A400M is also supposed to be able to land on unprepared strips. But there's a low-end gap in my opinion, both in replacing the current C160 and potentially also the Do-28 that were decommissioned last decade (the Do-28 were also used in other roles - like sea pollution patrol - for which there aren't any new aircraft).

I also feel there's a gap between the procured PAC3 and the future MEADS ATBM programme.

In regard to capability? MEADS is supposed to use PAC3 (or rather an upgrade of it) itself, after all. Those PAC3 were only recently bought, and are considered capable of bridging the time until MEADS is introduced.
The Airforce is investing heavily in a low- to mid-end air defense solution, which will probably involve IRIS ground-launched derivatives (like IRIS-SL). Both as secondary missile to MEADS and as a stand-alone solution potentially replacing Stinger on Ozelot carriers.

Last but not least, Alphajets are getting really old (M346 ?)

So old that we sold them all 13 years ago.

Training is done using US assets mostly (leading up to jet training at Holloman AFB). German AlphaJets, unlike the French version, were never used for training, they were only used in the ground attack role.

For the future, there's still that joint European training force (with around 150 jet trainers) that's supposed to be established sometime around the mid of the next decade.

Navy [...]

Well, that's all pretty much ordered or planned. See the other thread (the one with the Third EGV). The navy wants LPDs and also a 6-ship light frigate class as FAC replacements. In addition, for overseas patrol / maritime interdiction missions (which the FACs currently do), there are currently four 600-ton Type 332 minehunters being reconfigured to carry RIBs and a commando group.

 

[Waylander]

Actually, a lot of people think that Germany doesn't have proper/enough light forces. And that it's a bit other things that are lacking currently - for example, there isn't any money to acquire new mortar carriers, so light forces now have their mortars on jeeps as an interim solution.

I agree. Maybe a stock of some PSO versions would be nice to have (For fielding when needed, not in normal service).
As you said we might have reduced our heavy forces in an incredible rate but they are not what we lack the most in the moment.
In the end we seem to think that we have enough Leo II A6Ms, so that we can give 20 of them to the Canucks.

The combat forces are pretty much 100% professionalized. Out of 250,000 soldiers, there are 30,000 conscripts which are pretty much all placed in staff positions, logistics, airforce ground personnel. A further 35,000 soldiers are "voluntary conscripts" with duty contracts for almost 2 years.

I would not sign that. Look at the Gebirgsjäger. They have so many conscripts in them that (together with being chronically understrength) one would barely get 1 complete functional bn out of the three we have.
I agree that it looks better for the Fallschirmjäger and Jäger.
But our Panzer and Panzergrenadier units are also not even close to being 100% professionalized.