Alex Luck Profile picture
Dec 7 8 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Thankfully the actual report by the German audit office is free to read, so I just looked at that instead. Link can be found here (pdf). Bullet points follow, as a comedy in eight acts: 1/
bundesrechnungshof.de/SharedDocs/Dow…
Effort to replace MCM capability by 2027 dates back to 2014. A standing commitment to NATO is to provide 11 boats with improved capability by 2031. Navy estimated original funding requirement at 2.7 bln Euros. 2/
For that cost Navy wanted 11 new, boats capable of long range deployments (current boats designed for Baltic/North Sea), improved C2 for multinational ops, wider USV/UUV integration. Despite all this obviously requiring larger boats, Nayv claimed it did not. 3/
Planning department of MinDef by 2017 estimated Navy requirement to cost 4.4 bln EUR. recommended to outsource C2 requirement to (also planned) new MCM tenders. A decision over this change was still pending by May 2023.

Meanwhile MinDef set budget of 3.5 bln EUR for effort. 4/
Notably MinDef did not tell Navy what requirements to cut to meet budget. To the surprise of exactly no one Navy kept insisting on all requirements. Planning by 2018 estimated cost for full requirements at 6 bln EUR. It took another two years to call for review to meet budget. 5/
To meet cost, planning suggested points MinDef should challenge Navy on. MinDef decided not to, instead asking to cut number from 11 to 5 boats & keep 6 old boats to still meet NATO obligation.
Alternatively a life extension of all existing boats for ten years was considered. 6/
Unsurprisingly, said life extension, at cost of 1.3 bln Euros, was also considered highly undesirable. Yet by 11/2022 MinDef nevertheless decided said life extension until 2040 (!) is only way forward. New planning for a successor to commence by 2025. 7/
Let it be noted here while this charade went on, Belgium & Netherlands are introducing a modern MCM system (dubbed rMCM) at cost of ca 2-2.2 bln Euros (estimate) for 12 large vessels & modern mine warfare kit. France recently decided to join the effort.

The world wonders. 8/end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Alex Luck

Alex Luck Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AlexLuck9

Aug 20
"According to the US Congressional Research Service, the US navy has 9,000 missile vertical launch tubes to deliver long-range cruise missiles, compared with China’s 1,000."

This is false. Greg Austin's claim of this as a CRS-estimate is also misleading.
theconversation.com/the-us-navy-is…
Actual source for these 1,000 cells for PLAN is Nick Childs, of IISS, himself cited in a CNN piece linked here. It is not immediately clear from that piece how Childs arrives at his claim, but it demonstrably wrong, unless "or so" is doing a lot of work. edition.cnn.com/2021/03/05/chi…
Image
Caveat straight up: PLAN is not at present confirmed to use LACMs on their surface combatants. But thats neither here nor there, the issue is missile cell count. Also PLA of course has a lot of land based land attack capability the USN does not have.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 1
Mal ein🧵auf Deutsch, weil es nun wild durch die lokale Diskussion geht bzgl "neuer" Eroeffnungen, angeblicher oder tatsaechlicher Skandale zum Thema F-35, Triebwerkproblemen, Block 4-Modernisierung. Was sind die Fakten?

gao.gov/products/gao-2…
Teil 1 - Die Bloecke: F-35 ist ein Programm, das, wie viele vorherigen Entwicklungen in Evolutionen stattfindet. Strukturelles Kern-Element hier sind die "Blocks", die neue Faehigkeiten integrieren. Das ist nicht unaehnlich zu Eurofighter mit seinen "Tranchen", siehe EF T1 vs T4.
Manche Bloecke sind relativ milde Neuerungen, mit entsprechend geringer Kostensteigerung. Andere sind allerdings fundamentale Erweiterungen. Block 4 ist mit Abstand die bedeutenste Modernisierung, die zahllose neue Faehigkeiten einruestet. Das erfordert mehr Triebwerks-Leistung.
Read 16 tweets
Jun 1
Rheinmetall announces they will in collaboration with Ukroboronprom start to refurbish Fuchs APC for delivery to Ukrainian forces. Related joint venture will commence work by July. In second step full local production is intended.
esut.de/2023/06/meldun…
Rheinmetall & Ukroboronprom previously announced signing strategic cooperation agreement for local manufacture of defence materiel. While observers (and CEO Papperger) named MBT, assembly of Fuchs may be more logical first step. UA said to have "four to five digit"-requirement.
Fuchs APC-production could be quick to implement both because the design is mature & required processes established, and because Rheinmetall already has significant experience establishing foreign production. Company most prominently sold a full assembly to Algeria back in 2014.
Read 4 tweets
May 30
Still not a fan of "MBT are outdated."-take on Russian tank losses.

Yes, the Russian Army lost a metric shit ton of them.
Because they threw a dramatic amount of materiel, clearly without coherent operational plans, into a grinding war of attrition. Not because tanks dont work.
Problem with such analysis tends to be that people fixate on "popular" weapon systems vs all the other stuff the Russians also lost immense amounts of.

Quite similar to the eternal "aircraft carriers are obsolete"-takes in naval discussions. Far less often a case for IFV or DDG.
This is doubly true for Soviet MBT. Which were designed for a very specific way of assault. As soon as you move outside of that CONOP, you get punished far more than with Western designs, which by nature had a broader field of roles in mind. But the broader point applies equally.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 26
Marles: "The Defence Strategic Review has observed that navies around the world are moving in the direction, to put it kind of crudely, of having a larger number of smaller vessels,"

Not supported by any evidence. In fact combatants are growing in size.

msn.com/en-au/news/aus…
Throw a rock in a random direction and it will land in the backyard of a navy building corvettes over 3,000 tonnes, frigates and destroyers blowing past 10,000 tons & shedding small specialist hulls for large multipurpose ones.
I dont know what the surface combatant review will come up with, but if the principal driver is an obsession with displacement, it runs a high risk of resulting in costly failure. Capability/cost needs to be viewed separate from displacement.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 1
Just to put some more context on these issues, as they stand right now (and attract some interest in AU for the desired used Virginia SSN to be bought). There are three principal factors in play over the next few years:
1) There's Virginia Blk I-IV & theres Virginia Blk V aka the one fitted with the Virginia Payload Module. VPM comes with a notable increase in VLS capacity. It also comes with a notable increase in construction hours. One Virginia Blk V equals 1.25 regular Virginia in build time.
So right there you need to be careful measuring past and future build speed, because two Blk V equal 2.5 regular boats per year (with work for Columbia coming on top). All new boats on order will be Blk V, putting additional stress on meeting the 2 boats/year-target.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(