Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Denmark to be defended by other Nato partners
Thomas    10/14/2011 6:51:30 PM
http://jp.dk/indland/indland_politik/article2578134.ece Sorry - it is in Danish, but the gist of it is, that the new secretary of defence proposes, at Danish airspace being defended by other Nato partners. The new secretary of Defence is Nick Hækkerup - a close relative of former secretary of Defence Hans Hækkerup - who is unfortunately very ill. Hans Hækkerup is generally recognised as one of the best defence secretaries in Nato (among friend and foe), f.i. he is fluent in russian. If his cousin is just half as good - we are in for a treat. My take on the suggestion is that it is a roundabout way of saying the opposite. 1) The proposal reveals a deep understanding of Air Defence: Splitting up in a number of point defences is not a very good idea. You have to have area coverage, as range with a lethal weaponsload (of PGM) is so great today that outflanking of defences in flight is rather the rule than the exception. 2) The Danish forces face a cut of ½ billion USD annually. One point is that the investment in F-35 is being curtailed in numbers due to the high price of the aircraft. I consider this a caustic message to our alliede honorable freinds: We can do this; but - no way - are we going to be a cash cow for your defence industies. The new helicopters have been overpriced, and the manufacturers have NOT lived up to the promises of buy-back. 3) As Denmark rules the Baltic Sea - it makes sense to have that air defence under our wings - for the simple reason: It will be cheaper for all parties concerned. It will make sense to have maintainence and shop facilities in Denmark - out of range of a possible enemy: The small Baltic nations have no aircraft based air defence, and we are getting fed up with having to foot that bill, which is in the obvious interest of all Baltic coastal states. 4) Air defence is one area, where danish quality has never been faulted - so instead of investing in a mediocre solution yourselves, why not outsource? 5) Denmark and Norway have paid more than their fair share in Irak, Afghanistan, Ex-Yugoslavia, anti-pirate warfare in Somalia - and now lately in Libya (not to mention in the Arctic). That is money-wise as well as in casualties. We have done that without murmur; but in the end, there is no such thing as a free lunch. So I think he means the direct opposite: Gentlement - grab your wallets - and start the moneypump.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Thomas    Trying to deal with crappy software   10/14/2011 7:14:04 PM
Sorry - it is in Danish, but the gist of it is, that the new secretary of defence proposes, at Danish airspace being defended by other Nato partners.
 
The new secretary of Defence is Nick Hækkerup - a close relative of former secretary of Defence Hans Hækkerup - who is unfortunately very ill. Hans Hækkerup is generally recognised as one of the best defence secretaries in Nato (among friend and foe), f.i. he is fluent in russian. If his cousin is just half as good - we are in for a treat.
 
My take on the suggestion is that it is a roundabout way of saying the opposite.
 
1) The proposal reveals a deep understanding of Air Defence: Splitting up in a number of point defences is not a very good idea. You have to have area coverage, as range with a lethal weaponsload (of PGM) is so great today that outflanking of defences in flight is rather the rule than the exception.
 
2) The Danish forces face a cut of ½ billion USD annually. One point is that the investment in F-35 is being curtailed in numbers due to the high price of the aircraft. I consider this a caustic message to our alliede honorable freinds: We can do this; but - no way - are we going to be a cash cow for your defence industies. The new helicopters have been overpriced, and the manufacturers have NOT lived up to the promises of buy-back.
 
3) As Denmark rules the Baltic Sea - it makes sense to have that air defence under our wings - for the simple reason: It will be cheaper for all parties concerned. It will make sense to have maintainence and shop facilities in Denmark - out of range of a possible enemy: The small Baltic nations have no aircraft based air defence, and we are getting fed up with having to foot that bill, which is in the obvious interest of all Baltic coastal states.
 
4) Air defence is one area, where danish quality has never been faulted - so instead of investing in a mediocre solution yourselves, why not outsource?
 
5) Denmark and Norway have paid more than their fair share in Irak, Afghanistan, Ex-Yugoslavia, anti-pirate warfare in Somalia - and now lately in Libya (not to mention in the Arctic). That is money-wise as well as in casualties.
 
We have done that without murmur; but in the end, there is no such thing as a free lunch. So I think he means the direct opposite: Gentlement - grab your wallets - and start the moneypump!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/14/2011 10:31:06 PM

this has been a long time coming though - the swedes were pushing the pan-skandinavian military model about 5 years ago, the cynics were arguing that it was because sweden saw her slice of the military procurement market being eroded and that this was a defacto way of securing sales on capability against partners.

eg the early model looked at sweden picking up air defence (more gripens) and the danes picking up maritime, the norwegians ground based  responsibility.  again the cynics view was that nobbling denmark and norway via service control also neutered their footprint against swedish companies in the same space.

its a conspiracy theorists dream come true.. :)


 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       10/15/2011 12:33:59 AM

For many years I thought it was because Palme was about to close a deal with the Soviets: If Russian airplanes overflew Sweden in wartime - without targets in Sweden - Sweden would do sweet nothing. Kind of akin to the deal i suspect Nixon made with China - which kept the B-52 viable and tore up the Soviet far-eastern airdefence - and strategic missile siloes (China couldn't have done sweet nothing about those high fliers anyway.)
 
It seems now, that I might not have been far off the mark, which this article about the chief of intelligence during Palme:
Unfortumately also in Danish.
The information is credible in the light of the decided chilliness between Sweden and the USA. I recall a protrait of the assasinated Swedish foreign secretary Anna Lind. Colin Powell said: "He disagreed with her, but respected her." - Which in diplomatic terms is much like saying: "Don't look at me! I didn't off that bitch."
The assasinantion of Palme is in my view a quite different matter: Personally I think it was an outsourced mob-hit - he was shot in the neck (A pain in the neck).
 
The former swedish prime minister was once - in connection with Swedish involvement in the Baltic - called to a meeting in Whashington with George Bush the younger. After that the Swedes retired - even though the Swedish king with characteristic lack of tact said: "This was once Sweden."
 
No Sweden was never a serious player: But note, that after the cold war the Danish division formed corps with 12th PzGre in Neubrandenburg and the Polish Pommerian division. Bringing the Poles and Germans together in same division?????
I don't know the present OB. But I suppose it is in the flux. But there is transport capacity to lift a medium brigade with a heavy tank BTN (Absalon Class) plus the 4 roro-ferries in the ARK-project.
No the problem is for the Poles and Germans to remain in contact with the 3 Baltic states - which could be cut off with an attack from Khalingradskaya Oblast.
Secondly it will be of importance to secure the pipeline under the sea (under building) from Russia to Germany  as an alternative to the highly vulnerable supply through White Russia.
 
Considering Norway: Norway actually has a boarder with Russia in the far north - which has always been the hellhole for Norwegeans conscripts. As the developments have shown: Murmansk is at the mercy of Norway - partly through the F-35 and partly by those nasty Nansen.-class frigates. I do have the Norwegeans suspected of using their far northern oil fields for underwater listening devises - up to Spitsbergen (Svalbard) - probably similar to the devices at around 79 degrees north between Greenland and Spitsbergen - oh yes - I could be wrong: If you believe that, I have Eiffel Towers for sale....
Do you think the ability to prevent the russian submarines leaving Murmansk would be an American priority?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    cont.   10/15/2011 12:35:13 AM
At the moment there seems to be a larger pecunary disagreement within Nato; but note, that former Danish Prime Minister (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) is the highest civilian official of NATO. The newest is, that the present chief of defence of the Danish Forces - Bartels (one though son of a bitch) -  is going to be top military adviser to the civilian Secretary General (spring 2012).
One aside: Anders Fogh Rasmussen has trained himself never to blink.
 
Shall we guess that that ½ billion USD annually will be found?
Secondly I've noticed, that information on the RDaN homepage on "interesting" (no news of Nils Wang for a year) officers have been removed.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics