1 / 43

NATO’s Defence Planning Processes

NATO’s Defence Planning Processes. Jim Squelch Planning Directorate Defence Policy and Planning Division NATO International Staff January 2013. NATO Defence Planning. Armaments Cooperation. Command and Control (C2) Planning. Nuclear Planning. NATO DEFENCE PLANNING.

Télécharger la présentation

NATO’s Defence Planning Processes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. NATO’s Defence Planning Processes Jim Squelch Planning Directorate Defence Policy and Planning Division NATO International Staff January 2013

  2. NATO Defence Planning Armaments Cooperation Command and Control (C2) Planning Nuclear Planning NATO DEFENCE PLANNING Logistics Planning Resources Planning FORCE PLANNING

  3. Defence Policy and Planning Communities Logistics Medical Air Defence Intelligence Air Traffic Management Research & Technology Force Planning Standardisation & Interoperability Civil Emergency Planning Command, Control & Communication Planning Armament Cooperation

  4. Determine the forces and capabilities required by NATO Coordinate national defence plans to best support the interests of the Alliance and establish equitable share of defence burden among Allies Assess countries’ actions in response to the requirements agreed by them Remain responsive to new requirements: Transformation; support to EU; etc. NATO Force Planning Objectives

  5. MINISTERIAL GUIDANCE NATO FORCE GOALS Elements of Force Planning Comprehensive Political Guidance DEFENCE REVIEW

  6. Force Planning Process 2006 2007 2008 2009 June December June December June December June December DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS Force Goals General Report Update Force Goals General Report Ministerial Guidance

  7. “To identify and agree measures which seek to optimise synergy between all activities related to the development and delivery of capabilities, either through harmonising or integrating them, as appropriate, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts and ensuring effectiveness and efficiency.’’ C-M(2008)0055 Aim of Review

  8. In Step 1 – Establish Political Guidance Develop single, unified guidance – 4 years + review at 2 years In Step 2 – Determine Requirements Develop single, consolidated list of MCRs - 4years In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set Targets Provide nations one, comprehensive package - 4 years In Step 4 – Facilitate Implementation Largely new step; was to add coherence In Step 5 – Review Results Provide more comprehensive assessment - 2 years Key Stages of NDPP

  9. Key Stages of NDPP Lead – DPPC(R) In Step 1 – Establish Political Guidance Develop single, unified guidance In Step 2 – Determine Requirements Develop single, consolidated list of Minimum Capability Requirements In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set Targets Provide nations one, comprehensive package In Step 4 – Facilitate Implementation Largely new step; intended to add coherence In Step 5 – Review Results Provide more comprehensive assessment Lead – SCs Lead – SCs – DPPC(R) Lead – DPPC(R) Lead – DPPC(R)

  10. Main task is to provide the necessary staff support. Functionally integrated task forces drawing on the civilian and military expertise within the NATO staffs. Facilitate cohesion by developing holistic and fully informed products. Has not worked. Not resourced and no culture of cyclical planning DefencePlanning Staff Team

  11. Senior level body which comprises all stakeholders Main tasks: coordinate composition and work of the staff team; align and de-conflict staff efforts related to capability development across planning domains. Maintain cohesion in capability development by aligning staff work and recommending (remedial) action to Senior Committee for defence planning (DPPC(R)). Formally disbanded in May 2012 – replaced by Capability Development Executive Board Internal Coordination Mechanism

  12. On behalf of the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG, the DPPC(R) will be responsible: for defence planning-related policy for coordination and direction of DPP activities for integrated advice to the NAC, DPC(sic) and NPG DPPC(R) will serve as the central body to oversee the work of the NATO committees responsible for the planning domains, and can provide feedback and, as required, defence planning process-related direction to them. AC/281-N(2008)0112-REV3 (INV) Senior Committee for Defence Planning – DPPC(R)

  13. EU GEO MAP KAZ AZE ARM AUT FYR RUS KGZ CHE TKM FIN MDA IRL UZB ? BLR SWE UKR TJK Partners in 2012 PFP PFP Planning and Review Process (PARP) Montenegro IPAP Serbia BIH NUC NGC MALTA Istanbul Coop Initiative Bahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE Mediterranean Dialogue Morocco Jordan Tunisia Mauritania Egypt Algeria Israel

  14. Planning And Review Process PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE

  15. PARP Milestones Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Partnership Goals PARP Assessments Partnership Goals PARP Assessments Consolidated Report Consolidated Report Summary Report Summary Report Ministerial Guidance Ministerial Guidance

  16. PARP and NDPP • Partners do not share obligations of Allies (eg burden-sharing) • Not one PARP but 18 PARPs • PARP already an integrated pol-mil process • One body (PPC(PARP)) providing oversight – Allies + participating Partners • Facilitating implementation already addressed through IPCPs/IPAP/MAP, Country Specific Plans, POCs, MTTs, PfP Training Centres etc

  17. Elements of NATO-EU Cooperation • Washington Summit Communique 1999, para 10 • Berlin Plus Agreement 17 March 2003 • Security Agreement • Access to NATO planning capabilities and assets/capabilities • Role of DSACEUR • Coherent, mutually reinforcing capability requirements (PARP) • Capability Group/HTF Plus • Common information-gathering tool (NDPASS) • Staff to staff contacts • “Smart Defence”/”Pooling and Sharing”

  18. Capability Review • Most Allies’ defence budgets affected – 18 spending less than in 2011 • Maintaining, sometimes increasing, commitments to current operations but at expense of transformation • Cancellations, postponements and delays of major equipment projects; some capabilities being abandoned • Restrictions in training levels in some countries • Cuts in personnel and pay/allowances in a number of countries • Only four Allies will spend 2% of GDP or more on defence in 2012; 19 will spend 1.5% or less in 2011 • Only seven Allies will spend 20% or more of defence expenditures on major equipment; ten will spend less than 10% in 2012 • - US now provides 77% of Alliance defence spending; was 63% in 2001

  19. Defence Expenditures

  20. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency 2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year) Albania13,652 15,171 2.06 -3.94 7.59 7.52 Belgium 3,574 3,192 9.02 -5.82 -3.92 -1.29 Bulgaria * 965 568 1.26 -21.41 -6.22 -20.16 Canada 16,997 17,981 5.26 5.48 -2.38 2.74 Croatia 4,527 3,746 9.62 -11.61 -6.55 0.17 Czech Republic 43,684 35,326 1.01 10.27 -13.9 -14.83 Denmark 20,230 20,356 3.83 -5.99 6.46 0.54 * Pensions are not included

  21. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency 2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year) Estonia 2,860 │ 164.4 0.96 -13.38-2.84 6.88 France* 38,311 │ 31,580-2.01 │ -14.02 -0.69 -3.14 Germany 30,121 30,676 4.52 2.67 1.61 -2.38 Greece 5,357 3,316.189.803.14-19.68-24.31 Hungary 208,243 157,846-3.93 -12.75 -8.52-5.03 Iceland // // // // // // Italy 13,456 10,187 0.38 -7.14 -10.67 -8.74 * Defence Expenditures, for 2009,do not include the Gendarmerie and, from 2010, include only the deployable part of the Gendarmerie.

  22. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency 2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year) Latvia 133 73-0.6 -37.49 -14.64 3.41 Lithuania 973 668-0.23 -17.19 -16.58-0.61 Luxembourg* │ 117 149 │ -32.82-0.47 31.27 -2.76 Netherlands 6,868 6,474-1.27 1.36 -4.19 -2.93 Norway** 28,159 │ 28,438 0.14 │ 3.65 -1.08-1.5 Poland 16,596 22,570 -8.17 10.39 10.98 6.09 Portugal 2,024 2,211 3.25 5.6 2.31 1.08 * From 2008, defense expenditures include only the deployable part of the Police Grand-Ducale.** From 2009, new methodology is used to calculate Pensions.

  23. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency 2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year) Romania 1,933 1,473 3.13 -13.78 -6.46 -5.53 Slovak Republic* 22,615 │ 566 4.18 -1.73 -15.21-9.45 Slovenia 394 341 7.55 -1.63 0.59 -12.69 Spain 9,428 8,112 1.94 -4.96 -6.06 -3.62 Turkey 4,366 4,737 8.8 -0.74 1.75 7.42 United Kingdom 29,927 29,611 4.73 -0.81 1.58 -1.8 United States 577,450 553,347 21.37 2.66 1.75 -8.26 * From 2009, in Euros.

  24. Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency 2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year) Austria22182026 -4.41 -7.11 -0.54 -1.15 Finland 2059 2298 3.59 12.68 -5.79 5.14 Ireland 866772 12.62 -4.34 -4.40 -2.51 Sweden30951 32279 -9.24 -3.497.83 0.21

  25. Positive Lessons from OUP • Speed of Response – six days from UNSCR • NATO Command Structure performed well, with some reservations • Collateral damage was kept to minimum • “Partnership” worked well – SWE, JOR, QAT, MOR, UAE integrated into operation • Interoperability effective – eg FR, GR, IT and SP airbases hosted aircraft from 14 countries • Comprehensive Approach worked – military, civilian and diplomatic efforts

  26. Negative Lessons from OUP • Imbalance of capabilities within NATO – over-reliance on US for advanced capabilities like airborne ISR, SEAD and AAR • Imbalance in levels of specific skills in Command Structure (especially for Targeting, where US had to reinforce) • Except for US, other Allies had insufficient stocks of precision-guided munitions

  27. Deployable Specialised Assets

  28. Deployable Specialised Assets – incl AAR

  29. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

  30. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

  31. 50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180

  32. Current Activities • 150,000 personnel on nine operations • 28 Allies and 26 non-NATO partners • 133,000 in ISAF • 7,000 in KFOR (including ORF Bn) • 7,500 in Operation Unified Protector • OUP – 220 aircraft (25,000 sorties in six months) • Eleven ships patrolling (3,000 challenges made) • 2,800 humanitarian assistance missions de-conflicted

  33. Future Challenges • Discussions of future Capability Targets just begun – for approval by Defence Ministers in June 2013. • Based on computer-generated operational analysis that was, in turn, based on Political Guidance agreed in March 2011. • But, results challenged by almost half of Allies. • Consequences for agreement of Target packages? – 50% Rule • Emphasises importance of next Political Guidance being completely unambiguous in defining what Alliance force structure needs to be able to achieve. • Visibility to Ministers to be improved – proposals for “enhancement” of NDPP for February Ministerial

  34. Future Challenges • “Smart Defence” – some 150 potential projects – 21 Tier 1 • Role of Partners? • Multinational cooperation not easy!! • What happens after ISAF withdrawal? • How to remain engaged with each other? • Solution seen as Connected Forces Initiative • But, will there be money for training and exercises?

  35. Thank You

  36. Back-up Slides

  37. NATO and EU Capability Codes EU M 200 – ROSM M 701 – SPODs P 100 – SPODs P 101 – APODs M 150 – maintain railway NATO ROSM-G-HQ – RSOM Gp HQ ROSM-B-HQ – ROSM Bn HQ RSOM-CTU – sea, rail, air terminals ROSM-RR – maintain railway

  38. Set of Representative PS for DRR 07 8 K KM Max MJO range BRUSSELS 12 K KM Max SJO range 8 K KM Max MJO range 29 PS 15 K KM Max SJO- range + 8 PS 12 K KM Max SJO range + 2 PS

  39. NATO European and EU Members

More Related