Upload
francis-herbert-wilcox
View
223
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
NATO’s Defence Planning Processes
Jim Squelch
Planning Directorate
Defence Policy and Planning Division
NATO International StaffJanuary 2013
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
ResourcesPlanning
Command and Control (C2)
Planning
NATO Defence Planning
FORCE PLANNING
Logistics Planning
Nuclear Planning
ArmamentsCooperation
NATODEFENCE PLANNING
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Defence Policy and Planning Communities
Force Planning
Research & Technology
Civil Emergency Planning
Intelligence
Command, Control & Communication
Planning
Armament Cooperation
Standardisation & Interoperability
Air Traffic Management
Air Defence Logistics Medical
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Elements of Force Planning
DEFENCEREVIEW
NATO FORCE GOALS
MINISTERIALGUIDANCE
Comprehensive Political Guidance
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Force Planning Process
Force
Goals
Ministerial Guidance
June
2006
December
General
Report
DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS
June June June
2007 2008
December
Update
Force Goals
FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS
December December
2009
DEFENCE REVIEW CONSULTATIONS
General
Report
FORCE GOAL CONSULTATIONS
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
“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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
PG LoAINT Pol – Mil Analysis
PS
Operations
Lessons Learned
Future TrendsMinimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)
Compare MCR to Existingand Planned Capabilities
Surplus Capability
Capabilities to be Maintained
Capability ShortfallsRISK
Analysis
Priority Shortfall Areas
Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas
Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions
Develop Targets – apportion
National Targets
Multi-National Targets
NATO Targets
Reasonable ChallengeAssociated Risk
National / Multi-National Implementation
NATO Implementation
Monitor / Facilitate
Support
NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report
NATO and National Existing
and Planned Capabilities
Step1
2
3
4
5
Process ModelProcess Model
Agree Targets
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
In Step 1 – Establish Political GuidanceDevelop single, unified guidance – 4 years + review at 2 years
In Step 2 – Determine RequirementsDevelop single, consolidated list of MCRs - 4 years
In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set TargetsProvide nations one, comprehensive package - 4 years
In Step 4 – Facilitate ImplementationLargely new step; was to add coherence
In Step 5 – Review ResultsProvide more comprehensive assessment - 2 years
Key Stages of NDPP
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
In Step 1 – Establish Political GuidanceDevelop single, unified guidance
In Step 2 – Determine RequirementsDevelop single, consolidated list of Minimum Capability Requirements
In Step 3 – Apportion Requirements & Set TargetsProvide nations one, comprehensive package
In Step 4 – Facilitate ImplementationLargely new step; intended to add coherence
In Step 5 – Review ResultsProvide more comprehensive assessment
Key Stages of NDPP
Lead – DPPC(R)
Lead – SCs
Lead – SCs – DPPC(R)
Lead – DPPC(R)
Lead – DPPC(R)
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Defence Planning Staff Team
• 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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Internal Coordination Mechanism
• 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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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)
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Partners in 2012
ARM KAZ
CHE UZB ?
UKR
AZE
BLR KGZ
RUS
TKM
TJK
PFPPFP Planning and Review Process (PARP)
AUT FIN SWEIRL
EU
FYR
MAP
Mediterranean Dialogue
BIH
Montenegro
Serbia
GEO
IPAPMDA
MauritaniaAlgeria Egypt TunisiaMoroccoIsrael Jordan
MALTA
Istanbul Coop InitiativeBahrein, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE
NUCNGC
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE
Planning
And
Review
Process
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
PARP Milestones
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Partnership Goals
ConsolidatedReport
PARPAssessments
Summary Report
Ministerial Guidance
ConsolidatedReport
PARPAssessments
Ministerial Guidance
Spring 2015
Partnership Goals
Summary Report
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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”
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
PG LoAINT Pol – Mil Analysis
PS
Operations
Lessons Learned
Future TrendsMinimum Capabilities Requirements (MCR)
Compare MCR to Existingand Planned Capabilities
Surplus Capability
Capabilities to be Maintained
Capability ShortfallsRISK
Analysis
Priority Shortfall Areas
Note Synopsis of MCR including Priority Shortfall Areas
Determine Capability Shortfall Solutions
Develop Targets – apportion
National Targets
Multi-National Targets
NATO Targets
Reasonable ChallengeAssociated Risk
National / Multi-National Implementation
NATO Implementation
Monitor / Facilitate
Support
NATO Capability Survey Progress Report Annual Capabilities Report
NATO and National Existing
and Planned Capabilities
Step1
2
3
4
5
Process ModelProcess Model
Agree Targets
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
- 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
Capability Review
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Defence Expenditures
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year)
Albania 13,652 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
Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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 3,316.18 9.80 3.14 -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.
Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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.
Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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.
Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
2000 prices 2008 2009 2010 2011 2008 2011 (% Change from Previous Year)
Austria 2218 2026 -4.41 -7.11 -0.54 -1.15
Finland 2059 2298 3.59 12.68 -5.79 5.14
Ireland 866 772 12.62 -4.34 -4.40 -2.51
Sweden 30951 32279 -9.24 -3.49 7.83 0.21
Defence Expenditures by Country in National Currency
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Deployable Specialised Assets
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Deployable Specialised Assets – incl AAR
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
50% of LOA – 2 x 90/180
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
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?
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
Back-up Slides
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
NATO and EU Capability Codes
NATO
ROSM-G-HQ – RSOM Gp HQ
ROSM-B-HQ – ROSM Bn HQ
RSOM-CTU – sea, rail, air terminals
ROSM-RR – maintain railway
EU
M 200 – ROSM
M 701 – SPODs
P 100 – SPODs
P 101 – APODs
M 150 – maintain railway
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
BRUSSELS
12 K KMMax SJO range
15 K KMMax SJO- range
8 K KMMax MJO range
8 K KMMax MJO range
12 K KMMax SJO range
29 PS
+ 8 PS
+ 2 PS
Set of Representative PS for DRR 07
IS/DPP Force Planning for the Alliance
NATO European and EU Members