Fulltext search in archive

The author follows the mainstream economics, i.e. leading economics of defence policy, ranging from economics of defence in the nuclear age, via economics of Iraq conflict, to current fight against terrorism. New paradigm must be drawn, taking into account source management, the distribution of economics weight of individual national economies of all countries participating in the fight against global terrorism.

The purpose of this article is to get readers acquainted with new facts that are arising in the sphere of defence and security of state and at the same time they might influence defence economics research. This recent phenomena came into existence as a consequence of new world layout and events especially tied with massive terrorist attacks after September 2001.

The authors depict the development of outsourcing methods in US armed forces, its origins, and sources. Collected data are accompanied by experiences from British and German armies. The American Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued in 1966 Circular No A-76 (lately several times revisited) to define procedures how to set rules which commercial activities are to be done within the frame of armed forces or in private sector. Backed by a number of literatures, magazines and newspapers (Air Force Journal of Logistics, Air Force Magazine, Armed Forces Journal, Defense Nationale, Washington Technology, Wehrtechnik, etc.) authors analyse several outsourcing processes. They present both positive and negative results, including open or hidden problems of A-76 policy (e.g. business process outsourcing). For the Army of the CR they recommend to overcome above mentioned problems by creating the corrective authority, similar to the British PPPU (PublicPrivate Partnership Unit).

This article presents the experiences with the use of Public Private Partnership (PPP) as a modern way of arrangement of public services how is used abroad, with specific bias to defence sector. The problem is solved best in Great Britain that has perfectly organised public administration and transparent feedback. Even in our country we run several PPP projects, unfortunately, overall data on them are not satisfactory.

Antiballistic defence systems could be defined as a secondary defensive response to ballistic threats, against existing, projected or planned ballistic military hardware. In a way, it is a sort of deterrence weapon, because such defence discourages opponents form the development of offensive missiles. The author of this article, the former deputy defence minister, Maj-Gen. (ret), specifies three relevant antimissiles system: ALTBM-NATO Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence; NATO MD-NATO Missile Defence; and USA MD-USA Missile Defence. The purpose of American antiballistic defence is to counterbalance potential strokes by limited numbers of ballistic missiles, blasted off from both enemy and rogue states and those launched by accident. Allegedly, the Iranians are developing ballistic missiles with the range of 4,000 km. With the reference to the fact that the distance Prague-Teheran is about 3,400 km, and such missiles could constitute an eminent danger even for the Czech Republic, not only for the continental United States, this issue is widely discussed in Czech mass media.

The professional base for tactical and operational levels of US ground forces and German Federal Armed Forces are the following manuals: US Army Field Manual 100/5 "Operations", since 2001 being labelled as "Field Manual 3-0", and German HDv 100/100 "Truppenfuhrung 2000". Both manuals were drafted in a closed cooperation. The basic principles of German manual Truppenfuhrung 2000 were imitated and copied by the Netherlands armed forces and partly, to a certain measure, also by other NATO nations. Rules of Field Manual 3-0 were tested in peace operations, in the fight against international terrorism in Afghanistan and during the first phase of Second War in Iraq. In fact, the operations of US forces indirectly proved practicability and effectiveness of nearly identical German field rules and manuals, consequently command principles, including those of the so-called nation building. Based upon an article by MG Christian E.O. Millotat in 3/2006 Osterreichische Militärische Zeitschrift, No 3/2006.

Even after the Cold War, our world is full of local and international conflicts. There were dozens of wars, fringe clashes between local opposing groups in Africa, Asia and so on. Among them there were four wars of lager size, with more than thousands of deaths in each of them that could be characterized as international wars: Desert Storm 1991, Iraqi Freedom 2003, Allied Strength 1999, and Enduring Freedom 2001. Now we can look at them from a distance ...217 Problems tied with those large-scale wars have several levels: supranational (international) level and military level, being accompanied by paradoxes: international and political paradoxes and military ones. This influenced structures and methods of training and preparation of Australian, Britain and US forces. The lessons were embedded into their military concepts, rules and regulations, e.g. Complex Warfighting (Australia), Future Land Operating Concept (UK), Field Manual: Interim Counterinsurgency Operations (US). New roles of military forces, global and local implications, ought to be embedded also into the structures and concepts of the Army of the Czech Republic, concludes the author.

It is an age-old problem, how to identify someone or something, to prevent from incidents, in which friendly forces fire on their own troops or vehicles by mistake, because of tiredness, exhaustion, psychological stress, technological defects, unforeseen circumstances, etc. Although there exists a technology carried specifically in an aircraft, combat vehicles, that utilizes coded radio signals to identify other friendly units, adopted measures are not always successful. In NATO, we have standardized systems for such identification: BTID-Battlefield Target Identification Device (for identification of vehicles and helicopters, STANAG 4579); and DSID-Dismounted Soldier Identification Device (for identification soldiers, STANAG 4630). At present, Germany (together with the United States) is in the lead of development system IFF. Systems are conceptually, technologically and tactically synthesized into ZEFF (ZielErkennung Freund-Feind), common for vehicles, helicopters, soldiers, as well as vehicles beyond the area of forces deployment. Source: Europäische Sicherheit magazine, 4/2006.