European co-operation

[Sun Who]

Given the pressure on the defence budget, is there any merit in exploring the value of bilateral co-operation with European partners?

I'm not talking about complex, politically motivated arrangements such as Typhoon, but 2 partner arrangements driven by a mutual need to pool resources.

Thoughts?

Sun Who.

[kbrockman]

Well, it is possible, for instance we (Belgium) have a very deep going alliance with the Dutch military, certainly the Naval forces and it seems to work out fairly well.

The Dutch have the command (they have a far bigger navy then we) and a lot ,if not most, training and procedures are done together, also there are many sailors that serve 1 or more terms on ships of both navies.

[Pontius Navigator]

But in any partnership, be it bilateral or multinational, if you sign up then you should ante up.

I have heard that the Dutch are standing down from Kandahar and no one else is stepping forward. [I may be wrong but this is a rumour network].

Now funny that brockman should mention NL-BE partnership. Maybe it is the NL-BE partnership that is standing down?

[kbrockman]

Pontius,

You're absolutely right but I've should have said it more clearly, our joint forces are mostly limited to the Navies for now (united command structure) but we also work together in the other forces albeit more on a case to case base, BTW as of the beginning of 2009 there are also Belgian military forces in Uruzgan province supporting the Dutch after a request from the Dutch DoD towards the Belgian DoD, that's atleats how much I remember from the news reports a couple of months ago.
If anyone knows more or thinks I got this wrong plz feel free to correct.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Sun Who. It sounds like a good idea; until you get into the detail.

Collaborative cross national equipment programmes do work, so long as everyone wants the same thing. The Jaguar and Tornado worked out reasonably well, as have the second generation Harriers. The Typhoon programme was much bigger, more diverse and, in the event, suffered accordingly.

The other point you made was resource pooling. To a large extent, that's what NATO does but that is more like capability pooling. At National levels, I don't think it's that simple. It assumes that the Pool contributors have common aims and interests. That probably works satisfactorily between Belgium and Holland. I'm not so sure that would work for France and very certain it wouldn't work for us. For example, if something kicked off in an Overseas Territory or Protectorate, would the "partner" feel inclined to contribute? Would a "partner" wan't to be involved in asserting our mineral rights in the Atlantic?

In short, it could be cheaper in money but dearer in National good.

[minigundiplomat]

I don't trust the Belgians (Sorry mate) to wake up Belgian in the morning, let alone watch our 6.

The Dutch have done a good job, though certain events in Bosnia gave them a bit of a wake up call.

Overall, there are a number of very capable and competent military units across the EU, but they have flimsy, progressive politicians pretending to make the decisions.

Outside of the Dutch and the Scandinavians, I think Id rather be tied in with the Iranians or North Koreans than any EU type affair.

[Sun Who]

Golf Bravo Zulu

You're right. Alignment of national interests, even between European countries who have similar economic concerns and cultural approaches, would be nigh on impossible.
I was thinking more along the lines of procurement alignment - sharing resources bilaterally to develop technologies and equipment (and thereby capability) that we couldn't afford to develop alone.
I don't have a mature argument one way or the other for this yet, but I think the possibilities merit consideration.

Sun Who

[Pontius Navigator]

along the lines of procurement alignment -

This is both politically driven (ie foreign policy) and doctrine alignment too. At its simplest, the RAF was firmly wedded to low and fast whereas the USAF/USN was very much for mass and medium.

sharing resources bilaterally to develop technologies and equipment (and thereby capability) that we couldn't afford to develop alone.

Again, this is doctrinally driven. If our doctrine requires tracked vehicles rather than wheeled then we would need to find another state with the same doctrine.

So before you collaborate you must align doctrine and policy.