European Military Capability.....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
We are used to train and exercise multinationally although we have different equipments, procedures, ROES,etc...
How about actual fighting? How much actual fighting are the French doing either multinationally or unilaterally?
train and exercise multinationally = empty show, make-believe warriors.
How about actual fighting? How much actual fighting are the French doing either multinationally or unilaterally?
train and exercise multinationally = empty show, make-believe warriors.
Why don't you do a bit of research? In the first Gulf War, although the French were not told that Desert Storm was about to kick off they graciously allowed the RAF Tanker crews to use their photocopiers (
) Seriously, that was your fault, not theirs.Later they acquited themselves well and were possibly the first, and ahead of the RAF, to have HUD video released to the media.
I think you will find that the French are engaged multinationally right now.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same old story again and again...
ME,
I guess you are soon going to lecture us about the French being ready for action with all their white flags and all the bladibla... Good stuff for pub rants around a few beers.
However, as PN said, you should read what Gen. Schwartzkopf said about french Gazelle performance during Desert Storm. Then again you should read about some of the stuff is going on in Africa (Tchad, Ivory Coast, Congo...). Surely it is less glamorous to send small platoons in some desertic african countries nobody cares about to try to restore some kind of peace than going into Iraq, just because uncle Sam said so and get some sailors arrested by the Iranians... Done with the ranting.
Then you should check who has just spent a month on a US carrier with one of their sqns and carry out 150 cats and traps (50 of which at night) and tell me who can achieve this degree of interoperability...
But true that as long as people will keep talking about stuff they don't have a clue about rather than looking for common ground from where we can build something, european defense will only be a "wet-dream of a select group of French and German imperialists" as somebody put it before.
I guess you are soon going to lecture us about the French being ready for action with all their white flags and all the bladibla... Good stuff for pub rants around a few beers.
However, as PN said, you should read what Gen. Schwartzkopf said about french Gazelle performance during Desert Storm. Then again you should read about some of the stuff is going on in Africa (Tchad, Ivory Coast, Congo...). Surely it is less glamorous to send small platoons in some desertic african countries nobody cares about to try to restore some kind of peace than going into Iraq, just because uncle Sam said so and get some sailors arrested by the Iranians... Done with the ranting.
Then you should check who has just spent a month on a US carrier with one of their sqns and carry out 150 cats and traps (50 of which at night) and tell me who can achieve this degree of interoperability...
But true that as long as people will keep talking about stuff they don't have a clue about rather than looking for common ground from where we can build something, european defense will only be a "wet-dream of a select group of French and German imperialists" as somebody put it before.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it is less glamorous to send small platoons in some desertic african countries nobody cares about to try to restore some kind of peace than going into Iraq, just because uncle Sam said so and get some sailors arrested by the Iranians...
Those sailorpersons that got arrested -- ( wonder if use of "arrested" instead of "captured" is intentional ? ) -- they weren't 'Mercans. Uncle Sam MacBush Jr. didn't make 'em do that. It wuz Tony. ( One Anglo pretty much the same as the next one, eh? ).
My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.
Those sailorpersons that got arrested -- ( wonder if use of "arrested" instead of "captured" is intentional ? ) -- they weren't 'Mercans. Uncle Sam MacBush Jr. didn't make 'em do that. It wuz Tony. ( One Anglo pretty much the same as the next one, eh? ).
My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Those sailorpersons that got arrested -- ( wonder if use of "arrested" instead of "captured" is intentional ? ) -- they weren't 'Mercans. Uncle Sam MacBush Jr. didn't make 'em do that. It wuz Tony. ( One Anglo pretty much the same as the next one, eh? ).
My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.
My advice to the not-very-RN is go after the Somali pirates starting next Monday, and kill numerous of them. No formal coalition or committee meetings required.
As for your second comment, what are you saying - 'not-very-RN'?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to potentially become a superpower it needs a united military capability
Geography I suspect plays a big role.
Certain countries are predisposed towards a force favouring naval/air at the expense of land (eg. US and UK) whilst others are the opposite since they share a large and potentially dangerous land border (eg. historically France and Germany). An EU military I suspect will be trend towards the latter.
Regional (around the Med & E. Europe) warfighting capability at the expense of a global reach. Admittedly a small global capability in humanitarian missions but no where near the US' air and sealift ability to fight and sustain wars half a world away. Not even the USSR were able to do it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
0497 a good analysis to which one could expand as a geopolitical one.
The US indeed tried to operate as a land orientated military system after the 1st World War and only after the Washington Treaty did they try and level the playing field with limitations on British sea power.
Europe, although largely regional in its composition, like the States in the US, does have an extensive littoral and plenty of natural harbours. As a USE if it needs to trade globally it may, like the USA, realise it needs a global power projection capability; the geo-political aspect.
Which country builds the components of that system, be it aircraft carriers, transport aircraft etc is part of the argument and is probably no different from the pork-barrel system in the US, just less mature. We certainly don't like ceding ship construction to other countries but we cannot escape the fact that Norway builds tankers, Italy cruise ships German, Netherlands etc, all build warships. Even if we could agreed a standard design of warship we could certainly build in several yards at once.
Political will, modified by geography, will drive the shape of a European Army.
The US indeed tried to operate as a land orientated military system after the 1st World War and only after the Washington Treaty did they try and level the playing field with limitations on British sea power.
Europe, although largely regional in its composition, like the States in the US, does have an extensive littoral and plenty of natural harbours. As a USE if it needs to trade globally it may, like the USA, realise it needs a global power projection capability; the geo-political aspect.
Which country builds the components of that system, be it aircraft carriers, transport aircraft etc is part of the argument and is probably no different from the pork-barrel system in the US, just less mature. We certainly don't like ceding ship construction to other countries but we cannot escape the fact that Norway builds tankers, Italy cruise ships German, Netherlands etc, all build warships. Even if we could agreed a standard design of warship we could certainly build in several yards at once.
Political will, modified by geography, will drive the shape of a European Army.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''Why does God need a starship, er, European military?
In other words, who would they fight and why?''
My point exactly- do we even need one? As a realist point of view would argue, power= military capability but the EU takes more of a soft power, post modernist approach and is more interested in the economic/trading gains.
Theres the US, then 27 member states of the EU, bar Russia (debatable?) and other small potentially insignificant states that don't really pose a threat- who would we fight? terrorists?
*sits back and waits for the firing to begin.....!*
In other words, who would they fight and why?''
My point exactly- do we even need one? As a realist point of view would argue, power= military capability but the EU takes more of a soft power, post modernist approach and is more interested in the economic/trading gains.
Theres the US, then 27 member states of the EU, bar Russia (debatable?) and other small potentially insignificant states that don't really pose a threat- who would we fight? terrorists?
*sits back and waits for the firing to begin.....!*
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...
Int. Herald Tribune link
BRUSSELS, Belgium: EU governments agreed Monday to establish a joint military air squadron to improve their transport capabilities to far-flung operations such as Afghanistan, Africa or the Middle East.
The 27-nation bloc has had a long-standing shortfall in available military transport planes, and EU defense ministers meeting in Brussels hope to reduce this by pooling C-130s, the new Airbus A400 heavy lifter and other types of cargo aircraft.
The 27-nation bloc has had a long-standing shortfall in available military transport planes, and EU defense ministers meeting in Brussels hope to reduce this by pooling C-130s, the new Airbus A400 heavy lifter and other types of cargo aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do we really need one
However it also costs us a significant proportion of our GDP.
Other countries, with perhaps far smaller populations but higher per capita GDP, may have only token military capability. It is said that they are free-loading for security on the strength of the US Forces and to a lesser extent on British, French and Japanese Forces.
In an ideal world we would not need military power projection. We would have free trade and there would be no piracy or state sponsored conflict. A USE composite or unified military capability however would give Europe an equal voice amongst 4 super-powers.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sovereignty
An interesting thread. There are many examples of European military cooperation, but it just isn't leading to the kind of European military force that Wannabe is referring to. In my opinion the greatest obstacle is state sovereignty.
Europe's total military budget is not dissimilar to that of the US, and we have around a million men under arms. Yet, even if everyone turned up and all our forign policy aims were aligned (or dictated to us by a supra-state body), we still wouldn't be generating anything like the US' military capacity.
Why? Well, instead of a single force, it is packaged into a whole set of national militaries, each with their own range of capabilities and support elements - and where spending is lowest, the money tends to go to the totemic, visible capabilities rather than the enablers - ie all European countries have fast jets, but how many have the Air C2, ISTAR, AAR etc to support their use in a large-scale conflict?
The reason for this is that having a nationally controlled military has always been, and remains, one of the things that defines a state. Think of all the African countries that don't really have state adversaries, but still have armies with tanks? It's because you've got to have an army to be a proper country. Similarly Ireland - no real threat, and avowedly neutral, yet when they became independent from GB, they formed armed forces with a fair capability.
Now some fanatic federalists may be so deluded as to believe that individual states will die out as the EU becomes more and more important, but if you listen carefully to spokespeople from European countries' foreign policy departments, even the French and German, there will always be, buried in there somewhere, a statement that they will reserve an element of stat sovereignty in how they use their power, including their military forces.
So no, I don't see a European armed force becoming a reality - although I could see ESDP becoming a useful framework for coalition ops where the US is not (or can't be) included, and possibly becoming more important than NATO to some European countries.
Hope that helps!
Europe's total military budget is not dissimilar to that of the US, and we have around a million men under arms. Yet, even if everyone turned up and all our forign policy aims were aligned (or dictated to us by a supra-state body), we still wouldn't be generating anything like the US' military capacity.
Why? Well, instead of a single force, it is packaged into a whole set of national militaries, each with their own range of capabilities and support elements - and where spending is lowest, the money tends to go to the totemic, visible capabilities rather than the enablers - ie all European countries have fast jets, but how many have the Air C2, ISTAR, AAR etc to support their use in a large-scale conflict?
The reason for this is that having a nationally controlled military has always been, and remains, one of the things that defines a state. Think of all the African countries that don't really have state adversaries, but still have armies with tanks? It's because you've got to have an army to be a proper country. Similarly Ireland - no real threat, and avowedly neutral, yet when they became independent from GB, they formed armed forces with a fair capability.
Now some fanatic federalists may be so deluded as to believe that individual states will die out as the EU becomes more and more important, but if you listen carefully to spokespeople from European countries' foreign policy departments, even the French and German, there will always be, buried in there somewhere, a statement that they will reserve an element of stat sovereignty in how they use their power, including their military forces.
So no, I don't see a European armed force becoming a reality - although I could see ESDP becoming a useful framework for coalition ops where the US is not (or can't be) included, and possibly becoming more important than NATO to some European countries.
Hope that helps!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You get sent some place to do peace keeping, and there's violence. You have to defend your people. You follow the rules of engagement you were taught ...
And the World Court charges you with war crimes.
And the World Court charges you with war crimes.
ME ..How much are the French doing?....well this for starters,
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French troops
As for anything else, my kids have got classmates whose Dads are the "'Stan" at the moment (we have one of the RCPs garrisoned on the edge of town) ..... I don't think the kids think their papas are merely peackeeping.
An integrated European Defence Force, not in my lifetime...for starters you'd never get agreement on the contents of a "ration pack, Infantry, European, 24 hours, for the use of"........
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Afghan ambush kills French troops
As for anything else, my kids have got classmates whose Dads are the "'Stan" at the moment (we have one of the RCPs garrisoned on the edge of town) ..... I don't think the kids think their papas are merely peackeeping.
An integrated European Defence Force, not in my lifetime...for starters you'd never get agreement on the contents of a "ration pack, Infantry, European, 24 hours, for the use of"........
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we need...
Wannabe,
As stupid as it sounds, military power, the use of it, are part of the human relations in this world. If you look at history, wars or its derivatives have been constantly around and have been used as a means of achieving goals that couldn't be achieved differently.
You could argue that in the 21st century we should be civilised enough to be able to settle our disagreements by other means. Well, look around...
Can we find reasons to have an EU defense? 80% of the imports of the EU arrive by sea. You have a very small example of why we need some kind of force to protect the lanes of communication that feed the continent with oil, products, etc... with what is happening in Somalia (and remember it's only a bunch of starving, barely armed pirates that are causing this mess).
If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power). The other option is to be like Iceland which is fine by me but you have to accept the consequences it carries along.
However, as Occasional put it, the main issue is sovereignty. Very hard to let go. We started 57 years ago by giving away our sovereignty on coal and steel... so this takes time. My bet is one generation.
Hope it helps and thanks for the thread
As stupid as it sounds, military power, the use of it, are part of the human relations in this world. If you look at history, wars or its derivatives have been constantly around and have been used as a means of achieving goals that couldn't be achieved differently.
You could argue that in the 21st century we should be civilised enough to be able to settle our disagreements by other means. Well, look around...
Can we find reasons to have an EU defense? 80% of the imports of the EU arrive by sea. You have a very small example of why we need some kind of force to protect the lanes of communication that feed the continent with oil, products, etc... with what is happening in Somalia (and remember it's only a bunch of starving, barely armed pirates that are causing this mess).
If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power). The other option is to be like Iceland which is fine by me but you have to accept the consequences it carries along.
However, as Occasional put it, the main issue is sovereignty. Very hard to let go. We started 57 years ago by giving away our sovereignty on coal and steel... so this takes time. My bet is one generation.
Hope it helps and thanks for the thread
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Can we find reasons to have an EU defense? 80% of the imports of the EU arrive by sea. You have a very small example of why we need some kind of force to protect the lanes of communication that feed the continent with oil, products, etc... with what is happening in Somalia (and remember it's only a bunch of starving, barely armed pirates that are causing this mess).
If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power).
If you want to survive in this world you need to be strong. As simple as that. On top of that if you want to be heard in this world, you need to be strong (not only militarily but also economically, culturally, etc... soft+hard power).
Yes we do need strength but we need to decide on the direction of our political ambitions. You say one generation? You also say 57 years. Unless something happens to act as a catalyst I cannot see it happening in one generation.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Homme libre toujours tu chériras la mer...
PN,
I definitely agree with you and actually that was the point of my post. When 80% of the trade comes by sea, no prizes for guessing which service can protect it...Although there is also a balance to be struck between Power projection and Force projection (ie. at the end of the day you need boots on the ground to win a war).
As individual states, I tend to agree that we don't have the capability of defending our SLOCs, hence the point of having an EU defense. Look at the comparison: Nowadays: USN: 12 carriers (more 10 or 11 rather than 12 but nevermind), Europe: 1 (I'm talking real ones...). In 10 years time: US: definitely 10, Europe:3 (bloody froggies don't get it!!!). So I am not that pessimistic about capabilities. And as for timescales, look at the future eurpoean A400M transport unit that has just been voted (without the UK, bloody rosbeefs don't get it!!!
Regards
I definitely agree with you and actually that was the point of my post. When 80% of the trade comes by sea, no prizes for guessing which service can protect it...Although there is also a balance to be struck between Power projection and Force projection (ie. at the end of the day you need boots on the ground to win a war).
As individual states, I tend to agree that we don't have the capability of defending our SLOCs, hence the point of having an EU defense. Look at the comparison: Nowadays: USN: 12 carriers (more 10 or 11 rather than 12 but nevermind), Europe: 1 (I'm talking real ones...). In 10 years time: US: definitely 10, Europe:3 (bloody froggies don't get it!!!). So I am not that pessimistic about capabilities. And as for timescales, look at the future eurpoean A400M transport unit that has just been voted (without the UK, bloody rosbeefs don't get it!!!
Regards
Guest
Posts: n/a
And who will be attacking the SLOCs?
Wouldn't such a scenario engage NATO?
If so, where would an EU force come into play?
Will there be separate, dedicated forces for each? I highly doubt it, only an even more cumbersome chain of command/coordination
Is the fictional force to have an offensive mindset or to be a defensive force? Against whom? In whose best interest?
Will NATO go away in that case? Possibly, but to what benefit to either the European nations or the US?
Wouldn't such a scenario engage NATO?
If so, where would an EU force come into play?
Will there be separate, dedicated forces for each? I highly doubt it, only an even more cumbersome chain of command/coordination
Is the fictional force to have an offensive mindset or to be a defensive force? Against whom? In whose best interest?
Will NATO go away in that case? Possibly, but to what benefit to either the European nations or the US?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Green
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brick,
All the answers to your question are in the Gulf of Aden:
- A bunch of Somalians are causing a decent amount of disruption in our SLOC.
-NATO tried to intervene before withdrawing for different kind of reasons.
- The EU force comes into plays as EUNavco in Op Atalanta, a TG with a some frigates, a tanker and some MPA, whose mission is going to be to secure the navigation of all TM transiting in the area.
-Offensive/defensive? Depends on the mission. However, it is probably easier to build a common force with defensive missions. First learn to walk before learning to run... Hence why the EU Defense is focused on peace keeping/enforcment at present.
- Finally NATO need not to "go away" (although I do believe the organisation has a severe legitimacy issue at the moment but that is another subject). The EU Defense is considered as the european pillar of NATO, as such they complement each other (again look at Somalia), they don't oppose each other.
All the answers to your question are in the Gulf of Aden:
- A bunch of Somalians are causing a decent amount of disruption in our SLOC.
-NATO tried to intervene before withdrawing for different kind of reasons.
- The EU force comes into plays as EUNavco in Op Atalanta, a TG with a some frigates, a tanker and some MPA, whose mission is going to be to secure the navigation of all TM transiting in the area.
-Offensive/defensive? Depends on the mission. However, it is probably easier to build a common force with defensive missions. First learn to walk before learning to run... Hence why the EU Defense is focused on peace keeping/enforcment at present.
- Finally NATO need not to "go away" (although I do believe the organisation has a severe legitimacy issue at the moment but that is another subject). The EU Defense is considered as the european pillar of NATO, as such they complement each other (again look at Somalia), they don't oppose each other.