European Army
Greece and Turkey are more than capable of getting into a fight on their own, with or without the hypothetical involvement of an EU army (this scenario is right up there with 'Turkey is about to join the EU and unleash 70 million Turks onto our shores' of 2016 fame. Remember that chestnut?)
Nimrod AEW being two recent (and hugely expensive) examples.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile in European NATO members:
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
Meanwhile in European NATO members:
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I think they’re including all FJ including 3rd and 4th generation (including American). Latest figures I can find are that the US operates 11 types and various European nations up to 19 - but that includes various Russian types such as Mig-21 and Mig-29 being phased out.
So, ignoring the Russsian types your list you can add Gripen, Mirage F1 and M2000, various F-4s and a handful of Italian AMX.
So, ignoring the Russsian types your list you can add Gripen, Mirage F1 and M2000, various F-4s and a handful of Italian AMX.
I think they’re including all FJ including 3rd and 4th generation (including American). Latest figures I can find are that the US operates 11 types and various European nations up to 19 - but that includes various Russian types such as Mig-21 and Mig-29 being phased out.
So, ignoring the Russsian types your list you can add Gripen, Mirage F1 and M2000, various F-4s and a handful of Italian AMX.
So, ignoring the Russsian types your list you can add Gripen, Mirage F1 and M2000, various F-4s and a handful of Italian AMX.
FB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Both Greece and Turkey still have a small number of F-4 in service.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...orces-stack-up
My bad, Mirage F1 in service with Morocco, not European.
The point being, as with the Russian Migs, the total number of types is inflated with a small number of legacy aircraft being gradually replaced or just retired.
The only real major fleet types in European service are the F-16, F-18, F-35, Gripen and Typhoon along with French M2000 and Rafale - with a small number of German Tornado getting long in the tooth and in urgent need of replacement.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...orces-stack-up
My bad, Mirage F1 in service with Morocco, not European.
The point being, as with the Russian Migs, the total number of types is inflated with a small number of legacy aircraft being gradually replaced or just retired.
The only real major fleet types in European service are the F-16, F-18, F-35, Gripen and Typhoon along with French M2000 and Rafale - with a small number of German Tornado getting long in the tooth and in urgent need of replacement.
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Bonvoy Marriott
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was quoting a book from a writer who was quoting a publication from the European Defense Fund from 2019. A quick search on flight global tells me that European NATO members currently operate 16 different fighter jets.
however, it is the essence that counts. And the essence is that there is a lot of money wasted on operating all these different small militaries. An further integrated EU military would be a part of the solution.
however, it is the essence that counts. And the essence is that there is a lot of money wasted on operating all these different small militaries. An further integrated EU military would be a part of the solution.
The majority of European countries [other than those ex-Warsaw Pact/ East Bloc] may or may not have national contingency planners, tasked with [amongst other matters] the likelihood of being involved involuntarily in a shooting war. I say involuntarily because, with the exception of France, none of them pokes a nose into intervention. I set NATO membership aside for the moment.
The contingency planners [or, in their absence, "Defence"] are clearly not at all worried, spending tax funds on preparedness is not good politics. Thus, minimal funding, no long term planning, more generals than tanks, broomsticks for rifles, ADAC for rotary..
Returning to NATO, it has become a low-cost insurance policy of demonstrably poor value, and the insurers [USA and UK primarily] clearly believe that their risk, in Europe, is small.
Europe has a lot of things to worry about, and defence, rightly or wrongly, is not deemed anywhere near the top. A little posturing every now and then keeps the illusion of preparedness going, and, who knows, they might be right.
They had better be.
The contingency planners [or, in their absence, "Defence"] are clearly not at all worried, spending tax funds on preparedness is not good politics. Thus, minimal funding, no long term planning, more generals than tanks, broomsticks for rifles, ADAC for rotary..
Returning to NATO, it has become a low-cost insurance policy of demonstrably poor value, and the insurers [USA and UK primarily] clearly believe that their risk, in Europe, is small.
Europe has a lot of things to worry about, and defence, rightly or wrongly, is not deemed anywhere near the top. A little posturing every now and then keeps the illusion of preparedness going, and, who knows, they might be right.
They had better be.
Meanwhile in European NATO members:
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
450 million rich Europeans who together spend 227B Euro on defense but need the help from 325 million rich Americans to defend against 144 million “poor” Russians who spend a measly 55B Euro.
European NATO members just waste money:
comparison with the US:
Europe has 178 different weapon systems,
US 38.
Europe has 17 different tanks, US 1.
Europe has 29 different frigates, US 4.
Europe has 20 different jet fighters, US 6.
Yes I believe the European NATO members should spend 2 percent, but that is not the problem. The problem is lack of standardization. This fragmentation is because all European NATO members are sovereign nations.
An EU Defense Force who could act as a single entity would be a huge part of the solution. In the past most European nations were happy to be under uncle Sam’s umbrella but Trump has shown that this protection is not a given.
The majority of European countries [other than those ex-Warsaw Pact/ East Bloc] may or may not have national contingency planners, tasked with [amongst other matters] the likelihood of being involved involuntarily in a shooting war. I say involuntarily because, with the exception of France, none of them pokes a nose into intervention. I set NATO membership aside for the moment.
The contingency planners [or, in their absence, "Defence"] are clearly not at all worried, spending tax funds on preparedness is not good politics. Thus, minimal funding, no long term planning, more generals than tanks, broomsticks for rifles, ADAC for rotary..
Returning to NATO, it has become a low-cost insurance policy of demonstrably poor value, and the insurers [USA and UK primarily] clearly believe that their risk, in Europe, is small.
Europe has a lot of things to worry about, and defence, rightly or wrongly, is not deemed anywhere near the top. A little posturing every now and then keeps the illusion of preparedness going, and, who knows, they might be right.
They had better be.
The contingency planners [or, in their absence, "Defence"] are clearly not at all worried, spending tax funds on preparedness is not good politics. Thus, minimal funding, no long term planning, more generals than tanks, broomsticks for rifles, ADAC for rotary..
Returning to NATO, it has become a low-cost insurance policy of demonstrably poor value, and the insurers [USA and UK primarily] clearly believe that their risk, in Europe, is small.
Europe has a lot of things to worry about, and defence, rightly or wrongly, is not deemed anywhere near the top. A little posturing every now and then keeps the illusion of preparedness going, and, who knows, they might be right.
They had better be.
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?
In fairness to the European politicians, there is no indications that increased military spending will provide any benefit
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?
The actual problems such as an un-integrated Islamic minority, sub replacement birth rates and block obsolescence of European industry in the face of Chinese competition are not subject to military solutions.
Indeed, increased military spending towards some arbitrarily set 2% of GNP seems irrational at best.
All of Europe would be better off if Russia and its resources were fully integrated into Europe, rather than having it pushed into a reluctant alliance with China.
Is this so hard to see?
2% of GDP (not GNP) is not a bad deal for guaranteeing peace and economic stability, and makes sense; the UK spends circa US57b on defence, but you wouldn't expect the same expenditure from Luxembourg, so as a metric its pretty fair. And to frame the argument about how onerous spending 2% of GDP on defence is, in 2020 Oman spent 12% of GDP, Azerbaijan spent 5.4%, Morocco 5.3% on defence. Luxembourg? 0.57% - perhaps next time they are invaded we can send a quarter of a military response?
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Bielefeld
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some quibbles on numbers, but generally I agree (that surprises me as much as it does you Saul). The cynic in me thinks standardisation will actually be 27 nations buying whatever Germany and France want to sell them rather than what provides the best capability, but there you go.
Of course France and Germany will be at the center of events, but that's not just because their bigger than most, it's also because their putting in the effort to create a new vision, new structures and ideas.
The restructuring of industries, merging of companies like KMW + Nexter, the long-term investments in new projects..
But of course, it wouldn't be an anglo-board here if there weren't some baseless pork-barrel insinuations aimed at France and Germany!
I mean Airbus didn't just fall from the sky into european laps and Arianespace is still market leader for anyone launching more than a couple cubesats. Worldbeating success stories in sensitive areas.This is what the single market is all about enabling, creating a shared homebase at scale where all business can participate in integrated value chains on merit.
At this point it really is a tried and tested success formula and even the industry knows this is their only chance to meaningful future.
It wont be easy but it will succeed and provide an economic and security winwin for all 27.
The only losses might be expected among US companies that seem to succeed by either dominating their rivals through pure mass and size, or blatant rigging of competitions and appliance of political pressure. Also potentially UK companies who could end up falling through the cracks in both US and EU regard.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I fear you are wrong concerning Arianespace. (The $62M quoted for the price of a Falcon 9 launch is wrong, they’ve reduced the price to $50M…)
Regarding Airbus, apart from the debacle of the A-400M and the MRTT they aren’t really in the military Jet market, either for trainers, fighters or bombers. The Eurofighter is a multinational programme - as are the FCAS (France, Germany and Spain) and Tempest (UK, Italy and Sweden).
https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...et-space-race/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...ise-of-spacex/
Regarding Airbus, apart from the debacle of the A-400M and the MRTT they aren’t really in the military Jet market, either for trainers, fighters or bombers. The Eurofighter is a multinational programme - as are the FCAS (France, Germany and Spain) and Tempest (UK, Italy and Sweden).
https://www.politico.eu/article/euro...et-space-race/
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021...ise-of-spacex/
Last edited by ORAC; 24th May 2021 at 08:56.
Every major conflict has demonstrated that no nation has ever had the "right" mix of military capabilities' when defending themselves from offensive action. if they had the right capabilities they would have deterred the aggressor. I strongly believe there was no Soviet offensive in Europe during the cold war because of the huge US led NATO forces along the border.
Wars are defined by intent and capability on the part of the aggressor. Personally I don't see any evidence of either from Russia with respect to major hostilities against Western European countries. What I do see is an incremental strategy of undermining and co-opting the governments of border countries with diplomatic, economic, and military threats. There does not appear to be a coherent EU strategy to counter this move and absent that trying to develop a European army is IMHO, futile.
However I think the bottom line with respect to US intentions is becoming clearer. 40 years ago the idea that the full might of the US military industrial complex would be deployed to defend Europe from any aggression was unquestioned on both sides of the Atlantic. Today I would suggest that the US appetite for defending Europe is much reduced and is very situationally dependent.
Finally unity of command is the bedrock principal of effective militaries. For example one person, the US president, is the "Commander in Chief" of all US military forces, so even if a "European Army" is created how will it be effectively deployed by an institution which requires the unanimous approval of all member states for every major decision ?
Wars are defined by intent and capability on the part of the aggressor. Personally I don't see any evidence of either from Russia with respect to major hostilities against Western European countries. What I do see is an incremental strategy of undermining and co-opting the governments of border countries with diplomatic, economic, and military threats. There does not appear to be a coherent EU strategy to counter this move and absent that trying to develop a European army is IMHO, futile.
However I think the bottom line with respect to US intentions is becoming clearer. 40 years ago the idea that the full might of the US military industrial complex would be deployed to defend Europe from any aggression was unquestioned on both sides of the Atlantic. Today I would suggest that the US appetite for defending Europe is much reduced and is very situationally dependent.
Finally unity of command is the bedrock principal of effective militaries. For example one person, the US president, is the "Commander in Chief" of all US military forces, so even if a "European Army" is created how will it be effectively deployed by an institution which requires the unanimous approval of all member states for every major decision ?
Every major conflict has demonstrated that no nation has ever had the "right" mix of military capabilities' when defending themselves from offensive action. if they had the right capabilities they would have deterred the aggressor. I strongly believe there was no Soviet offensive in Europe during the cold war because of the huge US led NATO forces along the border.
This statement is based on a totally logical aggressor, but conflicts are rarely begun for totally logical reasons.
The statement is clearly not true for the Falklands War. Great Britain won. Great Britain had the right capabilities [would not have had a year later] The aggressor, Argentina, was not deterred.
Perhaps not "major", but big enough, and in any case I do not believe scale is significant..
Clausewitz, Machiavelli and Wellington briefed me on these matters.
This statement is based on a totally logical aggressor, but conflicts are rarely begun for totally logical reasons.
The statement is clearly not true for the Falklands War. Great Britain won. Great Britain had the right capabilities [would not have had a year later] The aggressor, Argentina, was not deterred.
Perhaps not "major", but big enough, and in any case I do not believe scale is significant..
Clausewitz, Machiavelli and Wellington briefed me on these matters.
Every major conflict has demonstrated that no nation has ever had the "right" mix of military capabilities' when defending themselves from offensive action. if they had the right capabilities they would have deterred the aggressor. I strongly believe there was no Soviet offensive in Europe during the cold war because of the huge US led NATO forces along the border.
This statement is based on a totally logical aggressor, but conflicts are rarely begun for totally logical reasons.
The statement is clearly not true for the Falklands War. Great Britain won. Great Britain had the right capabilities [would not have had a year later] The aggressor, Argentina, was not deterred.
Perhaps not "major", but big enough, and in any case I do not believe scale is significant..
Clausewitz, Machiavelli and Wellington briefed me on these matters.
This statement is based on a totally logical aggressor, but conflicts are rarely begun for totally logical reasons.
The statement is clearly not true for the Falklands War. Great Britain won. Great Britain had the right capabilities [would not have had a year later] The aggressor, Argentina, was not deterred.
Perhaps not "major", but big enough, and in any case I do not believe scale is significant..
Clausewitz, Machiavelli and Wellington briefed me on these matters.
I think it is also important to note that Argentina used the Falkland invasion as a foreign adventure to distract the populace from government failures at home. Given the challenges Putin is facing, a similar distraction could be very appealing.
The comparison with the Falkland Islands is obviously imperfect in many ways but, I would suggest that as the old aphorism goes, those who do not learn form history are doomed to repeat it.....
Thank you.
Much of what you say is true but is a valiant attempt to change the subject that you introduced with a bold and confident statement which demonstrably failed its first test..
Much of what you say is true but is a valiant attempt to change the subject that you introduced with a bold and confident statement which demonstrably failed its first test..
By definition Pistons statement is unproveable - if there was no aggression was that because the potential target had the correct military forces or was it due to pressures within the aggressor or pressure from outside or maybe they never had any plans to invade in the first place- we'll never know.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I would suggest that if you substitute the name of any of the countries adjacent to Russia for "Falkland Islands" a similar dynamic is developing.
FR4978 ATH-VNO diverted, escorted to Minsk, alleged bomb threat – but was it?