European Defence Force!! - You must be joking!! - Discuss....
 

Trying to imagine a European Defence Force leaves me cold. Imagine the difficulties of trying to get 28 Nations to agree on anything for a start and then there's the language barrier. It goes on and on...what do you guys and gals think? :\

It could work if they follow the NATO model. It could work if they paid for it.

But it doesn't make sense to have a NATO command structure and infrastructure and they replicate it at a Euro level and NATO non-Euro members, Turkey, US, Canada, Iceland would object to their funding of NATO infrastructure being used by non-NATO forces.

Already there are limitations on how national forces can used NATO funded facilities. Nightmare even worse than Brexit.

Done lots of time time in NATO command structure, and seen the tortuous process of decision-making. But though shaky, there is a structure and process. The EU project has no such well established procedures and with current EU expansion is doomed to failure. IMOP it is a vanity project pushed by certain nations to exclude the US and others. Without the US on board the EU is toothless.

Harry Hinsley's 5 volume masterpiece on British Intelligence in the Second World War has been described as a series written by committee, for a committee, about a committee. I think that as far as descriptions go, that it would be a pretty good description of a European Defence Force as well. And in that context, it isn't a complement.

This is a grand view of a convoluted command and control system:
Eye in the Sky (2015) - IMDb

Reaction time to a crisis would be interesting.

BB, as long as Herr Blitzen was in charge.

Hi Guys,

Please forgive a civvy private pilot who would like to comment.

It is often said that a camel is really a horse that has been designed by a committee.

However when the committee consists of 28 members, all coming from different cultures, speaking different languages and harbouring different hidden agendas and policy imperatives, what you are likely to end up with is something much less useful than a camel. In all probability what you will end up with will be a two headed Kangacrocopotamus with one wing and three legs.

This was certainly our civvy experience with JAA and that only involved a dozen Member States. EASA has been no better. Now that's just the organisational mess in prospect. If we now turn to financing it gets even more iffy.

Every state in NATO is supposed to spend 2% of GDP on defence. In fact, apart from the US and the UK, NONE of them do. And even the UK had to more or less cook the books this time round in order to be able to claim we were still contributing our 2%. (Apparently they had to add in things that previously were left out of the reckoning).

The US taxpayer is shouldering 75% of the burden. How much longer the US taxpayer will put up with this nonsense is anybody's guess.

If we now have to have an EU comic opera army (and navy and air force), complete with its Tower of Babel infrastructure, I can see the US taxpayer finally losing his/her temper and causing their government to pull out all together.

In short, I don't envy you guys if this madness goes ahead.

Regards,

BP

Broom

Don't forget though that because Uncle Sam pays for a lot of this stuff he thinks it means that he can interfere in European issues and that we should all do it his way..................... that will continue all the time he's paying.

Arc

Another point, touched on by Broom, is language. NATO has just two ENGLISH and French. What language would Euro force use?

One of the former WPC countries required its officers to qualify in English or retire. How many British officers would qualify in German or French?

Broom,

none of the national governments want an EU DF. this means it cannot happen.

some of the beaurocracy want an EU DF, because, well, who doesn't want their own Army, but such things are not theirs to fund, form, control or own. they are solely the preserve of the national governments, and while you can always find an idiot to speak stupid words, none of the national governments are actually interested in an EU DF.

thats not to say that there can't be, or isn't, co-operation, joint venture etc.. but everything is the preserve of the national governments to decide to engage, or not engage, on whatever basis they like.

Which nation is that PN? I don't know if it's across the board in the Army, but I know at least some cap badges -ETS if I recall - at least discussed not promoting people to Major without them having some level of second language competency.

In very general terms, the technical implications were looked at in about 2001 and the word "interoperability" cropped up. A room full of Generals said yes, of course, we need that. It was pointed out that it was not even policy for our own forces to be interoperable with each other, never mind other countries, and attempting that would eat up the entire equipment budget for some years. To their credit, they sneaked the word into the requirement for one Army project, only for it to be promptly removed and the budgetary estimates cut by 80%.

The multi-national NATO AEW&C force at Geilenkirchen has been in existence since 1980. In addition, NATO already has a multi-nation Strategic Airlift Capability, with 3 x C-17 based at Papa in Hungary. EATC at Eindhoven https://eatc-mil.com/user_uploads/pa...03%20pages.pdf already co-ordinates AT and AAR operations amongst 27 member states, to optimise use of assets with a tariff system which uses equivalent flight hours for nations which don't possess, for example, AAR aircraft. Thus the use of n AAR hours can be offset by (k x n) airlift hours, where 'n' is the nation's agreed factor used by MCCE. When the RAF could afford its own tankers, it too contributed AAR assets, but now that it has to rent its AAR aircraft under a PFI, their use by other nations is a commercial consideration.

Another emerging multi-national force is the European Defence Agency proposal for an AAR fleet of A330MRTT aircraft shared by 4/5 different nations.

Multi-national European forces are hardly anything new.

But the Little Englanders of the increasingly absurd 'Brexit' campaign won't wish to know this....:rolleyes:

BEagle, in a word NATO.

Melchett, I am not quite sure but I think it was Poland or Hungary. I do know that modern Poles, the ones working in Lincolnshire, seem to have better English than their grandparents the I flew with.

I f we were to remain in the union, what I'd like to know is, what are the chances of our being dragged kicking and screaming into the Euro Army, which I assume would include a Euro Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force!?

If this were so and the Falklands became an issue pressing a military solution again would our best of buddies throughout the 'union' support our case and allow us to call upon whatever military commitment was deemed necessary to resolve the crisis? and from across the entire ORBAT of the Euro Force?

Would the Supreme command in Brussels, or wherever its location, impose a radical re-deployment of forces in the UK? Could we expect, say...military units from across the continent to be based in London and take on the Royal Duties?

Could HQ EU Forces, acting under the ultimate direction of Brussels, alter significantly the current disposition of UK Forces at home, by ordering a imbalance of units here and there? Thus overriding the concerns of our very own countrymen and women currently charged with such responsibility?

What would become of our nuclear deterrent? Especially given the current position in the cycle of maintaining it?

FB:)

True. But last time I checked, my commissioning scroll had HM's signature on it not Juncker's. So up until the time that changes, Juncker and his chums can whistle if they think I'm fighting on his behalf. Bet I'm not the only one with those sentiments either.

I am with you there Melchett. PN hit it on the head - NATO. The EU is not providing new capability only sharing spare assets at best. As I stated earlier NATO is difficult enough, duplicating for EU is an absurd waste of money and time.

It would remain a National Assets, just the same as the French deterrent, as the French would never assign it. Remember, one of the reasons the French pulled out of the NATO chain of command for over 40 years was when the US tried to force them to use their nuclear weapons along with the British ones as part of a combined European force.