N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

NATO: Armed Forces:Written question - 40549

Asked by Sir Nicholas Soames
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will provide details of what (a) ships and (b) aircraft by (i) type and (ii) number are allocated to the Very High Readiness Task Force in 2016-17.
Answered by: Mr Julian Brazier
In 2016 the UK's contribution to the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (Maritime) will include a Maritime Commander (Rear Admiral) with 150 staff embarked in a Landing Platform Helicopter (HMS Ocean), one Type 23 Frigate for six months from January to July, one Type 45 Destroyer for up to seven weeks in the autumn and one Mine Countermeasures Vessel. In 2017, the UK's contribution will be a Commander (Commodore) and Type 45 Destroyer for six months, an ECHO Class Survey Ship (in a command role) plus one Mine Countermeasures Vessel.
Throughout 2016 and 2017, the UK's contribution to the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (Air) will include six Tornados and six Typhoons, Airborne Early Warning and Air to Air refueling aircraft.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -14/40549/

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by arfah »

......................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

GibMariner wrote:an ECHO Class Survey Ship (in a command role)
Interesting, I thought we would have to rely on the Albions for this type of stuff
- both the running cost and the opportunity cost (their other capabilities potentially missing from a point of need) for them are higher
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by arfah »

.....................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defen ... /87735332/

from 2 minutes onwards on NATO (there is a part 2....somewhere there)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

SNMG1 frigates Mendez Nuñez (Spain) and Alvares Cabral (Portugal) at Liverpool:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

One pariah state finds a "new" friend in another?
Referring to Putin and Erdogan meeting in St. Petersburg.
Then again, didn't Trump also call Erdogan a friend?
Seems like Erdogan has made a lot of new friends lately. Will this have implications for NATO's southern flank? And will there be a steady policy stand adopted by the USA, especially after the elections:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... d=pm_pop_b
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by arfah »

......................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

JayDee
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 26 Nov 2015, 20:39
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by JayDee »

Do you think the election of trump will cause NATO nations to increase defence spending? after all he has slammed Europe for not taking enough responsibility for its own security. He wants allies within Nato to pay more money for US military protection and has threatened to leave the military pact should they refuse.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

JayDee wrote:Do you think the election of trump will cause NATO nations to increase defence spending? after all he has slammed Europe for not taking enough responsibility for its own security. He wants allies within Nato to pay more money for US military protection and has threatened to leave the military pact should they refuse.
Hope so. BAE shares have climbed today, speculating just that

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

JayDee wrote:Do you think the election of trump will cause NATO nations to increase defence spending? after all he has slammed Europe for not taking enough responsibility for its own security. He wants allies within Nato to pay more money for US military protection and has threatened to leave the military pact should they refuse.
Within Europe for the last 50 yrs, France and the UK have always spent more on defence than Germany. This ensured that although Germany might dominate economically with Europe, it would not dominant militarily.

So what happens if Germany is pushed by Trump to increase its military spend to 2% GDP?

Will UK & France increase their military spend to 3% GDP, or will they be happy to accept German dominance?

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

NATO Operation Sea Guardian Kicks off in the Mediterranean
Today, NATO begins a new standing maritime security operation in the Mediterranean Sea named Operation Sea Guardian.

Three NATO ships and two submarines – the Italian frigate ITS Aviere, the Bulgarian frigate BGS Verni, the Turkish frigate TCG Gemlik, the Greek submarine HS Papanikolis and the Spanish submarine ESPS Mistral - will conduct the first patrols in the central Mediterranean under NATO standing Operation Sea Guardian.

Air support to Operation Sea Guardian will include rotational patrols by Maritime Patrol Aircrafts (MPAs) from Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. These first patrols will run through the 17th Nov 2016, with other patrols on the forge and to occur according with approved schedule of operations.

Operation Sea Guardian has three core missions: maritime situational awareness, counter-terrorism and capacity building. Additional tasks could be added if decided by the Allies, including upholding freedom of navigation, conducting interdiction tasks, countering proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and protection of critical infrastructure.

Operation Sea Guardian will help maintain an accurate picture of daily activity in the Mediterranean to help identify possible security concerns. Ships, submarines and aircraft assigned to NATO Operation Sea Guardian will contribute information to maintain a comprehensive picture of the operating area. Operation Sea Guardian establishes NATO Maritime Command in Northwood, UK as the hub of maritime security information sharing for the Alliance.
http://www.mc.nato.int/PressReleases/Pa ... anean.aspx
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_137427.htm

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Did anyone notice the NATO news about bringing the deployment time of 300k troops, to back up the trip-wire forces, down from 6 mths to 30 days?

I just saw the headline, had no time to buy the paper. Thus , could be just a proposal floated by the Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg (his twitter feed has nothing on it?).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

If NATO is dissolved by Trump, it will be necessary to make multinational agreements between the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Poland and France, for creating an expeditionary force by multiplying the joint exercises and increase the budgets of defence to 2% of GDP or more. In France all the political parties have agreed to increase the budget to 2% by 2025. The delivery of major weapons programs will be accelerated. If we want to have a diplomatic influence with Russia, China and the USA it is imperative, otherwise we will be spectators.
Regarding the dominance of Germany, it is an economic power, but only the United Kingdom and France have nuclear missiles.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

He's not going fo dissolve Nato, Congress won't let him even if he tries. At worst, he will reduce US presence in Europe and demand European nations pony up the 2% they are supposed to...

A few positives from my perspective:
1) likely to prompt a modest increase in our defence spending, hopefully
2) increased business for UK aerospace and defence as a consequence of 1) and increased US and European defence spending
3) more chance of smooth(er) Brexit negotiations if our friends in the EU realise that our relationship is not only about trade, but wider security aspects (including intelligence)...why should we risk British personnel, share our hard won intel and expend large sums of monies to help protect you if you are willing to shaft us for daring to leave your club....

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

I thought that we protect ourself each other, I am disappointed that this is not your opinion. I hope that despite the Brexit we will keep a good relationship.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

Frenchie wrote:I thought that we protect ourself each other, I am disappointed that this is not your opinion. I hope that despite the Brexit we will keep a good relationship.
You miss my point Frenchie, I am happy to have good relationships with our friends in Europe, but it takes two (or in this case 28 ;) ) to make that happen. It would not be a good relationship if our friends try to "punish" us for leaving the club. Besides, if we are "punished" for leaving and our economy is weakened, or grows less quickly, we will have less resources to spend on defence and be less able to deploy assets on continental Europe.

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by Frenchie »

I hope that the french government will be reasonable. ;)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Is there any reliable information on what the increased amount for defense spending would be if every of N.A.T.O reached 2 percent of gdp on defense ?

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by LordJim »

Most countries would follow our example and pad out the percentage of GDP spent on defence but moving other items into the equation so Even if everyone actually appeared to be spending 2% nothing would really improve. Also remember 2% was the bare minimum calculated to maintain current force levels but a higher percentage is going to be need to modernise or expand NATO's available forces.

Mind you the fact that NATO members must unanimously agree at a political level to respond to a threat is something any opponent will exploit to the full. It was simpler in the old days where the enemy was known and SACEUR had the authority to respond to a broad range of scenarios once the alert level was at a certain level. More than one NATO member will demand diplomatic talks be pursued even after the shooting starts in all likelihood.

Part of me hopes Trump calls NATO's bluff. The EU tried to manage the Balkans conflict without US help and failed miserably. The US simply has the vital assets NATO needs to properly function and without them will become ineffective. Scaring the rest of NATO into spending more maybe the only way it will happen.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

seaspear wrote:Is there any reliable information on what the increased amount for defense spending would be if every of N.A.T.O reached 2 percent of gdp on defense ?
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

Even for the UK the information is better (no primer on "how to read the budget book" is required as the information is standardised)
... for some reason they have not managed to capture the military pensions in Bulgaria (but who cares!)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Thanks for the information

User avatar
AstuteAssassin
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: 19 Apr 2016, 19:45
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by AstuteAssassin »

LordJim wrote:Part of me hopes Trump calls NATO's bluff. The EU tried to manage the Balkans conflict without US help and failed miserably. The US simply has the vital assets NATO needs to properly function and without them will become ineffective. Scaring the rest of NATO into spending more maybe the only way it will happen.
I agree, i think European governments in recent years have hugely neglected their defence and defence spending under the umbrella of the (fantasy) idea that either the U.S will save us or we will be fighting as apart of a coalition'. We should have the capability to defend ourselfs, with any U.S or coalition help being an added bonus.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by GibMariner »

The Sun is claiming that 'multiple' Russian submarines are being hunted off Scotland by HMS Sutherland, a Trafalgar-class submarine and 3 NATO aircraft for the last 48 hours: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2174749/m ... -scotland/

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: N.A.T.O. News & Discussion

Post by marktigger »

AstuteAssassin wrote:
I agree, i think European governments in recent years have hugely neglected their defence and defence spending under the umbrella of the (fantasy) idea that either the U.S will save us or we will be fighting as apart of a coalition'. We should have the capability to defend ourselfs, with any U.S or coalition help being an added bonus.
our own govt has been guilty of over reliance on the Americans & the concept of Coalitions being the only show in town. And as the reliance on other NATO nations ASW assets etc to defend UK waters will still be needed even with P8, Astute, Frigates and Merlin as we just don't have them in enough numbers. Defence spending needs to be 2% minus pensions and Intelligence rising to 3-5%.

Post Reply