EU Combined Military Thread

[J. Tattersall]

Looks like EU is nowhere to be seen on European defence helicopter project and has to defer to NATO.

Some of the work that will go into this new helo has/will be developed under EU projects.

and you know this how exactly?

Following various EU funded Horizon etc projects over the last couple of years, on helo's alone research has gone into, rotors/engines/gearboxes/avionics etc...all that has fed into Airbus/Leonardo's work.
It's combined EU funding that is assisting Leonardo ect develop their civvie tiltrotor aircraft.

So what I think you're confirming is that this isn't an EU led programme, but rather a NATO led one, with potentially some technology finding its way in via the pork barrel of the Commission's R&D framework programme.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the pork barrel of the Commission's R&D framework programme.

I can see fog in the Channel... Europe will be cut off

[muttbutt]

Germany joins nascent European push to shoot down hypersonic missiles


By: Sebastian Sprenger   1 day ago

COLOGNE, Germany — Germany has joined a European Union-endorsed project aimed at intercepting a new generation of hypersonic missiles too fast for existing defensive systems.

Nudged by France, Berlin changed its status from an observer nation to a participant country in the so-called TWISTER effort on Oct. 24, a Defence Ministry spokesman confirmed to Defense News. The acronym is short for Timely Warning and Interception with Space-Based Theater Surveillance. EU officials included the effort in the November 2019 roster of projects under the bloc’s Permanent Structure Cooperation, or PESCO, scheme.

The project aims to field a space-based, early-warning sensor network and an interceptor moving at a velocity of more than Mach 5 at an altitude up to 100 kilometers sometime around 2030. That’s according to missile-maker MBDA, which has claimed the interceptor portion of the plan as a pet project.

The objectives of TWISTER “align with German interests,” the Defence Ministry spokesman said. Officials hope that a complementary research effort under the auspices of the European Defence Industrial Development Programme could help boost the project, he added. The spokesman declined to provide details.

Germany was absent from the initial partner countries in the French-led effort, which also includes Finland, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. Only in recent weeks did the German flag appear alongside those of the other partners on the PESCO repository website.

MBDA envisions developing a new “endo-atmospheric interceptor [that] will address a wide range of threats including maneuvering ballistic missiles with intermediate ranges, hypersonic or high-supersonic cruise missiles, hypersonic gliders, anti-ship missiles and more conventional targets such as next-generation fighter aircraft,” the company website states. “This interceptor will integrate existing and future land and naval systems.”

News that Germany is joining plans on the air defense project comes at a time when the fate of the another supposed next-generation weapon, dubbed TLVS, hangs in the balance. According to a spokeswoman, Defence Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer is expected to decide by the end of the year whether to proceed with the project or drop it.

The demise of TLVS would mean a heavy blow to the German defense procurement bureaucracy, as officials for years have held it up as a marquee trans-Atlantic project too important to fail. Boasting a 360-degree sensing and shooting capability, the system is meant to replace Germany’s aging Patriot fleet, made by Raytheon.
Sign up for our Early Bird Brief
Get the defense industry's most comprehensive news and information straight to your inbox

But after a year of negotiations and several offers by vendors Lockheed Martin and MBDA Deutschland, cost has emerged as a key obstacle, with the newspaper Handelsblatt recently citing an estimate as high as €13 billion (U.S. $16 billion) by 2030. In addition, some officials in Germany are irked by what they view as an overreliance on America’s technology transfer rules related to U.S. components in the TLVS suite, including the Lockheed-made PAC-3 MSE interceptor.

In a recent speech at the Bundeswehr University in Hamburg, Kramp-Karrenbauer built a case for terminating high-ticket projects eating into Germany’s defense budget. “I will not agree to the financing of major projects at the expense of basic equipment and resources for routine operations,” she said.

At the same time, she stressed the need for Germany to have a capability against hypersonic missiles, which the TLVS program is slated to offer at a later stage.

Retired Lt. Gen. Heinrich Brauß, a former NATO force planner and now an analyst with the Berlin-based German Council on Foreign Relations, argued the program is needed to quickly close a capability gap for protecting European airspace. In particular, the requirement for a more capable weapon flows from NATO’s pledge last year to respond to Russia’s fielding of intermediate-range missiles capable of reaching Europe, he argued. The alliance only bolstered conventional defenses on the continent.

“Given the TLVS performance characteristics compared with the Patriot system, there should be no hesitation to approve the acquisition,” Brauß said.

Whatever Kramp-Karrenbauer may decide in December, Germany’s participation in the TWISTER project shows that the subject of missile defense remains on the minds of many nations in Europe, said Douglas Barrie, an analyst at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

“I think — putting aside the repeated delays on the TLVS decision-making — that what this reflects is the argument that within Europe’s main military nations there needs to be yet greater focus on layered ground-based air defense capable of being used to engage targets throughout the emerging threat spectrum,” he wrote in an email.

“TLVS and Twister are obviously at different stages of development and could be seen as providing complementary capabilities,” he added.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Looks like a motley collection of

partner countries in the French-led effort, which also includes Finland, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain. Only in recent weeks did the German flag appear alongside those of the other partners on the PESCO repository website

until you read what it can deal with (all the hype tends to be about hyper)

will address a wide range of threats including maneuvering ballistic missiles with intermediate ranges, hypersonic or high-supersonic cruise missiles, hypersonic gliders

in which list the first one 'is' the latest version of Iskander, which is ballistic in the first half of the trajectory, but then defeats many existing defences by turning into a manoeuvreing one from there on

[Gtal]

And doing it through NATO keeps the UK out of the EUs own new and experimemtal structures. Win-win.

Will be interesting to see how these co-operation forms will pan out. The good old OCCAR has been also doing programme mgt, whereas the EDF just provides a ' slice of (bonus) funding' into JVs that may be structured as legal entities (can go bankrupt, heh-he) and the bonus is there to counter the extra overhead that co-operating (just like offshoring in normal businesses) always brings. Noting that without co-operation many of these things would not get off the ground at all; equally important as eliminating wasteful, parallel projects.

I have to say I think the UK should be paying a bit more attention to the EUs new programs in the area of defence procurement.
For one, the fact that past attempts have consistently failed has a lot to do with the UKs approach to such efforts. This is not just in terms of funding, like blocking eda budget increases, but much more so in regards to fundamental structures.
The UK steadfastly defended the position that this area must be governed by a strictly intergovernmental approach, significantly limiting the involvement of the institutions.

This has now fallen away and thus there is a real possibility that the introduction of more supranational structures in to the area of defence industrial cooperation will have a more pronounced effect.
Allowing the EU budget to allocate funds to defence and creating a DG defence and space in the commission are fundamental and potentially game changing structural changes.
Though many Brits like to dismiss the added value the EU can bring, it is undeniable that this is something the EU is pretty good at, even in semi sensitive areas like the single aviation market, single energy market or single chemicals market.

I'd also urge you not to see the EDF as a selfstanding mechanism. It is embedded and linked to the other mechanisms that are emerging alongside it. Pesco, CARD etc are all part of an encompassing framework to encourage structural changes in the market.

It is blatantly obvious that when it comes to the defence industrial area NATO just doesn't cut it.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, a clearly more muscular approach with the Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DEFIS). Also in the UK those two sectors have been lumped closer together - with lesser formality
- defence industry approach for keeping the eastern front steady (any exports won't hurt, either)

Then there's Donald Trump's favourite person (labelled 'the most dangerous' by him, by-passing Xi & Putin ) Margrethe Vestager who had in her nomination letter that
"You will ensure cross-fertilisation between civil, defence and space industries. "
- digital taxation is in the letter, too, but much further down the list

[Lord Jim]

Of course if Germany was spending 2% of GDP on defence annually over the next decade, many of the financial issues would be removed.

As long as any EU Defence organisation has the ability to seamlessly dovetail into NATO structures then I do not have an issue even is some are duplicated. The EU does not have a good record of operating on its own and has had to fall back on NATO in the past, it should not cut off its nose to spite its face by not integrating with NATO just for principals sake.

[muttbutt]

EuroGremlins...

[Gtal]

Of course if Germany was spending 2% of GDP on defence annually over the next decade, many of the financial issues would be removed.

As long as any EU Defence organisation has the ability to seamlessly dovetail into NATO structures then I do not have an issue even is some are duplicated. The EU does not have a good record of operating on its own and has had to fall back on NATO in the past, it should not cut off its nose to spite its face by not integrating with NATO just for principals sake.

Devil's advocate:
The only way it makes sense for Germany to spend 2% on defence is if that includes a nuclear deterrent like France and the UK.
What would be the point in having a conventional military that would single-handedly overmatch russian conventional forces without a MAD component to ensure any potential, even small, conflict would stay conventional?
Germany spending more than 1,7-1,8 percent at the most makes no sense without nukes.
And they can't just ramp their spending up in 2-3 years either, even if they wanted. What are they going to do with an extra 10 bil+ annually? Buy american kit? No thanks.

Better use that headroom to get deep in bed with France and other EU partners to join up national industries, new fighter (FRA+ESP), new tank(FRA+?), new mpa(?).
New warships: MKS180 already contracted(NED lead company), 2-3 additional submarines(+NOR piggybacking) and new AA frigates F127 for 2030s.
Additionall space capabilities both EU and national are also happening as I understand.
Not to forget Pesco which while only in its infancy has some real potential. Tiger mk III, Twister AA missile(anti-ballistic?) etc.
And Germany has of course started increasing capabilities in the shorter term. Additional tanks, new eurofighters, eurofighter upgrade(preparations for mgcs and fcas no doubt).


Seems a pretty joined up approach, basically a 20 year plan involving various commitments to EU-partners and framed by new EU initiatives, increasing public buy-in and incentivisng follow through regardless of varying government coalitions.
After all, what's another couple billion a year for the greater good of furthering EU cooperation?

The UK seems to be taking the opposite approach. Getting the big-money-headline and the considering what to spend it on, apart from the black hole of course.

And the EU hasn't got a good record? Where and when? You mean Yugoslavia? In 1995 when no EU mechanisms for coordination, not to mention command and control existed? Because some, mainly the UK, simply wouldn't countenance anything of the sort? Instead championing the useless WEU outside the EU which doesn't seem to have ever done anything at all!
After Yugoslavia even the UK realised there needed to be a mechanism for Europeans to be able to act without the US if necessary. Which is why european foreign and defense policy was born in 1998 with the St.Malo agreement. Although of course after some initial UK support it was soon back to limiting any meaningful structure or capability.

[ArmChairCivvy]

And the EU hasn't got a good record? Where and when? You mean Yugoslavia? In 1995 when no EU mechanisms for coordination, not to mention command and control existed? Because some, mainly the UK, simply wouldn't countenance anything of the sort? Instead championing the useless WEU outside the EU which doesn't seem to have ever done anything at all!
After Yugoslavia even the UK realised there needed to be a mechanism for Europeans to be able to act without the US if necessary.

A good response

use that headroom to get deep in bed with France and other EU partners to join up national industries, new fighter (FRA+ESP), new tank(FRA+?), new mpa(?).
New warships: MKS180 already contracted(NED lead company), 2-3 additional submarines(+NOR piggybacking) and new AA frigates F127 for 2030s.
Additionall space capabilities both EU and national are also happening as I understand.
Not to forget Pesco which while only in its infancy has some real potential. Tiger mk III, Twister AA missile(anti-ballistic?) etc.

and a good list; is your Tiger mk3 a tank, or something else?

[Gtal]

and a good list;

Not to mention their homemade and best selling armoured vehicle fleet, all new and/or upgraded too.

Your Tiger mk3 a tank, or something else. ?

Thats a new attack helicopter programm between France, Germany and Spain running under pesco.

https://pesco.europa.eu/project/europea ... -mark-iii/

[ArmChairCivvy]

programm between France, Germany and Spain running under pesco.

Thx, I knew about the PESCO prgrm, but
- for some reason (like not reading the PESCO website?) had thought that it was going to be developed from scratch, as opposed to " improve significantly the TIGER global efficiency through a consistent upgrade of its detection, aggression and communication capabilities to develop a modernised, innovative and life-time extended European attack helicopter."

It is also interesting that Spain has signed up. It is a logical next step, though, in their reorg where the intervention forces will all be moved into one division (the other having the more conventional forces, save for mountain troops and Spain's 'Afrika Korps'): "the San Marcial [Division] will take command of the army’s high readiness formations: the medium VI Paratroopers Brigade “Almogávares”, the Special Operations Command, and the Army’s Airmobile Forces."

[Gtal]

Had thought that it was going to be developed from scratch

Yeah it's an evolution, new systems, new weapons, like the Apache has had a few times over the years. Neither plattform has needed a fundamental reboot for quite a while actually. Form, size, weight, etc. don't seem to have development potential or required a redesign on either side of the Atlantic.

Spain really seems to be committing fundamentally to the franco-german momentum and initiatives indeed which of course makes sense seeing as their the 3. Airbus nation.
And actually France and Spain have forged a really close bilateral relationship betwen them over the years as well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

And actually France and Spain have forged a really close bilateral relationship betwen them over the years as well.

They came to blows over the 'joint' submarine prgrm though

[Lord Jim]

Gtal.

Very good comeback and I accept the point you made. I am still concerned though over the slow pace these improvements are being made. Recently when Germany was tasked with taking over command of NATO's very High readiness force, it stood up a Panzer Brigade but to do so had to take units and equipment form all over Germany just to get the Brigade operational. I agree the UK is in a worse situation when considering our Army, but Germany was always the core of NATOs european ground forces, and should be willing to take on that role again, working closely with allies of course.

I would like the Bundeswehr to be able to one again form a Corps made up of one Panzer and two Panzer grenadier Divisions and supported by an Airborne and a Mountain Brigade, with SF in the mix as well. I see this as the sort of force Germany should aspire to by the mid 2030s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Germany was always the core of NATOs european ground forces, and should be willing to take on that role again, working closely with allies of course.

The core of any such corps would be 1 Panzer, which still today (being a higher readiness unit) is stationed all the way from the border in the East, to the Dutch border (as they have a mech. brigade from there as part of their set up)
- a bit like the crush zone they build into cars
- not sure the Germans would appreciate any such description

[ArmChairCivvy]

Recently when Germany was tasked with taking over command of NATO's very High readiness force

as well as being the lead for the EU BG in readiness for this half-yr about to expire.

A heftier BG than on average: 2500 Germans out of the total 4000.
A core air-mech bn (2000 strong on its own) + logs + medical bn... plus interestingly an armoured recce detachment, with UAVs, from Finland to support the HQ element. CV90s seeing the world, not!
- as per usual, no concrete proposals for deployment

[SKB]

^ Military salute at 0:58....

[Lord Jim]

Definitely designed by a French person.

[J. Tattersall]

^ Military salute at 0:58....

Just wonder if they could have made the uniform look even more camp?!

[SKB]

Just wonder if they could have made the uniform look even more camp?!

I would say "yes", but perhaps Jean Paul Gaultier was too busy?!

[ArmChairCivvy]

perhaps Jean Paul Gaultier was too busy?!

He's got the order from the navy https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r ... E-GAULTIER

[Tempest414]

its a Gendarmerie uniform with a dark blue shirt

[J. Tattersall]

I have to say I think the UK should be paying a bit more attention to the EUs new programs in the area of defence procurement.
For one, the fact that past attempts have consistently failed has a lot to do with the UKs approach to such efforts. This is not just in terms of funding, like blocking eda budget increases, but much more so in regards to fundamental structures.

I do seem to recall many years ago a significant number of northern European, and some southern, EU member states constantly telling us how much they didn't like EDA budget proposals, initiatives for raising new HQs, cosying up to Russia, and Commission involvement in defence. When it came to the big meetings however, they all remained strangely silent and let the senior Brit do the talking. Now the UK has left they've two options, fight their own battles or give in.

[J. Tattersall]

By the European Council on Foreign Relations, one of the most pro-integrationist/ EU federalist think-tanks there is; and which is very often highly critical of the UK (not just post- but pre-referendum).

How Britain and the EU could cooperate on defence after Brexit

The UK will have to decide how involved it wants to be in EU defence efforts. It seems likely that the country’s aim will be to have flexible structures that allow it to plug into European foreign and defence policy where doing so is in its interests.

https://ecfr.eu/article/how-britain-and ... er-brexit/