EU Combined Military Thread

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

An opinion from Guy Verhofstadt: https://euobserver.com/opinion/153129
Europe's military weakness is indefensible!

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by SW1 »

J. Tattersall wrote:An opinion from Guy Verhofstadt: https://euobserver.com/opinion/153129
Europe's military weakness is indefensible!
I don’t think he’s wrong and I’d include the UK in this of what the problems and issues are. I don’t however think a “EU army” works no national government would survive its citizens being sent to die in a conflict by Brussels especially if I’d didn’t wholly back it. We know the Germans but significant caveats of what I’d does in such conflicts.

They would need very significant investment and expansion of strategic transport, air refuelling and intelligence gathering capacity and it could only come about by reducing investing in new manned tactical fighter programs. Lot less shinny but necessary. You could do it thru expansion and Co ordination of the MMF/EATC and NATO awac/AGS forces rather than an Brussels power grab

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

But are the members of the EU willing to spend the money to gain the capabilities they need? Would Germany for example be willing to send non SF forces to Africa for combat operations as part of an EU mission with France as the Headliner. Will France's Nuclear Deterrent become an EU assets, replacing the US umbrella? NATO would still be covered but are the EU aiming to compliment NATO or substitute it? They have a lone way to go whatever the outcome.

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

J. Tattersall wrote: This will be the first re-attempt at a rapid reaction force since Brits left.
Yes, by growing from the Standing BG arrangement. If 5k bods is the target (and will be realised?) then that would be roughly the same as the land component in the now seemingly moribund Franco-British intervention force.
J. Tattersall wrote:I think in reality most EU members would be content to have an office block in Brussels with a sign outside it
I thought the WEU had been done away with... the setup was exactly that.
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

Here we go again...
Germany, 4 EU states launch military reaction force initiative — report
Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia said their EU-wide initiative to expand the bloc's military units was inspired by recent events in Afghanistan.
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-4-eu-stat ... a-59574641

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by Lord Jim »

A reaction force for humanitarian operations like the retreat form Afghanistan is a far cry form one aimed at high intensity combat. A number of those countries have either A400 or C-130 transports and such a force will probably have access to the NATO Heavy Lift force's C-17s and other assets. Such a force is viable and should be able to be formed fairly easily. The one area of concern is will be be deployed is any of the contributors deem it necessary or will it require EU agreement as it will be operating under its name?

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Isn't this latest rather an indication that a coalition of 'the willing' is needed and he wider 'Early Entry Force' will take time, or has already run into (political) headwinds?
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by SW1 »

How many of the EU battlegroups deployed to Afghanistan as one of there tasks is evacuation and humanitarian missions?

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Exactly the point: Coalitions of the 'willing' will replace them, with more specific purposes
... now, it will be interesting to see if the BG structure will grow into the Early Entry Force (not everyone remembers that there are participants from outside of the NATO) or will whither away (for the evidenced lack of use)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Exactly the point: Coalitions of the 'willing' will replace them, with more specific purposes
... now, it will be interesting to see if the BG structure will grow into the Early Entry Force (not everyone remembers that there are participants from outside of the NATO) or will whither away (for the evidenced lack of use)
But that would be absolutely the opposite to statements made by EU officials that Afghanistan means more EU army and not individual nation states. There is supposedly 18 EU battlegroups with 2 always available to deploy and has supposedly been the case since 2005, evacuation is one of there tasks so it would suggest they were set up to deal with such situations as Afghanistan already.

If the answer is coalitions between individual countries willing to act and deploy does that not mean more National decision making between national governments and less EU decision making?

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I didn't include a question mark in mine, but was clearly asking:
Has the 'more EU' already hit headwinds (even though to be only 5.000 strong) and therefore is the announced Germany+4
A. an interim measure only, or
B. hedging against the broader initiative coming to nothing and therefore what has now been announced is to stay in place 'ongoing'
:?: ... should have three of these
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)

J. Tattersall

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by J. Tattersall »

What the EU’s future military strategy could look like

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defenc ... look-like/

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

This method of drafting is a bit like building a well... and then starting to carry water into it:
" Russia and China feature dominantly in the 28-page document.

Russia’s “actions in our common neighbourhood and in other theatres contradict the EU’s vision of the world and its interests”, the draft states, adding however that “the EU strategy aims at engaging Russia in some specific issues” such as climate.

Several EU diplomats contacted by EURACTIV have stated that the threat from Moscow should have been better specified by including military threats and occupation, weaponising energy supply and hybrid actions, and that they plan to table amendments."

Single-country vetos are on their way out of the window, though:
" include the use of constructive abstention “to enable willing and capable European-led coalitions”.["]

Either the drafters or the reporters got tired before they reached the end of the list of 6 :!: :roll:
" refers to a recent assessment that had urged EU governments to focus on “six next-generation capabilities” like a new battle tank (MBT), patrol vessels, defence in space, air systems and enhanced military mobility."
so it is difficult to infer if the missing of the future fires system carries a 'meaning'
- the most specific ones are the MBT, which is connected by an umbilical cord to the Franco-German co-operation success with 'air'
- I guess ballistic missile defences would come under 'space' and Germany already dropped a very expensive system, in its late stages of development exactly for it not providing any such capability for substantial monies (i.e pre-empting a parallel such system)... lots of Iskanders in the old 'East Prussia' so not very far at all

As the document will be finalised in March, Macron might up the mentions of 'strategic autonomy' from the current ONE... if he is still there to do it. At this stage that state of the matters brushes the Franco-German x-pull under the topic... under the carpet ;)
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by SW1 »

Constructive abstentions is simply not going to cut it if your sending people into harms way if that government or the people that elects it are not in favour of such a mission.

Especially so as the EU commission and its president are not elected by the people that would need to be the first change in accountability to allow such decisions to be made by it.

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

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I think 'constructive abstention' means something else than what the first para, above, would suggest.
- there is a well-known synonym available, but it may not have been used for being somewhat 'tainted' by the the developments over the last two decades
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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As the document will be finalised in March, Macron might up the mentions of 'strategic autonomy' from the current ONE... if he is still there to do it. At this stage that state of the matters brushes the Franco-German x-pull under the topic... under the carpet
There's more than meets the eye here, March for the doc, June (Madrid Summit) for its adoption. Namely, the nuclear side of things (DCA) needs a German Gvmnt firmly in place to agree to their part (the pending Tornado replacement). So we come to the Super Hornet deal:
- supposedly the planes will be 'nuclear wired' but there is no actual weapon integrated (as yet, one must add). That would fall in line with DCA, ie. assigning assets to it, as in
"the June 2021 Brussels Summit Communiqué in which Biden agreed that ‘NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and the capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned’. "

The 'strategic autonomy' stream of thinking implies nuclear-armed French planes, with a Germany-provided 'fighter sweep' helping to clear the way
- now, the Growler component would be invaluable for either of these described scenarios. But any definitive confirmation of the order needs, in high likelihood' a new gvmnt 'bedding in'
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: EU Combined Military thread.

Post by jedibeeftrix »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The 'strategic autonomy' stream of thinking implies nuclear-armed French planes, with a Germany-provided 'fighter sweep' helping to clear the way
"Hey chaps, the moment has come to do a bit of nukin', are you game?"

"Oh... You're not. You realise we can't deploy the strike force in an unsanitised space, right?"

"You do, huh. Well, that does leave our nuclear response in a bit of a pickle!"

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by wargame_insomniac »

What is the latest on rapid reaction forces prganized under the auspices of either NATO or EU? If it helps I am thinking of possible Russian moves in Northern Europe, so focussing on Scandinavia, the Baltic States and Poland?

I am wondering how either or both is affected firstly by the differeing membership of NATO and EU, and secondly by the recent change of German government from CDU/CSU to more liberal SPD/FDP/Greens.

Many of Northern european countries are members of both NATO and EU. But UK and Norway are both members of NATO but not EU, whilst Sweden and Finland are both members of EU but not of NATO.

And with change in German Chancellor, how tough would EU's response be to any Putin aggression? My fear is that EU would be that they would want to have talks and negotiate rather than send troops to either Baltic States or Poland. (I have left Ukraine from this discussion as Ukraine is not yet a member of either NATO or EU, although the chance of further Russian moves into Ukraine is even higher).

User avatar
xav
Senior Member
Posts: 1626
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:48

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by xav »

Coverage of the keel laying for the first "mothership" of the Belgian-Dutch rMCM program (and France may joint it).

Could Type 32 look like something close to this ?


bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by bobp »

Nice one XAV. It would make sense if we had something similar for T32 but with global range and endurance.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by SW1 »


wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by wargame_insomniac »

xav wrote: 02 Dec 2021, 15:16 Coverage of the keel laying for the first "mothership" of the Belgian-Dutch rMCM program (and France may joint it).

Could Type 32 look like something close to this ?

I saw draft stats that these Belgian / Dutch MCM ships are 2,800 tonnes. That is about half the size of the T31 and presumed T32. I am not sure what other armanents these ships have? I presume that T32 would have longer range and endurance, helicopter hangar and more weaponry.

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

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Air, Sea... Land: FAMOUS 2, European Future Highly Mobile Augmented Armoured Systems 2, has now (Phase 2) more participants, and as it is about enhanced Arctic mobility (mountains seem to count in the category, where-ever they are), spot the odd one out in the list: :)

Finland, Belgium, Denmark, Latvia, Norway, France, Austria, Greece and Spain
- no mountains and not an acre in the Arctic? Hint: Not the one with lots of forests and raised bogs
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
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: EU Combined Military Thread

Post by Ian Hall »


Post Reply