Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Geo-strategic Issues
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Gates criticizes NATO allies

This is a discussion on Gates criticizes NATO allies within the Geo-strategic Issues forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Outgoing Defense Secretary Gates criticizes NATO allies. Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal' - Yahoo! News Eleven weeks ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old June 10th, 2011   #1
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
Gates criticizes NATO allies

Outgoing Defense Secretary Gates criticizes NATO allies.

Gates: NATO alliance future could be 'dim, dismal' - Yahoo! News

Eleven weeks into a NATO campaign in Libya and our NATO allies are dependent upon American supplies and munitions... Our European allies air forces are out of bombs... With allies like these who needs enemies?

Last edited by Sea Toby; June 10th, 2011 at 07:35 PM.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 10th, 2011   #2
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
Gates criticizes NATO allies air forces

Eleven weeks into a very mild campaign in Libya European air forces are dependent upon American munitions and supplies. Some have run out of bombs....

With allies like these who needs enemies... If Europe don't buckle up, the US will depart NATO. The American WWII generation is dying off...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110610/... - Yahoo! News
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Syd, AU
Posts: 281
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
Full speech transcript: Reflections on the status and future of the transatlantic alliance > Security & Defence Agenda

Quote:
Reflections on the status and future of the transatlantic alliance

As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Brussels, Belgium, Friday, June 10, 2011

Thank you, Mr. Secretary General, Jaap, for that kind introduction.

And my thanks to Giles Merritt and the Security and Defense Agenda for the opportunity to speak here today. This is Day 11 of an 11-day international trip so you can understand why I am very much looking forward to getting home. But I am glad – at this time, in this venue – to share some thoughts with you this morning about the transatlantic security relationship in what will be my last policy speech as U.S. defense secretary.

The security of this continent – with NATO as the main instrument for protecting that security – has been the consuming interest of much of my professional life.

In many ways, today’s event brings me full circle. The first major speech I delivered after taking this post nearly four-and-a-half years ago was also on the Continent, at the Munich Security Conference. The subject was the state of the Atlantic Alliance, which was then being tested with the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Today, I would like to share some parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year old transatlantic security project, to include:

Where the alliance mission stands in Afghanistan as we enter a critical transition phase;

NATO’s serious capability gaps and other institutional shortcomings laid bare by the Libya operation;

The military – and political – necessity of fixing these shortcomings if the transatlantic security alliance is going to be viable going forward;

And more broadly, the growing difficulty for the U.S. to sustain current support for NATO if the American taxpayer continues to carry most of the burden in the Alliance.

I share these views in the spirit of solidarity and friendship, with the understanding that true friends occasionally must speak bluntly with one another for the sake of those greater interests and values that bind us together.

First, a few words on Afghanistan. I have just returned from three days of visits and meetings with our troops and commanders there, and come away impressed and inspired by the changes that have taken place on the ground in recent months. It is no secret that for too long, the international military effort in Afghanistan suffered from a lack of focus, resources, and attention, a situation exacerbated by America’s primary focus on Iraq for most of the past decade.

When NATO agreed at Riga in 2006 to take the lead for security across the country, I suspect many allies assumed that the mission would be primarily peacekeeping, reconstruction, and development assistance – more akin to the Balkans. Instead, NATO found itself in a tough fight against a determined and resurgent Taliban returning in force from its sanctuaries in Pakistan.

Soon, the challenges inherent to any coalition operation came to the surface – national caveats that tied the hands of allied commanders in sometimes infuriating ways, the inability of many allies to meet agreed upon commitments and, in some cases, wildly disparate contributions from different member states. Frustrations with these obstacles sometimes boiled into public view. I had some choice words to say on this topic during my first year in office, unfavorably characterized at the time by one of my NATO ministerial colleagues as “megaphone diplomacy.”

Yet, through it all, NATO – as an alliance collectively – has for the most part come through for the mission in Afghanistan. Consider that when I became Secretary of Defense in 2006 there were about 20,000 non-U.S. troops from NATO nations in Afghanistan. Today, that figure is approximately 40,000. More than 850 troops from non-U.S. NATO members have made the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan. For many allied nations these were the first military casualties they have taken since the end of the Second World War.

Frankly, four years ago I never would have expected the alliance to sustain this operation at this level for so long, much less add significantly more forces in 2010. It is a credit to the brave ISAF troops on the ground, as well as to the allied governments who have made the case for the Afghanistan mission under difficult political circumstances at home.

Over the past two years, the U.S. has completed the dramatic shift in military priorities away from Iraq and towards Afghanistan, providing reinforcements to allies who courageously had been holding the line in the south. These new resources – combined with a new strategy – have decisively changed the military momentum on the ground, with the Taliban ejected from their former strongholds.

While President Obama is still considering the size and pacing of the troop drawdown beginning in July, I can tell you there will be no rush to the exits. The vast majority of the surge forces that arrived over the past two years will remain through the summer fighting season. We will also reassign many troops from areas transferred to Afghan control into less-secure provinces and districts.

As the Taliban attempt their inevitable counterattack designed to increase ISAF casualties and sap international will, now is the time to capitalize on the gains of the past 15 to 18 months – by keeping the pressure on the Taliban and reinforcing military success with improved governance, reintegration, and ultimately political reconciliation.

Given what I have heard and seen – not just in my recent visit to Afghanistan, but over the past two years – I believe these gains can take root and be sustained over time with proper Allied support. Far too much has been accomplished, at far too great a cost, to let the momentum slip away just as the enemy is on its back foot. To that end, we cannot afford to have some troop contributing nations to pull out their forces on their own timeline in a way that undermines the mission and increases risks to other allies. The way ahead in Afghanistan is “in together, out together.” Then our troops can come home to the honor and appreciation they so richly deserve, and the transatlantic alliance will have passed its first major test of the 21st Century:

Inflicting a strategic and ideological defeat on terrorist groups that threaten our homelands;

Giving a long-suffering people hope for a future;

Providing a path to stability for a critically important part of the world.

Though we can take pride in what has been accomplished and sustained in Afghanistan, the ISAF mission has exposed significant shortcomings in NATO – in military capabilities, and in political will. Despite more than 2 million troops in uniform – NOT counting the U.S. military – NATO has struggled, at times desperately, to sustain a deployment of 25- to 40,000 troops, not just in boots on the ground, but in crucial support assets such as helicopters, transport aircraft, maintenance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and much more.

Turning to the NATO operation over Libya, it has become painfully clear that similar shortcomings – in capability and will –have the potential to jeopardize the alliance’s ability to conduct an integrated, effective and sustained air-sea campaign. Consider that Operation Unified Protector is:

A mission with widespread political support;

A mission that does not involve ground troops under fire;

And indeed, is a mission in Europe’s neighborhood deemed to be in Europe’s vital interest.

To be sure, at the outset, the NATO Libya mission did meet its initial military objectives – grounding Qaddafi’s air force and degrading his ability to wage offensive war against his own citizens. And while the operation has exposed some shortcomings caused by underfunding, it has also shown the potential of NATO, with an operation where Europeans are taking the lead with American support. However, while every alliance member voted for Libya mission, less than half have participated at all, and fewer than a third have been willing to participate in the strike mission. Frankly, many of those allies sitting on the sidelines do so not because they do not want to participate, but simply because they can’t. The military capabilities simply aren’t there.

In particular, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets are lacking that would allow more allies to be involved and make an impact. The most advanced fighter aircraft are little use if allies do not have the means to identify, process, and strike targets as part of an integrated campaign. To run the air campaign, the NATO air operations center in Italy required a major augmentation of targeting specialists, mainly from the U.S., to do the job – a “just in time” infusion of personnel that may not always be available in future contingencies. We have the spectacle of an air operations center designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference.

In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered alliance: Between members who specialize in “soft’ humanitarian, development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the “hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership – be they security guarantees or headquarters billets – but don’t want to share the risks and the costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today. And it is unacceptable.

Part of this predicament stems from a lack of will, much of it from a lack of resources in an era of austerity. For all but a handful of allies, defense budgets – in absolute terms, as a share of economic output – have been chronically starved for adequate funding for a long time, with the shortfalls compounding on themselves each year. Despite the demands of mission in Afghanistan – the first ‘hot’ ground war fought in NATO history – total European defense spending declined, by one estimate, by nearly 15 percent in the decade following 9/11. Furthermore, rising personnel costs combined with the demands of training and equipping for Afghan deployments has consumed an ever growing share of already meager defense budgets. The result is that investment accounts for future modernization and other capabilities not directly related to Afghanistan are being squeezed out – as we are seeing today over Libya.

I am the latest in a string of U.S. defense secretaries who have urged allies privately and publicly, often with exasperation, to meet agreed-upon NATO benchmarks for defense spending. However, fiscal, political and demographic realities make this unlikely to happen anytime soon, as even military stalwarts like the U.K have been forced to ratchet back with major cuts to force structure. Today, just five of 28 allies – the U.S., U.K., France, Greece, along with Albania – exceed the agreed 2% of GDP spending on defense.

Regrettably, but realistically, this situation is highly unlikely to change. The relevant challenge for us today, therefore, is no longer the total level of defense spending by allies, but how these limited (and dwindling) resources are allocated and for what priorities. For example, though some smaller NATO members have modestly sized and funded militaries that do not meet the 2 percent threshold, several of these allies have managed to punch well above their weight because of the way they use the resources they have.

In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the targets. Belgium and Canada are also making major contributions to the strike mission. These countries have, with their constrained resources, found ways to do the training, buy the equipment, and field the platforms necessary to make a credible military contribution.

These examples are the exceptions. Despite the pressing need to spend more on vital equipment and the right personnel to support ongoing missions – needs that have been evident for the past two decades – too many allies been unwilling to fundamentally change how they set priorities and allocate resources. The non-U.S. NATO members collectively spend more than $300 billion U.S. dollars on defense annually which, if allocated wisely and strategically, could buy a significant amount of usable military capability. Instead, the results are significantly less than the sum of the parts. This has both shortchanged current operations but also bodes ill for ensuring NATO has the key common alliance capabilities of the future.

Looking ahead, to avoid the very real possibility of collective military irrelevance, member nations must examine new approaches to boosting combat capabilities – in procurement, in training, in logistics, in sustainment. While it is clear NATO members should do more to pool military assets, such “Smart Defense” initiatives are not a panacea. In the final analysis, there is no substitute for nations providing the resources necessary to have the military capability the Alliance needs when faced with a security challenge. Ultimately, nations must be responsible for their fair share of the common defense.

Let me conclude with some thoughts about the political context in which all of us must operate. As you all know, America’s serious fiscal situation is now putting pressure on our defense budget, and we are in a process of assessing where the U.S. can or cannot accept more risk as a result of reducing the size of our military. Tough choices lie ahead affecting every part of our government, and during such times, scrutiny inevitably falls on the cost of overseas commitments – from foreign assistance to military basing, support, and guarantees.

President Obama and I believe that despite the budget pressures, it would be a grave mistake for the U.S. to withdraw from its global responsibilities. And in Singapore last week, I outlined the many areas where U.S. defense engagement and investment in Asia was slated to grow further in coming years, even as America’s traditional allies in that region rightfully take on the role of full partners in their own defense.

With respect to Europe, for the better part of six decades there has been relatively little doubt or debate in the United States about the value and necessity of the transatlantic alliance. The benefits of a Europe whole, prosperous and free after being twice devastated by wars requiring American intervention was self evident. Thus, for most of the Cold War U.S. governments could justify defense investments and costly forward bases that made up roughly 50 percent of all NATO military spending. But some two decades after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the U.S. share of NATO defense spending has now risen to more than 75 percent – at a time when politically painful budget and benefit cuts are being considered at home.

The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.

What I’ve sketched out is the real possibility for a dim, if not dismal future for the transatlantic alliance. Such a future is possible, but not inevitable. The good news is that the members of NATO – individually, and collectively – have it well within their means to halt and reverse these trends, and instead produce a very different future:

By making a serious effort to protect defense budgets from being further gutted in the next round of austerity measures;

By better allocating (and coordinating) the resources we do have; and

By following through on commitments to the alliance and to each other.

It is not too late for Europe to get its defense institutions and security relationships on track. But it will take leadership from political leaders and policy makers on this continent. It cannot be coaxed, demanded or imposed from across the Atlantic.

Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the big things right over time. We came together to make the tough decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again.
winnyfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #4
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Syd, AU
Posts: 281
Threads:
NATO reaction; Q&A (10 June 2011)

NATOchannel.tv - NATO's official online video channel
winnyfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #5
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,525
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sea Toby View Post
Eleven weeks into a very mild campaign in Libya European air forces are dependent upon American munitions and supplies. Some have run out of bombs....

With allies like these who needs enemies... If Europe don't buckle up, the US will depart NATO. The American WWII generation is dying off...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110610/... - Yahoo! News
I am actually looking forward to the day when the US does pull out of NATO. It has been allowed to become a toothless tiger without direct US support and the US taxpayer carrying the burden the European politicians want them too but are not prepared too themselves...

The idea that you can just order such basic things as Mk 80 bomb units and LGB guidance kits instead of holding your own beyond training stocks is abysmal and makes a mockery of the idea that you can 'defend' yourself...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #6
Senior Member
Colonel
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADMk2 View Post
I am actually looking forward to the day when the US does pull out of NATO. It has been allowed to become a toothless tiger without direct US support and the US taxpayer carrying the burden the European politicians want them too but are not prepared too themselves...

The idea that you can just order such basic things as Mk 80 bomb units and LGB guidance kits instead of holding your own beyond training stocks is abysmal and makes a mockery of the idea that you can 'defend' yourself...
Having worked as a defence subcontractor in the past as part of DAS and private contractors involved with JALO you would be surprised by how much the ADF holds across the country. If the current holding are anything like they were in the past you can add the ADF to that list.
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #7
Just a bloke
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,525
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Having worked as a defence subcontractor in the past as part of DAS and private contractors involved with JALO you would be surprised by how much the ADF holds across the country. If the current holding are anything like they were in the past you can add the ADF to that list.

I know. They've made a big deal about explosive ordnance replacement project, but the fact is when RAAF have required ordnance on operations we've had to go and purchase it off the US in theatre...

An interesting reality behind our so-called 'self-reliance'...
ADMk2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #8
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10
Threads:
Cant they vote the countries that don't perform out of the alliance, or degrade them to "NATO partners" or something ?
As for the European country's military spending's, they just don't see any military threat to there sovereignty in the near future.

Take a look at the "list of countries by military expenditures" on wiki.
The only imaginable threats to Europe on that list is China and Russia, China is half a world away and don't have the means to project power to Europe.
So that leaves good old Russia, outspent by both France and the U.K these days and its not like they are in desperate need of more land..
So its only for offensive missions like the one in Libya more spending would be warranted.
Tomte47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #9
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Hague
Posts: 80
Threads:
Quote:
As for the European country's military spending's, they just don't see any military threat to there sovereignty in the near future.
Yet European country's (like my own) want to play with the big boys and leverage their influence for a large part on American defence spending. The US is also the reason that there is no threat to our sovereignty. Without the US defence umbrella I highly doubt Europe''s defence would be credible.

The reason I think this is because the different country's dont ever seem to agree on something, and defence cooperation has turned out (needlesly) costly (NH90 Tiger ECF etc etc)!!! Furthermore European defence ideology is fragmented and it doesn't seem like that will change any time soon. Also it doesn't help that most defence ministers dont seem to know their head from their ass and keep scrapping capabilities.

One of the more recent examples is that of the Netherlands. This particulary stings because I''m dutch, and it pains me to see politicians gutting our military for peanuts. The situation right now is rosy and cosy compared to what is to come. The Belgians Gates spoke so highly of have no plans to replace their vipers and it doesn't look they will be able to afford that anyway. The NL is going to scrap F-16's on short notice, the JSF replacement is a right mess and will leave the RNLAF a mere shell of what it was.

The only thing we get from the politicians is big words and empty promisses, like the british carrier. Why build a perfectly good aircraft carrier and uses it as a helicopter flat top? Politicians think that apache's could replace fast jets and that tanks arent necessary anymore. This leaves the respective military's in a big bind, I don't think the UK has a credible (autonomous) amphibious warfare capability against any credible adversary without its carriers. And the really crazy thing is that with delivery schedules and training it will probably take the better part of a decade before they regain this capability.

These words of sec. Gates are very important, its too bad that no one over here will hear them. The situation within NATO will get worse and I don't know it it wil get better! I think that in 5 yrs or so most of the smaller airforces wont be able to support operations like those above libya. And the larger country's would have to put great pressure on their defence community to do so.
Toptob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toptob View Post
Yet European country's (like my own) want to play with the big boys and leverage their influence for a large part on American defence spending. The US is also the reason that there is no threat to our sovereignty. Without the US defence umbrella I highly doubt Europe''s defence would be credible.

The reason I think this is because the different country's dont ever seem to agree on something, and defence cooperation has turned out (needlesly) costly (NH90 Tiger ECF etc etc)!!! Furthermore European defence ideology is fragmented and it doesn't seem like that will change any time soon. Also it doesn't help that most defence ministers dont seem to know their head from their ass and keep scrapping capabilities.

One of the more recent examples is that of the Netherlands. This particulary stings because I''m dutch, and it pains me to see politicians gutting our military for peanuts. The situation right now is rosy and cosy compared to what is to come. The Belgians Gates spoke so highly of have no plans to replace their vipers and it doesn't look they will be able to afford that anyway. The NL is going to scrap F-16's on short notice, the JSF replacement is a right mess and will leave the RNLAF a mere shell of what it was.

The only thing we get from the politicians is big words and empty promisses, like the british carrier. Why build a perfectly good aircraft carrier and uses it as a helicopter flat top? Politicians think that apache's could replace fast jets and that tanks arent necessary anymore. This leaves the respective military's in a big bind, I don't think the UK has a credible (autonomous) amphibious warfare capability against any credible adversary without its carriers. And the really crazy thing is that with delivery schedules and training it will probably take the better part of a decade before they regain this capability.

These words of sec. Gates are very important, its too bad that no one over here will hear them. The situation within NATO will get worse and I don't know it it wil get better! I think that in 5 yrs or so most of the smaller airforces wont be able to support operations like those above libya. And the larger country's would have to put great pressure on their defence community to do so.
The US concern is not only that in general NATO does not spend enough on its defense but what they spend it on. Most of the budgets they do have go to the paper pushers. Individually they might be small to middle sized countries but they all have bloated defense establishments just like they were big countries making big decisions about everything. which is not true.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #11
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Hague
Posts: 80
Threads:
Quote:
The US concern is not only that in general NATO does not spend enough on its defense but what they spend it on. Most of the budgets they do have go to the paper pushers. Individually they might be small to middle sized countries but they all have bloated defense establishments just like they were big countries making big decisions about everything. which is not true.
I absolutely agree with you except perhaps on the paper pushers, but experience learns us that that is probably true also. A bigger problem I think is that European defence policy is fragmented. I suspect that if the european country''s would coordinate their defence spending they would get a lot more bang for their buck.

Take for example the rediculous amount of weapons programs stemming from country's going it alone. There is IRIS-T, ASRAAM (and MICA) there's Stormshadow and Taurus. And its this way in everything; planes, ships, tanks you name it and there are two or more European alternatives.

Now if the European country's really coordinated their defence strategy, they would be able to buy 3000 AAMs in one go and save money by buying in numbers and save on the costs of developing and integrating 2 missiles. Also it would make it easyer to pool finances and expertise more easily. Finally it would remove some needless competition and provide European arms manufacturers with a stronger position for exports.

So IMO its not so much that the defence organisations are to big, although there are some obvious country''s that could partner up, but that money is spend more on national pride than national security.

(Edit)
Also if al Euro country's coordinated their gear there wouldn't be an ammo shortage right now, as they could share their stocks while they get the mills running.
Toptob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #12
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toptob View Post
(Edit)
Also if al Euro country's coordinated their gear there wouldn't be an ammo shortage right now, as they could share their stocks while they get the mills running.
Part of the issue with warstocks being depleted is that the initial stockpiles of weapons are kept quite low, as a 'cost savings' measure. Unless/until the munitions are very cheap, I suspect most nations are not going to want to sink money into weapon stockpiles, as there is no visible return on investment, unless/until the munitions are needed.

Even during the Cold War era, there was an expectation that there would be a flow of supplies from the US to Europe, with some supplies and US equipment pre-positioned already.

Unfortunately, given the increased cost and complexity of modern munitions (and I do not mean dumb bombs, rockets or artillery shells) while production can be initiated during a conflict, unless there is a very significant ramping up of production, the rate of munitions usage will exceed the rate of production. Over time then, a munitions facility will be able to replenish expended warstocks, but most warstocks would not be large enough for a nation's production facilities to be tooled up sufficiently so that the rate of munitions production exceeded the rate of usage. The US might (emphasis MIGHT) have enough warstocks for such a situation.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #13
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,079
Threads:
NATO is not running out of bombs, just the particular types of smart bombs that their strategy forces them to rely upon. Our NATO allies do have a LOT of munitions left, including some really powerful smart weapons, they just do enough of the small stuff that is needed for the kind of bombing campaign they want to perform.

Their real mistake was underestimating how long Kaddafi could hold up under the attacks, which lead them to believe that their existing stocks were sufficient. But that is just standard air staff planning hubris. Has anyone here ever heard of a bombing only campaign where the planners overestimated the defenders ability to withstand it?
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #14
Junior Member
Private First Class
Jhom's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 96
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
NATO is not running out of bombs, just the particular types of smart bombs that their strategy forces them to rely upon. Our NATO allies do have a LOT of munitions left, including some really powerful smart weapons, they just do enough of the small stuff that is needed for the kind of bombing campaign they want to perform.

Their real mistake was underestimating how long Kaddafi could hold up under the attacks, which lead them to believe that their existing stocks were sufficient. But that is just standard air staff planning hubris. Has anyone here ever heard of a bombing only campaign where the planners overestimated the defenders ability to withstand it?
Completely agree with you, but as far as I can tell there are some allied contries (including mine) that arent doing all they can do... particularly on the bombing effort, because at the maritime blockade at least we have some muscle...

Well, regarding your last question... have you ever heard about Operation Rolling Thunder?? a very similar case in point... you can search it on wiki for further info
Jhom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011   #15
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toptob View Post
I absolutely agree with you except perhaps on the paper pushers, but experience learns us that that is probably true also. A bigger problem I think is that European defence policy is fragmented. I suspect that if the european country''s would coordinate their defence spending they would get a lot more bang for their buck.

Take for example the rediculous amount of weapons programs stemming from country's going it alone. There is IRIS-T, ASRAAM (and MICA) there's Stormshadow and Taurus. And its this way in everything; planes, ships, tanks you name it and there are two or more European alternatives.

Now if the European country's really coordinated their defence strategy, they would be able to buy 3000 AAMs in one go and save money by buying in numbers and save on the costs of developing and integrating 2 missiles. Also it would make it easyer to pool finances and expertise more easily. Finally it would remove some needless competition and provide European arms manufacturers with a stronger position for exports.

So IMO its not so much that the defence organisations are to big, although there are some obvious country''s that could partner up, but that money is spend more on national pride than national security.

(Edit)
Also if al Euro country's coordinated their gear there wouldn't be an ammo shortage right now, as they could share their stocks while they get the mills running.
I fully agree the fragmentary approach is the killer component to this and so many other problems. There are far too many decision makers involved in everything which have veto power but are not held responsible for the final outcomes. Not being from Europe, I do not think I have a say any in their internal political arrangements but from an outsiders’ point of view Europe doesn’t seem to be working economically, politically or militarily. This could be acceptable if it was only a transitional phase but again from an outsides’ view it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Everyone has problems at times and everyone has bad stretches where things seem to be getting worse, not just in Europe but is there a mechanism that can effectively address problems when they arrive?

I would be interested if you think that it still can sufficiently evolve, stagnate, or will break up? Europe does not have to be left behind as a minor player in the future world becoming ever less important and only reacting to events instead of creating them as they once did.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:26 PM.