In addition, 140 of the HEL and all the 2E were local license builds, so technically only 150 Leopard 2 were built in Germany since ca 1990.
A "European Army" is now a real possibility
- Thread starter RobWilliams
- Start date
the concerned
Active Member
what do you think are the chances of Greece and Turkey being deployed within the same army.Something tells me that level of co-operation is decades away if ever. And if all the forces did combine would that actually mean a bigger better force. I reckon that various governments would use this to bring in cuts like if it was one force why would each country need its own air defence.Surely airspace control would be done by multi national units in strategic places not all over.
Yeah, it'd be like France and Germany operating in the same Nato structure straight out of WWII. Oh, wait, that happened.
And yes, some duplication could be reduced - that's my original point - do we really need ten tiny airforces in Europe, with marginal AAR and scrappy AEW, when we could get a central border security force to do the lot ?
the concerned
Active Member
i for one would not like to see this happen as i think this is one step too far.The MOD is in a real mess and i think the last thing we need right now is yet another set of politicians interferring in are defence.I hope this doesn't cause any upset but just watched a interesting interview on (youtube) on Will Gilpen Ukip about their defense policy it is quite interesting . Like I said i hope i dont cause offence.look at the EU government how much money is wasted on them ,dont do it again at the expense of our forces.
I'm far from keen on the idea of a European Defence Force because I think there'd never be any option of anything being done with it. The UK and France have acted together with decision and resolve in the past (let's just not mention Suez, eh..) but overall, not a good idea.
There is scope however to create a shared tanker, transport and MPA facility however - we're already operating to the same set of legal precepts and pooling data so why not cut down on duplication and wasteful spending.
As for UKIP, they're a waste of oxygen so I'm not overly interested in any thing they say. As soon as they stop breathing and therefore stealing resources I can use more effectively, I'll take a more kindly view of them.
There is scope however to create a shared tanker, transport and MPA facility however - we're already operating to the same set of legal precepts and pooling data so why not cut down on duplication and wasteful spending.
As for UKIP, they're a waste of oxygen so I'm not overly interested in any thing they say. As soon as they stop breathing and therefore stealing resources I can use more effectively, I'll take a more kindly view of them.
Well, I don't disagree with the propability of sinergy effects if one molds the EU forces into one but the AEW capabilities are hardly an example.
The 17 Sentrys at Geilenkirchen which are jointly operated by NATO are probably the most potent AEW force outside the US. If one adds the Sentrys of the UK and France we have a force of 28 AWACS in Europe compared to the 34 of the US (not counting the Navy Hawkeyes).
Quite a capable force and one of the few fields were Europe isn't lacking.
The 17 Sentrys at Geilenkirchen which are jointly operated by NATO are probably the most potent AEW force outside the US. If one adds the Sentrys of the UK and France we have a force of 28 AWACS in Europe compared to the 34 of the US (not counting the Navy Hawkeyes).
Quite a capable force and one of the few fields were Europe isn't lacking.
Apart from the fact that the EU doesn't have a government, the administrative budget of the European Union comes up to a grand total of 12 quid per capita in the EU.
The fields where some European nations are lacking are the ones that would never come under supernational control, and are the exact ones that would make the EU "independent" on a global scope. Strategic reconnaissance and military use of space for example. Only ones with real capacity there are France and Germany, to a limited extent Italy. The UK for example relies pretty much entirely on US assets. Nukes also technically fall in this scope.
the concerned
Active Member
The Gentleman speaking in the interview is a former Tornado pilot and he gives some quite interesting stories of missions being scrappped during the gulf war due to french non-cooperation and stuff like that.Take the second gulf war regardless as to wether we think it was right or wrong now our elected government at the time did think it was right but many in europe where not interested what would happen if that type of situation arrose again which i could see quite soon. Would you want a foriegn commander telling our armed forces that they couldn't act on our interests.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Off Topic ON/
Good googly moogly, it says a lot about a party when you google some thing and the tag line is
Not to mention there Soverign Draw for a Sovereign Nation Lottery competitionn
/Off Topic Off
The EU budget for administration is 8.3 billion euros for 2012, divided among just over 500 million people. That's £6589 mn. UK central government administration budget was planned to be £15458 mn in 2011-12, down from £21103 mn actually spent in 2010-11. Per head, that's £13.09 for the EU, & £246.77 for the UK (if targets are achieved) - or in 2010-11, £337 actually spent.
Big deal.
Why is it that the people who complain about the huge spending of the EU never have any idea of how much it actually is, or how it compares to our own government spending?
Don't forget that the 17 NATO E-3s are shared with the USA, Canada, & non-EU states Norway & (despite it getting its own B737 AEW) Turkey. There'd have to be some buying out or handing over of assets if they became purely European.
There are also several Swedish & Greek (again, despite it having a share of the E-3s) Erieye-equipped SAAB 340s & Embraer 145s in the EU.
One big lack is ground surveillance radar. The UK has 5 Sentinels, but that's not much.
The tanker fleet as a whole isn't too bad compared to anyone outside the USA (though tiny compared to that of the USA), but it's disproportionately British & French. The German, Italian, Spanish & Dutch fleets are small & diverse.
I'm with Stobiewan on the scope for sharing tanker, transport & MPA fleets. I'd also add sealift, where there is already some co-operation.
Guys can I just get a general opinion on the pooling of certain resources to create a central European force whilst retaining assets in the states themselves and any reasons for this! I explained more in my last post on this thread, I'd just like to use your opinions in one of my masters projects, online communities opinions are really very useful! And if you have any professional Knowledge as in industry wide could you say thanks guys! Loving the forums!
thanks guys! Loving the forums!ISTAR as well - it's something Europe is badly lagging behind the US in (and they are the top dogs whom we need to emulate if a European force is to be successful.
Thinking about it, it's an area that's ripe to be a pooled resource as well. They're all areas we as Europeans have common interest in performing, that need to be available constantly and which are also fairly low risk, non combat roles in the main and therefore less subject to individual political whim.
Any fighting forces will have to be drawn from existing formations supplied by member nations much as the UN picks up it's troops or NATO does. I'm not seeing a horde of folk dressed in European Defence Force uniforms in permanently constituted divisions, recruited centrally happening any time soon.
We also have those 7 Heron/Harfang over Afghanistan with synthetic aperture radar.
Technically, that's what we're having NATO buy those five RQ-4B with MP-RTIP for too (of which, i guess, three are European-owned).
ESG FüInfoSysSK Bw is supposed to be at FOC in 2017. Currently 1st stage LOC.
50 countries amassing in the geographical are that is almost equal to China. huge income disparity, many languages, distinct ethnic identities, no past experience of living in unified central command structure and finally altogether different geopolitical interests. The amalgamation we have witnessed in the form of EU is the maximum integrated union ever existed in the continent of Europe. Keeping all this in mind i do not see any future of combined European Army in the complex and shifting world. Best scenario for them is to stick under the NATO umbrella.
It can easily be checked and verified through the IMF & World bank report. The disparity between top 3 and bottom 3 and i have mentioned other points too along with the economy.Due to lesser posts i am not allowed to attach the link with my post.
Sure. First off, 50 states? We're talking about the European Union, not the Council of Europe. Different geopolitical interests? There's a common denominator all EU members agree on. There are just local side interests in addition to that, like in every country. Living in a "unified central command structure"? Military-wise, what do you think NATO is? Many languages - sure. Have you ever looked at what percentage of Indians speak Hindi? Hint: It's less than the percentage of Europeans that speak English. Ethnic identities? 70% of Europeans belong to just six ethnicities.