A hypothetical EU force structure

[kato]

Going with the original thread topic... (had some time last weekend lol)

Germany
Keep EK/SK force categorization.

Intervention Forces (EK)
Heer
- DCT: 1st PzDiv as-is; add second Armor Btl to PzBde 21
- BCT: "D/F-Bde 1" (Light Inf) as-is
- BCT: "D/F-Bde 2" (Light Inf) new
- BCT: LLBde 26 (Paratroopers) as-is
- RCT: JgRgt 1 (airborne) as-is
- RCT: JgRgt 2 (airborne) new
- Combat Support: select DSO/DLO subunits as-is
Airforce
- 3 sq Strike (Eurofighter; incl. naval strike) (one sq added)
- 2 sq Fighter (Eurofighter) (one sq added)
- 1 sq Recce (new UAV/UCAV)
- 1 sq SEAD (new UCAV)
- 1 sq transport (A400M)
- 1 sq CSAR (NH90, A310)
- 6 bttry SAM (MEADS mod) (three bttry added)
Navy
- 7 FFG (F124, F123)
- 5 FFL (K130)
- 4 SSK (U212 Batch 1)
- 6 MCMV (mixed)
- 3 AOR (A702) (one added)

Stabilization Forces (SK)
Heer
- BCT: PzBde 12 (Mech Inf) as-is
- BCT: PzGrenBde 37 (Mech Inf) as-is
- BCT: PzGrenBde 41 (Mech Inf) as-is
- BCT: (Mech Inf) - reinstated
- BCT: GebJgBde 23 (Mountain Inf) as-is
- BCT: LLBde 31 (Paratrooper) as-is
- BCT: "D/F-Bde 3" (Light Inf) new
- BCT: "D/F-Bde 4" (Light Inf) new
- Combat Support: select DSO/DLO subunits
Airforce
- 3 sq Strike (Eurofighter) (one sq added)
- 3 sq Fighter (Eurofighter) (one sq added)
- 1 sq Recce (new UAV/UCAV)
- 1 sq SEAD (new UCAV)
- 6 bttry SAM (MEADS mod) (one bttry added)
Navy
- 4 FFG (F125)
- 6 FFL (K131) (ordered early)
- 4 SSK (U212A Batch 2) (two SSK added)
- 8 MPA (tbd)
- 9 MCMV (mixed)
- 2 BCR (A702A) (one added)
- 2 LKA (JSS) (ordered early)


*: DCT - "Divisional Combat Team": full-size division as-is with ~24 Btls total.



The "new" elements of all this would be:

Naval:

• Two added EGV to current plans (of 3) - cost ~600 million euro.
• Two added Type 212A SSKs to maintain 8 subs in fleet - cost ~800 million euro.
• Two JSS ordered early - type, cost tbd (not to exceed ~800 million euro).
• Follow-on MPA development based on some Airbus frame

Airforce:

• new UCAV for Recce and SEAD; potentially along the lines of Dassault NEURON or EADS Barracuda; cost tbd.
• MEADS: "Euro Version", tbd; introduction as planned
• MEADS: 12 "combat-ready" batteries instead of 8; i.e. ~18 total batteries instead of 12 planned.
• four additional squadrons of Eurofighters

Ground Forces:

• three new BCTs along the lines of D/F Bde formed if french units can be found
• AGM artillery system ordered; will equip both EK D/F BCT artillery btl as well as two additional SK artillery btl added to the HTrBde (about 128 systems total)
• HTH development started, based on Euro-Russian cooperation (Mi-26 follow-on)
• one PzGrenBde reinstated from dissolution due to KDB transformation; composition as PzGrenBde 37/41
• second JgRgt like JgRgt 1 formed, hooked in DLO/LbBde 1 as well

Some new numbers:
+100 Leo 2A6 (some PSO mod) (2 btl)
+100 Puma (2 btl)
+180 Boxer GTK (3 btl)
+72 Eurofighter (4 sq)
+128 AGM SPH (4 btl)
+6 SAM batteries
+2 subs
+4 ships
+72 UCAV (4 sq)

(for short- to medium-term acquisition; should be perfectly payable with increased budget)

Yeah, looks rough and not too detailed. If we go into details here, this could get really long.

 

[swerve]

Kato,

what's the JSS envisaged to be?

Also, what about the EADS UCAV which development money has now been provided for? It incorporates knowledge gained from the Barrakuda & other programmes, but should provide a more effective platform - or rather platforms, one high-altitude long endurance, & one faster & stealthier. And what about more tanker aircraft, ISR, & other force-projection aids?

Since under this scenario Germany would provide the largest chunk of new money (see below), what about money for new developments?

I've done a quick & dirty estimate of the increase in spending between expected 2008 spending, & 2010 spending in this scenario, for EU countries. Don't expect precision, but the figures should be somewhere in the right area.

Greece - 0
UK, France, Bulgaria - 15%
Cyprus - 20%
Poland, Romania - 40%
Czech Republic, Italy - 50%
Sweden, Portugal, Finland, Slovenia - 60%
Netherlands, Slovakia - 70%
Estonia - 75%
Denmark - 80%
Latvia - 90%
Germany - 100%
Spain, Hungary - 110%
Belgium - 125%
Lithuania - 140%
Austria - 220%
Malta - 320%
Luxembourg - 350%
Ireland - 400%

The above numbers may help those who are considering what specific countries should be able to afford.

As you see, there's no scope for the UK & France to expand their forces. The above increases, plus the extra they get by funding war & peacekeeping costs outside the main budget, will only permit completion of already planned programmes - but at least they should permit full completion, catching up with maintenance backlogs, & improvements in welfare & personal equipment of the troops.

Italy should be able to fund all its planned programmes easily, & have scope for expansion. The obvious areas are transport, ISR, & development of new weapons. Perhaps a CVF & Rafales to fly off it. Perhaps some heavy lift aircraft, e.g. C-17. Underway replenishment for the navy, MPAs (I see a joint programme here for an A320-series based aircraft), a heavylift helicopter development, Scalp Naval, Black Lynx UAVs . . .

Spain will struggle to spend all its money to start with. Same priorities, I reckon, & another CVF.

I wonder what Belgium could do? Lots of extra money, but the draw-down has left it with few capabilities that need expanding, so it's probably best-off adding a new speciality. Maybe provide heavy lift aircraft to support other countries?

Joint programmes - the previously mentioned MPA (Airbus or nothing - not enough Nimrod airframes to rebuild, & I doubt the UK could persuade anyone to participate in a new-build programme), & what about AEW? If we assume the NATO E-3 fleet all ends up in Europe, with the USA being compensated for its share, there's no short-term need, but longer-term they'll need upgrading (assumed to be the sort of high-tech deal the USA doesn't want to enter into), & the airframes are already old, & won't last forever. Also, the only carrier-borne fixed-wing AEW in European service will soon become decidedly second-rate unless money is invested in upgrading (without US co-operation) or replacement, & the only exportable product is Erieye. Rather limited satellite comms & surveillance, so there's scope for co-operation there. I assume Galileo would be accelerated to solve the GPS gap. Other ISR Another ISR issue is long-distance, long-endurance recce. I doubt Global Hawk would be available. Tankers? A joint A330 MRTT purchase? Ground surveillance - what about reviving the manned component of AGS?

 

[kato]

what's the JSS envisaged to be?

Within my line, primarily a sealift ship with some limited assault capability. Sorta like USN AKA/LKA ships in the 60s/70s. Limited capability to support other ships maybe, but not at AOR levels.

Also, what about the EADS UCAV which development money has now been provided for? It incorporates knowledge gained from the Barrakuda & other programmes, but should provide a more effective platform - or rather platforms, one high-altitude long endurance, & one faster & stealthier.

What's needed would be:
- light UCAV (Predator B replacement, which would regularly replace part of Recce Tornados)
- medium/heavy UCAV (for rest of Tornado Recce replacement and SEAD): UAV MALE project
- surveillance (Eurohawk replacement): UAV HALE SIGINT project

Since under this scenario Germany would provide the largest chunk of new money (see below), what about money for new developments?

A 100% increase would give Germany roughly 60 billion Euro to spend.

The acquisitions i outlined would be acquired over a 10-year spectrum, and total around 20 billion (including UCAVs with development).

Now, how this would be spent yearls...

Block 1 - Running Costs: total 30.5 billion
1.2 Pensions: 4.5 b (+0%)
1.3 Personnel, total 275,000 (+10%) soldiers: 13.0 b (+1.5 b)
1.4 Material Maintenance/Spare Parts: 2.5 b (+10%)
1.5 Various Spending (Energy/Fuel, Exercises, IT): 4.5 b (+50%)
1.6 Private-Military Cooperation: 2.0 b (+20%)*
1.7 Infrastructure Construction/Maintenance: 4.0 b (+50%)**
Block 2 - Investment: total 15.5 billion
a) Existing investments: ~6.0 billion (+0%)
b) "Overhead", re-funded: ~3.5 billion (+3.5 b)
c) New acquisition: ~2.5 billion (see above)
d) Development: ~3.5 billion (+250%; mostly for "Euro-MEADS" and similar)

* - includes e.g. SALIS, Commercial Sealift and other outsourced projects
** - as upgrades are urgently needed

This still leaves 14 billion "non-distributed". Would probably go into some other development-and-acquisition i guess. Say an early start for Eurofighter Tranche 3 and similar things.

 

[swerve]

...

What's needed would be:
- light UCAV (Predator B replacement, which would regularly replace part of Recce Tornados)
- medium/heavy UCAV (for rest of Tornado Recce replacement and SEAD): UAV MALE project
- surveillance (Eurohawk replacement): UAV HALE SIGINT project
...

The Black Lynx military version of -
http://www.flightglobal.com/directory/UAV/Alenia-Aeronautica-3130/Molynx-7442.html

Or this?
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...s-refined-configuration-for-advanced-uav.html

 

[kato]

The current planned MALE/HALE combination is Predator B / Eurohawk, with Rheinmetall as the German integrator. IAI's Heron has also been mentioned for MALE.
The "EADS Advanced UAV" (Barracuda development) would fill the UAV MALE requirements in some respects, Rheinmetall's DA42 Opale might fill some applications there too - depends on if and how the requirements could be split.

I.e. this one:

Or this?
http://www.flightglobal.com/article...s-refined-configuration-for-advanced-uav.html

At the high end - Eurohawk replacement - that's where the real problem lays. 8,500 nm range are hard to do.

At the low end, for a cheap UCAV solution, i could very well see Rheinmetall/IAI's Wabep seeing some use; introduction is in fact pretty much a sure thing.

 

[Waylander]

@Kato
Do I see it right that you watn to equip all the SK forces as well as the D/F-Brigades with AGM SPHs?
I would like to see the SK/KRK rubbish to be stopped immediately. In the end it is just another excuse to safe money and with the increase we are talking abput it is no longer needed.
In the end I would like to see the SK heavy brigade combat teams to be as capable for a full sized combined arms engagement like the KRK brigades.

I am fully with you when you want to add the AGM to the D/F-Brigades but mab one could also put some other AGMs into a pool like with the current ArtRgt100.

-----

Belgium:
Maybe they are really unable to form a real government and we just divide them between the Netherlands, France and Germany.
Could solve the problem of their unbelievable cowngraded armed forces.

 

[kato]

I would expand PzArtAufklBtl 345 to "multiple regiments" (three?, some with AGM), to accomodate the larger number of SK Brigades. The Btls would pretty much each have the same composition as the original Btl (3 SPH bttry, 1 drone bttry), and could conventionally detach to one of the SK brigades to bump them up to a full BCT.
If we'd want it differently - switch out one Bttry in PzArtAufklBtl 131 (in ArtRgt 100) for AGM. Not more really. If we had too many MARS laying around (and we don't), i'd say create a couple Btls along the lines of ArtBtl 295.
Gets difficult easily, that's why i left out details

The EK/SK force categorization has one big up compared to KRK - KRK didn't define a clear "statement" on what the KRK troops did, what the other troops did, and which troops actually were KRK.
Yes, it is kinda sad that we only have one "true" division left - and, personally, that my old division along with most of its forces (10te) pretty much was dissolved other than in name.

I like the EK/SK categorization as outlined in the KDB though - have a force (EK) that pretty much can fight a small regional conflict (and, in naval and airforce matters, a bit more potentially), and have a force that's ostensibly "streamlined" for peace-keeping with a combat side role. The application of KDB that the SK use a shared pool (HTrBde) for assets that would otherwise be largely divisional (except artillery) isn't that bad. And they got increased engineering and signals out of it in comparison to a "divisional brigade". Sure, it puts more pressure on this pool (and my old Btl is in that now), but conceptionally, it's not that bad. I'd rather see it increased.

In actual usage, there isn't really that much difference between EK and SK at the moment. Both deploy to both Afghanistan and Kosovo (Heer anyway). UNIFIL is a SK taskset handled by SK forces (with one F123 from EK handed down).

Meh, that one got difficult too. Let's just say - i support the KDB SK/EK categorization to some extent. Not necessarily in the current form, but in general, yes. :unknown

 

[Waylander]

Shit got konfused with EK and KRK (hail the transformation... ). I meant I don't like the EK/SK idea.
Peacekeeping in the way of patrols and security duty is 2nd role anyway unimportant if you have a EK or SK PzGren (Pz, Art, whatever) unit.
So in the end I want to see our forces to be able to fully cover their first role. And this is still combined arms combat and will stay so.
Nothing prevents fully equipped and trained SK units to perform the same peacekeeping missions they do now.

But anyway I think this would get us shipped to far away from the original topic and maybe we should discuss it more detailed during a dedicated Bundeswehr topic.
Do we have one? I don't think so. (Apart from the 3 trillion Indian, Pakistani and Aussie topics.... )

------

When I think about it Belgium is really interesting.
They scrapped so many capabilities that with an immense increase in budget they have the unique task (and chance) to build huge parts of their forces up again from the scratches.

Any ideas.
Their F-16s should be ready for a replacement not that far away in the future and I could envision Gripen being an interesting option.

I could also imagine them buying dutch PzH2000 and Leo IIA6 (or A4 and upgrade them) as well as opting for the CV90 family.
At least I would support buying established and available equipment to bring them up to modern standard and to minimize potential problems.
Buying neighbour equipment is also a huge factor for such a small country because training and cooperation can be done nearby far easier and cheaper.

 

[swerve]

Kato,

unfortunately, the commission has declined to accept the proposals relating to Germany, on the grounds that it appears excessively focused on German national defence, & fails to place the proposals in the desired contexts, i.e. collective defence, co-operative force projection for peacekeeping, stabilisation, & intervention, & industrial collaboration. Specifically,

1. Lack of proposals for co-operation forces.
2. Lack of reference to other countries.
3. Appears to propose increasing ground forces manpower, when the EU as a whole has adequate numbers of ground forces. Proposals for enabling better use of that manpower would be preferred.
4. Lack of proposals for standardisation of weapons & equipment.
5. Insufficient attention to force projection.

 

[swerve]

------

When I think about it Belgium is really interesting.
They scrapped so many capabilities that with an immense increase in budget they have the unique task (and chance) to build huge parts of their forces up again from the scratches.

I agree. Good point!

Any ideas.
Their F-16s should be ready for a replacement not that far away in the future and I could envision Gripen being an interesting option.

I could also imagine them buying dutch PzH2000 and Leo IIA6 (or A4 and upgrade them) as well as opting for the CV90 family.
At least I would support buying established and available equipment to bring them up to modern standard and to minimize potential problems.
Buying neighbour equipment is also a huge factor for such a small country because training and cooperation can be done nearby far easier and cheaper.

I agree that the way ahead for Belgium is co-operation, but I'm not sure they should take over any Dutch heavy weapons. Why not the Dutch spend some of their increased budget on keeping them, & the Belgians (& Luxembourg, in co-operation) provide complementary forces? Combat aircraft - fine, buy something new - but make sure it's the same as the Dutch, whether Rafale, Typhoon, or Gripen NG (with EJ200?). The Dutch air force has no heavy-lift aircraft (just C-130), except the transport capabilities of their two KDC-10 tankers. Belgium has 7 A400M on order, & Luxembourg 1. Add a few more (plus 1 more for Luxembourg), several A330MRTT tankers (let the Dutch retire their old KDC-10s), & a few real heavy-lift transports. Belgium could host part of any collective heavy-lift air transport force.

As for the army: they've cut it back to light forces - why not keep it that way, but do it better? Airmobile with its own transport (see AF & navy), & helping out others which need transport. Add some suitable artillery (Caesar?), armed helicopters, & more tactical recce. Luxembourg could beef up its battalion, & equip it on the same lines, to make the whole unit deployable.

The navy could get some support/sealift vessels, to support the intervention role of the army (& assist others, e.g. the Dutch).

Get the idea? Instead of rebuilding lost capabilities, such as heavy armour, invest in beefing up those things which there's a collective lack of. Don't seek to build a do-everything force, but one specialising in roles the EU as a whole needs more of.

Whaddya think?

 

[MarcH]

Hmm, I would also let the helis were they are and than beef up the Jägerregiment 1 a bit.
Make a real air assault brigade out of it.
I also think we have enough CH-53 but we need to give the GS upgrade to more of them.

Mountain troops traditionally work often enough with helicopters but IMHO not often enough to justify a direct attachement.

And I wouldn't attach the Leopard IIPSO also not to a special unit but have them in a seperated pool to deploy them to the oversea missions when needed.

For normal mechanized combat a Leopard IIA6(hopefully upgraded with the EX toys) fits much better and that's what a mech brigade should be equipped with.

In the end we would also need another tank bn with Panzerbrigade 21 just having two combat bns.
And that's damn lousy!

The two new brigades would be tailored for expeditionary warfare. The light infantry along the lines of luftbewegliche Brigade 1. With own rotary wing assets.

The Mech Brigade would get Leo 2 PSO, the complete engineer stuff to clear mines, get some basic infrastructure in place, drill for water etc.

I don't think we would need a L55 in such a scenario.

For adding additional bn's to existing structures, why not integrate our neighbours to some extend ? I heard rumours the Austrians don't know what to do with their Leos.

 

[Waylander]

I agree that the countries on Europe would need to invest heavily into a pool of airlift and sealift capabilities besides the current national resources.

I think that a pool of helicopters could also be a possibility. There we do have an even bigger need than with transport planes, especially big helicopters (CH-47, CH-53, etc.).

Your point about Belgium is valid and when I think about it might be better to stay lighter.
But not purely light. Maybe with some "medium forces".
Adding some platforms (IFV, APC, mortar, C3, EW, etc.) on Piranha (III or IV) chassis would massively increase their ability to perform oversea missions.

Sometimes (aka often enugh) light infantry needs the mobility, protection and firepower which comes with using such assets.
The logistical footprint is still not that big and they are still well suited for airlift.

With the additional money all countries should heavily invest in networking capabilities which are COMPATIBLE.

I want a belgium FAC being able to call a strike from a UK EF without problems as well as I want a French bn cmdr to be able to see ALL friendly units and their informations in his area on his battlefield management system.
Not to talk of the ability to speak with each other.

---------------

Ok, to summarize a little bit.

In european pools we need (And what I would envision for it):
- airlift by plane (C-17 and A400M)

- helicopters (especially heavylift, push HTH for the heavies). NH90 has a good chance of becoming some kind of lighter standard

- spacebased surveillance and communication assets. I don't think we need much standardization here but the members need to be able to use them unimportant who build them.

- working compatible networks (be it communication, fire control, battlefield management systems, etc.)

- AWACS fleet. That's difficult. Erieye comes to mind but I think some serious development needs to be started to get a really good successor to the current AWACS in the pool when they start falling out of the skye

- Sealift. Dedicated ships like the Mistrals, BPEs, etc can stay national assets (But cooperation might make them cheaper) but I would like to see a big pool of these dual role RO-ROs (civil and military use).

- Standardization of heavy equipment seems to be difficult. I would say that future programs should be huge cooperations but as much as I like cooperations I don't want to see Germany loose its current ability to build a huge part of it's systems on it's own. I think the same goes for the other big ones.
I don't think it is doable to unite the buidling capacities of the big EU countries and so it is up to the small ones to find their partners for cooperations with some big projects being as multinational as, for example, the EF.

Having, for example 3-4 kinds of IFVs in service within the EU isn't that big of a problem as long as they firre standard ammo and are integrated into the same network.

 

[swerve]

Waylander,

agree entirely about the networking & air transport.

A common sealift pool is a good idea. Get Flensburg or whoever to build more Point-class, for everyone to draw on. Perhaps the design could be improved on, but I don't see the need. It's good enough, it's better than a standard civilian ship (the deck strengthening, for example - can pack MBTs close together), & requires no development money.

Specifics - don't forget airborne ground surveillance. UAVs can do a great job with EO sensors & radar (the Selex Picosar is a good example of a very lightweight radar for UAVs), but manned platforms can also be valuable. Something based on the A320 family would probably be best, using a development of the SOSTAR-X radar. The same basic airframe could also serve as a basis for an MPA & a future AEW aircraft. I think that would require an Erieye successor, rather than Erieye. Something more capable. Not that I have anything against Erieye - quite the contrary, an impressive system with an excellent ratio of price to performance, IMO, but a second-tier AEW, good for providing decent AEW on a limited budget.

Agree about IFVs & other heavy equipment. Main thing is interoperability. Communications, munitions, etc. common.

One thing that there's not enough of is European missiles & PGMs. AAMs - completely covered. Heavy, expensive, missiles - covered, with Scalp Naval soon to fill the long-range gap. Anti-ship - spoilt for choice. But smaller, cheaper, weapons? Rather lacking. AASM looks good, but is a bit pricey to toss around as freely as JDAM. PARS-3 & Brimstone are useful, but wouldn't find enough targets in the wars we've been fighting. We need weapons for softer targets, smaller, cheaper. The French 125 kg BANG bomb with a cheaper guidance kit than AASM (Galileo equivalent of JDAM) would be a start, as would a dumbed-down (cheaper guidance) PARS-3 or Brimstone with an HE or thermobaric warhead, & maybe a 50 kg aerodynamically improved bomb with Galileo-JDAM seeker . . .

What about alternative warheads for MBT-LAW?

BTW, agree on Belgium & light/medium. That's why I suggested Caesar - something that could accompany their Piranhas. They're already getting IFVs (30mm gun-armed), & 90mm guns for some. I think they could do with more such, & AMOS or similar.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...r-850m-apc-contract-controversies-ensue-01872

 

[Waylander]

Hmm, I dont think we need something completely new to accompany PARS-3 against enemy soft targets and against buildings, bunkers, fortified positions.

Just take some wire guided HOTs and put a HE/thermobaric warhead onto them.

Tiger is ready for HOT (At least in germany, I got the luck to see one at the live-fring range making test runs with it ), the same should be the case for the Mangusta.
And even if one can't use old HOTs in stock due to lifetime problems building new ones should be cheaper than some ultra-modern new missile and is sufficient enough.

Something like JDAM would be a heavens gift. The JDAM family was really a milestone for cheap and successfull precision attacks.

As for Erieye.
Because of that I said that development of a new generation successor to the current AWACS fleet needs to get pushed in a multinational project.

I had UAVs and JSTAR like systems in mind and just forgot to write it down.

 

[kato]

1. Lack of proposals for co-operation forces.

Four joint cooperative brigades with France (the D/F Bdes) aren't enough?

I think that would require an Erieye successor, rather than Erieye. Something more capable. Not that I have anything against Erieye - quite the contrary, an impressive system with an excellent ratio of price to performance, IMO, but a second-tier AEW, good for providing decent AEW on a limited budget.

Little note on AEW, for the short term:
All NATO AEW aircraft would technically fall to the EU, as the squadron is Luxembourg-flagged (including the two ex-German auxiliary B707). Those, plus the French aircraft, would at least provide a good coverage for the next 5-10 years still.

What about alternative warheads for MBT-LAW?

Which, so far, Sweden, Finland and the UK use... oh, well. But if we develop alternative warheads, i want them on BILL2 too, as the warhead/guidance section is pretty much identical

---

Little sidenote - one European project that should definitely be implemented (and is definitely urgent):
A Joint Training Center (for the European Military Trainer Aircraft). Also include the Visegrad countries. And ponder implementing some basic carrier training within the framework as well.
Reason: A lot of European countries will lose training opportunities with the US split - Germany would lose Holloman AFB, France loses US Carrier training, the RAF, Luftwaffe, Italian Airforce and Netherlands might lose Goose Bay (hence my early question for Canada).

And we're talking a big project here anyway. Even without the Visegrad countries, the EMTA is already suited at over 150 units to be procured. Add in increased demand from Germany (replacing F4 at Holloman), and the Visegrad countries, and we're quickly above 250. 300 maybe, even. Space for training will be a whole 'nother issue.

 

[swerve]

Four joint cooperative brigades with France (the D/F Bdes) aren't enough?
....

No. I think you've missed the point. The EU has large numbers of ground troops (indeed, probably more military manpower than is sensible), but lacks the ability to deploy more than a very small proportion, & many are poorly-equipped. The poorer central & E. European countries & Portugal will not be able to afford to bring all their forces up to scratch, integrate them into networks, etc, and provide the means to deploy them, even with the proposed budget increases.

What you seem to be proposing is to build a balanced German force, well-suited to defend Germany, & with a limited ability to deploy some of its own forces abroad. Basically, an improved & fully-funded version of the current German armed forces. Wouldn't it be better to use the extra money to provide new abilities, instead of more of the same? Fund a large part of a joint sealift reserve (BTW, that's very cheap), such as the RN has, for the whole EU? Fund a large part of an increased joint heavy lift capability, for those loads the A400M won't lift? Buy more ISR assets, & more tankers (EU-wide shortage of them)? And use some of that extra 30 billion Euros per year to fund R&D for future systems.

See what I mean? "Co-operation forces" in the form of expensive specialist assets in greater numbers than the German forces need, to enable smaller forces, which can't afford such assets themselves, to be used better. That would permit the Slovenians, Romanians, Hungarians, etc. to use their extra money to make their forces fit to deploy anywhere, & hitch a lift with the Bundeswehr when they need to go.

 

[kato]

but lacks the ability to deploy more than a very small proportion, & many are poorly-equipped.

Ah, but that's more of an organizational question, in the West at least. Give Eurocorps a deployment, and presto, 60,000 men - including 20,000 German forces - available.
As for the east - Polish forces are structurally integrated into e.g. NATO MNC NE, which definitely would come under EU/WEU command. NATO ARRC, under a transfer to the EU, pretty much integrates forces from throughout the EU, in particular the Visegrad countries.

The question would be how to organize these structures under the EU; the EUBG concept is a start, but would need a Corps- or Army-level superstructure (which currently pretty much exists under NATO) to support it.
And within the EUBG framework, certain battle groups well enough integrate the Eastern nations. Afaik, the Visegrad Group is planning its own EUBG without "Western help" though.

Harmonization of forces should be performed at EUBG level at most imo. This harmonization process - both in EUBG and NATO ARRC/MNC - has already forced some countries into certain decisions, such as Poland buying those Leos from Germany.

Fund a large part of a joint sealift reserve (BTW, that's very cheap), such as the RN has, for the whole EU? Fund a large part of an increased joint heavy lift capability, for those loads the A400M won't lift? Buy more ISR assets, & more tankers (EU-wide shortage of them)? And use some of that extra 30 billion Euros per year to fund R&D for future systems.

The question here would be to what extent a "pool" is actually needed; Project ARK for example (the Danish-German sealift program) has already provided sealift on missions to half the NATO nations, in particular those nations without organic assets.
SALIS - which is funded largely by Germany really, and permanently bases in Germany - provides heavy airlift to all its co-signers, and is definitely expandable; it's actually a sign of cooperation that Germany hasn't gone and simply bought a couple An-124 nationally, but instead keeps supporting the joint solution. Some people have actually suggested a national solution; with the high German demand Bundeswehr-owned An-124s and Il-76s would be cheaper than the two SALIS An-124 permanently based in Germany and the half dozen Il-76 regularly chartered to fly from Germany.
ISR assets are currently at NATO level, and that's where they should stay (well, at a joint EU level then). Expenses for assets at that kind of level easily hide within the budget. What would you expect? Germany buying 15 "future ISR aircraft" on its own and "donating" them to the EU? Doesn't work that way in NATO either.

At most, i could see German direct "distribution" of funds to other nations in the form of donations similar to the "CFE Cascade". I.e. provide other nations with relatively up-to-date, decommissioned equipment, as it's been done in the past 10 years already.

As for development projects - an increased pumping of money into ongoing future projects such as Eurofighter Tranche 3 or MEADS wouldn't necessarily only benefit Germany. A German-funded MEADS development for example would directly benefit likely future customers such as Greece, the Netherlands, or - in this scenario instead of Patriot - Poland. An early Tranche 3 for Eurofighter would be very beneficial towards actually selling it and - important - would prevent more "national solutions". To some extent, a funded Tranche 3 could even lead to a cascade effect again, with Tranche 2 aircraft as a cheaper solution being made available to other EU nations.

 

[MarcH]

I think with all those proposals we still can't replace the US contribution to NATO.

1. We lose air superiority within 10-15 years. As much as i like the Typhoon/Rafale/Gripen, with the advent of the PAK-FA and maybe J-XX we have a problem.
(no proposals here so far)

2. We have nothing to defend from ballisitic missiles.
(no proposals)

3. Shortcomings in intelligence, survaillance, recce.
(proposals made)

4. Shortcomings in everything "strategic".
(Proposals made)
But here I think the proposals are by far not enough. Especially the sealift solutions discussed are in my opinion not sufficient. RoRo Ships need infastructure, and they are not suited if you have to pull troops out.

Airlift/tanker support. I don't think the C-17 is the right aircraft for the job. Compared to the An-124 it is quite expansive per ton. But, as the British already operate it, it's the way to go. German owned, but operated from the UK, where the infrastructure is already in place. Some A-330 MRTT could be added to the 3 existing A-310 MRTT.

Strategic offensive capabilities are lacking, too. But I think with the proposed UCAV's the need for longrange/high endurance platforms can be met, and the SSBN's are more then sufficient for nuclear deterrance.

 

[Waylander]

To some extend I have to support Kato.
As far as I support the idea of joint pools of assets like air and sea transport, space based surveillance, commo networks, EU battlegroups, helping the smaller poorer countries to come up to NATO (Then EU defense pact status) and multinational R&D projects, etc., this cannot form the base.

I, for Germany, want to have armed forces capable of doing things on its own and I want to protect our national defense industry.
This is more vital to me than any pan european pact.

So first one has to consolidate its own forces, capabilities and industry and then comes the rest.

I don't propose us of building up forces we don't really need (Like big amphib groups, supercarriers, etc.).
But I want to have a certain rise in capabilities with such an increased budget.
Currently a lot of the countries with such a low percentage like germany are notoriously underfunded.
Only after the immediate national problems are solved one can start to look for the rest of europe.

 

[kato]

European Security and Defense Issue 3/07 is out, and has some interesting articles in this regard:

Is the EU Prepared for the Future Challenges of the Security and Defence Policy?
by Javier Solana (HR EU for CFSP)

Institutional Aspects of the European Security and Defence Policy - Progress Made Under German EU Council Presidency
by Karl von Wogau (MEP, Chairman of the EP Subcommittee Security and Defense)

The German sister magazine, Europäische Sicherheit Issue 12/07 is also released, and has one interesting article as well for those who can read German (... or can interpret Systran results):

Six years European Security and Defense Policy - and then?
by retired General d'Corps d'Armee Jean-Paul Perruche, former Director of the EU Military Command until Feb 2007, about the experiences made with CFSP during his time in command.

The latter magazine also features an article on the Transformation of the Netherlands Armed Forces, and a number of articles on the future sustainability and viability of the German Forces (available online) which might be interesting in this regard.