Should NATO include Australia, Israel, Singapore, Japan & India?

[swerve]

Charles De Gaulle from France, the possibility of one from Spain - and Italy wouldn't be able to afford to sail her carriers at the moment. I'm being fairly brutal. So I'll agree to 2 and a half if Italy can afford to sail one. The half carrier is allowing for political meanderings over whether or not to send one all the way to the Pacific or whether or not to participate. There won't be a Pommy carrier for the next 8 years which is a real hole in NATO naval capability. The US are reducing their CVNs by one.

Come off it! Italian carriers are sailing now. If there was a real need, they could both put to sea. They'd be short of fighters, but Spain has enough to make Principe de Asturias a bit crowded, & this is supposed to be a joint operation.

What could be put together, assuming none were in repair or refit (I know, a good chance), is one CTOL carrier & three STOVL light carriers with a fairly modest Harrier force - but more than just two of 'em would normally carry, with no need to squeeze out helicopters, & CdG wouldn't need any helicopters with them along.

It's not a particularly impressive force, but it isn't one and a bit. If your point can't stand without exaggeration, you haven't made it.

 

[Jhom]

Okay, if one follows that standpoint, who is the threat to Spain, or Italy, or France for that matter?

All those nations have carriers, yet none of them has had any real threat that requires a carrier since WW2

Again, I cant tell about the threats to France or Italy, but Spain has 2.240.000 citizens living in Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary Islands, places wich happen to be claimed by Morrocco, and even knowing that the morroccan navy doesnt have anything afloat capable of landing some sizeable force in the Canary Islands, they can very easily endanger Ceuta and Melilla because there is no sea to cross, they are in Africa.

Each city has permanently stationed:

1-Infantry Brigade
1x HQ Battalion
1x Legion Tercio (Regiment)
1x Light Armoured Bandera (Battalion)
1x Regulares Light Infantry Tabor (Regiment)
1x Armored Cavalry Regiment (Leo 2A4 & 2E)
1x Mixed Artillery Regiment (Field & Air Defence Artillery)
1x Engineer Regiment
1x Logistics Group
1x Signals Coy

That is a huge amount of troops (is spanish army terms) to protect 140k people, and the fact that these troops never deploy overseas to peace missions gives you another reason to understand that a morroccan invasion of Ceuta and Melilla is the only concern right know for the Spanish Armed Forces, aside from keeping the Gibraltar Strait open wich is a self-impose mandate...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Jissy and Kirkzzy

names alphabetically listed, so in no particular order of address

re your dialogue to each other:

ratchett it back a bit otherwise what is being touted as a possible loss in translation will turn into a bun fight which will result in posts being deleted

 

[t68]

There is very good reason this ship class is counted as an LHD and not a carrier. Because even in an all Harrier/F-35 carrier mode it is speed limited to 21 knots. A carrier requires at least 27 knots to maintain fleet speed. Of course the capability of an LHD needs to be assessed in such a fleet vs fleet assessment but it won't be in the same formation as the real carriers.

How would that compare with the projected speed of LHA-6 USS America, I am finding mixed assessments on her speed pending on the site, it varies from 20kn to a max of 25kn, she will have the same propulsion system as USS Makin Island (LHD-8), granted she is not designed as a fleet carrier but can operate as one in the limited capacity if needed. The escorts that comprises an expeditionary strike group is the same for a carrier strike group except for the LPD/LSD, how would the speed limitation be a problem if the WASP/America class operated in the sea control role.

File:Esg.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That link above is dated but gives a indication on a modern ESG.

http://www.navysite.de/ships/lhd8.htm

If the Spanish revised the plans for the Juan Carlos I by deleting the well dock to something similar what the Americans have done with LHA-6 would the design still be inefficient to be used as a light carrier?

 

[Armoredpriapism]

I often think that because Australia lacks any serious security threat that lets our minds wonder and imagination sets in. All that is written and discussed about some nation threatening our offshore regions is plain crazy. The last thing China and India want is to interfere with the export of Australian resources. They are two of the top five customers!

This is a good point. It's why I don't think Aus or NZ should join NATO. Auzealand can handle any country in that region save India or China. The only countries they'd need NATO's help with many EU countries wouldn't want to touch with 6 foot (1.83 M) pole. America, UK, and maybe Canada would probably want to help but few other NATO members would have an interest doing so. Those three countries would help anyway, not through NATO. So it would be a divisive step for NATO, and therefore not in its interest, and furthermore provide no benifit to Europe or Auzealand.
If America gets itself back on on track and can host a two-war force again, maybe it could think about strengthening a pacific alliance, but NATO should be out of the question.

Supplemental:
Is the argument up there about whether Europe could muster an expeditionary fleet? I think the US navy would handle anything requiring a carrier; the Europeans would be useful in ASW, supply and troop, and escort duties. Their carriers could be used but wouldn't be absolutely needed unless this were WW3 and we're talking about US CVNs being lost to enemy action (the loss of 10,000 sailors = total war with the US, and there are few countries who would be willing to escalate to that).
If you want to use the European carriers, the jump decks could be used for convoy escort duties, as well, like the escort carriers of WW2, as large convoys would themselves require massive, ASW and Aegis equiped fleets. That escort capability is the limiting factor when talking about European naval projection against a blue-water force, not their carriers. But this is all IF Europe were assisting a Pacific country. I doubt there would be the need or will to do that.

 

[riksavage]

This is a good point. It's why I don't think Aus or NZ should join NATO. Auzealand can handle any country in that region save India or China. The only countries they'd need NATO's help with many EU countries wouldn't want to touch with 6 foot (1.83 M) pole. America, UK, and maybe Canada would probably want to help but few other NATO members would have an interest doing so. Those three countries would help anyway, not through NATO. So it would be a divisive step for NATO, and therefore not in its interest, and furthermore provide no benifit to Europe or Auzealand.
If America gets itself back on on track and can host a two-war force again, maybe it could think about strengthening a pacific alliance, but NATO should be out of the question.

Supplemental:
Is the argument up there about whether Europe could muster an expeditionary fleet? I think the US navy would handle anything requiring a carrier; the Europeans would be useful in ASW, supply and troop, and escort duties. Their carriers could be used but wouldn't be absolutely needed unless this were WW3 and we're talking about US CVNs being lost to enemy action (the loss of 10,000 sailors = total war with the US, and there are few countries who would be willing to escalate to that).
If you want to use the European carriers, the jump decks could be used for convoy escort duties, as well, like the escort carriers of WW2, as large convoys would themselves require massive, ASW and Aegis equiped fleets. That escort capability is the limiting factor when talking about European naval projection against a blue-water force, not their carriers. But this is all IF Europe were assisting a Pacific country. I doubt there would be the need or will to do that.

Any Naval shooting war in Asia Pacifc would IMHO mirror the kind of commitment witnessed during the Korean War (US, Canadian, British and ANZAC assets committed from the very beginning for historical reasons). The USN/USMC providing the heavy hitters, with selected NATO/NON-NATO partners (Above + Japan / South Korea) providing supporting Naval assets. Allied frigates, destroyers & subs helping to protect US capital ships and adding to weight to any ongoing AsW activity.

I could only see Europeans committing escorts after much debate (Libya scenario), but not their LHD's in the first instance. I could however see them committing LHD's to post conflict humanitarian missions. Reason being most European countries don't have the escorts to guarantee survivability of such prized assets in a high-tempo environment against a first/second rate navy (PRC/NK for example). Better off allocating limited escorts to protect US capital ships who will be providing 95% of any CAP/CAS mission. Bring in the LHD's later to assist in any humanitarian clean-up when the threat of sub/surface attack has diminished.

 

[Jissy]

Jissy and Kirkzzy

names alphabetically listed, so in no particular order of address

re your dialogue to each other:

ratchett it back a bit otherwise what is being touted as a possible loss in translation will turn into a bun fight which will result in posts being deleted

Actually gf0012, I wasn't being abrasive or rude, but responded (I thought) in a gentlemanly and reasonable manner to Kirkzzy's response to something I addressed to a professional here (who didn;t bother replying). And, you will see, I accepted Kirkzzy meant no offence in order to reduce any further insult or tensions. I am not interested in being abused, or abusing others on this forum, as my history of interaction in this site testifies.

But thanks for pointing it out, although it seems to have already been resolved. However, others here, who are military professionals, have not been quite so gentleman like in their redresses of people's posts, particularly with non-military people like me, and yet their abrasive attitude is ignored.

The majority of professionals here are quite good at accepting non-military inquiries and debate, which makes the site interesting, as well as informative.

I read here so I can be informed, to get a picture from the 'real world' of the Australian military forces, then I have something to argue the toss about with Members of Parliament.

However, it does become trying at times, when one gets attacked by a professional, for not knowing everything they know...obviously I do not and never have professed to have such knowledge. None of my posts here pretend such, they are always inquiry based, even when I express my personal opinion on something, I expect to be informed, not dealt with in a condescending and dismissive manner, as the odd one does, and I am not including you in this criticism, you always seem to be quite fair.

However, surely, in the 'open forum' where non-military folk can chat, everyone, including all the professionals, should be more tolerant?

Cheers
jissy

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually gf0012, I wasn't being abrasive or rude, but responded (I thought) in a gentlemanly and reasonable manner to Kirkzzy's response to something I addressed to a professional here (who didn;t bother replying). And, you will see, I accepted Kirkzzy meant no offence in order to reduce any further insult or tensions. I am not interested in being abused, or abusing others on this forum, as my history of interaction in this site testifies.

But thanks for pointing it out, although it seems to have already been resolved. However, others here, who are military professionals, have not been quite so gentleman like in their redresses of people's posts, particularly with non-military people like me, and yet their abrasive attitude is ignored.

Nope, they're not ignored, and we have had DefProfs banned for their behaviour. No point being smart and proficient if you are unable to pass on that knowldge without coming across as a prat. Everyone has the option of reporting a post. We expect everyone to exercise some decorum and if they don't we will try and pick it up and deal with it if its bought to our attention or if we see it. I myself have been accused of arrogance when my intent was to be deliberately short and cryptic (for various reasons). I know some of the others in here have a similar pattern of response behaviour.

The majority of professionals here are quite good at accepting non-military inquiries and debate, which makes the site interesting, as well as informative.

I read here so I can be informed, to get a picture from the 'real world' of the Australian military forces, then I have something to argue the toss about with Members of Parliament.

However, it does become trying at times, when one gets attacked by a professional, for not knowing everything they know...obviously I do not and never have professed to have such knowledge. None of my posts here pretend such, they are always inquiry based, even when I express my personal opinion on something, I expect to be informed, not dealt with in a condescending and dismissive manner, as the odd one does, and I am not including you in this criticism, you always seem to be quite fair.

CREF my above. I'm not above rapproach either and there are times when people have quite justifiably taken umbrage at my approach when they saw it as being overly curt. There's a loss in translation between apparent curtness of response and when someone is just shotgunning their response due to time constraints. We're all mortal. I will however acknowledge that my own tolerance meter gets challenged when I think someone is "trying it on" and perhaps seeking controversey in engagement rather than genuinely seeking information that could challenge their own pet rock beliefs.

However, surely, in the 'open forum' where non-military folk can chat, everyone, including all the professionals, should be more tolerant?

Cheers
jissy

Accepted, but there are times when all of us will see our patience challenged when we see some tired old arguments trotted out, or people asking questions which have been addressed even a few posts prior. That is not the case here.

The advice although delivered to you and kirkzzy is relevant to anyone on this site.

Any further comment re this can come back to me via PM as I don't want to hijack the thread

 

[Jissy]

Any further comment re this can come back to me via PM as I don't want to hijack the thread

Thank you gf0012, for dealing with my responses in such a calm, intelligent and considered manner. I am fully satisifed, so I will not need to PM you, and I was also rather amused by the "pet rock" comment!

I indeed, have my own 'pet rock' beliefs, but, this is not the sort of forum for those kind of esoteric investigations!

cheers,

jissy

 

[surpreme]

There is no need for NATO to expand. NATO is a defense treaty for north atlantic. If you look at the force that are in place now its enough no need to expand. My opinion is that until NATO change there mission to the world level it will remain a defense force for European/US interest. I dont see it going into the middle east or asia.

 

[FirstSpear]

NATO expansion already problematic

Much like the burst of expansion of the European Union, I would argue that the spate of new members which have joined NATO have added complexity to the alliance's posture and provided very little benefit in exchange.

I am not suggesting that the NATO alliance should not have provided aid and support to many of its new member nations but article 5 means we have essentially dramatically expanded the number of scenarios which could trigger a crisis or even a larger conflagration.

Adding the nations listed in this thread presents the same issues but on a virtually unsustainable level. The only nations with deterrence ability would already have to act should Australia or Japan be attacked. Israel already has a substantial strategic guarantee from the US (best served with replenishment of ammo and equipment, as in 1973). The case of Singapore because Chinese expansionary policy would trigger an ASEAN response if it went that far. That means the US would be involved and depending on the initial attacking side (say Chinese assets against a USN carrier battle group) could trigger an article 5 response within NATO anyway.

India is a different thing altogether but it seems to me the US is rapidly realigning away from Pakistan which has proven to be much less of an ally than a problem and a source of terrorism (like Saudi Arabia). Under the right mutual support arrangement US would be involved anyway.

 

[MarcH]

Much like the burst of expansion of the European Union, I would argue that the spate of new members which have joined NATO have added complexity to the alliance's posture and provided very little benefit in exchange.

I am not suggesting that the NATO alliance should not have provided aid and support to many of its new member nations but article 5 means we have essentially dramatically expanded the number of scenarios which could trigger a crisis or even a larger conflagration.

Adding the nations listed in this thread presents the same issues but on a virtually unsustainable level. The only nations with deterrence ability would already have to act should Australia or Japan be attacked. Israel already has a substantial strategic guarantee from the US (best served with replenishment of ammo and equipment, as in 1973). The case of Singapore because Chinese expansionary policy would trigger an ASEAN response if it went that far. That means the US would be involved and depending on the initial attacking side (say Chinese assets against a USN carrier battle group) could trigger an article 5 response within NATO anyway.

India is a different thing altogether but it seems to me the US is rapidly realigning away from Pakistan which has proven to be much less of an ally than a problem and a source of terrorism (like Saudi Arabia). Under the right mutual support arrangement US would be involved anyway.

No, it wouldn't trigger article 5. Well, unless a chinese ship would attack an US ship in the north atlantic.

British and French oversee territorys for example aren't covered by NATO treaty. If NATO should include nations from non-treaty parts of the world it wouldn't be NATO anymore.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

Much like the burst of expansion of the European Union, I would argue that the spate of new members which have joined NATO have added complexity to the alliance's posture and provided very little benefit in exchange.

I am not suggesting that the NATO alliance should not have provided aid and support to many of its new member nations but article 5 means we have essentially dramatically expanded the number of scenarios which could trigger a crisis or even a larger conflagration.

Adding the nations listed in this thread presents the same issues but on a virtually unsustainable level. The only nations with deterrence ability would already have to act should Australia or Japan be attacked. Israel already has a substantial strategic guarantee from the US (best served with replenishment of ammo and equipment, as in 1973). The case of Singapore because Chinese expansionary policy would trigger an ASEAN response if it went that far. That means the US would be involved and depending on the initial attacking side (say Chinese assets against a USN carrier battle group) could trigger an article 5 response within NATO anyway.

India is a different thing altogether but it seems to me the US is rapidly realigning away from Pakistan which has proven to be much less of an ally than a problem and a source of terrorism (like Saudi Arabia). Under the right mutual support arrangement US would be involved anyway.

I wonder if the Europeans would commit themselves even if a CVN group were attacked. The charter says Europe or North America would have to be attacked, and likely any attack on a carrier group would happen in the pacific. That might be splitting hairs but given the public protests over small commitments like Lybia and Afghanistan, I wouldn't trust European governments to rush into a large scale conflict with a trading partner.
But... Any thoughts?

 

[FirstSpear]

I wonder if the Europeans would commit themselves even if a CVN group were attacked. The charter says Europe or North America would have to be attacked, and likely any attack on a carrier group would happen in the pacific. That might be splitting hairs but given the public protests over small commitments like Lybia and Afghanistan, I wouldn't trust European governments to rush into a large scale conflict with a trading partner.
But... Any thoughts?

You and MarcH are correct; my bad on missing the bit about the geographic specificities of the treaty but change the scenario to an Iranian ballistic missile strike (or submarine launched attack on a CV battle group in the Eastern Med, using satellite info provided by China, for example...) Does this change things?

 

[MarcH]

This would be a case for article 5. Not sure how Chinas' assistance would be treated.

Say the attack is carried out by Russian munitions, using Glonass for guidance. Now you have the Russians involved, too.

Interesting times, where lawyers decide between war and peace.

 

[t68]

I wonder if the Europeans would commit themselves even if a CVN group were attacked. The charter says Europe or North America would have to be attacked, and likely any attack on a carrier group would happen in the pacific. That might be splitting hairs but given the public protests over small commitments like Lybia and Afghanistan, I wouldn't trust European governments to rush into a large scale conflict with a trading partner.
But... Any thoughts?

Former PM Howard invoked the ANZUS Treaty in regards to 911 attacks, if a USN CVBG was attack in the pacific ANZUS will come into play again at which point the ADF might be able to respond in kind in more than a symbolic gesture as what happened September 2001.If the above were to happen five eyes will be involved AUSCANNZUKUS.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

Former PM Howard invoked the ANZUS Treaty in regards to 911 attacks, if a USN CVBG was attack in the pacific ANZUS will come into play again at which point the ADF might be able to respond in kind in more than a symbolic gesture as what happened September 2001.If the above were to happen five eyes will be involved AUSCANNZUKUS.

I simply don't know much about their military; do the British still have forces in the Pacific? Do they still patrol the Pacific or Indian?

 

[StevoJH]

I simply don't know much about their military; do the British still have forces in the Pacific? Do they still patrol the Pacific or Indian?

Not often, normally they have forces in the Persian Gulf though.

The US base on Diego Garcia is actually British Territory though.

 

[STURM]

I simply don't know much about their military; do the British still have forces in the Pacific? Do they still patrol the Pacific or Indian?

The RN is so overstretched it can't maintain regular patrols in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific [it can be argued that there is no need to do so as the USN is there]. It's main focus, apart from commitments in home waters is the Med, the Gulf and the Atlantic.

Does anyone know if the RN still maintains a shore presence at Gibraltar?

 

[Rickyrab]

The RN is so overstretched it can't maintain regular patrols in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific [it can be argued that there is no need to do so as the USN is there]. It's main focus, apart from commitments in home waters is the Med, the Gulf and the Atlantic.

This might be where India can come in handy (although I do not know the strength of its navy). I do know, however, that India has some form of industry, that people in at least one location (Alang, because of its shipbreaking) know something about how to build a ship or what goes into a ship, and that India happens to be in the right location and has plenty of shoreline (and labor). I can presume that India, if it doesn't already have a decent navy, can build one up within thirty years' time (at the most) (if it puts its mind to it). Know-how could probably be given to India to help it build a navy up, if it doesn't already have a good navy. Israel, I know, has a decent military. I am not entirely sure how big the Australian military is, and I'm a bit skeptical about Singapore, which is a city-state. (Remember Gdansk, 1939? It was overrun. So was Singapore, within a few years of then.) We can probably defend Singapore and Israel, but I'm not sure what happens if someone threatens nuclear attack against Singapore, Israel, or other tiny country. (I presume Monaco would be quickly destroyed in an atomic attack, anyhow...) :tomato Moreover, how much help would Singapore be able to provide NATO?