Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NATO

Discussion in 'Geostrategic Issues' started by gf0012-aust, Mar 29, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,014
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Germany
    Wouldn't make much sense either. Operationally, you have a group of five European NATO members in the North operating submarines (UK, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Poland - ~27 subs) and five European NATO members in the South (France, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal - ~27 subs). The only submarines "inbetween" those are the French SSBNs.

    Do people even realize that A400M is first and foremost a procurement programme for the EATC, which will be its sole dispatching user? And the EATC does have that little coat of arms with all that blue and the 12 stars...
     
  2. Feanor

    Feanor Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2008
    Messages:
    15,546
    Likes Received:
    230
    Location:
    Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
    Then how do you explain the continued attempts by Germany to try and force some of the eastern European EU members to take on migrants?
     
  3. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Bleeding heart lawyers that think Western countries are bottomless wells of money and spineless pollies that don't have the balls to say enough. Even if there was a functioning EU government that wasn't subject to former sovereign interference, pollies and lawyers would still stuff things up. The USA has the same problem as a unified government, mind you these days the functioning part is debatable. Canada isn't much better.
     
  4. colay1

    colay1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    terra
  5. vldbzh

    vldbzh New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2016
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    A nightmare would be if Russian jet was not shot down by NATO forces.:p:
    A very nice article about situation in the Baltic Sea region. Some new circumstances are underlined.
    From my point of view, the goal itself is a pure fantasy.
    Not only on Germany. And, after all, Germany is the second economy power in NATO after USA. If Latvia spends less than 2%, nobody worries much. But If Germany, Italy, Canada and Spain spend significantly less than 2%, it becomes a problem of a strategic scale.
     
  6. 2007yellow430

    2007yellow430 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    California
    As one of the lawyers, I think you grossly mischaracterize us. Rember that favorite Shakespeare quote: "first kill all the lawyers?" Problem is that it isn't the entire sentence: "If you plan on revolution, first you must kill all the lawyers." We keep people honest. Legislatures pass laws which on occasion governments violate their constitution or laws, and we are ultimately the gate keepers. Without a thriving legal system you get Tyrnanery.

    Art
     
  7. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    This link suggests great improvement in member nations committing to the 2% GDP goal by 2024. I can only see Canada meeting this goal by maintaining our current defence budget and shrinking GDP output. Junior is certainly doing his best on the latter. Unless there is major movement on the CSC and fighter replacement, the 2% goal is not realistic.

    NATO Says More Members Plan to Reach Spending Goal by 2024
     
  8. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Location:
    In the rum store
  9. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Location:
    In the rum store
    Poland and Canada have joined a NATO program for a joint acquisition of maritime surveillance aircraft. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey are the other nations involved and the program was launched last June (2017). Canada has also joined the NATO AWACS project. Also NATO has an AAR project underway and NATO is part of an European Movement Coordination Centre Europe (MCCE):

    "The MCCE is a progressive organisation, officially established in 2007 to address the recognised shortage of Strategic Lift (air and surface) by providing a multi-national coordinating body to optimise efficiency throughout the full spectrum of movements and transportation In simple terms, the main purpose of the MCCE is to provide cost saving alternatives for member nations by utilising air,(M&T) land and sea transport assets owned or leased by national militaries of our members or supported agencies."

    I think that in the long run this will be quite an efficient method for acquiring and utilising expensive platforms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2018
  10. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Continuing on from the RCN thread which I first posted the above link, I agree developing a new MPA from commercial airliner is no easy task. A C-Series MPA would have been a better way to subsidize the program than government loans even if the program was “fake”. Too late now. If Airbus were to develop a MPA, might as well use the A320/321. However, from a commercial point of view, all the key export potential has been lost to the P-8. Most of Euro NATO could make do with small MPA platforms. IMO only Spain, France, and Italy need the larger platform. I can’t see such a small requirement being in Airbus’s interest, even more so given the A400M history. Better to opt for a mixed fleet of small MPAs and a few P-8s. I left Canada out as I feel a low end MPA is the likely replacement for our P-3s.
     
  11. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    6,760
    Likes Received:
    1,371
    Location:
    In the rum store
    I read somewhere recently that Airbus have a new MPA proposal utilising the A320 aircraft. Think that I posted the link on DT somewhere.
     
  12. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Well if we ever get new fighters, joining the NATO A330-RRTT would be a good idea as would actually buying some for the RCAF. The chances of the latter have been enhanced by Boeing’s trade dispute with Bombardier assuming the GOC decides to renew this capability.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
  13. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  14. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  15. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    This Atlantic Magazine article highlights some of the troubling trends with respect to some members national leaders.

    The Threat Within NATO
     
  16. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
  17. ChrisLee1971

    ChrisLee1971 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    US
    Following the Arctic’s transformation into the most important region of the world economy and politics, its rapid militarization naturally follows.

    United States and NATO have repeatedly indicated in both word and deed their intention to lay claim and to extend their military presence in the Arctic. As early as 2009 Washington clearly stated its position: “The United States have broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region [which] include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence and maritime presence.”

    Over the past years NATO member states have dramatically accelerated their individual and collective efforts to increase military presence and warfighting ability in the High North. The Alliance conducts major military drills here on a regular basis. Among the participants are Navy, Air Force, Army, and Special Forces personnel of the member states. A demonstrative example of this largest build up in the region is recent five-week American-British military exercises ICEX conducted in the Arctic Ocean.

    In the current situation, statements by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about the need to demilitarize the Arctic are just rhetoric. Over the last decade NATO has expanded its military capabilities in the Arctic on a scale far grater in depth and scope than anything it has done in any other place of the world.
     
  18. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Russian efforts to enhance their Arctic presence far exceed those of NATO. They have more bases and personnel. Currently the US and Canada only have two heavy icebreakers, Russia has over a dozen, several of them are nuclear. Considering its size, Denmark is really the only player really in NATO pulling its weight wrt the Arctic IMO.
     
  19. ChrisLee1971

    ChrisLee1971 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    US
    The icebreaking capability is just a small part of the issue. But if we consider capabilities of the US, the UK, and Canada in such areas as submarine warfare and aerial surveillance in the High North the picture will be completely different.

    As for the supporters of the NATO’s wider engagement in the Arctic I would say that the greatest one is Norway. Oslo eagerly seeks the creation of separate NATO Arctic Command and contributes to all Alliance’s activities in the High North for a great while. On the other hand the scale of the NATO presence in the Canadian Arctic is still controversial issue for Ottawa.
     
  20. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    4,315
    Likes Received:
    357
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Yes, once Norway gets their P-8s to FOC, they will be an important player. Same applies to the UK. However, the Russians have submarine capability too and their recent missile announcements and actual use in Syria are significant. As for Canada, all talk and this won't change until junior and his fellow Liberals are removed from office.