It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The European Union Military?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
i'm just having a read of this article that someone posted in another thread:-

en.wikipedia.org...

now if you scroll down to (European Union controversy) part:-


Given planned force expansion, Europe will field 4 fleet aircaft carriers as well as more than half a dozen smaller escort carriers and numerous surface warships by 2015. Combined with the Airbus A400M and aerial refueling tanker orders, this sea power will, if placed at EU disposal, unquestionably achieve superpower status for Europe.



now have a read this right?, (i am unware of it)...what warships/carriers etc is the EU ordering
does anyone have anymore information about it?

thanks

[edit on 30-9-2006 by st3ve_o]

mod edit: Added external quote tags

Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 1-10-2006 by UK Wizard]




posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
What they mean my patriotic friend is that all together the countries of the EU combined have at thier disposal 4 carries and more than half a dozen surface ships, although I suggest you google "European reaction brigades" or "european reaction force" . So for I believe we have 4 brigades designed to act as peacekeepers inside the EU, I'm not too sure on thier actual purpose but 16th air assualt is one of those brigades I believe (MON the 16th!)



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
ah right thanks for that


what i thought it ment was the EU having its own military therefore EU member countrys could say "oi can we borrow the carriers/warships for this and that mission"

its not a bad idea that, i can actually see it happening in the future as it will put all EU nations on par with each other on a military scale & also rival the US's mighty defence budget.

i will do some more reading about the 'european reaction force' ive heard of it, but ive not really looked into what its all about.



posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
what i thought it ment was the EU having its own military therefore EU member countrys could say "oi can we borrow the carriers/warships for this and that mission"

Well technically in any military engagement we are entitled to aid france, mabye not militarily but we must aid her. Read enetente cordial. It would be nice to see if we could get the triple entente back up and runnning.



its not a bad idea that, i can actually see it happening in the future as it will put all EU nations on par with each other on a military scale & also rival the US's mighty defence budget.

A mighty budget does not mean a mighty foe, remember most EU nations have superior militaries than america does, mabye not on the same level but training and equipment wise they are better.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I must say that it would make a lot of sense making an EU army/coalition as they already share the currency so why not their military. it would be kind of like NATO of something, although like it was said earlier, it would most likely be used as a peace keeping force as from what I have gathered Europe doesn’t exactly jump to the occasion in terms of a war these days. England maybe...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   
An EU military is long overdue imho for practical purposes. Take for example NATO's role in Afghanistan. All NATO nations are committed, yet when more troops are required the generals have to go hat in hand asking each independant nation.

A dedicated EU force would be able to be easily and rapidly deployed once permission is given by Brussels, and due to economies of scale the total size of the EU military would be larger than the sum of all the seperate nations combined. Also equipment would be standardised which would mean massive orders for European defence companies.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
Ehm what is it - half dozen smaller carriers? Those 4 bigger carrier would be British and French I assume, but I don't kow about 6 smaller carriers, I think only Spain and Italy will have one marine corps like carrier. Also I don't understand why should A-400 contribute to superpower status - what is it, some Airbus propaganda? A-400 won't be strategic transport even if it is advertized as such, it is just larger tactical plane like Hercules on steroids. It cannot lift MBTs and it will have problems to lift even future european IFV - I've read that german one would weight 40tons and their Pz 2000, which is otherwise great artillery weights 55 tons.

Not to bash EU - I'm from Europe too, but while EU is economically superpower it is definitely not superpower militarily or concering foreign policy.

Firstly militarily even if combined it lacks strategic transport planes, long range bombers, military satellites, spy planes, strong navy - those 4 small carriers would probably not be enough, especially if you take into account the problems British had with Argentine during Falklands war. Superpower must be capable to act alone and what would happen if US decided to not give EU their satellite photos for example? The combined ground forces are OK, but the force projection sucks and it doesn't seem to change in future. Those 60 000 thousands men are good for peacekeeping but not for real war. And just because you have peacekeepers it doesn't mean you're superpower.

Secondly and even worse EU is divided concering foreign policy. There's quite a big difference between British and French block, not to mention that many states have strong neutral and pacifist tendencies. You can hardly play superpower if half of your forces doesn't want to play with you.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
... So for I believe we have 4 brigades designed to act as peacekeepers inside the EU, ...


FOR the EU


There´d be a big obvious problem if one would expect peace keeping to be necessary WITHIN the EU...


... I'm not too sure on thier actual purpose but 16th air assualt is one of those brigades I believe (MON the 16th!)


The purpose is to have a designated crisis reaction force for whatever the EU agrees to be "a crisis". Nowadays every military action of the EU as a whole has to be...

-approved by the EU
-approved by the affected countries
-a command structure has to be agreed upon
-involved units have to be selected
-said units and elements have to "synchronized"
-financing has to be approved

Having a standing EU crisis reaction force could cut away at least half of this procedure.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Ehm what is it - half dozen smaller carriers? Those 4 bigger carrier would be British and French I assume, but I don't kow about 6 smaller carriers, I think only Spain and Italy will have one marine corps like carrier. Also I don't understand why should A-400 contribute to superpower status - what is it, some Airbus propaganda? A-400 won't be strategic transport even if it is advertized as such, it is just larger tactical plane like Hercules on steroids. It cannot lift MBTs and it will have problems to lift even future european IFV - I've read that german one would weight 40tons and their Pz 2000, which is otherwise great artillery weights 55 tons.

Not to bash EU - I'm from Europe too, but while EU is economically superpower it is definitely not superpower militarily or concering foreign policy.

Firstly militarily even if combined it lacks strategic transport planes, long range bombers, military satellites, spy planes, strong navy - those 4 small carriers would probably not be enough, especially if you take into account the problems British had with Argentine during Falklands war. Superpower must be capable to act alone and what would happen if US decided to not give EU their satellite photos for example? The combined ground forces are OK, but the force projection sucks and it doesn't seem to change in future. Those 60 000 thousands men are good for peacekeeping but not for real war. And just because you have peacekeepers it doesn't mean you're superpower.

Secondly and even worse EU is divided concering foreign policy. There's quite a big difference between British and French block, not to mention that many states have strong neutral and pacifist tendencies. You can hardly play superpower if half of your forces doesn't want to play with you.



a superpower on a military sence is a nation who can project a 'substanical' force anywhere around the globe, to do that it as to start with the naval side of things (and transporters).

theres also 2 nulcear powers in europe, 2 of the major 5 are actually from europe...bombers i'm not sure about other european nations but i know theres talk about the new nimrod having a heavy bomber role for britain.

the falklands war for britain (even though it was hugly sucessful and restored a lot of national pride) was the turning point that our navy was no longer 'the best'...i watched a documentry about the falklands a few months ago, we had that great send off, all the ships being sent to the falklands everybody chanting ^rule britainina^, britian certainly looked the part. but many type42's and carriers needed service done on the before the ACTUAL conflict.

as said in an earyler thread, it was the tory party that let our armed forces to rust, even 15 years after the falkland (when we knew there was a problem) they never did anything
, it was only when the labour party came in power in 1997 they started to re-build/take steps to upgrade our aging military.

about europe being divied, whist i agree on that but i feel 'IF' europes survial was put to the test (ie:- WW3) europe would work together as one, trust me
one thing i am certain on though this time if another world war happened the trouble won't be started in europe


[edit on 1-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Not to bash EU - I'm from Europe too, but while EU is economically superpower it is definitely not superpower militarily or concering foreign policy.


I am afraid that I beg to differ on the foreign policy front. The EU nations have widespread foreign policy concerns from an historical and economic front. The UK through the Commonwealth of nations, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and even Belgium have close historical ties and collectively they cover the world. You just need to look at the foreign policy mischief France gets up to now and then, oftern to the frustration of the US. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the EU is made up of sovereign states and these nations undertake their own foreign policy. Collective EU policy is often dictates.

Economically yes, the EU is a superpower.

Militarily... Well, if all the nations in the EU got themselves organised then I think the EU would be a superpower militarily. However, the EU has never had any motivation to get into the big-spending "club" and after the Cold War most EU nations have reduced their spend. That said, the EU had c. 2,500 frontline combat aircraft (decent stuff such as F16, Mirage, Harrier, Tornado, Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale etc., etc) back in 2004 - which is a rather large force in anyone's books.

Regards

[edit on 1/10/2006 by paraphi]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonestar24
FOR the EU


There´d be a big obvious problem if one would expect peace keeping to be necessary WITHIN the EU...

Well could you see the EU allowing thier troops to go into a NON EU country?



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Ehm what is it - half dozen smaller carriers? Those 4 bigger carrier would be British and French I assume, but I don't kow about 6 smaller carriers, I think only Spain and Italy will have one marine corps like carrier.

I do believe the yare rounding up or using "helicopter" carriers, which if counting them then the RN technically has 3 carriers then




Not to bash EU - I'm from Europe too, but while EU is economically superpower it is definitely not superpower militarily or concering foreign policy.

I dunno, the RN and most of the EU can project some power, mabye not to the same extent but they can project power across the globe.


Firstly militarily even if combined it lacks strategic transport planes, long range bombers, military satellites, spy planes, strong navy

Does several nuclear powered submarines not count as a "long range weapon"?
Or power projection?

Combined the EU has one of the most deadliest forces in the world. Of the major powers combined they have over 100 surface ships. (Destroyers and frigates), 103 by my count before I got bored of counting.




Superpower must be capable to act alone and what would happen if US decided to not give EU their satellite photos for example?

Thats why we spend lots of money on shiny aircraft...you know before satalites where invented we did ACTUALLY use them.
Either that or just buy them off the chinese.


The combined ground forces are OK, but the force projection sucks and it doesn't seem to change in future.

Buh?


Those 60 000 thousands men are good for peacekeeping but not for real war. And just because you have peacekeepers it doesn't mean you're superpower.

Umm they are for peacekeeping...hence their existance as a combined force...


Secondly and even worse EU is divided concering foreign policy. There's quite a big difference between British and French block, not to mention that many states have strong neutral and pacifist tendencies. You can hardly play superpower if half of your forces doesn't want to play with you.

Half of 100 = 50 , thats still a lot of warships.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Well could you see the EU allowing thier troops to go into a NON EU country?



Must take issue but collectively the EU has over ten times the number of peacekeepers in the field, excluding the recent Lebanon contribution.

I don't have the list to hand but the USA has been involved in less military conflicts since 1945 than France showing that France has got its hands dirty more often than the US.

Regards



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
And those military actions most likely don't even include the "foreign legions" overt and covert actions around the globe.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
This is one of the reasons the EU isn't popular among some sections of society, this news was mentoned in a paper and someone wrote into the letters pages (are my sources great?) saying there already is a combined EU peacekeeping force. It's in Bosnia, and is working well.

Also on the satellite photos part, there was a plan recently for Europe to set up it's own sattelite comms system for military use, in a similar way to GPS. I seem to remember the plans fell through as the cost was just too much.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
If the EU was to have 1 army yes, that would give them alot more power. Here's the spoiler though, language issues. That was the biggest issue within the ranks of the austrian army in WW1 against the Russians. If you didn't know, the Austrian empire was highly multy cultural, and had many different nationalities in it's army. Misscommunication was the biggest issue they faced. Next if the EU somehow did get an army then why have countries in the EU? Why not just declare the countries states and the EU the country (like the concept of USSR except they were communist). Lets say I was from Finland, I wouldn't want my son (if i had one) risking his life for some other nations problems which had nothing to do with my countries interest. Keep in mind that the sole purpose in the creation of NATO and the EU was to give Europe a fighting chance should the USSR onslaught across Europe had ever taken place. Every other reason for it's creation came secondary. Now that the USSR is no more what does the EU have to fear? They are on good relations with Russia after all. And last but not least, if the EU had one army, it's regiments would be in Iraq right now weather your country or you liked it or not, fighting the same idiotic strugle for "iraqi freedom". That would be a bummer won't it.




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Must take issue but collectively the EU has over ten times the number of peacekeepers in the field, excluding the recent Lebanon contribution.

I don't have the list to hand but the USA has been involved in less military conflicts since 1945 than France showing that France has got its hands dirty more often than the US.

Regards

Yes and how many of them have been former colonies wanting independance or under UN missions?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow
Ehm what is it - half dozen smaller carriers? Those 4 bigger carrier would be British and French I assume, but I don't kow about 6 smaller carriers, I think only Spain and Italy will have one marine corps like carrier. Also I don't understand why should A-400 contribute to superpower status - what is it, some Airbus propaganda?


Firstly militarily even if combined it lacks strategic transport planes, long range bombers, military satellites, spy planes, strong navy - those 4 small carriers would probably not be enough, especially if you take into account the problems British had with Argentine during Falklands war. Superpower must be capable to act alone and what would happen if US decided to not give EU their satellite photos for example? The combined ground forces are OK, but the force projection sucks and it doesn't seem to change in future. Those 60 000 thousands men are good for peacekeeping but not for real war. And just because you have peacekeepers it doesn't mean you're superpower.

Secondly and even worse EU is divided concering foreign policy. There's quite a big difference between British and French block, not to mention that many states have strong neutral and pacifist tendencies. You can hardly play superpower if half of your forces doesn't want to play with you.


To address a few points here. The Fleet carriers would be British and French. The smaller carriers would be those belonging to Italy and Spain. I am not aware of any other EU nation operating carriers, though I may be wrong.

Sattelites. I know the UK operates several military sattelites. On that basis, I think it is safe to assume at least the French do too. We're not relaint on the USA for fancy photo's, you know. At least our's won't turn a flatbed truck into a portable WMD factory


Your comments about force projection puzzled me. You admit to there being the necessary Fleet carriers, but then dismiss force projection. A contradiction, surely? The Royal Navy alone is currently building several new transport vessels, which will provide it with the world's best and largest Amphibious capability outside of the USA. The French also operate several heavy lift vessels.

The Airbus A-400 is alot better than the C-130J. It can lift 25 tons as opposed to the C-130J's 17 tons. An example cited on the web is that a fleet of 40 A-400's can airlift an entire Brigade to the Gulf in 11 days, as opposed to 40 C-130J's taking over 28 days. Between the 8 nations in the EU buying these, there will be 180 of these Aircraft in service. The RAF is expected the field a combined force of 25 A-400's and 10 C-130J's and a further 15 of the stretched version, C-130J-30's.

This is a significant airflift capacity for the UK, let alone the EU as a whole.The combined airlift capacity for the EU would be 180 x A-400's, 22 x C-130J's and 28 x C-130J-30's. Not including any older C-130's or other aircraft already inservice.

You say the 60,000 in the RRF are good peacekeapers, but no good for war? Thats odd. The RRF has the elite of the British Army, such as 16 Air Assault Brigade, which consists of the Para's amongst others. Are these not good war fighting soldiers?

The foreign policy comment was also odd. The EU now has a foreign policy chief. This is to align the EU's combined nations into a single FP objective. Although there are disagreements, I think you'll find the agreements far outweigh them. If the need arised, the EU would quickly agree on a course of action and have the RRF amongst others at it's disposal immediately.

With all that combined, it does say alot about the pending power projection abilities of the EU. Whilst not matching the spending of the USA, it is still a formidable force.

EDIT:



Also on the satellite photos part, there was a plan recently for Europe to set up it's own sattelite comms system for military use, in a similar way to GPS. I seem to remember the plans fell through as the cost was just too much.


The Galileo system (the GPS one) is still being developed and is on track. It will consist of around 30 sattelites, cost around £2.3 Bn and hopefully be complete by 2010.

As for other sattelites, I covered that above.

[edit on 2/10/06 by stumason]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I am not aware of any other EU nation operating carriers, though I may be wrong.


the royal navy have HMS_Illustrious & HMS_Ark_Royal that are currently active...but no large carriers as of yet.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o

Originally posted by stumason
I am not aware of any other EU nation operating carriers, though I may be wrong.


the royal navy have HMS_Illustrious & HMS_Ark_Royal that are currently active...but no large carriers as of yet.


Yeah, I am aware of what we operate now. This thread was about EU power in 2015. By then, the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, plus the French CVF's will be in service.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join