European Defence Okay now that the Donald has said he doesn't

File: 12079847_10153710939844885_3663009455663739497_o.jpg (208KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1600x1066px

>>31954143
Here's my take on the thing

>Common capacities
First and before all, they should immediately work on common projection, command and control capabilities.
Buying a bunch of A400M, some C-5 or C-17 and aircraft refuelers, is not a big budget and would tremendously reduce costs with economies of scale and negociating power.
A CC structure is nearly already built, one of its first mission could be to manage the new common capabilities efficiently. the goal would be to have an internal provider of transportation that countries or NATO could rely on. At term, some countries could start deferring part of their planes to this structure to let it be managed by them.

Next step is the coastal guard and custom/frontier agency. They have already been created now it's just time to give them men, equipment and budget. I think we can all agree this is highly needed and will provide great results rapidly.

File: 417675.jpg (3MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2560x1920px

>>31954151
Now a bit more strategy
I think the major threats that the EU are the following

>A. Internal Terrorism
They did it several time and will do it again. Allah Snackbar motherfucker love to bomb/gun/run down free europeans,

>B. Mother Russia
Even if some detente with NATO can be hoped in a near future, Poutine and Russia in general still consider itself a rival of the West and oppose its valor/culture. Unconventional military operations are not to be discarded, even if full blown conventional conflict is very unlikely.

>C. Instability at its border (see Ukraine, transinistria, Yugoslavia etc)
Some eastern or central Europe countries could know civil war or turmoil, Which means refugees and weapons entering europe and instability in the close countries.

>D. Major mediteranean state failure
Today Libya and Syria have gone down the toilet, but tomorrow things could go south in Algeria, Morroco or even Turkey. Consequences are less direct to Europe (except for Turkey in terms of rapefugees) but it could affect it and its interests nonetheless.

>E. Piratery
It has been curbed down following Eufnavor Atalanta but the problem could surge elsewhere

>F. ONU intervention in foreign country
Our allies request our help, or the ONU decides a resolution. Think Afghanistan, or Centrafrica.

>G. Unrest or attacks in remote territories
France or the netherland for example have a shitload of islands everywhere. Some of them could be menaced by a neighbour, or be flooded by refugees following turmoil in nearby island. Some could also fight for independance or fall into civil war/ guerilla.

>H. cyberattacks orl attacks targetting infrastructures.
Power grid, confidential info hacking, satellite missiles etc.

File: 1022538543.jpg (241KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1000x541px

>>31954176
I personally think that some threats like G. should not be attended by a european military but rather by the affected country itself, unless it specifically asks for help. The lending of projection capabilites by allies or European agencies should be enough.
Some other missions, like A. should not be attended by the military at all. This is a mission for intelligence and law enforcement, not for soldiers.

Regarding H., I do think the military should somewhat be involved with cybersecurity at some degree.
Infrastructure defense should be organized and supervised by them too.

Naval defense against piratery or coastal surveillance are two things that would be better handled by a single european military.

Foreign interventions cause a lot of ethic problem, it is probably best to only supply logistics and let the countries decide, yet some peacekeeping or disaster relief should probably be done at long term

File: maxresdefault.jpg (292KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1920x1080px

OKay, let's dwelve a little bit more on the several components of the doctrine

Globally, Europe doctrine should be primarily territorial defense. Some capabilities will be related to projection to intervene in some foreign countries, but this has gotten less and less palatable to europeans and is should probably be left for countries willing to engage in such far off operations (France principally now that the bongs bailed out)

>Air
Europe need to ascertain air superiority, it is vital to its interests. Air support is critical to protect its territorial integrity.
That means ability to deny airspace (principally to the russians) and possibility to deploy their own aircrafts or helicopters over European territory if attacked.

It's the hardest part of any european strategy. Moscow has spectacular anti air capabilities and is renewing their air fleet with modern aircraft fast. Both numbers and technologies do not look good.
Of course a full blown conventional war with Russia is very unlikely, but Eastern Europe has gotten more and more nervous seing Russia imperialist and expansionist velleities in the region. That may not be Russias S-200 firing down our planes but some rebels secretely backed by them, in the end it's the same.
Remember Malaysia airline in Ukraine...

Fifth gen planes like the F35 seem a good response, as increased furtivity for a multirole will be a strategic advantage.
Strong intel capabilities + long range missiles/artillery to identify and destroy the anti air system will also help.
Developping a good antiair system to similarily deny airspace to ennemy aircraft and having sufficient ammount of good air superiority aircraft are two other point I deem critical.

All of that will be very costly and needs a lot of research and innovation. Air superiority will only be attained by investing heavily and smartly in several advanced research program. technological advantage is key.

File: 80-km-large-5975-diaporama.jpg (85KB, 768x509px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 768x509px

>>31954213

>Navy
Prime goal is coastal defence and control.
So no need for big aircraft carriers or nuclear powered battleships.
There is no direct highly technological threat, especially assuming air superiority is retained.
So no need for stealth, railguns or similar hightech arm race. Threats will be pretty conventionals.
Mediteranea is the main focus here, with baltic sea and red sea/indian ocean in second.
Swarms of small patrolling boats for the coastal guard, some fast friage and small helicopter carriers for amphibious or rescue operations should be sufficient.
AEGIS and submarine could complete it if budget is enough, but not critical to Europe survival.

>>31954151
In theory it seems logical that a single centralized headquarter is more efficient than 27 separate ones.
Also critical size can be attained quickly, indeed it would be hard for Slovenia or Lithuania to maintain large complete militaries on their own, while chipping in their fair share in a larger army which they have a say in could be better.

But European countries have very different views of defence. Take France and Germoney, you couldn't be more different regarding their approach.
Also, coming back to small countries, how can they be sure that they will effectively have a real say and that they are not financing France neocolonialist expeditions or Italy boner for muh strong marina ?
All that while avoising the reverse excess.
Ie: Malta blocking everything to get special snowflake treatment?

>>31954143
The idea of the Eastern European countries (i'm looking at you, Poland) who regularly piss on each and every effort made toward EU defense initiatives, and EU defense industry in favor of the american umbrella now litteraly shitting their pants brings me unlimited amounts of joy.

Keep going, anon, I quite like your reflexion so far.

>>31954143

They can hire the Russian military as mercenary guardsmen!

>>31956150
What's exactly the point in duplicating the functions of NATO? Pretty much every EU country is a member anyway. Trump never said he's going to dismantle NATO, he just said he's expecting every member state to pull their weight, which is entirely fair. EU military integration seems redundant at this point.

File: EU-defense.jpg (25KB, 329x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 329x400px

Being forced to actually spend 2% of the GDP on defense is a good thing for us. It's about damn time. I'm tired of seeing the belgian armed forces being bled dry due to budget cuts.

Even with Britain leaving, France still covers M.A.D. doctrine for us, which is nice.
Cooperation between western european militaries is already pretty high (for instance belgian air force is closely integrated with the dutch & french, belgian navy is integrated with the dutch, there's a battalion of the belgian army integrated with the germans,...).
Further integration is obviously necessary in the future. If we keep playing in our own back yards, we won't stand much of a chance in modern conflicts.

As for equipment, we're waiting on our A400M deliveries. Just got a bunch of NH90s (though that's not great). And we'll be buying new multirole fighters fairly soon as our F16s are wearing out.
We got rid of all our tanks sadly. No more Leopards for us. We did get new Dingo IIs and Piranhas.
The FNC is slowly being phased out in favor of the SCAR (and in more limited numbers the F2000).

The biggest challenge is that we're top heavy and old. Like half the military will retire within the next 20 years. Allowing us to make our army younger & less top heavy.

File: eufor1384094950523.jpg (34KB, 652x284px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 652x284px

>>31956238
>What's exactly the point in duplicating the functions of NATO?

Because EUFOR might want to undertake actions not sanctioned by NATO? (as has happened multiple times in the past)

>>31956238
Because the EU is not NATO; As a political entity and diplomatic one it needs to have its own tools if it want to matter at the international scene. There are most certainly security matters that need to be managed and most importantly, decided rapidly at the european level rather than waiting for Daddy-USA to decide a course, if they have any interest in the matter to start with, for example Eastern Europe could be managed at this level for a large part in regards of the desire for the USA to pivot toward the Pacific (and for no small part, the USA can't at that point because Europe is a wimp on that matter, and the USA needs to let europe get the tools to be autonomous and coordinates response at their own level), or the medditeranean sea migraton problems. And when they move their ass it quite does work, see the extremely rapid and effective transition from Frontex to the new much more encompassing European Border and Coast Guard agency. So it would not dupplicate NATO as much as integrating into it while being able to work at the European level when dealing with matters that are, politicaly to be handled with the European Union. It wouldn't necessarily be a large agency, merely a team of international planners with the authority to fill the gap between the political level and the national armies to coordinate response. In addition a small pool of strategic assets like tankers and a small global fleet of A400M would go a long way to show the national armies that the European Union is willing and able to take an interest in defense matters without frightening them and stepping on their turf in term of national sovereignty.

>>31954143
They should start spending more on internal security, they don't want any further repeats of Brexit.

>>31956406
The NH90 would be a very nice helo if the NH consortium just gave a fucking damn about the thing. In France 50% of the fleet is unable to fly due to lack of spare parts. The last one we received was immediately send back to maintenance due to defects to the naval landing system. We need to calm the fuck down on those overly ambitious "One helo/ship/plane for them all" and the industrial frankenstein-level clusterfucks we create.

File: marine-zeebrugges-CD.jpg (523KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1000x664px

Forgot to mention that by 2030 the belgian navy aims to buy 2 new frigates & 6 mine hunters.

>>31956466

We bought ours to replace seakings (amongst other things) and were horrified to see how much maintenance is required to keep the NH90 from rusting.

derp.

File: Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg (1MB, 1512x2016px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1512x2016px

>>31954143
We COULD start with this.
It would be cost-effective at least.

And I'm sure Trump would love to sell weapons to the EU.

>>31954143
if EU military will ever be created its main purpose will be keeping the various nations suppressed and under the boot of neo-aristocracy that is currently forming around Brussels

those people truly believe that they have the right to rule Europe even if the common people do not share this sentiment - they will not suddenly change because you gave them a stick with which they can smash the anti EU opposition

it will be like Warsaw Pact all over again, just this time there will be nowhere to run

File: nuclear_consent.jpg (279KB, 891x1500px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 891x1500px

>>31956488

After the UK leaves the EU, only one EU member state will have nukes. But frankly, that's sufficient. France is a reliable partner with a diversified view of M.A.D. as they keep half their nukes out at sea at any given time to prevent a first strike event.

A few countries such as Belgium have American nukes on loan, and those need to be air launched by fighter bombers. The question is how effective these things are. They were intended to be used on eastern germany to blow advincing tank batallions to shit. I doubt that has much use anymore.
Obviously these loaned nukes have to be activated by the Americans before they can be used at all and the fighter bombers in question need to have a nuclear giggle switch.

>>31956488
>I'm sure Trump would love to sell weapons to the EU.
Of course he would. But the EU has pretty much everything it needs in-house and if you want countries to take security matters seriously you have to let them have industrial stakes in theese countries, and local production of sovereignty tools goes a long way toward that goal. How many countries buy, let's say, Patriot missiles or F-16 and F-35 not on merely technical reasons but to place themselves under the US diplomatic umbrella ? You need to let EU tighten their bonds that way.

File: karl.png (774KB, 500x528px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 500x528px

>>31954143
Bundeswehr and Armée française 600.000 men each
600 Leo 3 and Leclerc each
300 PzH 2000 also 300 for the frogs because they only got shit artillery
200 MARS each
and a 1000 Wiesel, Puma, AMX-10 and ERC-90 each
More Eurofighters, Mirage and Rafales
More Frigates
A Helicarrier for Germany
More NH 90 and Europoters
>Carolus magnus now

File: 49208_Decloedt_Christian.jpg (507KB, 1000x673px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1000x673px

>>31956506
>Of course he would. But the EU has pretty much everything it needs in-house and if you want countries to take security matters seriously you have to let them have industrial stakes in theese countries, and local production of sovereignty tools goes a long way toward that goal. How many countries buy, let's say, Patriot missiles or F-16 and F-35 not on merely technical reasons but to place themselves under the US diplomatic umbrella ? You need to let EU tighten their bonds that way.

It's often easier for the EU countries to buy stuff like the F-35 instead of the Rafale or Eurofighter.
I'd like Belgium to buy Rafales, but I suspect that the F-35 is far more likely at this point.

But then again, you need to remember Belgium is a country where decades ago the socialist party was bought by Agusta to secure an antitank helicopter purchase and succesfully sold us helicopters entirely unsuited for the fucking job. They were then used in a limited VIP & troop transport capability.

I'd hope we're past that kind of bullshit now, but who the fuck knows.

>>31956449
>Because the EU is not NATO; As a political entity and diplomatic one it needs to have its own tools if it want to matter at the international scene.
I'd agree here, but I don't see that happening simply because on a conceptual level it would require EU to go back to good old Schmittian friend-enemy distinction, and currently European identity and project is seen as all-inclusive. If we expect this military cooperation to function, EU has to rethink itself first, and that will probably take years. Even solving the Mediterranean migrant crisis would require some limited but direct military involvement abroad (e.g. Lybia), and I just don't see France or Germany taking the lead and properly committing to the matter. Imagine selling that idea to numerous german or french leftist organizations...

>>31956584
Hey, I didn't say it was easy ^^ But in the wake of Trump's election I can see a wave of anti-establishment, anti "free market rule over nationel interest" (i'm pretty sure this has a shorter name but i can't quite put a finger on it right now) elections in a fair number of countries in the coming years, which defined Eu until then and for no small part pushed Bruxelles to be a bunch of limp-dicked overly naive, optimistic twats. They will have to evolve on these matters and the official 'everyone is nice let's cooperate and swallow cocks, unregulated economy is the sole way to success" policy will change because the national elected representatives in the member countries will follow them less and less and kick back. It is simply in the interest of the Bruxelles insitution to follow suit because I trust them to ensure their own survival that way.
I see my above example about the transformation of Frontex into something significantly more efficient and powerful in a very short time as a promising hint that we are able to sort shit out when we're pressured to do so. It's a first step. A fair bit of pragmatism in term of economic protectionism toward markets like India or China able to drown us under cheap manufactured goods and choke our industries, strong defense of our companies in the energy and high tech sectors to prevent them to be bought and potentialy dismantled by foreign investors and a small-ish team able to transform political decision into military actions with interoperability of national armies in mind would go a very long way toward un-pussyfying the EU. Add to this less laxist immigration laws and we'd be on a much better course, and I don't believe it to be absolutely unrealistic.
Sorry for the borderline /pol/ long post but you can't hardly separate both matters.

>>31956695
Oh, by the way, by Bruxelles I meant the EU insitution, not the belgian ones of course, since we have belgianbros ITT i'd rather precise that you guys are perfectly cool.

What Germany should do is leave NATO, declare neutrality and let the rest of the europe do what it wants.
France can pretend it still has an empire and send their doldiers to whatever countries jungle they deem important now, Italy can pretend it has a navy of relevance and the Belgians and Dutch can continue having their own army.
Any kind of diplomatic benefit from pretending to actually protect eastern europe, which we all (and especially politicians) know is a farce, looking at modern Germany, is not worth the money we currently spend on the army and the possible, though very unlikely, effects of a conflict on Germany. Austria isnt worse off for being neutral, neither is Switzerland and neither are joining in shady wars for oil or power in countries far away.

>>31956466

I'm surprised at how badly the NH90 program has gone, considering the UK's Wildcat and Merlin have (besides being a tad more expensive than planned), gone pretty well.

Seeing as both of those are made by AgustaWestland (one of the partners of the NH90), you wonder what exactly went wrong.

>>31956853
Nobody in the NH consortium gives a fuck about it, wants to invest more than the bare necessary into it because it simply doesn't bring them much money compared with their own products, and most certainly does not want to spend for it a slightest percent more than the other partners. Add to this the fact that there is practicaly no way for the client countries to cajole, threaten of constraint the consortium in any way to move their ass. or fix shit.
The helo by itself would be fine, though.

>>31956863

They secured so many export orders, which is why I find it hard to understand how badly managed it was. With the amount of orders it got, it should have been very profitable.

>>31956753
>What Germany should do is leave NATO, declare neutrality and let the rest of the europe do what it wants.
Germany is like highschool chad and almost all of the European countries are goons that will do literally what they are told to do, for them to pull out and be neutral is fucking retarded, they are 1st world superpower, if they want to remain as such they have to swing big dick not go into isolation like fucking north korea

>>31956898
Germany isnt a superpower anymore and is losing influence fast. Even Hungary and Austria are now doing what they want and give a shit about what Merkel says. And isolationism didnt work out bad for any other european country, as long as the neighbours arent about to attack it.

>>31956695
>"free market rule over nationel interest" (i'm pretty sure this has a shorter name but i can't quite put a finger on it right now)
Neoliberalism. Found it. Dear god it bugged me.

>>31954151

>some C-5 or C-17

Both are now out of production and are no longer made.

The Bongs were smart to buy the C-17 while they were available. EU missed their chance. No strategic airlift for them, period.

>>31956898
>>31956753
>>31956918

Plox, the thread is based on the assumption that the EU will get more involved in military.
If you think otherwise and wish to discuss what EU should do, you shoukd open another thread.

The question Here is, in the event of getting a stronger focus on shared defense, what should the EU do?
Which doctrine, which strategies, which program should they work on?

>>31958148
What would be the alternative? I know little about this kind of planes.
Theres's still the Russian option with antonov, but considering this the US might help reopen lines for us, or sell usnsome second hand ones ?
Pure conjecture on my part

>>31954143
Problem with European Army is that given the way European Union works it will be to police the thing internally(and in more like "bash the bad goyims" manner rather than "fuck up those fucking terrorists" kind of way) rather than to protect it from aggression.

But if it would actually work it would be tremendously hard to do. Every country with even remnants of armament industry doing something more than just light arms will have to throw it under the bus to keep it to the standards which is already excessive and nobody will agree on it. Just think of the infighting between Belgians(FN) and Germany(HK) over standard service rifle.

The doctrine will probably be picked by French because they are Western Europeans(as in part of the "more liked" member's group) and they have recent combat experience. Or Germans if it goes to the highest bidder. Or French and Poles if French will feel like they won't overpower Germany alone.

The entire problem is that nobody will agree on anything, it's politically impossible to make this.

>>31959215
>Just think of the infighting between Belgians(FN) and Germany(HK) over standard service rifle.
And there's also Steyr somewhere and Beretta I guess would also be interested and so on. It's just so you get the point.

>>31956918
I think the opposite DESU especially now with the UK leaving the EU, they can def come out on top of this if they maneuver right.

>>31958811
I think they should (assuming they go ahead and do this) look to the organization of NATO in the 80s for a reference on what to do.

look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_NATO#Structure_in_1989

>>31959064
I think the French have some medium transport aircraft but not large enough to start moving heavy vehicles to and fro

>>31959064

Buy Ukrainian or Chinese.

Only two people with strategic airlift left they're still building. US got more than enough of it, don't need to buy more now.

So basically, Euro countries, with the exception of the UK, fucked themselves royally by not ordering strategic airlifters when they could. Just mooched off the US, Canada and UK's ones the whole time and now they're left with no options of their own.

>>31959290

>I think the French have some medium transport aircraft but not large enough to start moving heavy vehicles to and fro

The largest they have is the A400M, which only carries half that of a C-17, and no big SPGs or MBTs.

So now that the US is giving less of a shit about preventing the lot of you from starting wars over nothing how long until the west in embroiled in a wasteful conflict due to your barbaric ways?

>>31960116
Why the fuck would Europe need strategic airlift for? This isn't a fucking wasteland, it's much more efficient to transport everything by train.

>>31956238
The ultimate aim of the EU is a United States of Europe. To that end, they need to create all the trappings of a federal state, including an army. It's as simple as that. The question of an EU army is basically a argument between sovereignty and federalism.

>>31954151
>Next step is the coastal guard and custom/frontier agency.

For what purpose? Save more niggers from the seas and bring them right to the welfare center?

>>31954143
Have all planes, tanks, helicopters and guns of the future integrated EU army made in France. Because as we all know, France doesn't do the compromise thing when it comes to military procurement.

I just realised that France is the only nuclear power of EU

>>31960297
Precisely the exact opposite.

If you leave state member to deal with it you have the likes of Italy and Greece who don't have enough manpower or budget to correctly deal with the refugees so they just let them swarm their coast and turn the stare the other way,
FFs greece even got bus to bring the refugees to the frontier so somebody else had to deal with their incompetence.

A reinforced federal coastguard can patrol the sea and intercept migrant before they land and take them back to where they are from or directly to detention center that will deport them instead of just letting them land everywere and ask for asylum

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (238KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1600x1066px

>>31959215
>The entire problem is that nobody will agree on anything, it's politically impossible to make this.

Of course every european nation has a different view on what mission should the military undertake and how. It's a very big challenge.
But I think they ALL agree on one simple aspect of it: Defence.
The european armies all share the common goal of defending european territory integrity.

The goal of this thread is to identify which other threat could also be common to everybody and how to lay the foundations of a cost-effective and efficient common defence.
Maybe the French will want to keep projection capabilities and flexible forces to be deployed around the world. But that's hardly something the whole union would agree to.
On the other hand I am pretty sure that all countries agree that if Belarus send tanks to invade Poland or if King Jung detonated a nuke in French polynesia something should be done.

Do you see other threat, or corrections to the ones I have listed? So we can identify which would be common to everybody and how to respond to it.
>>31954176

File: leclerc-train-8.jpg (183KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1024x768px

>>31959290
The geographical organization is nice, yet it misses all eastern europe, also there was much more troops back then. Paradigms have changed a bit. Nice suggestion though.

>>31960116
Yup, only the brits have heavy airlift for long distance projection. They lended some to France for operation Sangaris or Serval in Mali.

But the question is, does the EU really needs any of that? I listed a pair of them because peacekeeping and protection of some overseas territories might require it, but they could survive with what NATO could lend them I suppose
Buying Russian or Chinese is pretty much out of the question. Ukrainian could help boosting their economy a bit, not a bad deal.

>>31960247
Across Europe train seems the best solution by far. I think the EU should also work on infrastructure. Even if they already have extensive and well maintained train network in western europe they should work on more direct lines and to develop them and big logistic platform in the east to receive all the material.

>>31961268
This.
The Frontex switch is actually a good news for Europe

Having well funded professional guys, able to patrol everywhere is a great improvement to the current situation.

I'm all for freedom of movement between States, but we need tighter controls of the external border of Schengen and the EU in general. And that a precisely what it will do

>>31961338
>The european armies all share the common goal of defending european territory integrity.

Yea, they sure spoke out and acted against their so-called 'democratic leader' allowing thousands upon thousands of "refugees" (read: terrorists) into their sovereign country's by the boat/trainload in a literal cultural genocide.

>>31956406
Why would say Germany need to spend 2% of GDP when they can produce everything they need and maintain their required capabilities at around 1.2%?

Do you actually research anything Trump says or do you just believe it no matter what??

>>31954143
A large national guard-like force for internal security, mainly in Eastern European states, is another thing.

This force will have a large presence in cities especially along the Russian border and in cities with large ethnic Russian populations to put a swift halt to any:
- internal conflicts stirred up by the Kremlin
- pro-Russian "riots"
- "People's Republics"
- little green men and material from transiting the border

Ethnic Russians should also have their citizenship revoked and deported back to their shithole motherland if part of any "separatist" movement

The force will also help stop/respond to any Russian or Islamic terrorism

>>31964368
I should add that the main advantage of this is rapid response in a crisis, so as to get as many boots on the ground in cities and key areas as fast as possible, thereby denying the Kremlin the ability to indirectly intervene through, e.g. "local armed groups", whilst deterring a direct military intervention

File: 1478801506860.jpg (61KB, 600x425px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x425px

>>31954143
Shut
It
Down

File: h3awjDP.png (326KB, 540x643px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 540x643px

>>31964472
>FIXIT
hehe

>>31964323

You would have a point if the Bundeswehr wasn't struggling to maintain its equipment, has atrocious readiness, and is procuring ever smaller numbers of replacements to existing hardware. If it spent 1.2% of GDP and had a functioning military you would have a point, but that isn't the case, is it.

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

See Graph 3 on Page 2

Germany misses the 20% equipment expenditure of its budget massively, with only 13.67%. If the recommended minimum was 20% of 2%, then spending 13.67% of 1.19% kind of explains why equipment-wise they are so fucked.

I'm french and i don't want to pay for these polish scum. We didn't invest 25% of our military budget during the last 40 years in nuclear deterrence to defend them.

BUILD

A

WALL

>>31961268
States like Italy and Greece are PRESSURED by the EU to save migrants and bring them on the continent. What did you think these countries ruin themselves on purpose? Stupid Amerifat.

A coast guard service under eurocrat command would mean just that: more refugees.

>>31965496
If you see a boat sinking you must save them, whether you like them or not, reallife isn't like /pol/.

The question is, what we do with them after?

>>31954143
>and that the Brits are out and cannot veto shit anymore,
if only

If Germany moderately increases its spending around 2%, just Germany and France together would outspend Russia easily.

Even ignoring facts like that both countries running a competitive high tech industry with access to technologies from all places in this world unlike Russia.

Also Russia's war toys are outdated. Mostly still on the level of the Cold War with modern stuff only available in small numbers because of the lack of budget.
Russia for example lacks a tank which can penetrate the front side of the Leopard 2 tank at any range because the penetrator length of its ammunition is limited by the autoloader.

I guess we see German's next MBT project sooner than expected.

>>31965572
Also the navy will get at least four larger frigates after the silly peace keeping F125 class.

>>31965503
I'll tell you what we do: we bring them on our side and give them asylum. Because thats what the EU requires us to do. Do you think that having a coast guard under EU command will change this?

And in case you havent read the news the Italian coast guard saves not only sinking boats. It pretty much harvests every nigger they find no matter the state of their ship.

>/pol/ bogeyman mentioned
As expected. I know you're an American armchair strategist who doesnt know jack shit about the EU. Try listening to people that actually have to live in it ok?

This EU army thing is a terrible ideea. It only serves to enforce the eurocrats will and their dystopian neo-USSR. For external threats we have NATO which is far more powerfull and experienced. If only politicians from european countries could be pressured into allocating 2% to the army as NATO stipulates.

>>31965589
>>31965572
Makes me wonder what happened with that Tornado replacement.

With many nations buying the F-35 aircraft there is just a limited need or desire for a new fighter bomber focused project.

>>31965637
http://www.janes.com/article/61628/airbus-ds-defining-fcas-aircraft-requirements-with-bundeswehr

With a bunch of european countries buying the F-35, wouldn't it make sense to integrate them more with each other to fully take advantage of it's networking etc?

File: 1467244385129.png (496KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1200x720px

>>31954143
> wanting one whole EU army
> giving the power to brussels instead of letting the people arm themselfs

>>31954143
An EU Army is more likely to cause a war than prevent one. Far too much history in Europe and the EU likes to fuck with Russia to promote more integration internally (Ukraine was done on purpose to push for an EU Army, for example). Don't give anti-democratic idiots an armed force.

>>31964368
>internal security

You mean oppressing Europeans who dislike the EU.

>>31965780
And god help you once the Balkans join, a long-term goal of the EU. Croats, Serbians and Bosnians in the same army is not going to end well.

>>31954143

How about ditching those eastern countries that are crying wolf and provoking Russia? I don`t want us to get dragged into war because someone is still butthurt over soviet thing. Trump is doing the right thing, it is time for us to return to our casual business too.

>>31960247

Force projection and rapid response. Fine, you can use rail alone if the EU has no expectation of becoming an active world power and would rather consign itself to a role like Japans, but strategic airlift is needed if operating out of area and at short notice.

Europe is big enough that the movement of forces from West-East, South-North would be greatly sped up by strategic airlift. Putting money into mobility reduces the overall amount you need to spend on all sorts of capability.

>>31964368

Lemme guess, you are from the baltics? Fuck off you fucking leech, everybody in EU are tired of your rhetoric

>>31965829
Austria-Hungary didn't work out too

>>31964472
Fuck off back to your personal circlejerk board /pol/. What part of discussing the military aspect do you not understand?

>>31965890
>he believes you can airlift entire divisions

Not gonna happen.

>>31965540
>Even ignoring facts like that both countries running a competitive high tech industry with access to technologies from all places in this world unlike Russia.

You realize France can't even make their own bombs anymore right?

>>31966059
Well it's more a problem of not buying enough bombs to have a critical mass of command on which a domestic maker could survive.
MBDA is a rather successful missile maker though

>>31966059
The company that used to produce them still exists but focuses solely on R&D at the moment. They still have a the production hardware though. They're expected start production of Mk82 type bombs again "soon"™, likely with a contract before next presidential term so that they can't fuck it up.

>>31965890
Do you know how little a C-17 can carry? 1 (ONE) MBT. I really don't know why people keep circejerking about strategic airlift so much. It fits US doctrine, that's it. A single train could haul dozens of MBTs or hundreds of smaller IFVs at once, and could reach any corner of Europe within 2 days. I didn't even mention the sealift capability European nations already have. Or just transporting everything on trucks.

And no, EU has no aspiration to become a """"world power"""". EU's foreign policy is mostly based on soft power, whether we like it or not. A EU military would be purely defensive, so talking about force projection and being a world power is just silly.

File: 14990562552_d0f7b8e17d_b.jpg (312KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1024x683px

OP back here.
FFS why can't the kids fuck back to their board, it was created especifically for that.

Anyhow
>Land
Realistically a full scale invasion by another country on Europe mainland is rather unprobable. Russian tanks won't be rolling to seize varsa anytime, unless the world has gone really south. In this case Nuclear dissuasion comes into effect (more on that later).
What is realistic to expect would be Dombass/Transinistria destabilization of zones with ethnic russians in eastern europe or Baltic. I personally think that neither vlad nor the Ru military would get anything out of that but it's hard to entirely dismiss after seeing what happened at the very gate of Europe and knowing how tense things can be in Estonia or Latvia with large russian minorities.

I think the land component of the EU defense needs to rely primarily on foot soldiers and some armour. But clearly there is no need for swarms of MBTs. A strong artillery and ground based missile/rocket launchers would go a long way too for a rather limited cost.
In the case of large armour fight, the air superiority will prove decisive. If you can deny enemy aircraft, and have relatively ease of acces to airspace above the battle, your planes and helos can butcher enemy tanks even if outnumbered.
On the other hand, as we have seen in the middle east. controling the air and being able to drop expensive bombs from expensive planes all but assure you of the actual control of the zone.
You need foot soldiers.
(disclaimer, I am talking about europe defence, not foreign intervention).

A personal view is that we have gone too far in the profesionalization/modernisation of infantry. In the sense that there is now in Europe only very limited manpower, so, as a rare ressource, they are overprotected and valued. (don't mistake me, huma lives are of paramount importance, but war means you have to take risks, and these guys are precisely here to take calculated risk to avoid civilian being hurt more).
cont.

File: ob_3e6c1d_quipement-felin-photo-92e-ri.jpg (262KB, 1600x1063px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1600x1063px

>>31966716
>cont.

Today we overequip our infantry, they are covered in dozens of lbs of expensive and fragile materials. This results of them being weight down by such a heavy loads. That causes a lot of back problems and hamper their mobility.

I do believe that HUDs are the future and more connected battleground will definitely help reduce our lost and increase our efficiency, and intelligent display helping soldiers and officers to have a better and faster vision/understanding of the surrounding will be of strategic importance.

But we are not there yet, and I believe that half-assed attempts at these techs are not performant enough to justify their weight and the way they affect our movement/tactics. Also we might become too dependant on these aid and be lost when they malfunction or when the enemy finds a way to jam them, as we are now dependant on air support (spoiler I don't think this will change).
Anyhow don't mistake me, I am not for conscription or national guard as another anon suggested. Professional heavily trained soldiers is the way to go, but I believe we need to be more agile until we get to full on exosqueletons.
Robot mules would be a great tech for example.
/rant

So I believe that a european infantry corp, starting small and then being extended division after division, probably fist based in eastern europe (replacing american troops leaving a base could be a smart move to avoid looking like escalation or saber rattling).

these boots on the ground need a whole bunch of vehicles and logistics but there is a lot of offer on the current european market, very dynamic in terms of competition and R&D.

Oh and a big european engineer corp is also a good starting point. It can be deployed all over europe during disasters to help, like italys earthquake for example or portuguese fires. Very useful, not expensive and politicaly easy to do, it's on the must-do list.

>>31966519

Surely the EU would be interested in near abroad operations.

For example, the modest French intervention in Mali depended on Anglo C-17s (US, Canada, UK). Even these kinds of near abroad interventions in support of a friendly government, benefit from a strategic airlift capability.

File: C5-tanks-1024x681.jpg (235KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1024x681px

>>31966814
EU currently has BattleGroups ready at any time.
These are large units with whole support and some extra capabilities that are supposed to fulfill some missions abroad. If I remember correctly they can be engaged rapidly in peacekeeping missions, elections etc.

They have existed for a while, but, surprisingly, never been deployed, as the European conundum made it politically impossible. The Brexit might help a bit in this regard though.
I personally think they should be deployed and domestic strategical airlift would go a long way. But, even if made politically doable, they could probably keep relying on anglo lift for a while.
So not a priority in my book.
A 400M are though.
Oh and I'd get C5 before C17. Pic very related.

Great thread OP

File: 2112011.jpg (356KB, 800x517px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 800x517px

>>31966984
Thanks,
There are a lot of very competent people on /k/ and I am very interested about their opinions or suggestions on this matter.
Too bad the edgy kids from /pol/ swarmed it with their redpills about rapefugees...

Anyhow, what are your views on the question?

File: 1477960007471.jpg (767KB, 3912x2933px) Image search: [Google]

767KB, 3912x2933px

>>31967098
Besides in EU operations , The EU doesn't really have anything good to offer when it comes to world wide projection force without the US

>>31966966

I sincerely doubt that the UK has been the biggest obstacle to EUBG deployment, considering the UK has been consistently willing to deploy forces intervening in other countries. The only way that might be the slightest bit true is that if UK or France wants to intervene, it is politically simpler to use their own, (probably more capable) quick reaction force, than it is to ask the EU, and the countries involved in the EUBG.

I would like to see, even with Brexit, the CJEF to continue to develop, it is the most promising defence arrangement in Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Expeditionary_Force

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-france-launch-rapid-deployment-exercise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhYkUGmcYM

As has already been established, the C-5 and C-17 are no longer being produced. The A400M does not have comparable range or payload. The closest the EU could achieve in the short/medium term is by leasing a load of cargo 747s.

File: 14441549730251.png (3MB, 1024x1398px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1024x1398px

Austria reporting in.

Fuck all of you NATOcucks, we're joining an alliance with Russia.

File: eu bg.jpg (425KB, 1600x1155px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1600x1155px

>>31967226
I think the CJEF and franco-british relationship will help having the Plums on board. This and NATO.

The brits have always been clear, to them the primary tool for any kind of european cooperation should be NATO. Not only is it of limited political use, but the Americans are vastly funding and controling it. So the anglos have the upper hand.
They have consistently vetoed and blocked any common european defence initiative. In their strategy, europe should remain an apolitical trade agreement, so any step toward things that would lead to further integration or political involvment is blocked.
It has not always been like that, they used to be a strong proponent of European defense, but it has been the reality for the past 10 years more or less.

here is an example of why the EUBG have never been deployed:
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=53975

As I said, Eu could use some heavy cargo lift but don't exactly need it short term. It can rely on the anglos for that for any external operation they would get into.
A400M are important to have because they can help move small equipments and men fast across Europe and the mediterranea. The bulk and heavy equipment can be moved by train within continental europe or boat.
Which, in my opinion, is far more relevant to what Europe would need than air lifting MBTs. But I could be wrong.

>>31967504
kys

get their military budget to what is recommended by NATO. Resuscitating the eternal German might be a good idea.

>>31954143
Their only good option is to turn each country into a state and make it the United states of europe with a federal government in charge of the military.

>>31964323
This, we have all the broom and mop handles we need. Firing live or simulated ammo is not necessary for training and only increases the chance of soldier injuries or other issues.