Do you want Germany to raise military expenses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

It has changed so much that it isn't THE Ukraine any more.

---

Heck, Ukraine is not even what it was 20 years ago...

As to things military, if all you do is have contingents of national armies stapled together you will, at best, perpetuate the limitations of NATO deployments etc. For it to really work for force projection, there would need to be an EU army serving under the direction of the EU executive branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As to things military, if all you do is have contingents of national armies stapled together you will, at best, perpetuate the limitations of NATO deployments etc. For it to really work for force projection, there would need to be an EU army serving under the direction of the EU executive branch.

---

These problems were what the Austro-Hungarians had to deal with in WWI. They had a pretty much three different armies composed of ethnic contingents. For their command structure relied on German and Hungarian language but also had to have ways to accomodate Croatians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bosnians, and so on.

To establish an EU Army that's truly centralized would require a preferred language. English would be good but if the UK isn't part of the EU that'd be an odd choice. Perhaps French and German on equal footing would do but that would create the impression of it being a French or German army instead of an EU one.

Would also require each nation having to put aside it's military industrial complex when it comes to weapons selection. What would be the standardized fighter, the Eurofighter or the Rafale? What would standard issue rifle etc...

These differences of course would determine the unity of the EU, would it be a centralized true multi-ethnic nation or some sort of modern Holy Roman Empire with all the problems that had. It would be ironic for the Scots or Catalans to declare independence and then give it up as well to the EU.

An EU-army is a really bad idea for other reasons, it will be used against us

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Heck, Ukraine is not even what it was 20 years ago...

---

It isn't what it was even 5 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

While it might be a goal for a unified EU bloc to project power, it is not a mainstream goal to project power against the United States. You don't need many aircraft carriers unless you are interested in challenging the USA.

The Continent, North Africa, West Asia, and <Anglo-French> former colonies ought to be managed without extensive naval buildup. Especially if you count out British interests - you can see to yourselves on that end, right?

---

Quite wrong in fact. Projecting power is an exercise in the rapidity and sustainment of logistical effect, which requires infrastructure in-theatre.

Desiring to project power in parts of the world that have poor infrastructure is greatly aided by military capability that allows you to take your infrastructure with you.

Like aircraft carriers and amphibious ships, engineering regiments, and expeditionary air-wing support.

Europes problem is a surplus of frigates and tank battalions, not their dearth. They've blown the budget on defensive assets for use in the home theatre, at the expense of enabling assets that allow you to start a war (and win it!), far from your own territory.

But quite aside from a military capability that is (even collectively) ill configured for power projection, you have the equal problem of a public that won't pay for it, and won't tolerate its employment.

Apart from France. Which is fine if you're going to create a european military capability to serve French foriegn policy...?

Not very EUropean tho.

As a starter for one:
http://csbaonline.org/uploads/docume...NE_FINAL_b.pdf

I don't believe it is. Aircraft carriers are of limited use in the Home Seas, while the Continent is the most cost-effective aircraft carrier.

Quote:

---

Europes problem is a surplus of frigates and tank battalions, not their dearth. They've blown the budget on defensive assets for use in the home theatre, at the expense of enabling assets that allow you to start a war (and win it!), far from your own territory.

---

Why would Europe need to project far from its home territory? The old African colonies? Those interventions are rarely against ruling governments; in fact they are typically at the request of, or at least with the tacit cooperation of, the ruling governments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

These problems were what the Austro-Hungarians had to deal with in WWI. They had a pretty much three different armies composed of ethnic contingents. For their command structure relied on German and Hungarian language but also had to have ways to accomodate Croatians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bosnians, and so on.

To establish an EU Army that's truly centralized would require a preferred language. English would be good but if the UK isn't part of the EU that'd be an odd choice. Perhaps French and German on equal footing would do but that would create the impression of it being a French or German army instead of an EU one.

Would also require each nation having to put aside it's military industrial complex when it comes to weapons selection. What would be the standardized fighter, the Eurofighter or the Rafale? What would standard issue rifle etc...

These differences of course would determine the unity of the EU, would it be a centralized true multi-ethnic nation or some sort of modern Holy Roman Empire with all the problems that had. It would be ironic for the Scots or Catalans to declare independence and then give it up as well to the EU.

---

A common command language would be required. English, despite the local issue, would still be the best choice as the most likely power that would support/work with you is the USA. Aside from a strong minority of us who speak SA-style Spanish, we are NOTORIOUSLY bad at learning other languages. You'd get the best cooperation results from English.

Though you should adopt the German approach to command staff rather than the French. Less cumbersome and focuses a bit more on the tactical.

And with the English out of it, none of you would have to put up with English rations....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I don't believe it is. Aircraft carriers are of limited use in the Home Seas, while the Continent is the most cost-effective aircraft carrier.



Why would Europe need to project far from its home territory? The old African colonies? Those interventions are rarely against ruling governments; in fact they are typically at the request of, or at least with the tacit cooperation of, the ruling governments.

---

The EU would need to be able to force the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz. That's significantly easier if you can position a Carrier of the Egyptian or Gulf coasts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The EU would need to be able to force the Suez Canal or the Strait of Hormuz. That's significantly easier if you can position a Carrier of the Egyptian or Gulf coasts.

---

Between Italy and France, the EU would have 3 aircraft carriers presently. UK carriers could match that in the near future (with a new commission or with an EU decommission).

Why isn't that an adequate level for Mediterranean operations (in combination with other craft), especially given that a Suez operation would be of great interest to the UK and US independently of the EU, and these would likely support EU operations insofar as they weren't in direct opposition to US or UK interests.

better off making sure existing carrier groups are effective and not just craft on paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Between Italy and France, the EU would have 3 aircraft carriers presently. UK carriers could match that in the near future (with a new commission or with an EU decommission).

Why isn't that an adequate level for Mediterranean operations (in combination with other craft), especially given that a Suez operation would be of great interest to the UK and US independently of the EU, and these would likely support EU operations insofar as they weren't in direct opposition to US or UK interests.

better off making sure existing carrier groups are effective and not just craft on paper.

---

There is no comparison in effect between two QE class vs oneFr cva, one It cva, and one glorified amphib.

Effect being - sorties per day multiplied by sustainment for x number of days.

And why would the eu limit itself to ops in the med, we certainly don't and nor too does france.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

And why would the eu limit itself to ops in the med, we certainly don't and nor too does france.

---

I've noted Britain and France. The answer to the question of why Britain and France have 'business' outside the Med will go far in answering why the EU wouldn't have much business outside the Med.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I've noted Britain and France. The answer to the question of why Britain and France have 'business' outside the Med will go far in answering why the EU wouldn't have much business outside the Med.

---

Are the French leaving the EU as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Are the French leaving the EU as well?

---

Ex-colonies/overseas

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Ex-colonies/overseas

---

What I mean is, if France have to take action in their ex-colonies, will the rest of the EU back them up, or will they be left to deal with things alone? And if there is no solidarity when France needs it, how much trust can EU countries on the Russian borders have in their security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Between Italy and France, the EU would have 3 aircraft carriers presently. UK carriers could match that in the near future (with a new commission or with an EU decommission).

Why isn't that an adequate level for Mediterranean operations (in combination with other craft), especially given that a Suez operation would be of great interest to the UK and US independently of the EU, and these would likely support EU operations insofar as they weren't in direct opposition to US or UK interests.

better off making sure existing carrier groups are effective and not just craft on paper.

---

You forgot Spain.

The only real carrier in any EU Navy is Charles De Gaulle - the Spanish and Italian carriers can only carry around half a dozen fighters each - De Gaulle can carry 40. Against that you have one Queen Elizabeth carrier that will be able to carry up to 50, 70 at a stretch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

I've noted Britain and France. The answer to the question of why Britain and France have 'business' outside the Med will go far in answering why the EU wouldn't have much business outside the Med.

---

If the ongoing economic migrant/war refugee crisis is any sign then the EU has a vested interest in all of Africa and the Middle East as they always have. If tinpot dictator starts a war and the EU wants to intervene, carrier battle groups make the projection of force far easier. Especially if you want to avoid having to find a neighboring country to lend you an airstrip and port for logistics to attack their neighbor, even if it's just airstrikes.

Bear in mind it was France that started the intervention in Ghadaffi's suppression of the arab-spring, as well as in Cote d'Ivorie and Mali. If EU/UN peace keepers in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, Sinai, Chad come under attack domestic policy would usually frown on putting lives in the line of fire without the ability to support them.

Don't forget though that carriers and all the ASW helicopters that are usually aboard are vital for ASW warfare. The threat from Russia in the Artic and Atlantic will always be there.

I imagine that an EU army would end up filled with recruits largely like the french foreign legion, which right now is primarily filled with folks from Eastern Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

You forgot Spain.

The only real carrier in any EU Navy is Charles De Gaulle - the Spanish and Italian carriers can only carry around half a dozen fighters each - De Gaulle can carry 40. Against that you have one Queen Elizabeth carrier that will be able to carry up to 50, 70 at a stretch.

---

Spain no longer, it seems.

Perhaps the EU can purchase an extra Queen Elizabeth from the UK; otherwise, a couple of escort carriers could round things out. Perhaps Greece would like to maintain one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

If the ongoing economic migrant/war refugee crisis is any sign then the EU has a vested interest in all of Africa and the Middle East as they always have. If tinpot dictator starts a war and the EU wants to intervene, carrier battle groups make the projection of force far easier. Especially if you want to avoid having to find a neighboring country to lend you an airstrip and port for logistics to attack their neighbor, even if it's just airstrikes.

Bear in mind it was France that started the intervention in Ghadaffi's suppression of the arab-spring, as well as in Cote d'Ivorie and Mali. If EU/UN peace keepers in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, Sinai, Chad come under attack domestic policy would usually frown on putting lives in the line of fire without the ability to support them.

Don't forget though that carriers and all the ASW helicopters that are usually aboard are vital for ASW warfare. The threat from Russia in the Artic and Atlantic will always be there.

I imagine that an EU army would end up filled with recruits largely like the french foreign legion, which right now is primarily filled with folks from Eastern Europe.

---

These things call for a healthy navy overall more than numerous aircraft carriers. Sustained ground operations require land-based airfields anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Spain no longer, it seems.

Perhaps the EU can purchase an extra Queen Elizabeth from the UK; otherwise, a couple of escort carriers could round things out. Perhaps Greece would like to maintain one.

---

Oh contraire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanis..._Juan_Carlos_I

Juan Carlos can carry 25 Harries at full load, but more likely she's carry less than half that.

Spain, with its national debt exceeding 100% of their GDP is in no position to project power or wage any sort of sustained war.

I think that so long as China and Russia stay woefully behind in their naval capability, especially power projection in the form of actual, modern carrier groups (not the coal burning disgrace Kuznetsov) Europe as a whole is just fine. Let the USA play world police, they have the modern carriers and literal boatloads of pumped up marines ready to go bring feedum and muh democracy everywhere.

Brexit is bad for the EU as the Royal Navy will launch 2 more large aircraft carriers by 2019 and 2021 respectively. Still, the remianing EU countries have ample airforce capabilites and (and this is really important) they have national defence doctrines built around their home geography. So if comrade Stalin wants to invade, he will have to fight the Finns in frozen Finland and the Swiss in the Alps, while also trying to cross rivers, forests and whatnot elsewhere in Europe. It's simply not feasible.

IMO Europe has no real enemy that can threaten it on a continental scale. Push comes to shove and the nukes fly, so - no. Well, I guess technically the horse archers can come once again, but I think Sweden and Germany will love their different culture and welcome the with open.... arms.