PESCO EU Defense Pact

[Hooahguy]

@Furunculus:

That was a very thorough analysis of the theory behind the UK strategy for defense and security. But as you said, you wrote that in 2010. The current situation now is so much different than it was in 2010. For example, Russia wasn't seen anywhere near as much a threat. I mean back in 2015 you guys had to ask for American help in hunting a Russian sub in UK waters since you guys scrapped all your anti-submarine warfare planes and wont have any until 2019. I dunno, it feels like while things might be looking much better in 3-5 years, a lot can happen by then and that we shouldnt be applauding what is going on right now in any way.

[Furunculus]

@Furunculus:

That was a very thorough analysis of the theory behind the UK strategy for defense and security. But as you said, you wrote that in 2010. The current situation now is so much different than it was in 2010. For example, Russia wasn't seen anywhere near as much a threat. I mean back in 2015 you guys had to ask for American help in hunting a Russian sub in UK waters since you guys scrapped all your anti-submarine warfare planes and wont have any until 2019. I dunno, it feels like while things might be looking much better in 3-5 years, a lot can happen by then and that we shouldnt be applauding what is going on right now in any way.

All true. But we chose to take a capability holiday in both carriers and maritime patrol, holidays that are now coming to and end at the same time the army is looking down the barrel of a further cut of 8,000 men.

We can still put a division in the field, anywhere in the world, as part of an all-arms package of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only one nation on earth can better that.

[Hooahguy]

All true. But we chose to take a capability holiday in both carriers and maritime patrol, holidays that are now coming to and end at the same time the army is looking down the barrel of a further cut of 8,000 men.

We can still put a division in the field, anywhere in the world, as part of an all-arms package of 40,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only one nation on earth can better that.

Sure, but as that article I posted earlier mentioned, if the UK only has one division capable of sustained combat, I think it stands to reason that UK commanders (and politicians) would be reluctant to send this division into heavy combat, lest it be wiped out.

As for the capability holiday, Im not really sure I would consider 2+ years to go "coming to an end."

[Furunculus]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

[Fragony]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

We are way under that here, 2.0 is the deal no, good. The cloaked money that goes to African dictators is more important I guess, for whatever reason. Certainly not Royal Dutch Shell of course

[Hooahguy]

All things are relative my friend.

Across europe all suffer the same; maintaining high-end fighting forces is ferociously expensive.
We are at the barest minimum with an economy of 2.5 trillion dollars and spending 2.0% of GDP.

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

[Beskar]

Defence Budget cuts threaten getting those shiny toys in the UK.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42382002

[Furunculus]

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

[spmetla]

Exactly. I dont expect any European country, even the UK, to have a force the size or capability of the US is totally unrealistic. My issue is mainly that to me it feels that the UK likes to bite off more than it can chew, like it did in Helmand.

If it was up to me, I would specialize the various European states to provide various roles for what is essentially one big European army under the auspices of NATO. Every nation would maintain their own territorial defense forces, but a country like the UK would focus everything on the navy, or the Dutch would focus on the air force, the Germans and Poles on tanks and so forth. The issue I am seeing is that you have all these relatively small European states who try to have a bit of everything. Like the Czechs have 30 main battle tanks. Lets be honest, in a full blown war, those 30 tanks are essentially a speed bump for enemy forces. So instead of those 30 tanks, why not use that money for more infantry or something like that?

Now I know that the idea of one big centralized European army is a complete pipe dream, but its fun to imagine anyways.

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

Under the auspices of natol is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

[spmetla]

https://warisboring.com/every-german...out-of-action/
Every German Submarine Is Out of Action
Germany's undersea fleet couldn't sink a sailboat

...on paper, the Deutsche Marine has six Type 212A submarines equipped with advanced air-independent propulsion, allowing ultraquiet operations submerged for more than two weeks at a time.

In reality, the Deutsche Marine does not currently have a single submarine in operational condition.
U-31, the first submarine of the class, had been out of service since 2014. Although repairs should be completed in December 2017, it will take months of trials before she is ready for deployment.

U-32 had suffered damage to her batteries while on route to Norway in July 2017. So far, no berth is free to even begin repairs. Ahead in line for the next available spot in January 2018 is U-34, also in need of maintenance, with no estimated time of completion available.

U-33, meanwhile, is undergoing maintenance through February 2018. Then she will require three to four more months of trials. U-36, the sister ship of U-35, was commissioned on Oct. 10, 2017, but will not become operational until May 2018.

The culprit for the lengthy delays? Since the end of the Cold War, the Deutsche Marine ceased maintaining a comprehensive supply of spare parts as a cost-cutting measure, instead procuring parts on demand or looting them from non-operational boats. This has resulted in enormous delays and accumulated backlog.

Will this PESCO agreement spur Germany to actually invest in the military it currently has at all?

[Hooahguy]

Under the auspices of nato is the heart of the problem for the EU.

They have a delicious absurdity in wanting an independent foreign policy where they have the sovereign and inviolable option to choose to do nothing.

It is the 'will' part that is the killer.

And as Libya in 2011 showed, sometimes a European country (like Germany) will elect to do nothing even when the cause is deemed just and the operation is given the green light by the UNSC. Germany is one of the classic cases of "decent capability, lack of will."

For the ground units each nation (or at least language group) would need to maintain at least a nexus of the full complement of ground warfare. Can't expect coordination on the ground if german tanks are expected to work with french infantry, Italian artillery or dutch aviation. The record of Austro-hungary in WWI with the problems too many languages in one army created a testiment to the difficulty and thats with much slower and simpler battle plans than present day.
Each nation having at least a nucleus of capability in all the major branches means at least there is a supply of trainers if each branch needs to be expanded.
Also, the politics of who's boys blood is shed would require that all nations have a share of the ground combat arms so that the burdens seem more fair. The Czechs, and Poles would probably not be too happy if Paris/Berlin/Brussels decide where their countrymen die without French or German Soldiers sharing the same risk.

The will part is certainly the killer. Who wants the the leader of country X deciding if Soldiers from country Y need to be sent to defend country Z's interest.

These are definitely very true points as to why my idea likely wouldnt work, and why I said it was a pipe dream at best. Ideally, since the command language of NATO is English anyways, everyone should just speak English, but thats just me being a haughty and self-centered American.