-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
European Union about to announce joint defence spending
- Thread starter Funky Papa
- Start date
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Yeah, Obama was also an advocate of Europe spending more on defense.
itsbenoclock
Member
Absolutely a good thing, but being in the UK it would have been nice if our government hadn't been so empirical about the whole thing and gotten on board with the 21st century, we're only losing out on great deals like this
Rolodzeo
Member
If this means less money wasted in duplicate projects and savings all across EU armies, I'm happy with it, as we should be investing that money in much more important issues like medical research, tackling southern unemployment and fighting inequality, just to name a few examples.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
The UK is less bothered about saving money buying than it is making money selling, when it comes to defence.
The UK government is not selling, its private arms manufacturers are selling. The UK government does care about getting a good deal when it is buying.
Visualante2
Member
Fair point. However when you treat the EU as a single buyer, they are the largest with just over £10 billion spent. Saudi Arabia is just £9.5bn.
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
Those two entities are heavily intertwined. You can't make it black and white, like that.
KarneeKarnay
Member
Ironically the UK leaving the EU might actually cause something I've wanted for a while.
They may be intertwined when it comes to wanting to encourage arms exports, but they are at odds when it comes to defense spending. If the UK is not worried about saving money on its own spending, it wouldn't put its defense contracts through competitive bidding processes to try to save money.
Besides, this project would likely lead to larger individual arms contracts in the EU while also discouraging purchases from the UK, two negative outcomes for the UK even if we take your point at face value.
SolarPowered
Member
FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Reagan must be spinning in their graves.
It's a hesitant stumble in the right direction on the road to a more responsible EU. I'm all for it.
I just wish the UK hadn't been quite so effective in blocking stuff like this for decades. Given the scale and subject matter of this framework, any benefits will probably take a decade or two to materialise. What a massive amount of wasted time.
Oh well. Better late than never.
I just wish the UK hadn't been quite so effective in blocking stuff like this for decades. Given the scale and subject matter of this framework, any benefits will probably take a decade or two to materialise. What a massive amount of wasted time.
Oh well. Better late than never.
As an American it's crazy and a bit sad to see our global influence eroding right before our eyes.
Still, this is better for Europe and for the world in general. There should always be a great power to promote democracy and progressive values, and if the U.S. can't or won't step up then more power to Europe.
And given the state of my country the past few months, this seems like it's for the best anyway.
Still, this is better for Europe and for the world in general. There should always be a great power to promote democracy and progressive values, and if the U.S. can't or won't step up then more power to Europe.
And given the state of my country the past few months, this seems like it's for the best anyway.
TheSecondSpitter
Member
First order of business should be to liberate the illegally occupied region of the EU in Northern Cyprus.
None whatsoever.
Remainers will see it as a shame and Brexiteers will use it to add fuel to their fire of an 'EU Army' which was a big thing the Daily Mail kept endlessly banging on about during the referendum campaign.
But as LD has done a pathetic job of courting remainers to their camp so far, I see it having no influence at all, other than the rags using this tomorrow as further 'evidence' of the EU army.
Charles Brandon
Member
yeah you go and start a war with Turkey, sounds great.
Militaratus
Member
So is this the first step to replace all the different kinds of outdated military hardware with single top-of-the-range variant of each type of military vehicle classification? Seems like this should have happened ages ago.
The purpose of this wouldn't really be to declare random wars like that. Especially not ones which spark up old conflicts like that which while unresolved have largely been peaceful for years/decades now.
Abstrusity
Member
One of the largest problems with Europe's defense is competing standards. Outside of bullet calibers, of course, as you can plainly see, most countries have their own planes, most countries have their own tanks, most countries use different guns chambered in a NATO caliber. Simply put, if you want efficiency, you need a single standard for all of them, then costs will fall dramatically.
But then you'll have a continent wide military industrial complex.
But then you'll have a continent wide military industrial complex.
Gen.Grievous
Member
Europe is to culturally diverse to have a truly unified defence force with the same vehicles.
I feel it will just be another excuse to reduce defence spending as a whole and hope daddy US bails us out again when shit hits the fan (or when certain EU countries feel the need to invade a sovereign African nation but don't have the proper means to do so).
I feel it will just be another excuse to reduce defence spending as a whole and hope daddy US bails us out again when shit hits the fan (or when certain EU countries feel the need to invade a sovereign African nation but don't have the proper means to do so).
Just to be clear the trump administration is AGAINST this move which is all you need to know on whether or not it was a backfire
gutter_trash
Banned
I hope that they spread out manufacturing to various members countries so that they countribute locally in job creation.
if done right
if done right
Interesting to see how EU will / would go about this and how much HW unification there would be.
For e.g. Finland has been looking for new AR to replace RK62 for some time now, but our military leadership hasn't been satisfied with caliber and reliability of any tested AR's and they have tested a lot. How easily EU could get our leadership accept e.g. 5.56 NATO rifle?
Edit: Patria wouldn't mind project like that, a lot quality HW to export like AMV's.
For e.g. Finland has been looking for new AR to replace RK62 for some time now, but our military leadership hasn't been satisfied with caliber and reliability of any tested AR's and they have tested a lot. How easily EU could get our leadership accept e.g. 5.56 NATO rifle?
Edit: Patria wouldn't mind project like that, a lot quality HW to export like AMV's.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Artic warfare is a whole different thing and Finland should probably sync with the rest of the Nordics there. This is not a one size fits all kind of solution, but something aiming at creating a smaller number of platforms where possible.
It's not unlike Germany building Leopard 2 tanks for its potential usage in Central and Eastern Europe while Spain gets a slightly different version with a more powerful air conditioning system and Italy going for the homegrown Ariete. That's two models and two versions. It would make sense for all those countries to pour their resources together in order to create one single model with two, maybe three versions instead.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
It's happening (kind of): Airbus eyeing new European fighter jet
Spain was apparently eyeing the F-35 before, but the new push towards military integration may extend the F-16 and F-18's life until the Airbus replacement arrives. Airbus is also talking with France so Dassault joins the project. Let's see what Macron has to say about this. Italy won't probably join the project as an adopter since they already ordered the F-35, but Airbus nabbing three of Europe's Big 4 could be a huge push towards unification.
I'm probably the only one in here who cares about this stuff, anyway.
Spain was apparently eyeing the F-35 before, but the new push towards military integration may extend the F-16 and F-18's life until the Airbus replacement arrives. Airbus is also talking with France so Dassault joins the project. Let's see what Macron has to say about this. Italy won't probably join the project as an adopter since they already ordered the F-35, but Airbus nabbing three of Europe's Big 4 could be a huge push towards unification.
I'm probably the only one in here who cares about this stuff, anyway.
Frankfurter
Member
I do care, too. It's quite interesting if this happens. This seems like it's very far away, though, as the handelsblatt article said that this would be to replace both the Tornado and the Eurofighter in Germany. Well, could also be that it first replaces the Tornado and then later on the Eurofighter I guess?
Edit: Just read that the part about Tornado and Eurofighter is also in the article you posted.
The EU is doing this to reduce defense spending.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Improve. And increase independence from America by developing its own hardware at a time when America is no longer a reliable partner. Budgets will have to increase since they are already pretty low and some armies are underfunded, so the idea is to make sure that said funding is well spent instead of wasted on countless similar systems. More on this: https://euobserver.com/economic/138193
And since Brexit is all the rage...
jakonovski
Member
Hell yeah, EU finally taking steps to realize it's a superpower. Thanks Trump (and Brexit)!
It's not just fighters but also naval assets like frigates and destroyers. The French and Italians are working together on a next-gen frigate, the FREMM that could work great as Europe's answer to the American Arleigh Burke class destroyer.
An issue that needs to be resolved however is under what authority are these assets and personnel placef under. The EU has a staff HQ of its own under the EEAS but it's nowhere near like a Joint Chiefs of Staff like in the US. Instead of trying to tie together various different national militaries the EU instead created its own distinct force. Member armed forces could act like the state national guards in the US.
An issue that needs to be resolved however is under what authority are these assets and personnel placef under. The EU has a staff HQ of its own under the EEAS but it's nowhere near like a Joint Chiefs of Staff like in the US. Instead of trying to tie together various different national militaries the EU instead created its own distinct force. Member armed forces could act like the state national guards in the US.
Octavianus
Banned
It's about fucking time too. Brexit and Trump are extremely unfortunate of course, but I've felt like the EU relies to much on outside help for the longest time now.
Onlinehero
Member
Sweden has the Leopard 2 as well, in '94 it met 90% of the requirements for arctic warfare set by the Swedish military (and we are a loooong nation). Sometimes, one size (with modifications) does indeed fit all!
This made me curious. I found this vid of the BAE Systems chairman giving his thoughts on Brexit (he wanted "stay"). Essentially, his fear for the conglomerate would be fewer contracts for the products of BAE Systems, though his concern for worsened trade conditions in general was greater. They are in the sort of business that would benefit from this type of cooperation between nations if they are on the "inside" and multiple nations go for their manufacturing models. Sweden, for example, has a bunch of weapons and vehicles manufactured on license from BAE (mainly from its purchase of Bofors and Hägglunds). Although he goes on to imply that an exit would be good as the UK would bolster its own defences with domestic products.
So the situation in Sweden might be unique and I'm not sure how big their presence is in the rest of Europe (*small, according to chairman). Potentially missing out on this sort of development in Europe could be a big deal though.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-01-22/in-is-the-right-solution-on-brexit-bae-systems-carr
UpDownLeftRight
Banned
To be fair with the way Brexit is going it looks like we might be more or less hanging around in most senses. You just won't have to put up with us sending arrogant dicks to fight you on policy any more. With any luck anyway.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I think what an "EU Military" should be pushing towards is two goals.
The first is 3-4 well equipped, well trained brigade sized formations that are a rapid response force stationed near prospective threats (e.g. stationed in Poland ready to deploy to the Baltic overnight). They would be first on the scene to respond to an attack or deal with "little green men". At least half of these would need to be armoured formations.
The second part would be a fairly large, modern Air Force. This would necessarily come later and be a harder sell, but basically you need an Air Force capable of, if not defeating the Russian Air Force on it's own, then at least seriously contending with it and require them to bring all of their forces to bare if they wish to challenge it. The objective would be for the combination of modest ground forces and very strong air forces to be able to blunt a hypothetical attack with the assistance of local forces in the Baltic/Finland/Romania/Whatever, while the EU member states mobilize their normal forces to respond.
If I was to indulge even more unlikely wishful thinking, then the long term thing to work towards (again - in fantasy land) would be that every EU member state maintains a reserve army of its own citizens, but contributes money towards a unified EU standing army. This standing army would not need to be particularly large, perhaps 225-300k soldiers (US Army = 430k active soldiers today), although it would be much larger than any one single current member state army and would be both better equipped and exist at a higher state of readiness. This would require if not a complete Federal union, then at least a unified foreign policy.
I'm going to die of old age before any of this happens, if it ever does.
The first is 3-4 well equipped, well trained brigade sized formations that are a rapid response force stationed near prospective threats (e.g. stationed in Poland ready to deploy to the Baltic overnight). They would be first on the scene to respond to an attack or deal with "little green men". At least half of these would need to be armoured formations.
The second part would be a fairly large, modern Air Force. This would necessarily come later and be a harder sell, but basically you need an Air Force capable of, if not defeating the Russian Air Force on it's own, then at least seriously contending with it and require them to bring all of their forces to bare if they wish to challenge it. The objective would be for the combination of modest ground forces and very strong air forces to be able to blunt a hypothetical attack with the assistance of local forces in the Baltic/Finland/Romania/Whatever, while the EU member states mobilize their normal forces to respond.
If I was to indulge even more unlikely wishful thinking, then the long term thing to work towards (again - in fantasy land) would be that every EU member state maintains a reserve army of its own citizens, but contributes money towards a unified EU standing army. This standing army would not need to be particularly large, perhaps 225-300k soldiers (US Army = 430k active soldiers today), although it would be much larger than any one single current member state army and would be both better equipped and exist at a higher state of readiness. This would require if not a complete Federal union, then at least a unified foreign policy.
I'm going to die of old age before any of this happens, if it ever does.
This is very smart and shows the foolhardyness of the US under Trump. On the one hand, the US and EU are still the West and unified. But on the other, this moves the EU towards an eventual EU only unified military. One that can sort of unify the different militaries, create operational brigades and squadrons that are free of US/NATO control if needed. Also bring Western Europe under direct Western Europe military umbrella control.
Everyone always mistakes one thing against the Russian threat. They don't see Russia is a single state with a unified chain of command.
The ultimate goal should be increased defense spendinf, each EU nation maintains their own standing army and military and paramilitary force, but also contributes to an EU only force for rapid response and power projection. Germany and France and Italy should take the lead here now that the UK is leaving. Leave the Britains out on the cold with a declining military etc. There is still NATO however.
Everyone always mistakes one thing against the Russian threat. They don't see Russia is a single state with a unified chain of command.
The ultimate goal should be increased defense spendinf, each EU nation maintains their own standing army and military and paramilitary force, but also contributes to an EU only force for rapid response and power projection. Germany and France and Italy should take the lead here now that the UK is leaving. Leave the Britains out on the cold with a declining military etc. There is still NATO however.
Napalm_Frank
Member
I think it is just as, if not even more so, important for EU to push being less dependent on Russian gas ect.
dragonelite
Member
Hope they kinda distribute the r&d of those weapons fairly in the EU. Ooh and hope that defense r&d can stream into the EU civilian products
TestOfTide
Banned
No, Trump just wanted to try to extort money from NATO allies by saying "pay up or else we won't defense you".
This completely undermine's Trump's attempt to threaten NATO allies, because now they will just respond with "What? We are stepping up our defenses. We just aren't paying YOU, fuckface."
For reference, Obama and Mattis are in favor of Europe increasing their own kind of defenses. It was just Trump who was hoping to being an extortionist piece of shit.
gutter_trash
Banned
the US ends up losing when EU countries stop buying American and start buying EU made arms and vehicles
superdeluxe
Member
It's a nice first step, but it will be interesting who is really going to be putting troops & armored vehicles into this. Germany is none too keen in defending their neighbors (comparatively), UK is out, so you have France.
Electric Eye
Banned
Its better than a backfire on Trump because he's just a moron who sooner or latter is out of office its a HUGE backfire on Russia who gambled on reshaping the world order for its advantage and has instead unified it this includes America and the UK because their current governments were propped up on fake populism that isn't going to materialize for the idiots that cast the votes for them and the pendulum will soon swing back the other way. Future administrations will have to comeback and work with the new world order that is taking place and this time they will be allowed in but at an arms length and no longer the drivers but passengers. The amount of power America and the UK has given up to Europe and China cannot be underestimated.
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
Right..... I've been thinking about how that was a real possibility and them not having a standing army was as much to maintain US dominance globally as anything.....