European fleet it's really plan ?

This will never happen, it would be political suicide for any UK PM

By the time that the first FREMM is in commision though Lafayette will have been in the water nearly twenty years. By the time the FREMM-10 and 11 are built and in commission only the last two Lafayettes are likely to have much life left in them.

I’m pretty sure that the MN will be pushing for the replacement of its ‘second-rate frigates’ with FREMM if its going to have so few escorts. Second-rate duties could be passed over on to whatever the French replace the 6 Floreals with….any news on that surfacing yet?.

Article in Mer et Marine today. Dunno what your French is like, but they’re talking about the more urgent need to replace the much older A69 sloops, & reckon something like a “Super Floreal” is on the cards, as Gowind & FM400 are probably too expensive. The Floreals can probably soldier on until 2020, when this review looks forward to. The oldest will then be the same age as the oldest A69 is now.

Last time we put a fleet under french command we lost the half of the ships. For sure it isn´t a good precedent….:cool:

Since 2 Horizons are building, and 5 Lafayettes in service, it’s pretty clear it would be 11 FREMMs.

By the time that the first FREMM is in commision though Lafayette will have been in the water nearly twenty years. By the time the FREMM-10 and 11 are built and in commission only the last two Lafayettes are likely to have much life left in them.

I’m pretty sure that the MN will be pushing for the replacement of its ‘second-rate frigates’ with FREMM if its going to have so few escorts. Second-rate duties could be passed over on to whatever the French replace the 6 Floreals with….any news on that surfacing yet?.

Since 2 Horizons are building, and 5 Lafayettes in service, it’s pretty clear it would be 11 FREMMs.

Says 12 FREMM here: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aed91be1f-0309-4cd7-a3f4-1558cfbc6c62

12 FREMM
2 Horizon
4 La Fayette?

Rumours, from a few French sources, go that the FREMM buy could be down from 17 to 11 units. Whether that includes the anticipated 2 FREDA hulls or not is uncertain from whats been said.

As has been reported the French SCALP-N buy has been shrunk from 250 units to just 100, with half of them expected to be allocated to the SSN fleet, I think its fairly safe to draw a few general conclusions from that fact about the specific hull type that is going to be cut the most heavily to get down to 11 – if that is the case!.

300 total fighter aircraft (under joint command!) including naval Rafale M and modernised Mirage 2000 – of which 40 are nuclear strike. Sounds like a fairly big cut in the Rafale program.

18 frigates – also sounds like a FREMM cut

Is it? Now you point it out, I see what you mean. That’ll teach me to skim read.

Looks like they want a pretty big carrier group too that would include 18 frigates and six SSNs as well as combat aircraft and helicopters.

You’re reading that sentence wrong. It means:
– “an aircraft-carrier group including combat, surveillance and rescue aircraft and helicopters”
– “18 frigates”
– “6 SSNs”
– “the capability to deploy one or two naval groups […]”
A considerable number of those frigates go to guarding FOST (FREMMs) and to more generalized patrol/surveillance roles (Lafayettes). The rest (say 8-10 ships) are split between the CBG and the “one or two naval groups”. Or in other words, the CBG will remain at 3-4 organic escorts.

Edited: Sorry identical post!

Cheers for that. Looked for it about an hour ago but couldn’t find it English.

After a quick look through it looks like some pretty big stuff in there. First time that there has been a French president that says that NATO and the EU are equally important, and that some aspects of the traditional De Gaullist policy is now irrelevant — although they still do not want any French forces placed permanently under NATO command in peacetime. Will Sarkosy deploy more troops in Afghanistan as promised? Looks like they want a pretty big carrier group too that would include 18 frigates and six SSNs as well as combat aircraft and helicopters. Domestically, a 300-strong joint Rafale and Mirage force for homeland defence and overseas operations under air force command.

This is what he plans – Livre Blanc – English version

interesting ive only skim read it but the thing which most interesting for me was a formation of Joint pool of Aircraft from both MN and AdA in the manner of JFH with the Air force in overall control

And now we see why Sarkozy want’s a European force … to cover the collective French backside after he does this to the French military..

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458650.stm

This is what he plans – Livre Blanc – English version

And now we see why Sarkozy want’s a European force … to cover the collective French backside after he does this to the French military..

DEFENCE PLANS
– 54,000 jobs to be cut from 320,000-strong workforce
– 50 military bases and facilities to be closed
– From 2009 to 2020, 377bn euros to be spent on defence

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7458650.stm

NATO action requires US approval. I don’t know about you, but needing US approval for everything we do grates with me.

Having freedom of action is a fundemental of soveriegnity, but also comes at a cost -which we (Europe) have been increasingly unwilling to play. With the focus on the Red Menance in the postwar years, Western European nations were happy to let someone else increasingly take the load of the NATO mission and couldn’t generally wait for the chance to quietly slim our contributions down over the years. So now we find we have developed a dependance on the US. Alas (maybe) we (UK) are not the power we were, but that is a situation we made damn sure of in the post war years.

Only EU can compete against country like China, India, Russia or USA: that what we want to show you with this project. So we don’t care and don’t want to discuss about political and/or command problem. A navy like this can exist only with a political union so questions like who control the SSBN or who’s in command have nosense: no one is strong enough to hold this hammer except bruxelles.

On what basis are we competing with these nations?

You can’t ignore the fundementals of command and political staus (especially if you going to maintain that Brussels would be strong enough to wield a hammer!). Political union is not going to be forming a new state from scratch, but combining some of the world’s oldest existing states into one blob and hoping all the old concerns and interests will still disappear just like that. This is not like forming a USA, but probably better compared to Yugoslavia.

And talking about CVBG’s and SSBN’s is a bit of an assumption. We have no idea what foriegn/defence policy a united europe will choose or develop. There is certainly no guarantee that it will involve nukes or expeditionary forces.

If the EU wants defence cooperation, then instead of touting ideas of “centrally” controlled fleets, it should concentrate on developing from the base up. In the naval case this would involve sharing designs and technologies, reinforcing national building capabilities (not promoting one or two European yards above the rest).

Ironically, the time for European defence collaboration was probably the 40’s and 50’s where a common threat was perceived (USSR) and the tools to fight it were similar to all nations. Also countries like the UK and France found common ground on some issues. Britain may also have been able to develop with the Commonwealth.

Having a structure in place which can be used without prior US consent (note: that is not the same as actively opposing the USA), & in which we’d have at least an equal say, would give more scope, especially if it was set up so that it could deploy with whoever was willing to participate, with no veto from the uninvolved. That might involve some operations being “official EU”, & some being ad-hoc subgroups without the EU imprimatur, but personally, I don’t care.

Sounds fine in principal, but in practice it could easily end up relying on the same few nations providing certain key assets e.g. France and the CdG. France not interested, then what?

Without being a combined political entity, any descision on whether to act or not act will be snarled down in diplomacy, because it will still be seen as a tool for someones national interest.

That is the nature of alliances though Swerve. There will always be an issue of asking someones consent to deploy. In the ‘EU force’ that will be the French or the Germans and if they are conflicted ethically, politically or, cough….cough, financially the ‘EU force’ will not sail!.

In the NATO force structure US forces, as well as everyone elses, are chopped to NATO command. That means that, officially, we do not need to ask US permission or ‘kow-tow’ to use those assets any more than the Dutch, for example, have to Kow-Tow to us to use our NATO-assigned assets. In practice some diplomacy would happen to make sure that the wheels were greased I’m certain, but, if the US chose to withdraw its NATO-commited forces becuase it did not like a particular European lead that would be a major issue.

Like I said before Sarkozy is trying to get the lid off a very big can of worms with ‘Priority’ written on the label. How soon, after the ‘EU Force’ is created do we get EU decrees stating that the European entity has priority over NATO tasking?. We should be putting extra resource into building the European strength inside NATO so that it becomes a more balanced partnership and that European NATO partners can act independently within the framework already long-established. Anyway you look at it this iniative from Sarkozy is wasteful, small-minded and divisive.

A statement which begs the question of why an EU Fleet needs to be pursued at all. A NATO force does not need to be US led or even contingent on US presence. A maritime force under NATO auspices could be easily built of European only combat assets but, be invaluably backed by NATO-allocated US logistics and technical support. Ignoring that kind of support for the sake of a good nose-thumbing to the Yanks is utterly barking mad…..

NATO action requires US approval. I don’t know about you, but needing US approval for everything we do grates with me. They don’t need, or ask for, our approval, & would find the idea extremely amusing. They have been known to butt in on Commonwealth countries without even letting us know until just before the press release.

We can, of course, act alone without asking permission from Washington, but our scope for truly independent action is limited, not least because we have forces committed to helping the USA in Iraq, which contributes to our general shortage of assets. Having a structure in place which can be used without prior US consent (note: that is not the same as actively opposing the USA), & in which we’d have at least an equal say, would give more scope, especially if it was set up so that it could deploy with whoever was willing to participate, with no veto from the uninvolved. That might involve some operations being “official EU”, & some being ad-hoc subgroups without the EU imprimatur, but personally, I don’t care. As for US logistics: that’s an argument for having more logistical support of our own, & leaning on our non-US allies to provide more (“You want an EU naval task force, then bloody well pay for the logistics to make it useful!”). There, of course, is a potential major problem. Will they pay? But in principle, if that practical obstacle can be overcome (though I must admit I’m deeply pessimistic), I’m all in favour.

“Nose-thumbing” doesn’t come into it: just not having to kow-tow.

The RN may be winners in the deal if the EU pays for the CVS deployments as part of this notional EU group.

It would be interesting to see how fast the French would react if Charles de Gaulle was back online and was requested for EU fleet duties not in exact alignment with French interests. I wonder if some ‘national requirement’ might suddenly appear on the scope to keep CdeG out of the frame?.

Besides, with the perfectly comprehensive NATO structures we already have in place, we can work alongside USN as well as MN forces. How is the RN the winner if the USN is suddenly excluded solely for political reasons?.

NATO is the cornerstone for European defence as it has been for decades. Now, if Europe wants to step up to the challenge of contributing more resources to NATO to balance the US presence and redistribute the load and authority through the organisation that can only be a good thing. That doesnt seem to be the real objective here though does it?!!!.

France is the only country in Europe with a carrier capable of meaningful air defence. The RN would be the winners in this deal.

maritime strike capability when required for national, EU-led or NATO operations. This capability could be expanded to other European countries able and willing to make a contribution.

A statement which begs the question of why an EU Fleet needs to be pursued at all. A NATO force does not need to be US led or even contingent on US presence. A maritime force under NATO auspices could be easily built of European only combat assets but, be invaluably backed by NATO-allocated US logistics and technical support. Ignoring that kind of support for the sake of a good nose-thumbing to the Yanks is utterly barking mad.

Creating a seperate naval entity, extra and over NATO structures, is just another funds drain duplicating entities that already exist. It also generates several potentially divisive issues…paramount of those being which entity has priority NATO or EU.

No, all told its a nasty can of French worms that we’ll do well to make sure doesnt get opened.