Ta-ta, Troll.

Excuse me?! YOU come here with your ultranationalistic crap and and “i know better” patronizing attitude, not even posting a single word about aviation and I’M the troll? That’s a bit rich don’t you think? Not to worry though, i’ve met enough british folks to know that you’re not a majority, with all due respect.

Where would Canada fit into all this?

What does Canada have to do with anything discussed here ?!

But, let’s just dream a little bit, and say all the Europeans (and increasing numbers of non Europeans within our borders) start to love each other. Then we would have probably only two design houses left in aviation. Dassault and Saab, maybe BAE. Cassidian (or is it now Airbus Defence something) would be as dead as a company can be. While I wouldn’t mind them going out of business, German and especially Bavarian politicians would cry bloody murder. You can expect similar consolidation processes for land and naval system suppliers. Do you really think the French will accept the European Army get’s it armored vehicles from KMW and BAE Hägglunds while state owned Nexter goes bust ?

What you would have to replace/or create: All European C4I systems, including software and large parts of the hardware (ground radars, comm equipment, space based assets …) Creating a joint staff-currently WEU has no own command structures. European elements of the NATO staff are supposed to fill that role. I guess you want to dissolve NATO, otherwise you have a problem. The highest ranking European NATO Officer is per definition American.
Then identify and replace all the hardware which threatens OpSec… And the list goes on. Who would be able to pay for all this ? Certainly not the latin countries and east Europeans. Not much left then, eh ?

You see, whatever the political side you’re in you have already decided that such a concept will never work. Like i said many times before though, the whole point of being independent is to be able to defend yourself, and to be able to defend yourself you have to be able to build the means to do so, hence the protection of the production facilities and technology know-how. The americans are doing exactly that, they are even forcing their own airforce and military in general to buy stuff they don’t want! (not to mention the wars and regional intrigue they maintain that brings their militaro-industrial complex TRILLIONS in revenue). In my “dream”, Cassidian/Airbus defence doesn’t need to go bankrupt, neither Nexter, why so, i don’t get it. I see Airbus/Cassidian are listed as making UAVs among other things, there’s a bright future for those no? Of course, just like over the past decades, there should and will be gradual consolidation of existing companies into larger entities spanning several countries across, but the whole point of cooperation and the “everybody wins” concept is to have each participating country’s defence industry not being sidelined, but to participate according to competence and expertise to the overall effort, be it aircraft, naval, missile defences or land systems. A clever system of offsets (like say SAAB offers nowadays) and local participation in production can indeed make everyone win. It’s not impossible. What it would be nice to hear from more informed and level headed members (not the few trolls we had here so far – 2 more added on my ignore list today) is how to make such a system work. It is NOT impossible.

One little thing about Germany and Typhoon though. Indeed it appears they will get only 140 Typhoons, but also that they will have some Tornados left by 2025 too, about 70 according to some www. info. So in my independent Europe scenario, it’s entirely feasible they will replace those Tornados with say 40-60 Typhoons, for a total of 180-200.

Reading the weaknesses of current EU militaries, yes in the short-medium-long term (according to priority) they will need to be fixed, and again it is not impossible. There is a budget of about 200 billion euros so far for the combined EU states, the streamlining, savings (like from NOT spending tens, even HUNDREDS of billion as part of the american wars across the globe) and a certain reduction of numbers plus everyone contributing say 2.5% of GDP, will surely free enough funds to be used for building the capacities we need. I’ve compiled some numbers regarding special mission, AEW and tanker fleets:

There are in total about 17 AEWs (plus 2 on order), including 3 in Aeronavale, NOT counting the “NATO” AEWs- another 17 E-3s – plus 36 IFR tankers (plus 4 on order) and 23 (plus 3 on order) special mission aircraft of various types (EW, recce, ELINT). Also there are 38 large, proper MPAs and 24 smaller MPAs.

For comparison, Russia can roughly field 13 AEWs, about 29 special mission, and 23 tankers, plus 10 large MPAs. China can field roughly 20 AEWs, about 24 special mission, just 3 MPAs and between 20 and 30 HD-6 tankers.

I didn’t even looked at US numbers i know they are much higher, but since we’re not going to invade them, how much do we need then? In fact, while there probably should be a certain up adjustment of numbers, concentrating on replacing older airframes and especially those that can be judged compromised first is certainly doable and feasible.

Regarding the C4I, space based, ground hardware, and so on, well let’s try to find a rough estimate, for the size of the UEAF and ground/ naval force intended (say overall as strong as China and Russia), how much would it cost to implement, how long it would roughly take? Oh and yes of course NATO would go, no question there.

Good to know Mupp, well the peoples with “heightened emotions” should stay out then, they are not forced by anyone to read or post here. Some of them didn’t even touch the subject of aviation, just plain trolling or going on about their “oh i know it better” and ultra-nationalistic crap. I don’t have more time now for a longer reply to some of the stuff posted above (aviation wise), maybe tonight.
Just as there are plenty of topics out there regarding all kinds of hypothetical airforce evolution or what-ifs, this is also is one of them. If it “strikes a chord” with some characters, that doesn’t mean because of their “sensitivity” it should be closed. Why? Shutting peoples with different opinions, is this what we do now? For the last time, anyone who doesn’t like this theme, just STAY AWAY!

It ignores communications (both platforms & the technologies), sensors, jamming, transport, tankers, munitions stocks, & everything else where Europe does not have adequate independent provision.

No i don’t ignore that, i simply do not have enough information and expertise in that area, i keep saying it over and over, the situation is the way its is now BECAUSE we’re dominated by the US, and the corrupt in charge eager to satisfy the US interests are not interested in our independence! If we are to become truly independent , yes we will need to build those, we will need Galileo GPS but like said before, we don’t need the damn things on US scale, we’re not going at their shores. But pretty much EVERYTHING needed to build those platforms, airframes , the know-how, the building facilities, is still here. Right now, it appears only UK, France Spain and Italy have a number of AEW, tankers and special purpose aircraft, but even so in the short them they will be adequate enough for defensive purposes. Things can’t happen over night, the premise that EUAF should have all those capabilities from day one in order to be a viable force is unrealistic. This UEAF will start from what we have now, and build from there!

Let’s have a constructive analysis, how many and what kinds of special purpose platforms we will need for an adequate capability? How much it would cost, how to best use available platforms and local technology to build these aircraft?

As for the attention to frontline aircraft, well afterall they do the actual defending, not replacing as quickly as possible the US types would be a grave weakness, we wouldn’t control the radar, the codes etc. and the AMRAAM and many other munitions. They will be useless from an independence standpoint.

The UK has a non-refundable $4 billion+ invested in the JCA project while reaping revenues of at least $30 billion over next two decades. Switching to Rafale will not only require the integration of catapults and be a blow to the Eurofighter’s standing in the export market, but also lead to a net loss of thousands of jobs.

That’s nonsense, in an independent Europe there will be hundreds more orders for Typhoons, replacing the F-35. Again, you analyze any drawback from the perspective of ONE country and ONE manufacturer. In UE, the advantages and disadvantages and supporting local industry and creating jobs should and must be balanced so that EVERYBODY wins, that should be at the core of the decision making process. The creation of Typhoon and Rafale went how it went (disagreements on it’s production, configuration and role i mean), but that’s history, it will be of course a nonsense and waste to ditch one or the other, you have the Typhoon that will equip the air forces of at least 4 nations, potentially well over 600 to 650 of them, and the Rafale who will equip FAF and cater for carrier based fighter needs, well over 300 and more like 350 of them in total being needed, plus of course the 400-450 Gripen or more for the smaller countries who would be best served by a cheaper platform. There can be increasing integration of contractors and subcontractors, for instance in the UK one can built assemblies for Rafale-M, in addition to Gripen and of course full production of Typhoon. I don’t see how that will hurt Typhoon on the export market, the export customer can choose between Typhoon or Rafale for it’s needs just like today and if he needs a carrier fighter, then there is Rafale. How many carrier based Typhoon (or Rafale) are you expecting to be sold anyway? Not many by the looks of it.

The British people don’t want to see their country playing a perpetual second fiddle to the US, but that doesn’t imply that they wanted to be governed from Brussels either. They’re unlikely to ahead with the a withdrawal from the EU, but public opinion is certainly trending that way.

Again, i keep saying that, the US have no interests in a strong EU, it certainly has no interests in a United Europe, it IS the foreign power that has our politicians in our (i mean us europeans) pockets and are actively manipulating and deceiving the public for their own interests, and are FORCING us to take part in initiative that serves ONLY their pockets and interests, and result in human tragedy, death for MILLIONS and destruction and suffering that are wholly incompatible with european values (this is why we oppose their wars). It’s the same like in Warpac f.e. , except the yanks are smarter, they don’t use open violence, but keep the illusion of “freedom” and such, and use manipulation instead.

For the record, culturally the UK has more in common with the US (and other parts of the Anglosphere) than it does with countries in mainland Europe.

First, you probably mean the other way around, secondly, that simply is not true. The values and level of civilization will be familiar and known to anyone traveling from UK in at least western Europe, and vice-versa. How can you compare western Europe with a country with 200 million guns on the streets, all kind of crazy uneducated bible wavers, cops shooting hundreds of innocent peoples yearly, huge levels of violence and injustice, racism, xenophobia and so on? What the hell do we have in common with them ?!

Its naive to expect people in Europe belonging to nation-states with centuries-old histories, to sacrifice their sovereignty and national identity, and start identifying as ‘European’ instead. Its all well and good to say that they can be both, but if you want to create a counterpart (or counterweight) to the USA, that is what it’ll take.

How is better to sacrifice far more than that for a FOREIGN power 5000 miles away, instead of doing only a fraction of same (i never mentioned and will not even support the US model you present, it’s not about creating an european nation, it’s about an independent european ALLIANCE) for our own and our lands, helping our own selves, for our own future?

Anyway, i know some are very eager to shut this thread because it’s not on their “liking” (i’m even trolled in PM by some losers- pathetic), so aside the above discussion which could be pursued better elsewhere, i’ve compiled a few facts showing just how can be saved on procurement by several countries if we will be independent and ditch that F-35 thing (still cracks, still doesn’t work properly etc.).

Italy has plans to buy 75-90 F-35A/B. As i mentioned elsewhere i don’t see why they will need VTOLs as that role will be taken by full carrier airwings on the 4 big UE carriers or more, so replacing the order with 75-90 Typhoons in addition to those already in service will not only generate savings in aquisition and operation (there is no way Typhoon is more expensive to buy and operate than F-35, i’d say it will be less, maybe 3/4 overall, maybe even less), but also by operating a single type, with all the advantages of such.

Netherlands plans 37 F-35 to replace 74 F-16MLU. With the very same money, they can either get say 65-70 Gripen-NGs, or they can the same number (37) but with a whooping LESS THAN HALF aquisition and operating price!

Denmark plans 30 F-35, getting say 36 Gripens again costs HALF to buy and to operate.

Norway wants 52 F-35, again they can get either say 90-100 (!) Gripens for the same money, or 52 saving more than HALF the costs. etc. etc.

So, there are potential tens of billions in savings across the board. That money could for instance be directed to the special mission platforms that we lack, or just outright saved, while at the same time it creates and maintains tens of thousands of local jobs, and maintains local know-how, more than any of this F-35 “cooperation” will ever do, no way the $30 billion vehiculated is realistic, they’re never going to build 3000 of those. Not to mention of course the inestimable value of independence.

Accepting for the moment the premises that a unified European (let’s say EU) air force is a good idea & achievable, one can still poke great big holes in the proposed structure.

Let’s start with naval air.

CVF is being built, with the first one approaching completion. Converting to catapult launch starting straight away would cost a lot, delay service entry for years, & mean buying catapults from the USA. There is a European alternative to US catapults, but EMCAT needs more development before it could be fitted to a carrier. Waiting for that would leave CVF without fighters for years. There is no possibility of operating with Harriers as an interim measure, because we don’t have any, & Italy & Spain between them barely have enough for their own much smaller ships. The only medium-term option for CVF is to operate F-35B.

The Italians & Spanish can’t keep their Harriers operating for many more years, because of age. F-35B is the only logical replacement.

We should therefore buy F-35B.

Developing EMCAT & fitting it to future carriers (e.g. a second French carrier) is feasible, & I’d like to see it done, but it’s not a practical option for the near future.

If you really want an EU navy able to do anything a militarily unified EU might want to do, completing CVF as planned, building a second Cavour-class ship (could have a joint Spanish/Italian two ship carrier force), buying the planned UK F-35B force, plus the (reduced) planned Italian F-35A/B force as all F-35Bs, & using them to provide complete carrier air groups for those four ships, with reserves, would make more sense than throwing away what’s already been done & starting anew.

One could also add a second French carrier, & turn enough of the planned Rafale C orders into Rafale M orders to provide both CdG & the new ship with full air groups plus reserves.

That’d be six carriers, but not all CVF-size. Plenty for anything short of a naval war against the USA or fighting China off its own coast without local allies – neither of which are things worth planning for.

Thanks for your pertinent reply Swerve. I can think of several alternatives to your conundrum, for instance why can’t the Rafale-M be used on QE as STOBAR? If it will need more power to efficiently operate that way, then the 9 ton M-88 engine is already in existence. More power is always good anyway. I see no problem for Rafale-M to be fitted with those engine, yes it will cost some money, but put in balance even so it will end cheaper than an F-35B. And even if it will actually be slightly over F-35 (extremely unlikely, just saying) the advantages of full control over it (no CISMOA and other crap there) and again the benefit of billions invested in local jobs outweigh any disadvantages (like an increase in cost of the ship to fit it with arresting gear). One can hope the EMCAT would be ready for Prince of Wales if the interest and the investment is there, if not she can be used as a STOBAR too.

I was reading that the french were mulling a QE class hip of their own (let’s call it CVFF), starting building that ship before the end of this decade will give my UE Navy a powerful 4 ship carrier fleet by 2025 easily. Again, if the EMCAT is ready it can use that, if not just use it as STOBAR. I know CdG uses an american catapult, i’m just trying to work around that. If there would be possible to have a deal with no disadvantageous conditions, then of course, one can get those damn catapults for QE and the CVFF from them, if not, use them as STOBAR and then fit the EMCAT during the first major overhaul.

CdG can operate 24 Rafales plus several helos, while the 3 QEs can imo easily be able to operate 36 Rafales plus several helos (if they can operate 36 F-35B, surely they can do same with Rafales), they are big ships. I would also rather have Merlin AEWs on all 4, rather that continue to operate Hawkeyes (again, independence).

As for the italian and spanish VTOL carriers, once the Harriers reach the end of their lives that part of their role (air-defence primarily) would be taken by the increasing number of fleet carriers, after that i would use them as LHDs, fitted with helicopters only, and future developments like an european tilt-rotor or the new generation of high-speed helicopters etc. Hell combining them with the Mistrals and with the british LHD, covered by 4 fleet carriers (i still think we’d need at least another 2 more by 2030) will give the UE Navy a formidable amphibious and regional power projection capability as early as 2025. We don’t need to go to the US shores or the Pacific, but we might need to support our interests in Africa, Mediteranean and the ME.

And to be honest, I prefer the friendly people of Wichita Falls over any possible European location populated by the usual European peaceniks.

Then why aren’t you there already, and leave us the inferior “peaceniks” be?

Some of the countries, like the UK, quite like working with the US too, so not everyone is looking to throw off the yoke of oppression you describe.

First of all you speak for yourself, not for the UK people. Go and ask on the street how much they like working with, or rather, FOR a foreign power, ask them if they really want to go to war for them and bring misery and death to MILLIONS, to be spied by them, hell to be threatened to be thrown in one of THEIR jails, and their own politicians who they elected to serve THEM, they abandon THEM for the interests of this foreign country (isn’t that called treason?), even if they never set foot in thatr country and never broke any laws, ever! Like i said to the above poster, if one has such a big hard-on for the US, with all due respect, but the airport is that way. Leave the rest of us be.

I can never for the life of me understand this group of peoples who are are so loathful and arrogant toward their very own neighbours, with who we have so much in common and are exploding in anger whenever someone mentions about working together, striving for a better, independent Europe, a better life for all, yet they are so enthusiastic in support of a foreign, violent, hegemonic power 5000 miles away, whole only interest is to keep us under their boot, and who culturally is light years away different from us. Either they’re nuts, or i am.

Assumption being that most of Europe is on the same page as far as foreign policy is concerned, and differs greatly from the US on the matter. Hardly true. And for evidence you need look no further than the Libyan campaign where Germany (a NATO member and EU lynch-pin) stayed out while (non-NATO) Sweden and (non-EU) Norway were both active participants.

Except that the decision to attack Lybia was not taken by truly independent european states! Just like the UK refusal to participate in an attack against Syria was due to heavy PUBLIC pressure, so was the german decision. In fact in all these wars we have been dragged on, against all european principles, you find me ONE instance in which the majority of european citizens were supporting it. Simple, there is none. So how one say that the european countries are able to take independent decisions when decisions to go to war in support of US interests are taken INSPITE of the peoples will? Reason is again simple because like in any other similar situation (i.e. former Warpac) our governments are puppets in US service. No “conspiracy theory” or anything (like some try to imply) just the simple truth.

Europe doesn’t face any military threats anymore. Not since the Russians started buying French weapons and developing others with the Italians. If you could somehow get the Russia to join the European Union, you may solve all remaining defence challenges and achieve true European togetherness.

True independence mean being able to defend yourself and deter any potential aggression or threats, and also being able to support your interests if need be. Given the current numbers (about 2000 combat aircraft) in the EU a drop to under 1500 is perfectly sustainable and sufficient to deter ANY potential opponent. Of course, in the long run, European togetherness should be the objective, in fact Earth togetherness should be THE objective.

Superiority over the USN in the Atlantic? Relations set to be that bad, huh?

The interests of an independent Europe (dictated by it’s citizens through vote) would certainly not be in line with US corporate and hegemonic interests and in fact will be opposite many times. I expect the yanks to be thoroughly unhappy about that, hence the need for strategic parity.

Not counting the expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the last time Europe was invaded was in the 13th century (by the Mongols). I doubt Europeans need fear ‘falling’ to any outsider today.

Again, it’s putting in balance being mere puppets increasingly subjected to and oppressed by US interests (how can you call this then, we don’t want wars, we don’t want our lives spied, we don’t want being mere milk cows for corporations, yet all this it’s exactly what is happening!) versus being TRULLY independent nations. I suppose with this mentality, if say the yanks are going **** up tomorrow , those of you who are so aghasted by the idea of us europeans, north, south, east or west working together and collaborating together and striving to a better future together are also OK with say the chinese taking over as the “Big Brother” or maybe the russians? Really ?!

United Europe(an) Air Force… Europe can’t even decide on the more simple scenarios let alone a United Air Force.

Of course not. Divide and conquer remember? How can we decide anything together when our governments are NOT independent and are NOT working for their own citizens’ interests, but for a foreign powers’?

first, from the nation’s budgetary stand point, it could save a bundle, but at the same time, they would give up a piece of they’re souverinity.

So i guess it’s preferable to give a piece of sovereignity (if not all of it- as it stands now) to a foreign power 5000 miles away, than do so in the interests of a better, stronger EUROPE? Budget wise, it’s not only about savings but also about creating huge numbers of jobs and supporting the local high tech industry. Think of all the current and planned contracts of items from US, how many tens, even hundreds of billions they worth, money going OUT, money made by the hard work of the european taxpayer. Think how many JOBS sourcing those very same items here can support! Plus, an independent Europe will be free to pursue it’s own international relations, for instance we can export tens of billions worth of defence items to China and other countries that are “verboten” now under US ruling. In fact, in my opinion the flourishing of the european defence industry, and overall economy will be astonishing if we’ll ever manage to create an independent Europe.

Third, operational mentality, each nation has its own way of doing things, within a UEuDF they would have to rewrite the rules to operate within a common doctrine.

Then how are they doing it in this current “NATO” then? I refuse to believe that would be a problem, how, why? You would have a steadily decreasing number of types of assets operating in a streamlined system with little duplication like of the current each-country-on-it’s-own system, in many respects sharing common infrastructure and weapons (the AESA radars will have very common components, or should be made to, the missiles are in many respects commons to all 3 Eurocanards, you can have just 2 types of fast jet engine, EJ-200 on Typhoon and Gripen-NG (yes i’d change the F414 for an EJ-230), and M-88 in Rafale). In fact i do recall now, this very commonality in the former Warpac was praised at that time, every aircraft or tanks etc. could operate and be serviced in almost every constituent country.

also, i think it would be obvious that the UK will not want to participate within the unified defence force, as the nation within europe has always been a loner.
they are a part of europe, politicaly and geographicly, but they hardly join in any EU initiatives (exaple, traffic laws, the Euro, open borders,…..)
besides, they wont participate due to the historic/traditionalist vallue of the UK armed forces (RAF, Royal Navy, Army,….)
not to shoot down Great Britania, but this to me seems the most likely scenario.

Yes, i know the local ultra-nationalists are going nuts whenever someone mentions about EU or about a common defence force, let alone what i’m proposing. Again as above these “individuals” are very happy to just being puppets of a foreign power 5000 miles way and paying lip service to them, than working together and striving together with their fellow EUROPEAN neighbours for a better place for all. But then again, since regretably this otherwise absolutely wonderful country and people has been penetrated so deeply by US machinations, who do you think is steering the public opinions against EU, a united Europe and so on? Divide and conquer…