MickCombined ISTAR capability with added bonus of missiles. Based partly on a UAS platform (Herti) that has already been tested in an operational environment (ie. Afghanistan). It probably won’t be too expensive either as BAE Systems are already pushing Herti for civilian use (UK police forces have been looking at it) who will have to be offered low cost systems. Might appeal to some countries on a budget that are looking at something a bit more than just the normal surveillance UAS.
MickIs it? Now you point it out, I see what you mean. That’ll teach me to skim read.
MickEdited: 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.
MickSorry to come back on this again, but I was reading the Anglo-Franco Joint Summit Declaration from March 2008 made after Sarkozy visited Brown at Downing Street. It says:
Together, we will:
– Cooperate to develop European military capabilities, available to both the EU and NATO, in particular in the fields of :
Carrier Group operations: by facilitating the generation of a combined 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.
Therefore, it seems it is not just Sarkozy’s baby and also confirms that they propose a proper full-on naval carrier group.
MickSeriously though, I do wonder about some of these EU politicians. This week we see Ireland reject the Lisbon Treaty and still they are saying that’ll it go through (oh don’t worry we’ll water it down… again). The biggest concern has to be the words of Angela Merkel and Franz Josef Jung recently stating that they envisaged there being a European army within 50 years. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the roles that are currently being created for the EU, but these ideas of a single common defence budget and European armies are just mad.
Mick
MickMick
Entirely true within NATO as a framework. So why does Sarkozy want us to be committed to operate in an EU-only context when the only difference would be the elimination of US assets and input. Input that could be remarkably important?.
Sorry to sound cynical but I cant imagine that this would be being raised by Sarkozy if the French were currently cutting steel for PA2.
Probably so that EU forces can be properly supported while on peacekeeping or stabilisation duties in some obscure war-torn African state. Such operations may not involve the US anyway (think Ivory Coast or somewhere like that). Even the Lebanon UN peacekeeping operation is more European orientated and if memory serves me right, the UN went direct to the EU to ask for troop contributions after the 2006 war. If you have EU-badged troops (like currently in Chad and Bosnia), particularly where there might be a larger force involved or there is direct support to a UN force, it also needs pooled EU air assets (including transport) as well as maritime forces.
Sarkozy has largely raised it though because one of his “big ideas” while France holds the EU presidency from July will be EU defence issues (although that is now likely to be the Irish rejection of the Lisbon “Treaty”). It follows on from the battlegroups, a joint European air transport command in the Netherlands, a joint Franco-German tactical helicopter, a suggested permanent military planning headquarters (the EU currently only has smallish ones, including the use of PJHQ Northwood, or the use of NATO planning assets). At this stage I don’t think that the formation of a European carrier group will be that significant in the grand scheme of things but I think that there are some within the EU (including Sarkozy) that eye American military dominance with jealously. The EU is an economic power, so it should also be a military power and it needs the forces to take on these responsibilities. He hopes for a European armed forces with France at the helm.
Even if steel was being cut for PA2 though, I think Sarkozy would still want British input (not necessarily a carrier though). Given that we have the most powerful military and are currently the biggest defence spender in the EU at the moment, leaving us out of any naval carrier group wouldn’t make it particularly credible. Also, we (with the French and later the Germans) actually came up with the battlegroup idea (we have a battlegroup on standby later this year), so it would progress on from that. A European carrier group is probably a better idea than some of the stupid ideas that have been put around — as long as it is not permament formation and we can say no if our carriers or surface vessels are needed for more pressing tasks (like fighting wars to start with).
Agree that you can be cynical though. Whatever gets proposed, the French will want to lead it, irrelevant of whether they have the flagship. They always do.
MickApart from a few mumourings about creating European armies from Eurosceptic press and a few mad European politicians, this is not what it sounds and depends on what Sarkozy is planning.
Firstly, if it is for EU missions, well the idea of an EU maritime force is just a development of the EU [land] battlegroup concept and was originally proposed back in 2000 with the EU rapid reaction forces. If this is what Sarkozy is suggesting, it is unlikely to be some massive warfighting expeditionary carrier group like that one that has been suggested. The EU battlegroups are forward rapid reaction land forces that would, in theory, deploy on peacekeeping missions, disaster relief etc, not to fight wars. When the battlegroups were drawn up, nothing was really arranged for air and naval support. On that basis, you’d get a small flotilla of “EU” naval vessels with emphasis placed on vessels that can deploy and support troops and equipment in theatre and that can command operations from sea rather than SSBNs, SSNs, amphibious forces, etc and these territorial “Fleet Command” things. Besides, France would never get the British onboard for such a warfighting type of carrier group suggested.
Secondly, France is a member of NATO and is only out of its planning structures which Sarkozy has suggested that they will rejoin probably next year. Part of France’s preconditions for involvement in the planning structures may mean that it will want more emphasis placed on the use of European (not EU flag bearing) forces. Therefore, the creation of a European carrier group would be another addition to what has already been developed, like the NATO Response Force and along the lines of some of the European-led maritime groups that already exist for NATO. In fact, the highest level of European forces available to NATO can already be commanded from any French, Spanish, Italian or British carrier or LPD — so having such a vessel as a flagship would not be something new. And having air power (including fighters) would be necessary, because you never know when they might be needed. The French, Italians, Portuguese and Spanish already have something in place since the 1995 for EU and NATO operations but it is not a standing naval force and needs beefing up. Everything in the naval sphere in regards to European military forces is currently too fragmented.
MickMain external difference: Canopy?
MickAs a newish newbie, I can assure you that this forum is pretty polite compared to other non-aviation forums and where it was maybe six-eight years ago. I originally joined under a different name, got abuse hurled at me and never came on again until now. I can’t remember the topic for the life of me, but I can assure you it’s not that bad and everyone is really helpful if you have a question.
MickDo you mean “they” are the USAF, given that such information doesn’t seem to be in the public domain. Anyway, cheers for clearing that up — I guess The Times article had an element of truth, irrelevant of the awarding of these support contracts.
MickI’m confused here. Has Project Helix been cancelled now? I thought a decision was not due to be made until next year. Do you mean ISD for the RC-135 for the RAF? When was that announced?
MickCertainly, the Point Class arrangement is suitable for our needs. But yeah buying them outright would have been better. Sad thing is that the AirTanker A330-200s will be very similar setup, albeit with RAF aircrews operating the main ones. Wonder what AirTanker will use the “spare” on-call aircraft for? I hope it’s more interesting than transporting logs between Finland and Germany.
MickTrue, that you can lease commercial airlines or use sealift to get your troops there for a UN mission, but it’s not that simple when it comes to transporting large numbers of troops to say somewhere like the Democratic Republic of Congo. Flying in troops into neighbouring countries on borrowed commercial airlines or cargo aircraft (that might not necessarily be available when you want them or in sufficient numbers) and dropping off supplies at the only sea port available and then transporting everything inland is probably a logistical and time-consuming nightmare, especially if you need to get them there fast. A case in point would be the African Union mission in Sudan with limited airlift capabilities to draw on (and a predominately African force so the country was on the doorstep) that had to ask for strategic airlift help from American C-17s and support from NATO to deploy troops that could have gone in much more slowly overland.
In fact it is something that Sweden and Finland (as well as Canada and Australia) have already identified, hence why they are part of NATO’s SAC. Given their worldwide commitments and the likelihood that they will not be the lead contributing nation in any mission (compared to say France or Italy) that the Nordic Battle Group would be involved in, I would say they have less of a need for C-17s than say a country like Pakistan (and certainly France). In Australia and Canada’s case, they may be involved in Afghanistan and so forth, but don’t really have the same level of overseas commitments and buying C-17s just so that they can be used for delivering humanitarian supplies or rapidly deploying a few hundred civilian or military Canadian DART-type personnel in disaster zones seems a pretty expensive reason to own them. I’m not saying that Pakistan is looking at the C-17 though, but certainly it is the kind of country that could do with that type of aircraft.
And Swerve is right about what we use. In fact, we do continue to lease civilian airlines as well as commercial cargo planes to transport troops and equipment into Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to the RAF’s exisiting fleet and the availability of the leased Ro-Ro vessels. Besides, the decision to lease the original four C-17s and the Ro-Ro vessels were taken long before those two wars had started at a time we were more likely to be involved a Kosovo or Bosnia-type NATO operation that would more akin to peacekeeping than fighting a war.
MickI was trying to identify possible customers and as for affording it, well I’m sure US financial aid would take care of that (if they wanted them that is).
Take the UK’s case. We have an estimated 14,000 personnel deployed worldwide, including over 11,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we may have a bigger defence budget than Pakistan, but we own 5 C-17s (and another one on its way and maybe more to follow), 43 Hercules, a fleet of knackered VC-10s and Tristars (that are hardly available) and many say that’s not enough. Then you look at Pakistan with currently a total of 9,800 troops deployed on UN missions in 13 countries and they have, what, a fleet of a dozen C-130s to get them there. That’s why I also identified France as a possible customer in a previous thread in this post — another country with major worldwide commitments that has insufficient strategic airlift to sustain those kind of deployments.
Sign In
