Well, smaller or mid-sized powers will have little choice but to work along these lines. But most aren't allowing security threats, real or likely, to dictate that. They're simply privileging butter over guns. Only Britain is building the carriers of that size, and even then only against constant budget threats. And no one in Europe really has the kind of logistical structure you speak of right now, as the bombing campaign in Libya showed.
As for security threats: Our main concerns right now are terror groups, and the occasional small rogue state. But that may not always be the case, and it's unwise to assume that today's security environment is graven in stone for the foreseeable future. China and Russia may not enemy states now, but their interests are different from that of Europe, and they have potent and growing militaries that could be a real threat so far in the future - and it is hardly inconceivable that leaderships in Moscow and Beijing might be more hostile five years from now.
That doesn't mean that Europe should arm to the teeth again, but...well, just to take the Persian Gulf and Middle East: Does any European power have the capability now to keep the sea lanes for oil supplies open by force against not just Iran, but perhaps other Arab states suddenly turned hostile (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.)? If not, what will they do? Submit to blackmail?
I agree that more automation is the where things are headed, in some way.
Nope. It's got a much longer loiter time than would be possible by bringing an aircraft all that way with tankers, and it's got shorter transit times to it's station, along with the obvious benefits of having the strike group close by as well.
As for the Sentry, a single E-2D is supposed to be on par with an E-3 Sentry, or the E-767, it's newer, has a smaller crew, and it'll also be significantly cheaper to acquire and operate.
But even Britain and France are cutting back on defense. And they're not doing it because it's suddenly a more secure security environment.
Athelstane: Does any European power have the capability now to keep the sea lanes for oil supplies open by force against not just Iran, but perhaps other Arab states suddenly turned hostile (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.)? If not, what will they do? Submit to blackmail?
The question of China and Russia is also not completely true
China and Russia are not selfdestructive and neither is the USA
The only real threat is comming from those with less resources, but willing to take a part of the cake of the modern world, if necessary by force. These are not states, but mainly frustrated people, with less wellfare than the West, but willing to grab their share of the wealth. So these threats are basically comming from the less developped world, as is all too clear today in the conflicts in especially Africa. In the future, this development will continue and with the explosive growth of the population in the poor and underdevelopped parts of the world, the threat will become the primary conern of security issues, rather than the threath of the traditional (national) states. For this sort of threat, a flexible policing sort of defence is needed and not a political tool to intimidate national states, simply because the threat is comming from frustrated people and not institutes.
If someone has made noise about the Chinese and Russians threatening European interest, they are simply silly. Russia is a mess, and China is dependent on overseas trade which it would stand no chance of defending against RN or French subs - even if it could reach far enough to bother anyone, which it can't.
Appearently the statement was not clear. I had been mentioning not just the terrotrist groups, but the underlying problem of the differences between the developped world, with those people having most of the wealth of the world opposed to those living in less developped parts of the world, with nearly none of the wealth in the world. This difference is the driving force for the conflicts of today
and not the states, as states are irrelevant in this sorts of conflicts.
Perhaps the only concern Russia might cause is in terms of Energy supplies to Europe, though even that is self destructive to them as well given the money that brings into their economy. Either way yeah the suggestion that Europe needs to worry about the Reds is overkill in my view.
Actually there's one great move for Russia: heat up things in the Gulf. This was oil prices rise and the Russians make more because they are still selling to Europe. And they probably get to sell weapons to the Gulf.
How many gulf states are still Russian buyers though? Iran is the only one that jumps to mind, the rest I would have thought are NATO buyers, maybe Iraq if they still have legacy equipment.
In terms of destabilization, isn't Iraq the one that matters?
Egypt will only buy NATO as long as it gets paid to be nice to the Israelis by the US, which might not be much longer at all. And Iraq is at least a quasi-satellite of Iran.
As for New Model Syria and Libya, I'd say its more than a little optimistic to assume they'l be Nato friendly...
WHICH conflicts?
You're confusing motives and entities; eg North Korea threatened the US and Japan because it is short of resources, but it *is* a state.
but when you all ready have 11 E3 (7x-D with the RAF and 4x-F with the french) and either the AEW SK or it's kit moved across to existing ASW Merlins ...
while it's nice to get new pragmatism often intervenes ...