An Anglo-French Super Carrier (How close can euope get to a Nimitz class?)

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.


Good point to note the dependence on oversea trade, especially to and from the somewhat risky Middle East region. This os however only partly true, as nearly all EU memebr states are putting a lot of resources into alternative energyforms, other than fossil fuels. Therefore the dependence on the ME will fade away sooner or later and the main reason for putting a large politically inspired naval presence at sea will not longer be that great. (The USA also is developping in this way)

The question of China and Russia is also not completely true, as these large states currently are making a lot of politiucal noise, but due to international global comminication and infromation on world affecting issues, the direct millitary threat is reduced. Simply said: Everybody knows quite exactly what the other is doing, as hiding secrets in the modern ICT dominated world is quite difficult. China and Russia are not selfdestructive and neither is the USA, or the USA. All major players in the international world are realistic players and not longer blind for eachother, so a millitary conflict between the larger states is more or less to be ruled out. (All modern large states have more than enough means to destroy eachother, so a new form of deterrence is already present, just as in the prime period of the Cold War.)

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.
 
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 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 ...
 

amphibulous

Banned
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?

If the entire ME turns hostile and buys the right military hardware then, short of nuclear war, Europe and the USA are helpless if the ME *insists* on not selling oil under any conditions.

Try to remember the Gulf War - do you remember how many months logistical build up it took before the coalition could take on Saddam? Now imagine having nowhere to land those forces and supplies for months, and that Johnny Native has bought the Chinese over -the-horizon radar and ballistic anti-carrier missiles that make USN admirals visibly wet themselves at the thought of defending Taiwan with carriers.

However, the ME gets to starve - it isn't much of a food producer, and the Europeans can blockade trivially and blow up rail links into the area with cruise missiles.
 

amphibulous

Banned
The question of China and Russia is also not completely true

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.

China and Russia are not selfdestructive and neither is the USA

I'd differ on the last, given the last 10 years.

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.

No. Non-state actors of the type you describe will never have the resources needed to be a serious problem. (911 wasn't a serious national security problem - the insane response of invading Iraq was.) Resource blackmail on such a scale has been carried out - but it was by a state (North Korea.)
 
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.

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.
 
No. Non-state actors of the type you describe will never have the resources needed to be a serious problem. (911 wasn't a serious national security problem - the insane response of invading Iraq was.) Resource blackmail on such a scale has been carried out - but it was by a state (North Korea.)[/QUOTE]


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.
 

amphibulous

Banned
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

WHICH conflicts?

and not the states, as states are irrelevant in this sorts of 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.
 

amphibulous

Banned
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.
 
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.
 

amphibulous

Banned
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...
 
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...

Well yeah but Egypt, Libya and Syria aren't exactly Gulf States are they? Certainly Iraq/Iran would be the potential flashpoints in such a situation I would think.
 
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.


The mentioned conflicts are those between people wanting something from other people, moslty motivated because they lack certain things. This is basically between the Western world on one side and different groups of less developped part of the world wanting the same wealth as the West. States are bypassed in this conflict, as it is "fought" by means of people operating on their own, mostly private terms.

The primary exponents of this are:
- Terrorism, such as religeous, or nationalist inspired terrorist groups and the uncontrolled acts of violence by individuals, with no ties to whatever sort of organisation .
- Piracy, which is the most clear sort of what the motives are: stealing or bribing of financial gains.
- Mass emigration, motivated mostly by poverty and directed towards the parts of the world where wealth is thought to be.

For all these sorts of conflicts, aircraft carriers have no role to play in as it cannot be controlled by this form of powerplay.

And speaking of North Korea, that rouge state is not even a realistic threat, as it is behaving like a small child wanting to test how far it can go, untill corrected in some way. North Korea cannot be considered typical for a state, as it actually is not one, more being a territory controlled by a small clan of people with the power to controll the masses.
 

NothingNow

Banned
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 ...

Yeah, the only problem is, the AEW Sea King and Merlins look like a good idea in theory, but in practice, they're absolutely terrible, and unacceptable, especially given the costs involved in producing a limited run of the electronics in them, and maintaining them, versus their loitering capabilities and maximum altitude.

Which is why the French already operate Hawkeye 2000s from the Charles de Gaulle, and the Brazilians have decided to convert some of their Turbo Tracers into AEW birds as well, instead of operating AEW Helicopters, like the Soviets did because they didn't expect to use Carrier Aviation in an offensive capacity.
 
Top