A hypothetical EU force structure

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But here I think the proposals are by far not enough. Especially the sealift solutions discussed are in my opinion not sufficient. RoRo Ships need infastructure, and they are not suited if you have to pull troops out.
For actual amphibious assault, i think the EU isn't really placed that badly:
- 5 LPH (Italy, Spain, France, UK), two with V/STOL capability
- 15 LPD/LSD (Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, UK)
- 7 heavy LST (Spain, Greece)

Airlift/tanker support. I don't think the C-17 is the right aircraft for the job. Compared to the An-124 it is quite expansive per ton. But, as the British already operate it, it's the way to go. German owned, but operated from the UK, where the infrastructure is already in place.
Problem with the C-17 might be the even more diminishing customer support from the US in this scenario, which Germany and some other European nations already find "pretty bad" at the moment (in particular regarding spare parts).
I'd be all for an expansion of SALIS, and in fact maybe even a restructuring of SALIS into a EU-based corporation funded by SALIS members and actually owning its aircraft - not just the An-124 and Il-76 they charter now, but maybe an entire pool including some Boeing or Airbus freighters and personnel transport aircraft. Wouldn't be a big step really, and would rather quickly set up a European pool for joint airlift in all regards.

Some A-330 MRTT could be added to the 3 existing A-310 MRTT.
Definitely an option - for pretty much all European customers in fact, not just the RAF and Luftwaffe. I'm particularly thinking of France and Italy there.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
2. We have nothing to defend from ballisitic missiles.
(no proposals)
MEADS and Patriot have limited ABM capability through PAC-3 for now. In a "Euro-MEADS" concept PAC-3 would have to be replaced of course. Aster-30 (PAAMS, SAMP/T) officially has a similar ABM capability to PAC-3.
Slovakia and Bulgaria both operate S-300 in various variants. Might be possible for a future upgrade path to S-400.

Note that SAMs throughout the EU aren't really unitary at all. The default standard is Hawk - to be largely replaced with SAMP/T - and Patriot - to be replaced by MEADS - while other nations, in particular, but definitely not exclusively, pretty much the entire east other than Poland (SA-5 to be replaced by Patriot), Slovakia and Bulgaria (both SA-10) don't have any "covering" long-range SAM/ABM systems at all.
These "non-covered" nations range from Estonia, Belgium and Ireland for example (only MANPADS) via Portugal (outdated Chaparral) and Hungary (nothing beyond SA-6) to the UK (outermost layer = Rapier FSC) of all places.

A strategic move here would be an overall coverage by a pool of SAMP/T and MEADS at some point, integrated in a battle network comparable to Sweden. Before that, we don't even need to bother about ABM.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #63
...
The question here would be to what extent a "pool" is actually needed; Project ARK for example (the Danish-German sealift program) has already provided sealift on missions to half the NATO nations, in particular those nations without organic assets.
SALIS - which is funded largely by Germany really, and permanently bases in Germany - provides heavy airlift to all its co-signers, and is definitely expandable; it's actually a sign of cooperation that Germany hasn't gone and simply bought a couple An-124 nationally, but instead keeps supporting the joint solution. Some people have actually suggested a national solution; with the high German demand Bundeswehr-owned An-124s and Il-76s would be cheaper than the two SALIS An-124 permanently based in Germany and the half dozen Il-76 regularly chartered to fly from Germany.
ISR assets are currently at NATO level, and that's where they should stay (well, at a joint EU level then). Expenses for assets at that kind of level easily hide within the budget. What would you expect? Germany buying 15 "future ISR aircraft" on its own and "donating" them to the EU? Doesn't work that way in NATO either.

At most, i could see German direct "distribution" of funds to other nations in the form of donations similar to the "CFE Cascade". I.e. provide other nations with relatively up-to-date, decommissioned equipment, as it's been done in the past 10 years already.

As for development projects - an increased pumping of money into ongoing future projects such as Eurofighter Tranche 3 or MEADS wouldn't necessarily only benefit Germany. A German-funded MEADS development for example would directly benefit likely future customers such as Greece, the Netherlands, or - in this scenario instead of Patriot - Poland. An early Tranche 3 for Eurofighter would be very beneficial towards actually selling it and - important - would prevent more "national solutions". To some extent, a funded Tranche 3 could even lead to a cascade effect again, with Tranche 2 aircraft as a cheaper solution being made available to other EU nations.
Still, you don't seem to be addressing the problem I posed. At present, the scale of deployments of EU forces are small in relation to numbers, & a large proportion of them are assisted logistically by the USA. A few An-124s, a handful of Il-76s and 3 leased ro-ros can't replace that US contribution. Unless we accept that EU countries would sit tight within their borders & say "the world is nothing to do with us", we would need a massive increase in logistical capability.

Ditto for ISR. And as has been pointed out, Typhoon tranche 3 is not the last word in air superiority. It was conceived with the assumption of US co-operation, as was MEADS - though I agree, development of them will be of general value. You're discussing existing programmes for development, & appear to be still thinking mostly of Germany fulfilling its traditional role of defending its own territory - but against what threat?

BTW, there is no suggestion of Germany "donating" anything, but being able to use its assets co-operatively, or funding a disproportionate share (because it can afford it, & most of the other countries that can are already committed to expensive things such as nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, etc) of joint assets.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #64
For actual amphibious assault, i think the EU isn't really placed that badly:
- 5 LPH (Italy, Spain, France, UK), two with V/STOL capability
- 15 LPD/LSD (Italy, Spain, France, Netherlands, UK)
- 7 heavy LST (Spain, Greece)


Problem with the C-17 might be the even more diminishing customer support from the US in this scenario, which Germany and some other European nations already find "pretty bad" at the moment (in particular regarding spare parts).
I'd be all for an expansion of SALIS, and in fact maybe even a restructuring of SALIS into a EU-based corporation funded by SALIS members and actually owning its aircraft - not just the An-124 and Il-76 they charter now, but maybe an entire pool including some Boeing or Airbus freighters and personnel transport aircraft. Wouldn't be a big step really, and would rather quickly set up a European pool for joint airlift in all regards.


Definitely an option - for pretty much all European customers in fact, not just the RAF and Luftwaffe. I'm particularly thinking of France and Italy there.
1) Agreed. Underway replenishment & sealift are bigger needs. And Italy & Spain might increase their amphibious capabilities.
2) Yes, a problem. But what alternatives are there? Commercial freighters can't handle all the loads, though agreed they would be valuable. Russian aircraft (remembering that the An-124 is currently not in production, & the possible new production line is in Russia) would have the same problem, perhaps worse.
3) A330 MRTT. Agreed- and also some for Spain.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
excellent and quickly read article on the Euro milspace based masint/comms/side of things:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw092407p2.xml

sharing and distribution of intel is key, so i'd establish a musis type institution for sharing of all types of information. that institution should also be responsible for interpretation and dissemination for mission areas.

hardware side:

-active & passive imint seems to be covered; expand coverage; redundancy.
-elint is a weak point, but i'd expect there is more going on than is acknowledged; expand coverage; redundancy.
- nav - galileo; implement.
- EW. There is no SBIRS/DSP type program at all. This has to be started up from scratch. a basic capability in the first ge.
- comms seems to be an issue wrt standards; make interoperable; expand coverage; redundancy.

the technology and programs are there. The focus of the effort should then be to coordinate effort in the future; expand coverage; more redundancy; interoperability.

I'd also implement a program with focus on defence of spacebased assets plus limited denial of space. more ground stations. there is only one sea based at present, iirc.

If programmes and development are initiated full-on in 2009 then add one life cycle of sats on top of it, a full capability of all this could be a reality in 2016-2018.

I note that french guiana is part of the eu.
 
Last edited:

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
the scale of deployments of EU forces are small in relation to numbers, & a large proportion of them are assisted logistically by the USA
Not really. That's only really the case for Iraq. In other major European deployments - Kosovo, Lebanon - it's a pure Euro affair, and one handled quite well. Afghanistan is a mixed bag, but at least the forces in the North (which are all European) handle all logistics themselves. The EU forces in South - and to some extent West - Afghanistan operate in close operation with the US, and, unlike the North, don't have the necessary infrastructure in place (ie bases in Central Asia). The problem is that a lot of Euro-only deployments don't really appear very publicly - not Ivory Coast (solely handled by France) nor Congo (EU and AU assets only) nor Bosnia (which isn't relevant logistics-wise due to its closeness).

You're discussing existing programmes for development
Quite seriously, a Eurofighter replacement is 25 years down the line. Same for a lot of other projects you seem to think of.
Without a stable defence industry base, we'll buy Russian by that time.

[You] appear to be still thinking mostly of Germany fulfilling its traditional role of defending its own territory - but against what threat?
The forces i outlined wouldn't be remotely sufficient for territorial defense against any threat. That's not the issue really.

Germany - like at least half of all other EU nations - currently reforms its military into a expeditionary structure which will be there for the next 15-20 years at least. These expeditionary structures - and the military systems decided on by it - will be in place after the current spending round (ie after ~2015), and are what i base my assumptions from.
All we can really do is go from these structures and try to expand them into a more cooperative pattern.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
europe provide so much key technology to the MEADS programme, that a fast tracked euro-MEADS should be perfectly doable. the radar, battlemgt and netcentrics could be leveraged; give MBDA the task of making a PAC-3 MSE equiv and make the use of IRIS-SL mandatory (for defence against saturation by CM and PGM); latly, integrate aster 30.

a true euro derived and supportable system.
 
Last edited:

Rythm

New Member
A highly interesting thread!

The swedish take:

1) Implement a Nordic Expeditionary brigade. something along the lines discussed in this thread.
2) Order the following aircraft: 10 A400M and 3 A310MRTT. If possible, make a Nordic Airlift pool and thereby increase the numbers to 23 and 6.
3) Re-introduce the proper NCO. This is more vital than anything else IMHO.
4) Get SuperGripen flying ASAP, and sell it to every european nation that hasnt bought Typhoon yet. Make it a multinational program with participation from Belgium, netherlands, Norway etc. For sweden, an upgrade of 40 A/Bs to E/f-standard would suffice, leaving a total of 40 E/F, 40 C/D and almost 80 A/Bs. At least half the A/Bs to be sold to smaller countries as-is.
5) Implement a euro training site in Vidsel AFB. To relieve the problems with the loss of american AFBs.
6) expand the 7 combat battalions to 4 BCTs (one Amphibious)
7) Get a Landing ship like Mistral or Rotterdam. And one Absalon Frigate.
8) double the amount of NH90s and order 8 HTHs
9) Buy Boxer to replace the old SISUs and to partly mobilize the Homeguard. (total would be around 12 batalions worth of vehicles)
oh, and 10) Sell Archer to belgium, before the germans sell the AGM :D

Questionable if its all fundable, particularly items 2,4 and 7 at the same time. Might have to prioritize here, if so, item 7 to be dropped first.
 
Last edited:

JHC

New Member
I think that sweden needs to increase our sea and airlift capacity before anything else, we cant deploy our NBG as it is today, without leased An124 (which needs a landingstrip) or C17. Thu we have signed a bit of paper so we are able to use a couple of C17, but thats only a couple of hundred flighthours a year. and our C130 wont be enough to supply over 2000 men in field. Today we have no amphibious landing capability at all, which would be nice to have if our forces are to be deployed in a coastal country. The only thing we have is a ro-ro ship that is in civil use, but then we need a secured harbor.

This maby are a little of topic, but anyways, The Swedish government signed a treaty the 21/12 to start and develop any new submarine called the A26, this sub will have abilities to send out unmanned "sub" either controlled by wire or remote controlled, the sub will have a crew of 17-31 men. It should be able to communicate with the world without increasing the chance of detection.

A couple of those would also be nice to acquire.
 
Last edited:

JHC

New Member
Well, from what i found Swedens defence budget is about 1.2% (40 billions skr) with a increase to 2.5% it would mean 80 billions. And we would properly see a decrease in material costs, when Sweden is one of few European countries with a pretty good defence industry and that would mean lower costs for development and production.

I would also like to see a combined nordic air and sea lift pole, if that not possible i would vote for approx 4 C17 and around 12 A400M swedish owned.

Well, mostly like you but as i said, prio the air and sea lift. I dont see why upgrade gripen would be the first thing to do. There are no threat to europe and wont be either, even if US pulls out in a near future. Then its better to wait a couple of years, and buy some new transport capabilities. Also a big half time modification to improve ALL material up to date and EU standard.

I would like to see around 12 attack helicopters either Tiger or A129 and as u said add more NH90, also with a possibility to acquire some heavy lifting by either Chinooks, HTH or EH101. Since the E/F version is several years ahead, when its time i would like to see a airforce of 100 E/F. Sell the rest.

For the navy i would like a LPH for amphibious mission and 2 LPD as complement. Also 2 AAW frigates, like meko or YS-NY for escort, and increase the amount of visby corvetts to 6 from todays 5, and buy some freaking sam for our corvetts.
I would also buy some new Stb90-NY. And when A26 are ready, place an order for 4 and not for 2 the government properly gonna do.

For the army, start to introduce SEP as a replasement to cv90. Increase the amounts of archers that has been ordered. The expand of battalions dos´t say me that much cause i dont know how big they are and so on, but sounds good as long as its a expansion. I think that we should keep our amphibious forces, since they are top notch according to me.
 

Rythm

New Member
And what bank is it you plan to rob in order to finance all that? Those LPH, LPDs and frigates arent exactly cheap.

Also, SEP cant replace CV90, these are two different vehicles with rather different missions. SEP could replace the 80 SISUs.

And what civilian ROROship are you refering to?
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Supporting documents from the EDA for this thread:

Raw Numbers: (EU) National Defence Expenditure in 2006
Comparison: European - United States Defence Expenditure in 2006
Conceptual: Framework for a European Defence Research & Technology Strategy

http://www.eda.europa.eu/

Calculated from the above National Defence Expenditure numbers, sorted by increase in %:

Code:
(no change, over 2.0% GDP)

Bulgaria     (2.31%)
Cyprus       (2.13%)
Greece       (2.68%)

(+10% default change)

France         +10%  => + 4346 M
United Kingdom +10%  => + 4731 M

(under 2.0% GDP)

Romania     +8%   => +   143 M
Italy       +10%  => +  2663 M
Poland      +10%  => +   489 M
Slovakia    +17%  => +   128 M
Czech R.    +18%  => +   346 M
Slovenia    +23%  => +   113 M
Portugal    +27%  => +   662 M
Latvia      +28%  => +    70 M
Netherlands +30%  => +  2445 M
Estonia     +39%  => +    74 M
Sweden      +43%  => +  1849 M
Finland     +47%  => +  1072 M
Germany     +51%  => + 15484 M
Lithuania   +67%  => +   188 M
Hungary     +69%  => +   725 M
Spain       +69%  => +  7942 M
Belgium     +75%  => +  2678 M
Austria     +144% => +  3024 M
Malta       +178% => +    71 M
Luxembourg  +228% => +   456 M
Ireland     +285% => +  2622 M

(overall total)

Initial  : (201000 M / 1.78% GDP)
Increase : (+60263 M /+0.53% GDP)
New Total: (261263 M / 2.31% GDP)

Defence Expenditure per Capita: 535 € (old: 412 €)

(Above 2.0% GDP due to France, UK, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria spending above that)
 
Last edited:

JHC

New Member
Yeah i agree, it its expensive, but see it as a long term plan.

And about the roro ship, i was wrong, its not one special ship, it can be any civil ship. But i remembered somethin from a article

I have read some about the SEP, if its not to replace the cv90 could you please tell me what its purpose are. Cause there will be band tracks to, but could´t find anything about a turrent. but to stay on topic you could just pm me with the anserw.

cya
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Good stuff. Remember to include for this scenario:

Denmark 2006
GDP 277 billion USD
1.3% defence expenditure

Norway 2006
GDP 336 billion USD
1,9% defence expenditure (2005)

Tried to Google some progress reports on the Headline Goals, but the most recent I could find was from 2006ish and none with more actuality can be found.

CAPABILITIES IMPROVEMENT CHART I/2006



Supporting documents from the EDA for this thread:

Raw Numbers: (EU) National Defence Expenditure in 2006
Comparison: European - United States Defence Expenditure in 2006
Conceptual: Framework for a European Defence Research & Technology Strategy

http://www.eda.europa.eu/

Calculated from the above National Defence Expenditure numbers, sorted by increase in %:

Code:
(no change, over 2.0% GDP)

Bulgaria     (2.31%)
Cyprus       (2.13%)
Greece       (2.68%)

(+10% default change)

France         +10%  => + 4346 M
United Kingdom +10%  => + 4731 M

(under 2.0% GDP)

Romania     +8%   => +   143 M
Italy       +10%  => +  2663 M
Poland      +10%  => +   489 M
Slovakia    +17%  => +   128 M
Czech R.    +18%  => +   346 M
Slovenia    +23%  => +   113 M
Portugal    +27%  => +   662 M
Latvia      +28%  => +    70 M
Netherlands +30%  => +  2445 M
Estonia     +39%  => +    74 M
Sweden      +43%  => +  1849 M
Finland     +47%  => +  1072 M
Germany     +51%  => + 15484 M
Lithuania   +67%  => +   188 M
Hungary     +69%  => +   725 M
Spain       +69%  => +  7942 M
Belgium     +75%  => +  2678 M
Austria     +144% => +  3024 M
Malta       +178% => +    71 M
Luxembourg  +228% => +   456 M
Ireland     +285% => +  2622 M

(overall total)

Initial  : (201000 M / 1.78% GDP)
Increase : (+60263 M /+0.53% GDP)
New Total: (261263 M / 2.31% GDP)

Defence Expenditure per Capita: 535 € (old: 412 €)

(Above 2.0% GDP due to France, UK, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria spending above that)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Denmark 2006
GDP 277 billion USD
1.3% defence expenditure
Mmm, that actually made me wonder at first why Denmark isn't in the EDA data - until i remembered that they were the only nation to take some sort of opt-out from CFSP, iirc?

Anyone got some data for Switzerland? (somewhere around €2.4B expenditure current)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Trying to make a new approach at this... from the organisational side.

The below is a guideline from that side, without going into exact procurement goals. I'll probably post something about that later.

1.0 European Army

1.1.0 European Corps' Commands

In succession of existing NATO and EU Corps commands, the EU implements multiple "European Corps". Each member country contributes combat and support units from its national army to this structure, with the new Corps' capturing all such units under their command.

The "European Corps" would be formed in a classic Corps notion, building on experience from Eurocorps. Each Corps would broadly sweeping consist of the following units as an example:
  • one heavy division (3 brigades)
  • one medium division (3 brigades)
  • one division of either type (3 brigades)
  • two infantry brigades, preferably of rapid-reaction type
  • one air assault (helicopter) brigade
  • various support units
(total 12 brigades + support)

The various Marine forces of member nations would form an additional, separate administrative Corps of the above kind, not necessarily with the above example structure, and perhaps slightly smaller; its subunits, where not Marine in origin, would reflect some care towards their type of equipment for the purpose of the Corps (e.g. preferably light armor, airborne units etc).

In total, the European Union could form about a dozen of the above Corps Commands (or more, probably up to 15 with some expansion).
Like with Eurocorps, member nations generally contribute at at least brigade level. Certain nations (such as France, UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland...) will be represented in Multiple Corps, and would field operational command of at least one such Corps; other nations would be represented in a single Corps with their entire Army. Similar to Eurocorps, at least 3 different member states should be represented within a Corps.
Unlike Eurocorps, these Corps' commands would see a certain cohesion in equipment at the start at least; for example, preferably brigades from various nations with an identical type of tank would be grouped together.

1.1.1 Purpose of the EU Corps

A medium term goal (within say 5 years) should be that each of the above Corps should be able to form three mixed brigade-level battlegroups for sustained deployment, typically one from each division. The Corps' Infantry Brigades should be able to form two battalion-level battlegroups for rapid-reaction deployment.

Immediate implementation at the start of the scenario would see each Corps fielding at least one, in some cases two brigade-level battlegroups.

This would - on the basis of a dozen Corps - give the EU an example sustainable deployment capacity of roughly 36 brigade combat groups plus 24 rapid-reaction units (together 240.000 men sustainable capacity).

Taking up the slack from US withdrawal, as well as shifting some troops would likely see about 25% of this above capacity deployed from the start.

1.1.2 Development of the European Corps'

Member nations would strive to harmonize equipment and protocols specifically within their Corps unit. This could include as an example for equipment adopting a unitary SPH type, or the contributing armies forming the Corps-level infantry brigades out of joint units (similar to D/F Brigade).

Over the medium to long term, the above Corps would be grouped into several Armies (the military unit kind of Army), with three to four Corps per Army. Subsequently, the national armies represented within these would start harmonizing at this new, higher level.

At the beginning, likely the national overseas units - such as the Dutch forces in Aruba, French forces in Africa and other places, the Spanish Ceuta and Melilla commands and similar - would not be included within the Corps structures. Such units could in the long term be included in a more or less administrative "EU Overseas Corps".

1.2 Remaining National Army Units

The National Armies, other than maintaining the above units for the European Corps' would of course still maintain further units; these would be primarily territorial support units, as well as reserve formations, administration and perhaps a few guard units and the like.

These units would remain fully under national command and responsibility. Note that these units are rather numerous.

A goal for these units would be to further logistic and strategic cooperation already existing from NATO.


2.0 European Air Force

2.1.0 European Air Divisions

Similar to the above Corps, the Air Forces of member nations would form EU-level "Air Divisions". The number of such air divisions would roughly match the number of Army Corps'.

An Air Division would consist of - for example - about 150 to 200 multirole fighter jets, as well as several squadrons with tactical transport, recon and CSAR aircraft and the like. It would further include two air-defense regiments, as well as a force protection unit at regimental level.
Likely each Air Division would also have an organic AWACS capacity of at least 4-6 aircraft, as well as an organic SEAD/DEAD capacity.

Each Air Division should be able to field an Expeditionary Air Wing consisting of at least a quarter of its aircraft and troops for deployment.

Similar to the Corps, each Air Division would have multiple nations contributing to it, in this case at at least squadron level. Similarly, some cohesion in equipment would be preferable.

2.1.1 Development of the European Air Divisions

Like the Corps, the units involved here would harmonize their equipment to some level.
This would for example pertain to the SAM regiments; a unitary type of equipment would be preferable there. Ordnance carried and deployed by aircraft should increasingly be interchangable, with certain ordnance newly integrated on some aircraft types.

2.2 European Air Logistics Divisions

The heavy transport units of the EU member states, tankers and transport for strategic deployment as well as passenger jets and similar aircraft would be collected within two or three separate Air Logistics Divisions (of similar composition).

These Air Logistics Divisions would pick up from the current EDA EATF initiative, and would take over Joint projects such as SALIS and the NATO Heavy Airlift Wing (C-17s), and develop successor programs for these projects.

2.3 European Pilot Training Divisions

Three joint pilot training divisions would be formed. These would each be sized appropriately to train at least 150-200 pilots for the various air divisions yearly. Over the medium term, preferably all three divisions would switch to typically three aircraft types (prop, jet, lead-in), with each division over the long term using the same aircraft types.

These divisions would pick up from ENJPPT (or whatever that acronym was), and the Eurotrainer initiative.

2.4 National Air Units

Few units would remain under strict national command. Primarily this would affect the French Nuclear Force, but also certain national weapon test centers, as well as units with a civil protection mission such as firefighting.


3.0 Joint Commands

3.1 European Strategic Command

The Strategic Command would primarily be a pool of member nations' global-reach assets - meaning satellite communications, reconnaissance satellites and similar systems.

The systematic goal for the Strategic Command would be two-fold:
  • develop an interfacing capacity for its assets, in some cases already implemented
  • harmonize new procurement within its field
The Strategic Command would draw from already existing joint initiatives such as the SAR-Lupe/Helios interface or the Athena-Fidus project.

The medium-term goal for the Strategic Command would be to channel the assets of member nations into a global-reaching multi-modal network accessible for the EU Army and the member nations.

[...]


4.0 European Navy

4.1 EU Navy Sealift Command

A straight successor to NATO MSSC. This command would have about 30 national sealift ships under its command at the start.

At EU level, certain goals would be defined for this Command. An example maximum scenario would be projection of forces equal to a full European Corps within 3 months for defense purposes, requiring a flow of 500.000 tons.

A medium-term solution for this goal could be a small fleet of 6-8 large vehicle cargo ships similar to the the US T-AKRs in addition to keeping the existing sealift fleet, or alternatively at least a doubling of the current sealift fleet, preferably with a unitary sealift ship type.

4.2 EU Navy Littoral Flotillas

The various littoral units of the member nations are grouped into a number of "littoral flotillas".
The littoral flotillas would be primarily assigned specifically to a certain stretch of coastline, or a certain sea area; for example one for the Northern Baltic Sea, one for the Southern Baltic Sea, one for the Channel, one for the Adriatic etc.
These units would be formed by their respective neighboring countries only. A littoral flotilla would consist of specific units for this area, typically guard boats, perhaps a few OPVs and FACs, mine warfare units, coastal support units, but would seek some cohesion within the flotilla especially regarding ordnance (missiles carried).

Each littoral flottila would be able to field one or two units, of any requested type out of its portfolio, to an expeditionary adhoc flotilla.

4.3 EU Amphibious Command

The Amphibious Command would field the about two dozen amphibious ships within the European Union. The primary purpose of the command would be to support the European Marine Corps.

To this end, the Command would field several Amphibious Expeditionary Groups consisting of 4-6 ships each. Cross-training of European Marine Corps units on non-domestic ships is maintained within the command.

The Amphibious Command is primarily an administrative unit coordinating amphibious efforts of the member states.

Apart from the primary purpose, the Amphibious Command can field a number of units to expeditionary adhoc flotillas for other purposes such as disaster relief, adhoc supply ships or as helicopter carriers.

4.5 EU Navy Strategic Force

The Strategic Force would act primarily as a coordination center between its two subunits - the French and British SSBN groups. The groups themselves would be under strict national command.

4.6 EU Standing Naval Forces

The member states of the EU contribute to nine Standing Naval Forces in peacetime. These Standing Naval Forces would primarily represent a joint presence.

The Standing Naval Forces would be as following:
  • two Carrier Battle Groups, with assigned carriers rotating through available units of member states; typically five escorts from various member states, and a submarine.
  • two Escort Squadrons, consisting of six frigates or destroyers from the various member states, and perhaps a submarine.
  • three Offshore Patrol taskforces, typically consisting of two to three patrol ships, occasionally with a frigate joining in; the purpose of these units would be to maintain a presence within the larger bodies of water around the EU - on the southwest flank, the northwest flank and within the Mediterranean - adding to local national forces of EU members.
  • two Littoral Squadrons, consisting of typically four to six mine warfare units with two or three light escorts (corvettes or similar)

4.7 Other EU Navy Units

The rather huge remainder of EU Naval Forces would remain under national command. These units would be rotated into the standing naval forces, but also be available to form adhoc joint groups for EU purposes on demand.
 
Last edited:

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Contributions to EU Corps'
From existing force structure.
  1. Austria : 4 brigades
  2. Belgium : 3 brigades
  3. Bulgaria : 4 brigades
  4. Cyprus : excluded for political reasons
  5. Czech Republic : 2 brigades
  6. Denmark : 2 brigades
  7. Estonia : 1 brigade
  8. Finland : 4 brigades
  9. France : 9 brigades, overseas brigades not included
  10. Germany : 10 brigades
  11. Greece : 12 brigades, other brigades not included
  12. Hungary : 2 brigades
  13. Ireland : 3 brigades
  14. Italy : 11 brigades
  15. Latvia : 1 brigade
  16. Lithuania : 1 brigade
  17. Luxembourg : integrated with Belgian contribution
  18. Malta : integrated with Italian contribution
  19. Netherlands : 3 brigades
  20. Poland : 11 brigades
  21. Portugal : 3 brigades, overseas brigade not included
  22. Romania : 4 brigades
  23. Slovakia : 2 brigades
  24. Slovenia : 2 brigades
  25. Spain : 11 brigades, overseas brigades not included
  26. Sweden : 3 brigades, not including home guard
  27. United Kingdom : 12 brigades
Note: There are some rather broad generalizations in the above, partially due to some internal restructuring to fit a "common brigade concept".

Structural Expansion

Total count for above: 120 brigades. These would be tied up in ten "European Corps". An 11th European Corps would be formed by national expansion, likely primarily by countries adding a brigade or two to their forces (e.g. Germany, Austria), and might include countries not yet members in the EU (particularly Norway).
The 12th Corps would be the European Marine Corps, not included in the above listing. A 13th and 14th Corps would be optional.

Equipment Harmonization through Procurement Coordination

An expanded EDA would coordinate procurement for member states. A "buy European" attitude would be suggested, with large-scale projects for joint multi-national procurement.
Tendering would accomodate national industries in some respects; however, joint designs between EU-wide industrial cooperations would often be preferred by EDA.

Certain contracts for EU-wide Commands - such as the Strategic Command, Air Logistics or the Sealift Command - would in the medium term only be funded by member states based on contribution tables (e.g. by member PPP GDP), and tendered out by the Military Command itself.

If new equipment would be procured by a member state for a contribution force, that force - e.g. a Corps Command, or an Air Division - would have at least "suggesting input" on procurement, along with a similar stance for the EDA.
The EDA would offer - and suggest - member states the possibility to combine their procurement into multi-national joint projects based on similar requirements.

Particular procurement projects likely affected by such "pooling" would be for example UAV and UCAV procurement, decisions on high-volume national buys such as fighter jets or frigates, "retainment" or "donation" of older equipment towards EU military bodies.
 
Top