Gates criticizes NATO allies

[rip]

The EU wont break up because the EU country's cannot go it alone anymore. I think everyone in Europe knows were stuck with eachother, most people just arent willing to accept it yet. There are a lot of politicians who are anti Europe, but they just have their heads stuck up their asses. Growing and growing cooperation withing Europe at every front is the whole idea of the EU. And it is clear that though crises we are forced further in eachothers lap. The problem how I see it however is that the relations between nations are skewed. The bigger country''s have the smaller country''s by the balls both politically as economically.

Europe will not however become less reactionary, not militarily that is. As I said earlier the will and the insight just isnt there to realize that maintaining a respectable level of military force is neccesary for our position in the world. I know that in my country (NL) right wing nutjobs coasted on a platform of ethnic tension and fixed peoples gazes firmly towards their own society. The biggest problem I see is that there is no pride and no identity in most of Europe. Most of the Western world has the same problem and its because people live very well, and are tought to be selfish through our culture.

On the other hand Europe is damaged, and the way I see it is that it deserves to be in decline. Europe needs to change its attitude especially towards its past and its position in the world. It seems to me that most of Europe is ashamed of its past, and our long tradition of warfare and domination has produced some firm pacifist sentiments. Take Britain for example, its government gutted its military which in turn made painfull sacrifices based on prestige. There''s Germany which is also stripping its military, this country's history makes it terrified of war.

The problem here is that pacifism is all well and fine, but no one here seems to realise that we live in a globalised world where everything is interconnected. Our interests stretch far beyond Europe, and we would be wise to recognise thise especially in defence matters. France is probably the country that has the most sensible policy in these matters. Britain has the mouth, but in five years or so they won''t be able to sustain any significant RAF deployment like they do now.

What pisses me off though is politicians. They make claims and use big words to justify cutting costs in places where it''s least felt by the public to cover up their inability to run a country properly. These people make embarrasing situations like this happen Danish Planes in Libya Running Out of Bombs: Report - Defense News. This is exactly what Gates was talking about, and the only reason that we can help supply bombs to the Danes is because we're not using any!

One other thing I'm really really pissed about is that the airforce has to retire 19 F-16's while the availability rate has generably been poor lately (or so I''ve heard). Also they are going to build 4 patrol ships but use only 2!!!!!! So wtf is that? Defensie hard getroffen door bezuinigingen (video) | Ministerie van Defensie its in dutch though.

I must admit I do not understand what the idea of Europe as currently it is today. This is not a criticism it is only a confession of ignorance on my part. I am adventure traveler and find Europe a boring place to visit for my personal tastes. But I have met many Europeans in and out of Europe. I like the Expat European’s the best because they are like me, more adventurous. But in both cases I find that they spend much of their time and a great deal of effort in telling me about all of the things that America is doing wrong than they do in explaining what it is that Europe is doing wright.

What I do know is this, that for any great country or civilization, be it composed of one or several countries, to become great requires a common unifying idea. A common goal which in the pursuit of, both unites them about a common cause for a better future but also requires that they become better people to pursue it, more than that which is required for mere existence.

Europe once had such an idea or more accurately a complete set of ideas now called the enlightenment. This was the most important and significant intellectual and moral achievement in the history of all of mankind and defines all that is good of our modern age. But somehow the pursuit of greatness in any endeavor, with the possibility of sports, now seems to be unsavory. This makes me sad.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

[riksavage]

I think you missed the point of what Gates was saying. His point was that the US is providing 25% of the nato budget (more than likely 40% when all things are considered) much of the logistics and firepower for the alliance.

Then you get some nations who contribute very little or who send troops who either dont help out or in some cases are involved in corruption and even paying off the enemy instead of fighting. This has Killed men. Some places this is because of politics some for other reasons.

But overall there has been one thing clear. Many members want the Perks of Nato membership without the cost. And more and more are cutting defense which leaves us in the lurch even more.

Oh and considering the US launched 95% of the tomahawks and contributed the vast majority of the firepower, logistics and EW planes and other things and is now giving the Allies weapons because they are running out. He again has a point. And lets not forget that this is in europe back yard....

Next time blitzkreg. Annihlate the enemy fast enough that they cant resort to the tactics they now have. Fast and brutal.

Just my opinion take it or leave it.

Unfortunately NATO provides an excuse for many nations to hide behind the military might of the US and not step-up when required. Since the end of the cold war nations have used a lack of a credible Soviet threat to downsize and not adapt to a rapidly changing world.

Very few nations now keep large war stocks unless engaged in ongoing combat operations (which the US is). It may be prudent to offer to fly CAP missions over Libya knowing full well the chance of firing an air-to-air munition is very low, but step back from offering to fly high-tempo CAS missions. Droping/firing expensive guided muntions on a daily basis will erode your stores and as a consequence rack up a sizable replacement bill. Interesting to note which NATO nations are flying CAS and which are simply offering to fly CAP and monitor the coast - the only expenditure being fuel and airframe hours.

The US as we know are in deep debt and needs others to take up some of the slack as it focuses its attention on a more assertive PRC. Unless NATO partners spend the agreed amount of GDP on defence the US will simply walk away and develop alliances with partners that offer some strategic/tactical advantage. And to be honest why blame them, Gates is right?

The end of NATO in its current form may not be a bad thing, it may force the less willing to step-up and start taking defense seriously again. Europe needs to not only develop better ways of projecting power, but to actually use it in its own back yard in a way that makes a real difference.

 

[Toptob]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Youre not wrong (entirely). You speak of unifying idea's and talk about the enlightenment like it is something that is over. But the ideas and ideals of the enlightenment are still the basis for Western culture. The reason Europe doesnt act as one country is because it isn't. Europe is made up of 50 very distinct country''s that share a very long and very complicated history together. There's dozens of languages and a smorgashbord of political interests and ideals.

Europe is not like the US and it never will be, the US is united but only has one cultural system (The anglo-american one). Furthermore its traditions and shared consience only go back a couple of century''s, it was born out of a revolution and that creates a bond. In Europe it''s different, Greeks will be Greeks and they''re proud of that and dont start on the French. The problem therefore is that we''ll probably never be one civilization. That doesn''t mean however that with some common sense we could not be an awesome powerblock. We just need to get our collective heads out of our asses.

 

[Haavarla]

A lot of misconception here..
The war in Iraq and Afganistan, was it Europe, Nato or US decission to go in there in the first place?
I think its pretty arrogant by Gates to whine about Nato memberships contribution when US was the one whom pointed the way in Afganistan(a poor laid plan!).
And now see them self in a ditch, cash strapped and no plan to fix the situation..

War do cost big bucks, a lot more than small countries can afford.
strange Pentagon didn't see this coming..

 

[Toptob]

He does however lays bare the apparent inability of European armed forces to manage their stocks effectively. At least we can conclude that as it stands Euro country''s, especially the smaller ones cannot support their armed forces on deployment in a significant engagement.
Putting aside who's to blaim for this, the situation is pretty real. And it must be concluded that the situation is only going to get worse. What are they going to cut next? flying hours?

 

[StevoJH]

With regards to warstocks, another issue for some countries such as the UK might be that as they are operating from Bases in Italy, all their munitions would have to be imported from the UK, and that would tie up either transport aircraft already busy with Afghanistan, or Truck convoys that would need to be escorted across France and Italy.

 

[rip]

Youre not wrong (entirely). You speak of unifying idea's and talk about the enlightenment like it is something that is over. But the ideas and ideals of the enlightenment are still the basis for Western culture. The reason Europe doesnt act as one country is because it isn't. Europe is made up of 50 very distinct country''s that share a very long and very complicated history together. There's dozens of languages and a smorgashbord of political interests and ideals.

Europe is not like the US and it never will be, the US is united but only has one cultural system (The anglo-american one). Furthermore its traditions and shared consience only go back a couple of century''s, it was born out of a revolution and that creates a bond. In Europe it''s different, Greeks will be Greeks and they''re proud of that and dont start on the French. The problem therefore is that we''ll probably never be one civilization. That doesn''t mean however that with some common sense we could not be an awesome powerblock. We just need to get our collective heads out of our asses.

I have great respect for the enlightenment but little intellectual or moral progress has been made since. True technological progress has granted people almost everywhere far more freedom of action than ever before as it has freed them from many forms and tyranny of physical want. But there have been few new ideas that both embolden individual development and at the same time promote peaceful and productive cooperation among different kinds of people. I think we can both agree that communism was a failure.

Many of the ideas of the enlightenment, especially the ones concerning human rights, as they have been promoted and imbedded into supper-international-intuitions of dubious authority, have become totally nonsensical and in doing so discrediting the very idea of true human rights.

As to the history angle, it is not that America does not have a sufficient history but that we destroy our history. We spend our efforts looking forward and not to the past. You can say that not studying history (which I personally love to do) dooms us to repeat the same mistakes but I have not noticed that people who are more concerned with or especially obsessed with the past, make any fewer.

As to how Europe with its history is more culturally complex that is true but America is not as homogenous as you may think. There are more cultural, genetic and historical differences between a Hawaiian of Japanese descent, a Hopi Indian living upon the reservation in Arizona, a inhabitant of the lower Mississippi Delta that still specks Cero French from when the English kicked them out of Canada before the revolution, and a blonde blue eyed Minnesotan whose ancestors came from Sweden and very much more that there is between a Scotsman, an Irishmen, or an Englishmen or a guy from Wells but they don’t think that they each need their own separate country to preserve their ideality, culture and self-respect. So you can see why a simple minded person like me can be so puzzled? And most the people living in America, their ancestors actually came here after the revolution and they are still coming.

So this begs the question why is it so hard to come together?

But I am still more interested in Europe’s’ future. The next great phase of human development will be around the Pacific Rim and not only within China, I think most would agree. But I still think that Europe still has much to offer the world if it can unite in some way if not necessary politically but at least behind a new great idea.

 

[swerve]

With regards to warstocks, another issue for some countries such as the UK might be that as they are operating from Bases in Italy, all their munitions would have to be imported from the UK, and that would tie up either transport aircraft already busy with Afghanistan, or Truck convoys that would need to be escorted across France and Italy.

Ships. Takes days, but if you know your rough usage rates, easy to schedule. Naval resupply will already be planned.

Commercial transport aircraft for anything that's urgent, if a military aircraft isn't available. Munitions don't need C-17s or the like. They're pretty standard cargo, in terms of their size. Just need the right packaging & handling.

 

[StevoJH]

Sure, but it still requires availability of ships with the correct handling equipment and safety apparratus, and if transported on a civil ship would possibly also require the provision of a security detail.

For arguments sake, what Replenishment ships does the RFA currently have available that isnt in refit, reserve or somewhere in the indian ocean right now?

 

[Grand Danois]

He does however lays bare the apparent inability of European armed forces to manage their stocks effectively. At least we can conclude that as it stands Euro country''s, especially the smaller ones cannot support their armed forces on deployment in a significant engagement.
Putting aside who's to blaim for this, the situation is pretty real. And it must be concluded that the situation is only going to get worse. What are they going to cut next? flying hours?

In casu the RDAF who is running out of bombs has dropped 504 precision guided munitions as per today. Consider that the USA has a population which is close to 60 times bigger. If you scale this up, it would be equivalent to the US dropping 30,000 precision guided munitions. That would take a significant bite out of their stocks as well!

 

[Todjaeger]

In casu the RDAF who is running out of bombs has dropped 504 precision guided munitions as per today. Consider that the USA has a population which is close to 60 times bigger. If you scale this up, it would be equivalent to the US dropping 30,000 precision guided munitions. That would take a significant bite out of their stocks as well!

In the case of the JDAM, something to the tune of 225,000+ (figure from ~2006) bombs/tailkits have been manufactured since 1999. Granted, many of them have been expended in US service, as well as being sold to other countries. Plus production had been increased following the 9/11 attacks to ~3,000 units monthly.

These figures in terms of production totals/rate are admittedly about 5 years old, it would not surprise me if the US kept warstocks in the hundreds of thousands of JDAMs. Even if the US 'only' had a warstock of 100,000 JDAMs, 30,000 expended would only be ~30% of inventory. Significant of course, and enough to triger additional production lot orders, but most likely insufficient for the US to start looking at additional sources for munitions, etc.

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

In the case of the JDAM, something to the tune of 225,000+ (figure from ~2006) bombs/tailkits have been manufactured since 1999. Granted, many of them have been expended in US service, as well as being sold to other countries. Plus production had been increased following the 9/11 attacks to ~3,000 units monthly.

These figures in terms of production totals/rate are admittedly about 5 years old, it would not surprise me if the US kept warstocks in the hundreds of thousands of JDAMs. Even if the US 'only' had a warstock of 100,000 JDAMs, 30,000 expended would only be ~30% of inventory. Significant of course, and enough to triger additional production lot orders, but most likely insufficient for the US to start looking at additional sources for munitions, etc.

-Cheers

Thanks, I'd like to add that the US can surge to a production of c. 7,000 JDAM a month. Additionally (and iirc), US warstocks are (or used to be) c. 100k. Iraq, Afg. et al. plus exports has to be subtracted from the produced total - as you mention.

The variants used by the RDAF are at the moment the dual-mode ones and not the vanilla sat-guided only, which is the bulk of the 225k+ total. Though, the significance of this would rely on a breakdown, which I do not have.

Btw, the NATO setup supposes borrowing equipment from each other, e.g. Turkey borrowed 100 AIM-9 from RDAF during the 90/91 Gulf War.

Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

I guess the main argument should really be that Denmark does not have global commitments demanding the same deep stock which the US has.

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess the main argument should really be that Denmark does not have global commitments demanding the same deep stock which the US has.

My counter-argument to that, which BTW does not apply to just Denmark or NATO member-states, is that even local/regional commitments which get 'hot' can require larger warstocks than many nations have been maintaining.

In the case of F-16 logistics interdiction strikes, one configuration has 4 JDAM's carried, as well as a pair of CBU's. If the RDAF has a similar strike configuration, then the potential exists ~125 individual aircraft sorties to expend the ~500 PGM's used in Libya. If a single Danish F-16 squadron were carrying out such sorties at the rate of a sortie per day, then after ~8 days, the same level of warstocks would have been depleted. Of course if the squadron was carrying out more than a single sortie per aircraft per day, that rate of usage would change.

IMO having only a week's worth of warstock in 'hot' conditions is too low. For one thing, such a small amount would likely only be maintained in a small number of locations, or perhaps just a single one. In the event of an accident, sabotague or enemy strike, most/all of the warstock could be destroyed. If that were to happen, then the air force would be left with a number of pretty and expensive fighters that are otherwise pretty and useless.

The other serious issue I have with such low numbers is that if there is a 'hot' situation, particularly at a faster operational tempo than I already illustrated above, then operations might need to be postponed while munitions are restocked. Even that can/would only happen if the munitions are available from other stocks.

-Cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Loadout for the strike missions in Libya for RDAF jets are 2 x GBU's and 4 x AMRAAM. Max. delivery for one day has been 14. CBU's aren't used by the RDAF

Local/regional commitments should be seen in context of regional allies which would also be involved, i.e. Norway, Germany, Holland, Poland which between them should have enough munitions to stop any current local/regional threat in its tracks.

In extension of above, I'm not sure I can fully agree to that how fast you can empty your stock is a correct metric, i.e. a weeks worth of iron bombs has much less effect than the GBU's.

 

[Comrade69]

ok can someone tell me if im on point(sorry i couldn't read all those posts because my eyes hurt too much when starring at a computer screen that long, and you guys sure do love to type a lot lol)

Basically the US is pissed that out of the 28 nations only 4-5 are contributing(im just guessing these numbers) and now their threatening to withdraw?
is this what it basically is?


if it is..
then IMO nato would be nothing without the US
but then again it is NATO's fault for letting 3rd world nations join or nations that have almost nothing to contribute(the small countries)
honestly NATO should consist of just US,UK, Germany, and France. all other countries really arent a force(without help)

 

[Locarnus]

I do not understand the problem.

Can anyone please tell me which NATO country was attacked, so that the other NATO countries are morally and by treaty obliged to help in an effort to repell the attack?

I must have missed that.

 

[Todjaeger]

Loadout for the strike missions in Libya for RDAF jets are 2 x GBU's and 4 x AMRAAM. Max. delivery for one day has been 14. CBU's aren't used by the RDAF

Local/regional commitments should be seen in context of regional allies which would also be involved, i.e. Norway, Germany, Holland, Poland which between them should have enough munitions to stop any current local/regional threat in its tracks.

In extension of above, I'm not sure I can fully agree to that how fast you can empty your stock is a correct metric, i.e. a weeks worth of iron bombs has much less effect than the GBU's.

Such a weapons load-out is similar to a CAS load I have for the F-16, which is a pair of AIM-9's, a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of GBU-24's.

Now if the RDAF max PGM load-out on a mission to/over Libya is a pair of PGM's and 4 AAM's, then I expect that the F-16's can largely self-escort. If the max number of PGM's used in a single day is only 14... IMO that indicates a relatively sedate operational tempo, since that would only be seven F-16's being sortied that day.

When I suggested that the warstock might only last ~a week, that was at a fairly high operational tempo, where perhaps as many as 60 PGM's were used over the course of a day. I am not quite talking the level of usage that was anticipated if the Soviets ever decided to come across the Fulda Gap, but perhaps something like the air campaign which occurred prior to the ground combat in the first Gulf War.

I do agree that events and situations need to take into account the local/regional context. Having said that, if one country within NATO/Europe was so engaged, I would anticipate neighbouring countries would also be involved. If the situation required a high tempo of sorties for CAS/strike/interdiction, and all the countries have comparatively small warstocks of PGM's things still would not be all that much better.

The sorties might be able to be spread across more air forces, so that a single nation is not the only one expending PGM's. It also could be that the neighbouring countries are equally engaged. Potentially making the issue a little worse for European militaries, is the different PGM's used by the different nations. Some of the PGM's in the German or UK inventory might not be rated for use from RDAF F-16's, and the same could occur with munitions between other NATO countries as well.

What I took away from SecDef Gate's comments, was that NATO member-states need to look to their own defences first and not have as much of an expectation that NATO would provide forces and supplies in the event of a conflict. Being or becoming a member of NATO augments a nation's armed forces, but it is not a substitute for them. There is little argument from anyone I think that NATO, if/when acting together is a mighty force. However, that force begins to look a little less mighty if everyone makes defence cuts because they expect everyone else to contribute.

-Cheers

 

[riksavage]

Such a weapons load-out is similar to a CAS load I have for the F-16, which is a pair of AIM-9's, a pair of AMRAAM's and a pair of GBU-24's.

Now if the RDAF max PGM load-out on a mission to/over Libya is a pair of PGM's and 4 AAM's, then I expect that the F-16's can largely self-escort. If the max number of PGM's used in a single day is only 14... IMO that indicates a relatively sedate operational tempo, since that would only be seven F-16's being sortied that day.

When I suggested that the warstock might only last ~a week, that was at a fairly high operational tempo, where perhaps as many as 60 PGM's were used over the course of a day. I am not quite talking the level of usage that was anticipated if the Soviets ever decided to come across the Fulda Gap, but perhaps something like the air campaign which occurred prior to the ground combat in the first Gulf War.

I do agree that events and situations need to take into account the local/regional context. Having said that, if one country within NATO/Europe was so engaged, I would anticipate neighbouring countries would also be involved. If the situation required a high tempo of sorties for CAS/strike/interdiction, and all the countries have comparatively small warstocks of PGM's things still would not be all that much better.

The sorties might be able to be spread across more air forces, so that a single nation is not the only one expending PGM's. It also could be that the neighbouring countries are equally engaged. Potentially making the issue a little worse for European militaries, is the different PGM's used by the different nations. Some of the PGM's in the German or UK inventory might not be rated for use from RDAF F-16's, and the same could occur with munitions between other NATO countries as well.

What I took away from SecDef Gate's comments, was that NATO member-states need to look to their own defences first and not have as much of an expectation that NATO would provide forces and supplies in the event of a conflict. Being or becoming a member of NATO augments a nation's armed forces, but it is not a substitute for them. There is little argument from anyone I think that NATO, if/when acting together is a mighty force. However, that force begins to look a little less mighty if everyone makes defence cuts because they expect everyone else to contribute.

-Cheers

Europe should adopt a 'common agricultural policy' approach. All EU members allocate cash to a centralized fund used for re-stocking those EU nations whose munitions are exhausted on EU sanctioned operations.

The fund would be used to buy military consumables ONLY and not boost any nations hardware. If the UK/France for example exhaust the most munitions in Libya they should be given a higher percentage of the cash to go out and re-stock their respective war reserves. By taking this approach rich countries like Germany who have taken an isolationist stance can at least pay for weapons used to defend their interests (Libya being an example).

 

[Todjaeger]

Europe should adopt a 'common agricultural policy' approach. All EU members allocate cash to a centralized fund used for re-stocking those EU nations whose munitions are exhausted on EU sanctioned operations.

The fund would be used to buy military consumables ONLY and not boost any nations hardware. If the UK/France for example exhaust the most munitions in Libya they should be given a higher percentage of the cash to go out and re-stock their respective war reserves. By taking this approach rich countries like Germany who have taken an isolationist stance can at least pay for weapons used to defend their interests (Libya being an example).

I see two issues with that. The first is that not all members of NATO are members of the EU, and not all countries involved in air ops over Libya are EU members either.

The second issue is that by having a common fund established, with payouts from the fund for restocking based upon the precentage of ordnance used... That is only useful for restocking munitions. That is not particularly useful in an operational sense if a nation's warstock has been emptied/nearly emptied, because the warstock was small to begin with.

-Cheers