NATO

[StingrayOZ]

Article 5 has so far been triggered only once, by 9/11. Norwegian Special forces were operating in mountainous regions of Afghanistan in December 2001, after receiving a request from the US in November 2001.

Not that its a contest. But Australia enacted ANZUS on the 12th of September, and had troops in Afghanistan in early October. However, things were a bit different for Australia as our prime minister watched the attacks on the Pentagon from his hotel room in Washington DC on 9-11 with his eyeballs. I wouldn't be jumping up about NATO's agility from its performance and commitment in Afghanistan. Certainly from Australia's view, adding Australia to NATO would likely slow our deployments and make everything more Europe focused.

Afghanistan probably makes China feel confident that NATO will essentially do nothing. The Taliban won. They are still in control. China feels its much stronger than Afghanistan, and the CCP is much more capable than the Taliban.

Not going to happen.

Im not sure the Europeans will decide that.

As for Russia: you must be joking!? Ukraine has managed to hold their own against Russia in spite of having extremely limited air power, and no naval power. With NATO entering the fray, there would be plenty of both. I am quite sure Finland, Poland and Turkey would (together with Ukraine) be able to handle what's left of Russian armed forces on their own, if some of the European F-35s could just do a little bit of SEAD/DEAD first... The main issue would of course be to avoid Russia going Nuclear. Russia's Master China would probably forbid Russia to do so, but would Russia listen after losing their surface fleet and significant parts of their air force?

So you believe there is no reason for the US to be involved in NATO, as the existing member states can handle its threats easily?

How can it be both?

The US is facing overmatch in Asia, like for real, in a way not even the soviets really could. Its territories like Guam, are likely to basically be wiped clean, there are 170,000 Americans who live on Guam. Current war games has the US losing ~1000 planes, two-four carrier groups, and dozens of ships. Japan is likely to see devastation like it did in WW2. the Koreas, may cease to exist all together. The Chinese will of course take heavy losses too, but that doesn't mean the conflict isn't impossible. The Americans are in a situation where they could loose, and loose big (WW2 casualty numbers), even if they win the conflict.

Do people think the US will simply not touch its European forces or posture while it loses entire fleets, tens of thousands of personnel, and Guam experiences a first strike probably ten times greater than Pearl Harbor? While its protectorate of Taiwan is forcibly invaded? That the NATO nations will be absolved of all commitment by hiding behind article 5 language about territories?

As for nuclear power. China doesn't seem overtly interested, while increasing their capabilities, they field nothing like the US/Soviet arsenals. China believes it can defeat the US through conventional means. China seems to understand that nuclear threats are meaningless and ineffective. Modern China isn't the soviet union or Russia. China believes they can exceed the US economically, politically, and with conventional military power.

China is building a force to deter US through conventional means. That is why the period 2025-2027 is so critical. That is the period western analysts believe that China will have the capability to match the US military power in the Pacific and deter them through military means.

At the frantic pace that China is increasing its military,

The threat of China is not that its going to annoy Japan, or annoy Australia. Its not going to invade Australia or Japan. We don't need a NATO to protect us, we aren't the main game. The fear is is that China feels that it can pick up the US by the ankles and start throwing it around the room until the US withdraws back to the continental US. The conflict is less about Taiwan as its more about global order.

While that is certainly terrifying. Also terrifying is a world after two of the worlds major powers spend ~3 years trying to wipe each other out. Which is when Australia is expected to get its first SSN. AUKUS wasn't about stopping the US-China conflict over Taiwan, its about what happens afterwards.

However, European thinking seems to be different. Asia and China are far away, like on another planet. That the US, and US lead order is invincible.

It does look different from where I'm sitting. Countries should be frantically investing in full spectrum military capabilities, urgently, like the current world order may not be the same as it is currently post 2030.

Im not sure a leisurely expansion of NATO, or NATO in Asia is solving the problem. Its not the 1950s.

 

[swerve]

...
Would China striking Guam trigger article 5?
...

No. It is not in the NATO area. Nor is Hawaii, or any other US islands in the Pacific.

NATO covers the territories of its member countries & waters in North America, Europe, the Mediterranean, & the Atlantic Ocean north of the Tropic of Cancer. They do not include territories elsewhere in the world, e.g. the Falklands. Article 6 defines the area:

Article 6
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

The USA could legitimately invoke Article 5 to justify attacking Afghanistan, since its government had hosted the organisation which attacked the mainland USA in 2001. But it couldn't be invoked over an attack on Guam.

That doesn't prevent NATO member countries helping the USA in such a case, but it would not be required by the NATO treaty.

That the NATO nations will be absolved of all commitment by hiding behind article 5 language about territories?

Article 6 was written into the treaty by the USA. It's not "hiding behind ... language about territories". It's there in the treaty because the USA insisted on it & everyone else agreed to it. It's there deliberately, so the USA could invoke it to avoid having to fight for British, French, Dutch, etc. territories.

 

[John Fedup]

No. It is not in the NATO area. Nor is Hawaii, or any other US islands in the Pacific.

NATO covers the territories of its member countries & waters in North America, Europe, the Mediterranean, & the Atlantic Ocean north of the Tropic of Cancer. They do not include territories elsewhere in the world, e.g. the Falklands. Article 6 defines the area:

The USA could legitimately invoke Article 5 to justify attacking Afghanistan, since its government had hosted the organisation which attacked the mainland USA in 2001. But it couldn't be invoked over an attack on Guam.

That doesn't prevent NATO member countries helping the USA in such a case, but it would not be required by the NATO treaty.

I would think an attack on Hawaii would qualify for invoking Article 5 as it is a state in the Union, not an island territory.

 

[Vivendi]

Afghanistan probably makes China feel confident that NATO will essentially do nothing. The Taliban won. They are still in control. China feels its much stronger than Afghanistan, and the CCP is much more capable than the Taliban.

NATO won the war but lost the peace and left Afghanistan after a 20 years failure to "nation build". Not sure what China can learn from that. One thing that NATO learned was that nation building is very hard. However it's impossible to imagine "nation building" is relevant in a potential conflict between NATO and China.

Im not sure the Europeans will decide that.

Since China is rapidly expanding its capabilities the US would be incredibly stupid to leave the world's strongest alliance, with a very strong commitment between it's members. For Europe it's too convenient (and "cost-effective"!) to be allied with the US so they will try to keep the US in NATO.

So you believe there is no reason for the US to be involved in NATO, as the existing member states can handle its threats easily?

See above. Note also we are in a special situation in Europe since the war in Ukraine has weakened Russia quite a lot and it will take a long time for Russia to rebuild. In the meantime European leaders are starting to realize they have to rebuild some military capabilities they have lost the last 30 years. Luckily for Europe, thanks to Ukraine, they have at least a 2-5 year window to rebuild capabilities before Russia starts to recover (it may take even longer for Russia to rebuild, depending on how things develop in Ukraine).

The US is facing overmatch in Asia, like for real, in a way not even the soviets really could. Its territories like Guam, are likely to basically be wiped clean, there are 170,000 Americans who live on Guam. Current war games has the US losing ~1000 planes, two-four carrier groups, and dozens of ships. Japan is likely to see devastation like it did in WW2. the Koreas, may cease to exist all together. The Chinese will of course take heavy losses too, but that doesn't mean the conflict isn't impossible. The Americans are in a situation where they could loose, and loose big (WW2 casualty numbers), even if they win the conflict.

I agree they can lose big. On the other hand, the Ukraine war has hopefully demonstrated to China that war is very unpredictable and a high-risk venture. Hopefully the potential massive Chinese losses will make them think twice. And perhaps the potential involvement of not just the US, Taiwan, Japan and Australia but also the potential involvement of NATO will make them think thrice.

Do people think the US will simply not touch its European forces or posture while it loses entire fleets, tens of thousands of personnel, and Guam experiences a first strike probably ten times greater than Pearl Harbor? While its protectorate of Taiwan is forcibly invaded?

For sure the US will shift forces to Asia-Pacific. Another reason why Europe urgently needs to rebuild forces.

That the NATO nations will be absolved of all commitment by hiding behind article 5 language about territories?

If NATO is not attacked then most likely NATO will stay out of the fight. However individual NATO countries will most likely join the fight, perhaps the UK, and perhaps also Canada? If NATO territory is attacked then NATO will respond. This means that China will not be able to launch major kinetic attack on mainland US or Ramstein without ending up in a military conflict with NATO. A bit of a conundrum for China since mainland US and Europe will become almost impossible to attack efficiently since it has to be below article 5. NATO has made it clear that massive cyberattack may prompt an article 5 response. So China would have to be very careful. The US however can attack mainland China without being concerned of a "Chinese NATO" suddenly becoming involved.

There are some "gray zones". For instance, if Hawaii is attacked, will NATO respond? For sure the "consultantions" clause will be triggered. Some politicians have even suggested an attack on Guam should trigger a NATO response. Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament

See also: Hawaii May Not Be Protected Under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty | Military.com

 

[John Fedup]

Well some lawyers would no doubt see Article 6 as a means to reject NATO involvement over Hawaii but recommending that to a national leader of a NATO member is probably going to be rejected. The issue is moot however, an attack on Hawaii will result in nuclear war.

 

[swerve]

I would think an attack on Hawaii would qualify for invoking Article 5 as it is a state in the Union, not an island territory.

Doesn't matter. Read Article 6.
"on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, ... or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;"
Hawaii isn't in North America. Nor is it in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer. Whether or not it's a state is irrelevant. That's not lawyerly pettifogging, it's plain English, & is exactly what was meant when the treaty was written. There was one territory which was part of the NATO area but wasn't in Europe, North America, or an island territory in the North Atlantic, & in the original treaty it was explicitly stated that it was included. It was part of France at the time. It elected representatives to the French parliament. It was legally & constitutionally part of France. But even so, it had to be named in the treaty to be included: Algeria.

Thus, for any part of the USA outside North America or the North Atlantic to be in the NATO area it would have to be named in the treaty. Hawaii isn't.

Note that none of the territories of France or other European countries outside Europe, North America, or the North Atlantic are within the NATO area. That's universally understood.

BTW, the country which was most keen on this restriction was the USA. Article 6 reflects the US determination not to dragged into any wars over what it saw as European colonies. The French managed to get Algeria (at that time formally part of France, with 20% of the population being French-speakers of European ancestry) included, but that was all the USA would agree to. The USA has no grounds for being upset by other NATO members refusing to defend Hawaii, because it was the USA which wrote it out of the treaty,

 

[John Fedup]

The last link in post #344 mentions the Article 6 rule was stretched to accommodate Turkey’s membership so I would think Hawaii would merit similar treatment but again, an attack on Hawaii makes this legal point meaningless, an attack on a US state which has been in the Union for sixty plus years won’t end well for the entire world.

 

[swerve]

Article 6 names Turkey as being included. As I said, anywhere that isn't in Europe (& most of Turkey isn't), North America or the North Atlantic has to be named to be covered.

I agree that an attack on Hawaii wouldn't end well, but that's not because it's covered by the NATO treaty.

 

[KipPotapych]

I’d say that the discussion of whether attack on Hawaii (by China in particular) would constitute an attack on the Nato state and whether it fits the article 5 or not is moot because it does not matter. This is simply because if it gets to that point, the war is already too big to contain it to the US-China tug games.

I would also propose that it is unlikely a realistic scenario where China limits the war with the US to their own land due to the fear of involving NATO joining the fight because of the article 5. This is some kind of dream scenario that would never happen. It makes zero sense, in my opinion. I mean how could it? Any way I look at it, it seems extremely hard to avoid a world war if this confrontation is ever to go physical on China’s mainland.

In another scenario, imagine the US actually starting to lose. Are we (the West) going to just partner up with China being the “new master”and welcome it with arms wide open? NATO will participate in that conflict (that will hopefully never happen) whether they want to/like to or not. They (individual NATO members) may not over Taiwan, but in the war between the USA and China, I do not believe there will be many westerners “sitting on the fence” and sides will be picked with quickness as, literally, the “new world order” in case it goes sour for the Americans is not of interest of any of us. Hence, we will join in way before there is any indication whether they can handle it on their own or not. What happens with other numerous countries of the world where the US bases potentially (likely?) start getting hit remains to be determined though.

It would also, of course, be the end of NATO if the US go at it alone and others refuse to participate. Simple as that.

One last point, is there anyone here who doubts for a second that the US will use nukes if they feel they would get badly beaten and cannot defeat the ongoing conflict with the confronting party? That is something to ponder in relation to others in this world with nuclear arsenal.

As for Russia: you must be joking!? Ukraine has managed to hold their own against Russia in spite of having extremely limited air power, and no naval power.

You must be joking as well in regards to holding their own. They depleted more or less the entire NATO block (and then some) of the artillery munitions, among other things. The only reason they are “holding their own” is due to the NATO members’ (and others’) supplies and intel, as well as, and just as importantly (if not more so), American and other NATO personnel directing HIMARS (and probably other) strikes on Russian positions. Source for the latter was provided by me in the war thread a few months ago and I can dig it up, if necessary. So hardly “their own”. One might even say that other actors entered the play a long time ago. Frankly, at this point, Ukraine basically provides man, first and foremost; everything else is provided by other parties. So I am not quite sure how one can state with a straight face that they are holding their own.

With NATO entering the fray, there would be plenty of both. I am quite sure Finland, Poland and Turkey would (together with Ukraine) be able to handle what's left of Russian armed forces on their own, if some of the European F-35s could just do a little bit of SEAD/DEAD first... The main issue would of course be to avoid Russia going Nuclear. Russia's Master China would probably forbid Russia to do so, but would Russia listen after losing their surface fleet and significant parts of their air force?

Again, NATO members had already entered the fray. Denying it is just silly. And I am not so sure that Finland, Poland, and Turkey, together with Ukraine, “will be able to handle what’s left of the Russian armed forces”. Your view seems to be overly simplified.

Mainly, however, it is hard to take the entire post seriously due to the last point you are making. You are actually implying that China (I am not even going to talk about it being Russia’s Master) is dictating Russian nuclear doctrine. Furthermore, you are indicating that China can (may?) forbid Russia to use their nuclear arsenal in the case of Russia being annihilated and you cast doubt wether Russia would listen. The whole idea is quite bizarre.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Since China is rapidly expanding its capabilities the US would be incredibly stupid to leave the world's strongest alliance, with a very strong commitment between it's members. For Europe it's too convenient (and "cost-effective"!) to be allied with the US so they will try to keep the US in NATO.

It wouldn't be the US leaving the alliance so much as the alliance not willing to assist in the US fight an existential threat to the global order.

See above. Note also we are in a special situation in Europe since the war in Ukraine has weakened Russia quite a lot and it will take a long time for Russia to rebuild. In the meantime European leaders are starting to realize they have to rebuild some military capabilities they have lost the last 30 years. Luckily for Europe, thanks to Ukraine, they have at least a 2-5 year window to rebuild capabilities before Russia starts to recover (it may take even longer for Russia to rebuild, depending on how things develop in Ukraine).

NATO was designed to counter the soviet union. The Soviet union has been gone for many years. I would also point out that Russia is trying to fight a war without switching into a full war economy, or even calling it a war and triggering war type arrangements.
In a war between the US and China, presumably, China would do what ever it wants, and would probably supply arms to Russia, and Russia will supply China with oil and coal. That could happen at any time. One would imagine the Russians receiving Chinese equipment would as fast as they could ship it would change things around fairly quickly.

I agree they can lose big. On the other hand, the Ukraine war has hopefully demonstrated to China that war is very unpredictable and a high-risk venture. Hopefully the potential massive Chinese losses will make them think twice. And perhaps the potential involvement of not just the US, Taiwan, Japan and Australia but also the potential involvement of NATO will make them think thrice.

China is certainly looking at the conflict. It will affect their war planning. However, Taiwan is always on the CCP agenda. It will never fall off the agenda, no one, not even NATO or the US disagrees about China's one China policy. All we have ever done is postponed the conflict into the future, and urged peaceful resolution. If anything it points out to China, they just need more stuff. Given they are ramping up military production faster than anyone on the planet, they seem to understand that.

While Ukraine paints a detailed picture about war, the Chinese would point to Hong Kong and point out, they aren't Russia. War isn't China's first option, and China is very good at avoiding direct conflict and grey type operations.

NATO's true power is the US. If China intends to push the US over via direct conflict, or even better, deter the US completely so that no war is fought at all, NATO doesn't hold any particular threat on and above the US on its own. As being discussed here, NATO getting involved in a Taiwan conflict isn't a certainty. NATO even opening an office in Asia may not even happen.

Even if the US wins the war, that doesn't exactly resolve all tensions between China and the US. It will also leave the US badly depleted, it may no longer be able to lead and contribute to NATO.

If NATO is not attacked then most likely NATO will stay out of the fight. However individual NATO countries will most likely join the fight, perhaps the UK, and perhaps also Canada? If NATO territory is attacked then NATO will respond. This means that China will not be able to launch major kinetic attack on mainland US or Ramstein without ending up in a military conflict with NATO. A bit of a conundrum for China since mainland US and Europe will become almost impossible to attack efficiently since it has to be below article 5. NATO has made it clear that massive cyberattack may prompt an article 5 response. So China would have to be very careful. The US however can attack mainland China without being concerned of a "Chinese NATO" suddenly becoming involved.

China doesn't believe in military alliances. It sees NATO as fundamentally flawed. It doesn't believe it will work and it believes it can be easily broken. China also saw the Warsaw pact as flawed. China isn't Russia. China isn't the soviet union. Ask the Vietnamese how China is as a friend.

China doesn't expect Russia to have its back if it goes to war with the US. I would say the Russians see the Chinese as a Frienemy. I bet right now, there are still Russian military resources on the impossible border between China and Russia, guarding against China. China famously stole as much IP and technology from Russia as it did from the West. China might motivate Russia to focus elsewhere. China thinks Russia and the West both depleting their respective military capabilities is a good thing for China.

They will make Europe choose between peace and war. It will be either accept China and China's actions in servitude, and we will not attack you. Or aid the Americans in any way and you will be attacked and involved in the War. That doesn't mean China is going to launch and land invasion, but it will mean that China will act against NATO. They will say the Americans are not your friends, but colonialists. They will run a disinformation campaign. They will fund anyone who also opposes NATO or American bases.

Attacking mainland China, in a meaningful way is a big ask. 100 Tomahawks aren't exactly going to paralyze the country.

One last point, is there anyone here who doubts for a second that the US will use nukes if they feel they would get badly beaten and cannot defeat the ongoing conflict with the confronting party? That is something to ponder in relation to others in this world with nuclear arsenal.

Yes. If the US starts firing nuclear weapons, then the US will quickly start to loose entire cities and states. This is how the China conflict will be different from the past cold war. Neither China nor the US want to turn both of them to glass. They instead are fighting for global control. If the US loses, its mainland territory is totally intact, its just no longer the top dog. The US would return to an isolationist stance, like it had from before WW2 and more like before WW1.

That is China's aim. Meanwhile China would replace the US as top dog. But it has no interest in a peaceful, free, democratic global order. It doesn't care about the UN, or NATO. So each realm would be chaos, as long as they understood China was top dog. China would set dogs against each other to ensure it remained top dog, seeding conflict.

Which is why future planning is so grim.

But why are most NATO nations still underspending? Why isn't there accelerated programs to ensure European capabilities if the US needed to move resources elsewhere.

The E7 is a classic example. The US says its basically unflyable. Its ordering ~30 replacements in a crash order. NATO hasn't ordered replacements for its E3's. EU nations don't have growlers, E7s, MC-55's, etc.

Particularly the bigger western nations. Germany, France, Spain etc.

Poland seems to be ordering equipment like its going out of style. But for nations within in NATO there is a a really wide disparity in materiel acquisition.

 

[KipPotapych]

^ That’s a solid A post, Stingray. If not A+. I do disagree on some points (and will try to expand a bit when I have more time), but it is a great post. In my opinion, of course.

 

[swerve]

...
The E7 is a classic example. The US says its basically unflyable. Its ordering ~30 replacements in a crash order. NATO hasn't ordered replacements for its E3's. EU nations don't have growlers, E7s, MC-55's, etc.

EU countries have Tornado ECR & modified Typhoons to replace it, assorted SIGINT/ELINT & EW aircraft including C-27J, King Air, Falcon 20 & S-102 Korpen (Gulfstream IV), with new types on order including Falcon 8X (France), G550 (Italy), & Global 6000 (Germany), & the RAF has Rivet Joint & King Air. Transalls, Nimrods & Atlantiques have been operated in the past. The French have some ELINT satellites.

Why isn't there accelerated programs to ensure European capabilities if the US needed to move resources elsewhere.

There are. Italy, for example, is in the process of replacing older types with a fleet of 10 G550s variously equipped for AEW (2 in service, to be 4), EW & SIGINT/ELINT, which will add significant new capabilities on more platforms. Oh, & in May Poland announced that it was in negotiations to buy AEW aircraft from Sweden. It seems that it'll get two refurbished ex-UAE SAAB-340 Erieye initially, perhaps to be replaced by possibly a larger number of Globaleye when they can be delivered.

Do keep up.

When will the first RAAF MC-55 be in service, BTW? Last I heard a contract for certification had just been awarded, so . . . next year?

 

[ngatimozart]

Europe also has a few thousand of older F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Mirage 2000, Gripen, but these are probably not suitable for a peer fight with China. Nevertheless it means that if F-35s are sent to Asia Pacific, Europe will still be well protected by aircraft of an older design, but still very capable fighter jets.

Claims that the Typhoon, Rafale, Grip, F-15, F-16, F-18 are not suitable for a war against the PRC is rubbish. It's not how big it is but how you use it as the bishop said to the actor. Used in conjunction with the F-22 and F-35 they can be quite devastating, especially if SEAD is used, because the can be used as missile and bomb trucks with the F-35s acting as orchestra conductor.

Would China striking Guam trigger article 5?

No. But striking mainland US would trigger article 5, as demonstrated by 9/11.

I suggest that you read the NATO Charter; that will answer your question, which is NO.

 

[koxinga]

China doesn't expect Russia to have its back if it goes to war with the US. I would say the Russians see the Chinese as a Frienemy. I bet right now, there are still Russian military resources on the impossible border between China and Russia, guarding against China. China famously stole as much IP and technology from Russia as it did from the West. China might motivate Russia to focus elsewhere. China thinks Russia and the West both depleting their respective military capabilities is a good thing for China.

Important not to forget that Russia were also parties in unequal treaties with China, notably Treaty of Aigun, nonwithstanding the no limits partnership they love to parrot today.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen etc etc described as " not suited for a peer enemy " makes me smile.
We talking about the best 4.5th GEN fighters on the planet, built by some of the most important manufacturers and in good numbers ( EFA alone has 680 planes ordered and circa 600 delivered ).
If Rafale and Eurofighters arent suited to fight China, then I really dont know what is.

 

[John Fedup]

Important not to forget that Russia were also parties in unequal treaties with China, notably Treaty of Aigun, nonwithstanding the no limits partnership they love to parrot today.

Russia might want to consider what Siberia will have in common with Crimea twenty years from now, asset that a more powerful neighbour decides belongs to them. Putin has provided the precedent.

 

[koxinga]

Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen etc etc described as " not suited for a peer enemy " makes me smile.
We talking about the best 4.5th GEN fighters on the planet, built by some of the most important manufacturers and in good numbers ( EFA alone has 680 planes ordered and circa 600 delivered ).
If Rafale and Eurofighters arent suited to fight China, then I really dont know what is.

Well, the answer is more nuanced than whether these planes are good or not.

The effectiveness of the Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen comes from the national / support / sustainment systems that help to gain an advantage in the battlespace. On long range deployments such as the French Pégase missions or the German Rapid Pacific, some of these systems are at the bare minimum or non-existent and they need to operate with local airforces, command and control systems etc.

The point of such deployments are part political, but also part military, to put into place processes for inter-operability in the potential battlespace.

https://ac.nato.int/archive/2022/FRA_deploy_PB22-2

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are. Italy, for example, is in the process of replacing older types with a fleet of 10 G550s variously equipped for AEW (2 in service, to be 4), EW & SIGINT/ELINT, which will add significant new capabilities on more platforms. Oh, & in May Poland announced that it was in negotiations to buy AEW aircraft from Sweden. It seems that it'll get two refurbished ex-UAE SAAB-340 Erieye initially, perhaps to be replaced by possibly a larger number of Globaleye when they can be delivered.

Do keep up.

If they are on top of it, then why are Australian E7's flying out of Germany? I will openly admit to not being an expert in the happenings of European procurement. It just seems a bit out of step with preparing for the US to perhaps shift resources out of Europe and those within the EU to take a more active command and control capability. This is a forum, I think having discussions about current culminative programs across a wide entity like all of NATO is probably a valid discussion point where people can become informed via discussion.

When will the first RAAF MC-55 be in service, BTW? Last I heard a contract for certification had just been awarded, so . . . next year?

Couple of months.. 3rd quarter of 2023.. We will have to hold on to our desperate position with the 6 x E7s (-1 in europe), 12x P8s, 12 Growlers. As our borders are frequently over flighted by, no one. We are operating our F-35's out of Indonesia, so Australia's position is quite different to NATO.

When do the RC-12x/RC-135C replacements come on line?

I ask because there seems to be very, very heavy usage of these assets with the Ukraine war. In future wars they are likely to be very very valuable.

This Is The Armada Of Spy Planes Tracking Russia's Forces Surrounding Ukraine

Meet the fleet of intel-gathering planes that has been aloft over the Black Sea and Ukraine to keep tabs on Russian forces.

www.thedrive.com

Flying keeping ~5+ aircraft in the air nearly constantly is a huge ask given their 40+ year old airframes from 70+ year old designs that have been on life support for over 10 years and been cannibalizing's parts for nearly 20.

Getting back to NATO questions more broadly.

NATO also seems to see thing as full on combat or peace. It doesn't seem to acknowledge the grey zone operations. Its black and white for NATO, either the Russians are tank rushing, or they are at peace. Presumably countries would manage their own grey zone operations, and NATO deals with the big threats. Because of the way Europe is structured, most of the EEZ threats are by other NATO nations.

I'm not sure that is the case going forward. NATO should probably invest in other enablers, like SIGINT and EW, but other capabilities (Command and control, EEZ enforcement etc) collectively. That they can contribute to global peace and security, not just Soviet Tank rushes.

With something like China, it would be far easier for China to just block oil and gas to the EU. It doesn't even have to do it through military force, just buy up all the gas and lock it in contracts. NATO's interests and security depends more on the space around it than just mainland Atlantic territory.

The problem I have with NATO is it thinks that NATO territory is the most important and everything comes secondary to that. Its the whole Europe first strategy for the modern age.

Well that doesn't matter so much now the center of the world has shifted to Asia. If the US shifts its resources out of NATO, how powerful is NATO without the US assets and capabilities? How is its organic expeditionary capabilities.

 

[swerve]

If they are on top of it, then why are Australian E7's flying out of Germany? ...

Who said they're "on top of it"? What I've done is point out that things are being done to redress past neglect. You're saying things should be done which are being done, then when I tell you they're being done, demanding to know why, if they've been done, more action is needed. Come on! Keep your criticisms consistent!

Nobody's denying that there's been neglect, because of complacency. But that is being addressed. Maybe not enough, & I'd certainly like to see things speeded up, but you've been saying that pretty much nothing's been done or is being done.

The problem I have with NATO is it thinks that NATO territory is the most important and everything comes secondary to that. Its the whole Europe first strategy for the modern age.

How many times has Article 5 of the NATO treaty been invoked? Where were the events that triggered it? Where did NATO act?

 

[koxinga]

Things like this inevitable leads to questions about the alliance credibility.

I get it if it was a period of peace prior to 2022, but given we have a hot war on the door step, the hesitancy to give a commitment is remarkable.

Germany walks back plan to meet NATO spending target on annual basis

The German government has retreated from a plan to legally commit itself to meeting NATO's 2% military spending target on an annual basis, a government source told Reuters on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com