Galileo at the trough of EU taxpayer money

[Patroklos]

This is what you said.

I'm sure that the practicialities of force projection extend beyond sending some aircraft carrier somewhere. It's a bit of a trite response as it gives no indication of things such as effectiveness, capabilties, sustainability, and inter-action with amongst other things political, economic and logistical considerations.

And I see what your saying now.

But Americans don't send carriers places without any of those things so it is not a trite responce. But then I would have to ask the question, shoudn't Europe be able to do all those things? Is it not a failure of their defense spending/procurement if they can't?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Patroklos
This is what you said.



And I see what your saying now.

But Americans don't send carriers places without any of those things so it is not a trite responce. But then I would have to ask the question, shoudn't Europe be able to do all those things? Is it not a failure of their defense spending/procurement if they can't?

It's only a failure if you considered it an objective to begin with.


And of course the US would have those things in place, but the point still stands that you can't summarise force projection into a one line post. Some kind of analysis is clearly required to explain what is meant, else you are again talking in vague terms.

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Actually that is exactly what those ships are there for, as it states in the mission assignments of CTF 150, 151, and 152. Ever been to CTF 150 (HOA)? I have, and I am curious why I spent hours and hours in the blistering sun in a RHIB shuttling medical supplies to refugees and even more hours stalking slave/drug traders at night if that was not what I was there for?



Strategic interests eh? Interests like stopping the slave trade, keeping illegal arms out of Africa, securing the vital sea links from Asia to Europe, enforcing international maritime law? Yeah I can see why those are only concerns of the US/UK.



Why would Spain have ships off the HOA in support of Iraq? Do any of the UN resolutions concerning the HOA and maritime law have anything to do with Iraq? If this is the case why does Spain still send warships to the the HOA every once in while?

More importantly, if HOA operations are in support of Iraq why was the flag officer I served under there (great guy btw) a German? Why was the flag officer I served under in the gulf Italian?

I could tell you, but you probably know that already, right?



No I don't think that, I know that because I did it myself.



You see, when I am taking part in dangerous and difficult operations in an isolated part of the world performing tasks that are equally important to my allies, I would prefer those allies make available units that can actually get the job done. The FMS Brandenburg was a good ship with a great crew, but woefully inadequate for the job at hand considering what could have been provided.

And a correction, I served with the FMS Schleswig Holstein in the HOA the Brandenburg just passed through.

Wow, if you say so... For your posts I was under the impression i was arguing with a ten years old child, but now we all take your authoritative opinion as something wrote in stone.

So you think US navy ships are there not to fight against islamist power spreading in Somalia ad all the zone but to fight against the smugglers and slave traders supported by the same warlords US is now allied with. Right? I wonder then about such a concentration of forces at that point when smugglers, slave trade, and such can be found along all the African continent. Are the smugglers and slave traders in Somalia coast specially interesting or something?

[Dauphin]

I can imagine a briefing to the UK Prime Minister.

General: We can have the aircraft carrier Sitting Duck in the Strait of Formosa in 12 hrs.

PM :What will it do once it's there?

General: Sit there and look pretty, waiting to be torpedoed by a fleet of Chinese subs.


Of course that is not necessarily the scenario, but a bare bones comment of "We can send an aircraft carrier there" could lead to such a scenario. Further analysis is required for the PM to make a decision.

[Ecthy]

Hence carrier groups and a clear formulation of political goals of such an action.

[Patroklos]

So you think US navy ships are there not to fight against islamist power spreading in Somalia ad all the zone but to fight against the smugglers and slave traders supported by the same warlords US is now allied with. Right? I wonder then about such a concentration of forces at that point when smugglers, slave trade, and such can be found along all the African continent. Are the smugglers and slave traders in Somalia coast specially interesting or something?

Of course they are there to fight against terrorism. That is also in the mission assignments. But they are really one and the same. Where do you think terrorists of all shades get their money? Human trafficking and drug smuggling is a very large source. Not to mention that the same smugglers are also the people that transport terrorists around. The arms trade is also a source of income for terrorism, but we also want to stop that because it contributes to the destabilization of places like Somalia and the Sudan. Bad guys tend to hang out with bad guys, the missions are all linked.

And yes I am well aware that some of the activity we are there to suppress are activities some of the factions we support are involved in. That is how the game is played. We also support the government of Mexico and Columbia despite their rampant drug corruption. Life isn't a video game.

I wonder then about such a concentration of forces at that point when smugglers, slave trade, and such can be found along all the African continent. Are the smugglers and slave traders in Somalia coast specially interesting or something?

The BAM and HOA are geographic choke points that make security there especially important to world economic concerns. Think of all the oil and consumer goods Europe gets through there via the Suez canal. In that sence it's security is much more important to Europe directly than to the US, though obviously Europe's well being is our concern as well.

And that is just the maritime trade link. The HOA is the best place for illegal trafficking between Asia and Africa. Egypt is a stable country able to control illegal activity. Somalia is obviously not and Yemen is not much better. It is a natural conduit for smuggling of all sorts.

[Patroklos]

I can imagine a briefing to the UK Prime Minister.

General: We can have the aircraft carrier Sitting Duck in the Strait of Formosa in 12 hrs.

PM :What will it do once it's there?

General: Sit there and look pretty, waiting to be torpedoed by a fleet of Chinese subs.


Of course that is not necessarily the scenario, but a bare bones comment of "We can send an aircraft carrier there" could lead to such a scenario. Further analysis is required for the PM to make a decision.

I thought about saying something like that but you did it better. I am sure it would be an Admiral answering the questions though.

But you hit the nail on the head. European power projection is crap, yet you still vote in the UN/exercise diplomatic pressure as if you can enforce things. Want to ratify the Law of the Sea treaties? Fine, build some warships to support it. Is it not Europe that constantly talks about international law and cooperation? Is not Europe as overall the wealthiest and most developed part of the world in a position to enforce/make such things a reality? So why do they drop the ball when it comes to investing in the tools to do so? Why is Africa not Europe's backyard?

And if, like in the carrier example, Europe is willing to admit it doesn't have the resources to accomplish missions it supports (I assume defending an democracy from invasion aka Tiawan is one of those) and willingly takes a back seat in accomplishing those missions they should not be offended by and actually expect the US to apply some pressure on where their defense dollars are spent.

Duplication of efforts and mission creep are things we have to handle within our own military, we should do the same within the alliance (GPS/Galileo)

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Of course they are there to fight against terrorism. That is also in the mission assignments. But they are really one and the same. Where do you think terrorists of all shades get their money? Human trafficking and drug smuggling is a very large source. Not to mention that the same smugglers are also the people that transport terrorists around. The arms trade is also a source of income for terrorism, but we also want to stop that because it contributes to the destabilization of places like Somalia and the Sudan. Bad guys tend to hang out with bad guys, the missions are all linked.
That for sure.

And yes I am well aware that some of the activity we are there to suppress are activities some of the factions we support are involved in. That is how the game is played. We also support the government of Mexico and Columbia despite their rampant drug corruption. Life isn't a video game.

Yeah, bad guys tend to hang out with bad guys, dont they? So you are agreeing with me now.

The BAM and HOA are geographic choke points that make security there especially important to world economic concerns. Think of all the oil and consumer goods Europe gets through there via the Suez canal. In that sence it's security is much more important to Europe directly than to the US, though obviously Europe's well being is our concern as well.

And that is just the maritime trade link. The HOA is the best place for illegal trafficking between Asia and Africa. Egypt is a stable country able to control illegal activity. Somalia is obviously not and Yemen is not much better. It is a natural conduit for smuggling of all sorts.

So you really think that without US presence due to "other" interests in the zone, European trade would be in peril by some guys armed with AK in an tiny old boat? And even with such an improbable scenery, do you think Europa would be unable to secure commercial lines there because there is not European ships capable of confront them? Fewww...

[Patroklos]

European trade would be in peril by some guys armed with AK in an tiny old boat?

Nope no threat there whatsoever, and that's with US presence in that zone.

But that is an easy question to answer. No, Europe does not have the naval power to secure it's own lines of communication to areas of the world that support it's economy. And not because you can't take on an AK wielding long boat, even your trashy frigates can do that, there just aren't enough of you to be everywhere.

Crack a Jane's, go to any defense website, they all say the same thing. The author of Jane's opening summary in the 2005 edition is actually disgusted, and that is a European publication.

[Ecthy]

Interesting stuff Patroklos

None of that justifies American ground troops in Germany anyway

Now I had a look at that Jane's website, seems nice at first look. With all the economization of all issues (or rather their interpretation) it happens so fast that one forgets to look at the details rather than just the numbers.

[Thorgal]

Originally posted by Patroklos




Nope no threat there whatsoever, and that's with US presence in that zone.

But that is an easy question to answer. No, Europe does not have the naval power to secure it's own lines of communication to areas of the world that support it's economy. And not because you can't take on an AK wielding long boat, even your trashy frigates can do that, there just aren't enough of you to be everywhere.

Crack a Jane's, go to any defense website, they all say the same thing. The author of Jane's opening summary in the 2005 edition is actually disgusted, and that is a European publication.

If you say so... only a point to clear, that pic is not about a piracy act (you are a bit liar or you should look for the word "piracy" in a dictionary since the term seems not very clear in your head) but a "terrorist" attack, very similar, although much less serious, than that one against an almighty US frigate i dont remember his name, maybe you and Jane´s could refresh my memory.

But no problem here, keep living in your hollywoodish fantasy world where US saves the world someway every week. It is really funny to read you.

[Patroklos]

If you say so... only a point to clear, that pic is not about a piratery act

Where did I say that picture was piracy? Because you know I never mentioned any other threats in the area.

But I suppose terrorists bombing European oil tankers doesn't quality as peril to European trade.

Have fun keeping the Straits of Hormuz open by yourselves!



The after party is in the straights of Malacca.

but a "terrorist" attack, very similar, although much less serious, than that one against an almighty US frigate i dont remember his name, maybe you and Jane´s could refresh my memory.

That...is.....just....awesome.

Looking at the base knowledge you are using to discuss this topic, I suggest you go to Jane's as you are not worth my time.

[Patroklos]

None of that justifies American ground troops in Germany anyway

I stick with what I know Rota, Sig, Naples and Souda are not going anywhere anytime soon.

[Ecthy]

Shyte, Jane's be paysite.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, it is. I miss my ship, had all the publications in our professional library.

Janes's was actually the only thing other than tech/tactical manuels we were could read while on watch. So I pretty much have 2005-2007 memorized. Alot of watches.