http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...3ab954-1ebf-11e2-8817-41b9a7aaabc7_story.html Is this all the EU military will be, something to help other intergovernmental organizations sort out their own problems while the Americans, British and French do the real war fighting?
I don't think it was funny, I count France as the UK's most important ally, I don't like people making fun of them. So you think the Europeans excluding the French and British are willing to spend the money need to bring their military upto standard?
The EU including the UK and France lack any significant force projection capability. And won't have any for quite some time.
The British and French could have done Libya by themselves, that tells you something, they were the only ones to use carriers and helicopter carriers. By the end of 2018 the UK will have 2 65,000 ton carriers, the question is how many F-35B's will it be able to afford.
During the Libya thing the entire RAF was down to eight (count 'em airworthy strike planes. And Britain is the pre-eminent European military power. A medium sized boy in a land of little boys.
Hahahahaha. The United Kingdom deployed the Royal Navy frigates HMS Westminster and HMS Cumberland, nuclear attack submarines HMS Triumph (S93) and HMS Turbulent, the destroyer HMS Liverpool and the mine countermeasure vessel HMS Brocklesby. The Royal Air Force participated with 16 Tornado and 10 Typhoon fighters operating initially from Great Britain, but later forward deployed to the Italian base at Gioia del Colle. Nimrod R1 and Sentinel R1 surveillance aircraft were forward deployed to RAF Akrotiri in support of the action. In addition the RAF deployed a number of other support aircraft such as the Sentry AEW.1 AWACS aircraft and VC10 air-to-air refueling tankers. According to anonymous sources, members of the SAS, SBS and Special Reconnaissance Regiment and help to coordinate the air strikes on the ground in Libya. On 27 May, the UK deployed four UK Apache helicopters on board HMS Ocean. We were running low on pilots at one point, but we had 12 pilots in the Falklands training with Typhoons, so we could have got more if needed. Or the UK is a large boy on a land of medium and little boys, were the giant boys seamen like to brag about how giant their boy it.
That's still a miniscule force. The U.S., who was suppossed to be only a minor contributor, still provided more military assets than anyone else. They deployed 11 ships to the region, one of them a large amphibious assault ship with dozens of aircraft. They also deployed many aircraft to the region including B-2s, A-10s, F-15s, F-16s, AV-8s, EA-18s, U2s, AC-130 gunships, E-8Cs, UH-60s, MV-22s, and a variety of drones. With a single phone call they also could have had an entire Carrier group parked off Libya in 24-48 hours. The point remains that no single European power is close to being capable of carrying out such an operation alone, and that even a large coalition still had to rely heavily on the U.S. for certain support functions.
Why didn't they do it alone then? Why did the Secretary of Defense heavily critcize NATO and Europe's heavy reliance on certain U.S. assets (mostly C&C, logistics, and reconissance functions)?
Because they don't have the money to do it alone. But with many countries sharing the cost it could be afforded.
No, its because they lacked the military assets to carry out the operations. It got so bad at times that the U.S. actually had to give ammunition to many European countries because they ran out of ammo. Imagine if it was any kind of serious conflict.
I wouldn't say miniscule is the right word, it was the US doing 95% of the work making the area safe for other countries to operate taking out Libyan air defences. Then once NATO took command the UK and France took the majority of strike missile against Gaddafi force, and brought their other air and naval assets online. You make it seem the US had that force their the whole time using it through out the operation, which isn't the case. Also the fact is the US isn't capable of carrying out such an operation alone, so what's your point? My point is we need the US and the US needs European allies to take a much more assertive in future operations. Lessons must be lurned for Libya, and nations must be more willing to spend money increasing their abilities so the US doesn't have to hold so much of the weight taking out enemy air defences.
What assets do the British and French lack to do an operation like the one Libya? Were the UK or France the ones running out of ammo?
The U.S. is most certainly capable of carrying out any operation like this on its own. It's carried out air campagins in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Balkans, some of which were more complicated than Libya. I'm quite surprised you think this. The U.S. actually did engage Libyan air defenses alone in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, though on a smaller scale. I used the term "miniscule" because in the grand scheme of things a few dozen aircraft and a few destroyers/frigates is a tiny force. Especially when compared against larger militaries or historical ones. European nations have slashed the size of their militaries tremendously.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...tates-was-vital-to-toppling-qaddafi.html?_r=0 Why couldn't France and the UK provide refueling support, reconissance, drones, and the C&C that U.S. had to fill in in a pinch. Why couldn't they provide the ammunition for the less equipped NATO members?
Well yes we no longer have empires to pay for them, and we have not as capitalist as we once were so economic growth isn't what it onces was. Is the US capable without European bases? Yeah but in terms of the Libyan intervention the UK forces weren't miniscule.
Good post, rather enlightening and it backs up my point, only the British and French are any good. I am saying the UK and France could have done Libya by themselves without the US and without other European countries, if they had enough money in their budgets. The UK and France could have provided refueling support, the UK at that point had only 5 Reaper drones. The UK and France have the military capabilities, but not the war fighting budgets. When the UK is already spending £8 billion a year on Afghanistan, and the French had already went into the Ivory coast.
I think the French and British could have eventually done it on their own. It would not have been nearly as easy or quick without the help of the U.S. and a few other European allies. This is what I meant originally. NATO operations were heavily hampered by a lack of the previously described capabilites/resources that the U.S. had to jump in and provide. Without these resources it would have taken longer and probably resulted in more civilain casualties, and possibly more allied military casualties.
I think we agree. The first 13 days of the US assault for from sea and air almost finished the war, the British and French couldn't have done that, but they would have used their assets differently, supplying the rebels with weapons sooner and giving them more training. I doubt anymore British and French pilots would have been shot down, they would have used more storm shadow missiles, than the 110 Tomahawk the US ships and subs fired, but there would have been more civilian casualties.
One thing here. And I have never doubted their ability to fight, simply their will to fight. For some reason, they never seem to have really recovered from WWII and their attempts to regain their colonies. But I never doubt their ability to fight. Their Foreign Legion are among the best soldiers in the world.
