New EU army

clear thinking

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0308/685541-eu-army-juncker/
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/juncker-says-eu-army-would-deter-russia-from-aggression-1.2130923

Probably stating the obvious but I wounder would the public here get behind it. It'd basically be NATO without the Americans or Turks.

Gatling

Wonder if the 16 EU Battle groups will be integrated .

sparky42

DOA, the U.S. would never back it, the major Euro forces wouldn't back it and the domestic politics would kill it (just look at the stupid amount of similar designs Europe produces that overlap, all to keep domestic industries alive (SSk, MBTs, Fighters, frigates etc...)

Boreas

It is definitely something that makes sense and something I've been in favour of for some time now. I think sparky42 is right about the domestic and international political opposition though.

I wonder if it could be begun as a Border Defence Force and then slowly expanded over time?

Sooner or later Europe will have to take responsibility for it's own defence, it's both irresponsible and dangerous to rely on the Americans.

The US is a declining hegemon and the EU will need to be in a position to act independently and who knows further in the future maybe even in opposition to the US.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

DOA, the U.S. would never back it, the major Euro forces wouldn't back it and the domestic politics would kill it (just look at the stupid amount of similar designs Europe produces that overlap, all to keep domestic industries alive (SSk, MBTs, Fighters, frigates etc...)

There are rather easy ways to get around it. Specialization of labour, shifting command structures (like E.U. presidency, each country appoints their commander for 6 month terms), and eventual harmonization of hardware.

Yes, the initial decade or so would have large disparities, but it's easier to start amalgamating systems now, rather than waiting for some external stimuli to force us.

Or:

Brussels opens recruiting for the European Defence Agency under four wings: Army, Navy, Airforce, and Asymmetric (electronic warfare, intelligence gathering, special operations, and so on).

Open up recruitment for maybe 12,000-15,000 men at first, and train them under one language, with one system.

We could have two types: European Forces, and Member States' domestic forces. The E.U. itself is restricted to 25% of the total of Member States' forces, limiting its power and influence, protecting Member States' autonomy, and giving it enough muscles to act unilaterally.

It's the balancing of powers. The E.U. could control 250,000-400,000 (more than our most dangerous rival, Russia) men for operations, it could call upon the Member States to also aid it, and will allow us to streamline our Defence Forces.

Manach

In historical context, AFAIR from his bio, De Gaulle had a similar idea for a de-Americanized NATO. Due to various national rivalries it did not progress too far and this was in the presence of a more dangerous threat of a combined Warsaw pact force. Given what is know on how other EU institutions run (the legal dimension for instance) perhaps an entity that needs to react to near real-time actions should not stem from the EU.

sparky42

There's little chance of any politican from any nation with a defence industry signing off on standardisation. Is a spanish minister going to lay off the naval design engineers in his country (though considering the reports that their subs are a lemon maybe they should) in order to buy German designs, same for planes, tanks, guns.

Not too mention the history of joint european projects work (eurofighter/rafale, horizon/type 45, the A400, hell even the Franco Italian FREMMs hasn't worked out right.

cppilot98

There is a precedent of sorts. In WW2 the allies in Europe were a mix of nationalities, British, American, Canadian, French, Polish etc all under a unified command structure. But retaining their national identity and units.

There would never be a mix of nationalities in a single unit.

Not that it will happen. Imagine the furore here with our precious and imaginary neutrality.

dandyelevan

"Streamline" our Defence Forces - if Ireland streamlines them any further we won't have any.

IMO - In less than 10 years Ireland won't have an Army, let alone be members of an EU military alliance.

glued

dandyelevan wrote: »

"Streamline" our Defence Forces - if Ireland streamlines them any further we won't have any.

IMO - In less than 10 years Ireland won't have an Army, let alone be members of an EU military alliance.

We don't really have an army as it stands. the military in this country is down to the bare bones. We don't need an army either in reality. We don't have the brains or the money to defend ourselves.

dandyelevan

I know that 'officially' we don't have an Army, and should have said the PDF.
However, you may indeed be right Glued, what do we need professional soldiers for anyway?
If Ireland was ever attacked, say, by Martians (or dear God forbid, those mad hoors from planet Pluto)... the BA would parachute in to protect their w flank, and maybe the French and Norwegians would patrol our streets in UN blue berets.
Any dying to be done, well, let them lads do it for us. After all, we're too precious to die for Ireland.
Then, on a Sunday or Bank Holiday if we were feeling a bit bored after a few pints down the local, we could pitch in with the Martians and bag us a few foreigners?

Why, it be great craic and we'd be excellent at it.

But I digress (and I apologize to you Glued for being cynical)

My point is; with Defence, one either takes it seriously and fund it properly, or have none at all.
Glued is correct in his assessment.
We don't have either the brains or the money to defend ourselves.
The sad part is that 'Paddy' has neither the foresight nor the will to do so.

IrishTrajan

dandyelevan wrote: »

However, you may indeed be right Glued, what do we need professional soldiers for anyway?

My point is; with Defence, one either takes it seriously and fund it properly, or have none at all.
Glued is correct in his assessment.
We don't have either the brains or the money to defend ourselves.
The sad part is that 'Paddy' has neither the foresight nor the will to do so.

For the dozens of EOD calls the Army gets called to every year, to meet our E.U.B.G. and U.N. requirements, to protect Irish diplomats abroad and protect foreign diplomats here, to aid the civil powers, to patrol Irish EEZ, to provide humanitarian assistance to disaster-stricken countries.


I do agree with you, we should fund it properly and take our Defence seriously, which is why many of us are calling for steady, gradual increases in spending up to around 1.5-2% of GDP (1.55% is European Average, 2% is NATO-recommended), which would give us an expanded Air Corps, a larger and better equipped Army, and a much more effective Naval Service.

Air Corps pilots are rather skilled, having to operate in Atlantic storms and hover over trawlers to rescue fishermen, it is a gross slight to them and their abilities to let them risk their lives without even spending the money to get them the best equipment possible.

The very same with the Naval Service, who patrol Irish EEZs, intercept drug traffickers when possible, and deliver food and aid to foreign nations, and the Army, who work well with European counterparts in the Nordic Battlegroup, and on our peace-keeping missions.


At 2% of GDP (around 4 times our current budget), we could easily expand the Air Corps to maintaining a dozen fast aircraft, and provide greater safety to the flights in transit over the Irish corridor. We could expand the Naval Service to having all Beckett-class OPVs, logistics ships and possibly missile-guided frigates to allow us to provide support to groups fighting against terror groups, like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda in Yemen... We could overhaul the Army's equipment, bring it up to date, increase it in size, and open better training links with the U.K. and other nations, we could have specialized divisions, we could actually offer to lead humanitarian or peace-keeping missions, and cover our soldiers, rather than waiting for the U.N. to ask us, and then wondering where we can get the money together to pay for such an action.


Nobody here thinks we're ever going to fight a world power and win, but that doesn't mean we should shrug off our responsibility to ourselves. It doesn't mean we should refuse to spend money on Defence so that our children might be straddled with the cost of refurbishing our DF.

The fact stands, we don't know what the next century holds. We owe it to ourselves, and our descendants, to ensure Ireland is safe from every possible eventuality.

Boreas

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I do agree with you, we should fund it properly and take our Defence seriously, which is why many of us are calling for steady, gradual increases in spending up to around 1.5-2% of GDP (1.55% is European Average, 2% is NATO-recommended), which would give us an expanded Air Corps, a larger and better equipped Army, and a much more effective Naval Service.

The current budget is €885 million per annum and works out around 0.39-0.42% of GDP (depending on how you calculate GDP) it is currently set at that level until 2017, although from comments some here have made this may be subject to review.

If the GDP level was moved to 1.5% over 10 years, with flat GDP, that would be ~€14 billion over 10 years and from year 10 spending would be ~€3.4 billion a year.

For 2% the figures would be ~€20 billion extra in the first 10 years and then an annual level of ~€4.5 billion.

That would utterly transform the nature of Ireland's military and either level of spending would give Ireland a military capable of a much wider range of missions.

Needless to say this sort of increase would be politically difficulty. What's probably needed is, for example, a company like Damen Stan or STX to build Naval Service ships in Ireland so that spending on the military can be seen as job creation.

sparky42

Boreas wrote: »

Needless to say this sort of increase would be politically difficulty. What's probably needed is, for example, a company like Damen Stan or STX to build Naval Service ships in Ireland so that spending on the military can be seen as job creation.

I'd still disagree with this, the Cobh yard (presuming it's choosen) would need massive capital expenditure just too be made capable of building new ships (not too mention entire trade/skill sets would need to be recreated), and let's face it there is and most likely will remain an overamubance of yards in Europe that would happily do the job faster/cheaper.

Just because if we ever did go to 2% it doesn't mean we can/should try building a full native domestic defence industry.

Boreas

If a ship like the LÉ Samuel Beckett costs €60 million to buy all that money goes abroad. If it cost €80 million to build in Ireland but creates jobs, increases tax take, cuts social welfare payments, drives additional economic activity etc. then over all it might make more sense to build it here.

That's just an example I'm not arguing for Ireland to go in to the ship building industry.

My point is that if you wanted to sell the public on higher military spending you'd have to find a way to spin it as creating jobs, being good for the economy etc. At the moment when it comes to any sort of capital spending it's too easy for SF/SWP/AAA etc. to attack it as wasteful spending that should go to health or education or whatever.

IrishTrajan

Boreas wrote: »

The current budget is €885 million per annum and works out around 0.39-0.42% of GDP (depending on how you calculate GDP) it is currently set at that level until 2017, although from comments some here have made this may be subject to review.

If the GDP level was moved to 1.5% over 10 years, with flat GDP, that would be ~€14 billion over 10 years and from year 10 spending would be ~€3.4 billion a year.

For 2% the figures would be ~€20 billion extra in the first 10 years and then an annual level of ~€4.5 billion.

That would utterly transform the nature of Ireland's military and either level of spending would give Ireland a military capable of a much wider range of missions.

Needless to say this sort of increase would be politically difficulty. What's probably needed is, for example, a company like Damen Stan or STX to build Naval Service ships in Ireland so that spending on the military can be seen as job creation.

If we're comparing the size of a decade, other expenditures would still dwarf it. Health would be €125bn over 10 years, social welfare would be €195bn over 10 years...

I agree, it would change the nature of the Irish military... We wouldn't have to skimp and save everywhere possible, we could actually buy the systems and hardware we need to function properly. We could expand our role in humanitarian efforts, and take part in Operation Atalanta. We could aggressively tackle the drug running, rather than waiting for them to get near Irish shores and then maybe going after them. It'd give us an ability to actually do what is right, and provide support to Governments that are fighting groups like Boko Haram. I'm not saying we should send Irish soldiers into combat these groups, but I am saying that a missile-guided frigate and training teams could end these Non-State actors a lot faster, and save civilian lives.

I agree with you on the Govt. spin, too. I would like us to expand our infrastructure and self-sufficiency. Even if it's only small things like the radar systems on ships, or radios that the Army uses... So long as the money (or the majority, at least) stays in the economy, expenditure won't hurt the State but it will help the Defence Forces immensely.

KingBrian2

I think it is a good idea. EU countries contributing their armies to an International force with skilled and experienced commanders. This force serving the world for the benefit of peace. We already have something like it already but the world needs a force that puts civilians first. Think of this a hundred years after WW1 Europeans from different countries will stand by each other for the good of Europe and the world.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I agree with you on the Govt. spin, too. I would like us to expand our infrastructure and self-sufficiency. Even if it's only small things like the radar systems on ships, or radios that the Army uses... So long as the money (or the majority, at least) stays in the economy, expenditure won't hurt the State but it will help the Defence Forces immensely.

How is that sustainable? Seriously even if we had 12-15 OPVs with a couple of frigates we still wouldn't be able to make a cost effective industry that didn't require subventions. Look at the current gen radar systems, if there's a dozen systems in NATO use its as much and all of them have much more industrial/institutional support than anything we could build.

Nor are radios simple just look at the British Army's history with their sets. I don't understand the logic of this "well we have more money, so let's build it domestically even if it's 50-100% over cost". One of the reasons why the absalon class was cheap was that the low value work was done in an Eastern European cheap yard before the high tech hardware was added.

Just take creating a yard, first you'd have to replace the slips, cranes, sheds in Cobh (can anyone see that for less than the guts of a billion when all is said and done, and years for planning issues), then all the trades crafts would have to be set up, so going on the past would CIT have to stand up new classes/teachers etc (and given the small size it wouldn't be enough to sustain those classes, with other costs then), or the fact that steel, guns etc would still need to be sourced externally (along with the design itself). if you stick the sunken capital costs into the calculation, there's no way that a Beckett would only be 30% over current prices.

We don't have a domestic defence industry, and it's going to cost a good chunk to create it, money that could actually be going into the forces themselves.

Boreas

sparky42 wrote: »

I don't understand the logic of this "well we have more money, so let's build it domestically even if it's 50-100% over cost"...

...We don't have a domestic defence industry, and it's going to cost a good chunk to create it, money that could actually be going into the forces themselves.

Perhaps I've expressed myself poorly. My point is that there is little public support for higher defence spending, therefore advocates of higher spending need to develop arguments to increase the level of that support. I'm not saying we'll raise spending to 1.5-2% and then develop a domestic defence industry, I'm saying that in order to get the 1.5-2% (or even just 1%) you need to show ancillary benefits like increased employment/economic activity.

The shipbuilding was just an example off the top of my head I have no idea of the logistics, promoting shipbuilding isn't what I'm after. Please don't be distracted by, what may well by, a poor example.

Arguments about Ireland's responsibility as a developed economy that benefits from the global economy to give something back, or our responsibility to support Europe's general defence, are unfortunately unlikely to convince the Irish public.

If we agree that higher Irish defence spending is desirable then what we need to work out is how to we get people to support that higher spending. While people who support the DF and a wider role for them and Ireland don't need to be convinced, the number of those people is small as a percentage of voters.

I hope that if there is an European Army or Navy Ireland will be able to take part at a high level.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

How is that sustainable? Seriously even if we had 12-15 OPVs with a couple of frigates we still wouldn't be able to make a cost effective industry that didn't require subventions. Look at the current gen radar systems, if there's a dozen systems in NATO use its as much and all of them have much more industrial/institutional support than anything we could build.

Nor are radios simple just look at the British Army's history with their sets. I don't understand the logic of this "well we have more money, so let's build it domestically even if it's 50-100% over cost". One of the reasons why the absalon class was cheap was that the low value work was done in an Eastern European cheap yard before the high tech hardware was added.

Just take creating a yard, first you'd have to replace the slips, cranes, sheds in Cobh (can anyone see that for less than the guts of a billion when all is said and done, and years for planning issues), then all the trades crafts would have to be set up, so going on the past would CIT have to stand up new classes/teachers etc (and given the small size it wouldn't be enough to sustain those classes, with other costs then), or the fact that steel, guns etc would still need to be sourced externally (along with the design itself). if you stick the sunken capital costs into the calculation, there's no way that a Beckett would only be 30% over current prices.

We don't have a domestic defence industry, and it's going to cost a good chunk to create it, money that could actually be going into the forces themselves.

The argument is to retain as much money in the economy as is possible. If we spend €200m on a ship built in Cobh, most of the money stays around Conh. It remains within the economy. If we spend €100m on a ship in Portugal, that €100m is a leakage from the economy.

It's why Britain spent so much on their aircraft carriers, to cover the overhaul of their production lines. It's more expensive, yes, but it's largely better for the economy than buying from abroad.

I'm saying we should recoup as much of the costs as we can, which will convince the left-wing to support it.

It's not perfect, but politics is about compromise, and you have to show the benefits of such an action to get the majority behind it.

sparky42

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The argument is to retain as much money in the economy as is possible. If we spend €200m on a ship built in Cobh, most of the money stays around Conh. It remains within the economy. If we spend €100m on a ship in Portugal, that €100m is a leakage from the economy.

It's why Britain spent so much on their aircraft carriers, to cover the overhaul of their production lines. It's more expensive, yes, but it's largely better for the economy than buying from abroad.

I'm saying we should recoup as much of the costs as we can, which will convince the left-wing to support it.

It's not perfect, but politics is about compromise, and you have to show the benefits of such an action to get the majority behind it.

The UK builds some of its ships at home (the RFA hulls are being built in South Korea for a price that BAE could never supply them for) for domestic political reasons (ie to win votes in the shipbuilding areas). Same for every other nation with a domestic defence industry. My point is that we don't have an established one and the costs to set one up and sustain it wwould overwhelm any returns to the economy (particularly when you consider the components that would still be sourced externally). Just take the UK for example where they have to buy three OPVs that they didn't plan on doing simple to keep the yard busy (for £350 million).

If a EU army/joint procurement system every came into being (and our spending rose to NATO standard) then we shouldn't seek to recreate industrial capacity that already exists. Hell one of the drivers for such unification will be to reduce overcapacity and redundant yards/factories/designs. What we should be looking at instead is where can Ireland invest to both improve our capability and perform in said joint force.

As non sexy as it is, (and distrubling something that FF said) we should look at Cyber Warfare if you want something that improves capability while keeping the money in the State. We already have a well developed labour force in that area (elminating the costly set up costs in third level), we have the huge IT sector here (29 of the top 30 IT companies) and there is concern from our EU partners about IT security (both from the US and from non NATO nations). It's not as sexy as new ships/fighters, but if you want to create an area/skill set thats value added to the Irish economy while benefiting the EU, it's an ara that should be looked at.

Maoltuile

IrishTrajan wrote: »

The argument is to retain as much money in the economy as is possible. If we spend €200m on a ship built in Cobh, most of the money stays around Conh. It remains within the economy. If we spend €100m on a ship in Portugal, that €100m is a leakage from the economy.

It's why Britain spent so much on their aircraft carriers, to cover the overhaul of their production lines. It's more expensive, yes, but it's largely better for the economy than buying from abroad.

I don't think it's anywhere as straightforward as you paint it, given the ability of business these days to spirit profits into tax havens and to hire in (often foreign) cheap labour.

IrishTrajan

sparky42 wrote: »

The UK builds some of its ships at home (the RFA hulls are being built in South Korea for a price that BAE could never supply them for) for domestic political reasons (ie to win votes in the shipbuilding areas). Same for every other nation with a domestic defence industry. My point is that we don't have an established one and the costs to set one up and sustain it wwould overwhelm any returns to the economy (particularly when you consider the components that would still be sourced externally). Just take the UK for example where they have to buy three OPVs that they didn't plan on doing simple to keep the yard busy (for £350 million).

If a EU army/joint procurement system every came into being (and our spending rose to NATO standard) then we shouldn't seek to recreate industrial capacity that already exists. Hell one of the drivers for such unification will be to reduce overcapacity and redundant yards/factories/designs. What we should be looking at instead is where can Ireland invest to both improve our capability and perform in said joint force.

As non sexy as it is, (and distrubling something that FF said) we should look at Cyber Warfare if you want something that improves capability while keeping the money in the State. We already have a well developed labour force in that area (elminating the costly set up costs in third level), we have the huge IT sector here (29 of the top 30 IT companies) and there is concern from our EU partners about IT security (both from the US and from non NATO nations). It's not as sexy as new ships/fighters, but if you want to create an area/skill set thats value added to the Irish economy while benefiting the EU, it's an ara that should be looked at.

I'm not saying that we should try to become fully self-sufficient, but trying to recuperate as much of the costs is a good thing. Even if we have to outsource, the outsourcing price would remain the same. If it costs €50m to out-source the construction of a 1900-tonne ship that'll cost a total of €100, that price isn't going to jump to €100m if we're paying for the construction of a €200m 1900-tonne ship.

Regarding Cyber Warfare: The Estonians have that area covered for now, unless we intend to try and compete with their intelligence sector, which ranks quite highly as intelligence services go.

We don't have that great a track record with software anyway. The "skills" we have, aren't put to use. We don't even use domestic programmers to cover G2, we outsource it to ex-British military computer linguists.

Boreas

There is an interesting piece on the possibility of standardisation rather than a European army here - euromaidanpress . com/2015/03/13/eu-army-or-stallions-led-by-donkeys/ (I can't post links)

In particular I thought this was interesting -

"However there is a way to get all EU nations to instantly agree not only to standardize all their units, but also to pool development and procurement: and that way is money. NATO urges its members to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense, but only Estonia does so, and as Euro members struggle with the 3% deficit limit imposed on them by the Maastricht treaty, none of them can raise defense spending. The way to get EU members to join a common defense policy, including joint procurement, would be to allow nations, which spend at least 2.25% of GDP on defense to exclude the amount spent on development, research and procurement from the 3% deficit limit. Therefore a nation spending 2.25% of GDP on defense, of which 1% dedicated to procurement and development, would be allowed to run a national deficit of 4% for that year."