Tango01 | 30 Aug 2014 10:31 p.m. PST |
…Force' Of 10,000 Troops. "NATO is reportedly working towards the creation of an expeditionary force composed of 10,000 troops from seven different member states as a result of escalating tensions with Russia over the conflict in Ukraine. According to the Financial Times, the force's creation will be spearheaded by Britain and involve contributions from Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, and the Netherlands. Canada is also interested in joining the group, but it's not known what its final decision will be…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
David Manley | 31 Aug 2014 4:51 a.m. PST |
Hmm, sponsored by the UK. I wonder if this gives us any pointers to the direction the next SDSR will be taking….. :) |
Tgunner | 31 Aug 2014 6:23 a.m. PST |
The fire is in the East. I imagine that these kids will be see a lot of the Baltic States and Poland. Where will the Empire strike next? |
Rod I Robertson | 31 Aug 2014 6:37 a.m. PST |
How could a force of 10,000 be a meaningful force to counter Russia. 100,000 maybe but 10,000 is just PR for the upcoming NATO conference in Wales IMHO. However, such a for might be useful if Scotland votes to separate in September – Moohaha! Rod Robertson |
Legion 4 | 31 Aug 2014 7:22 a.m. PST |
… the force's creation will be spearheaded by Britain and involve contributions from Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Norway, and the Netherlands. Canada … I like it … Good concept for NATO. And people use to say there was no longer a need for NATO any more … |
doug redshirt | 31 Aug 2014 1:11 p.m. PST |
I think 10,000 troops deployed is enough to make any tyrant think twice about sending 1,000 troops across the border of its neighbor on a vacation trip. Also in this day and age, 10,000 troops is actually a lot. Considering how few reliable troops most evil empires actually have. |
Rod I Robertson | 31 Aug 2014 2:04 p.m. PST |
That's what the Germans thought with their 1300 Tigers and 6500 Panthers but the Russians (and Allies) swamped them. 10,000 men is a casus belli and not a deterrent. The 10,000 may have cut it in Xenophon's day, but in the age of industrial warfare it is as misconceived as the pitiful garrisons charged with the defense of Hong-Kong or Singapore in 1942. It's a recipe for disaster. The Powell doctrine should apply here – go big or stay home! Rod Robertson |
Blackhorse MP | 31 Aug 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
Numbers are meaningless without the will to use them. With the exception of Britain these are not countries with a history of throwing their weight around(and that's not an insult, just an observation). I suspect ever getting approval to use them would be very iffy at best. And what is the 10,000 to consist of? Is that trigger pullers? Which of course means you need to double or triple that number of support/logistics troops to keep the trigger pullers in the field. Or is that the total, including support/logistics troops? Which pushes the total number of TP's down to 1/2 or even 1/3 of the total given what we know about the Tooth-to-Tail ratio. Sadly, I think the will and military preparedness of NATO(minus the US) is woefully lacking to engage in any serious military undertaking. I think that the old joke of the definition of NATO being "Needs Americans To Operate" is more appropriate than ever. Again, not meant as an insult, but with the miniscule defense budgets and the political realities in Western Europe I think most NATO militaries are incapable of much more than homeland defense. Feel free to disagee. p.s. Not "Cheerleading" here. No need to delete. That is all. |
darthfozzywig | 31 Aug 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
Good thing we're decades past the Industrial Age of warfare, then. |
GeoffQRF | 31 Aug 2014 3:02 p.m. PST |
"Leading American senators have called for the US to send weapons to help Ukraine fight what they say is "a Russian invasion"." |
Lion in the Stars | 31 Aug 2014 4:58 p.m. PST |
10,000 troops? Isn't that larger than most of Europe's standing armies these days? |
Weasel | 31 Aug 2014 8:43 p.m. PST |
I'm sure us Danes will send 30 guys. Who will foot the bill for this? |
Deadone | 31 Aug 2014 9:44 p.m. PST |
This is actually rather pathetic. Other than UK none of the big players are involved – no Germany, no Spain, no France, no Greece, no Turkey, no Italy, no Poland. That's 90% of NATO European capability locked up. It tells you all about how much they really care. Most of the countries participating can count the number of infantry batallions they field in one hand.
The total number of tanks fielded by Denmark, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Norway is 103 (46 in Norway and 57 in Denamrk). The total number of fighter planes fielded by these countries is 165 (all F-16A/B in service with Denmark, Norway and Netherlands). By 2025 that number will be 113 F-35s provided current planned numbers are stuck to. There's no SEAD and not much recce and no ISTAR, AWACS etc. Total number of tankers is 2 (2 x Dutch KC-10). There are 3 light transports (Lithuanian C-27), 12 medium transports (C-130s) and no strategic transports. There's virtually no naval capability especially in terms of sealift. Even Britain doesn't have capability to shift a division's worth of men and equipment into a hostile combat zones. The three amphibs and 4 sealift ships can lift a little more than 2000 men and associated equipment, whilst the RAF has a decent fleet of transports (46 A330 Voyagers, C-130s and C-17s) they are still insufficient to move a division's worth of men and gear. And this doesn't take into account that virtually the entire Baltic states military is obsolete, either leftover Soviet gear or NATO throwaways. They have no tanks, fighters, modern choppers, no logistical capability or artillery heavier than 81mm/120mm mortars and little or no recce capability. And all those Soviet and old NATO weapons make logistics a nightmare for them as they're not used by the other partners. So excluding Britain you have nothing but token capability that is completely reliant on Britain who in turn is reliant on USA for most things.
Indeed the whole force would require US logistical, C3, ISTAR, refuelling, sealift and airlift and other capabilities to be able to function. |
Jemima Fawr | 01 Sep 2014 3:12 a.m. PST |
Don't forget that NATO has a joint, Luxembourg-flagged pool of AWACS, which is presently expanding to include C17s and tankers. |
Legion 4 | 01 Sep 2014 6:44 a.m. PST |
"Leading American senators have called for the US to send weapons to help Ukraine fight what they say is "a Russian invasion"."
Many politicos say a lot of things … what is relevent is what is actually done … And when it comes to politics, politicians and the like always have the next election on their minds. For themselves or their party. It's the nature of the beast, and it not only happens in the US. As we all know … As far as NATO in general, we all know the high costs of maintaining a modern military. Many Europe/NATO nations have cut back on defense spending severely. However, there is strength in numbers, one of the reasons NATO came about … But again, not all nations have the capabilities of some other nations. The second largest military in NATO is Turkey behind the US … Would the Turks or others for that matter even get involved in another war in Eastern Europe ? |
Legion 4 | 01 Sep 2014 6:49 a.m. PST |
So excluding Britain you have nothing but token capability that is completely reliant on Britain who in turn is reliant on USA for most things.Indeed the whole force would require US logistical, C3, ISTAR, refuelling, sealift and airlift and other capabilities to be able to function.
True Thomas, but yet, many still have a tendency to villify the US … sometimes it is warrented other times not so much. However, again it is the nature of the current geo-political situation … |
Rabelais | 01 Sep 2014 12:41 p.m. PST |
Don't forget that NATO has a joint, Luxembourg-flagged pool of AWACS Luxembourg-flagged? Why, is it some kind of tax dodge? |
Jemima Fawr | 01 Sep 2014 3:00 p.m. PST |
I think it's just so Luxembourg can feel part of the club. the fleet is marked up as 'NATO' and is crewed multi-nationally. |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Sep 2014 7:26 p.m. PST |
@Rabelais: most likely so that the crews would spend their money there. (reverse tax dodge) |
Rod I Robertson | 02 Sep 2014 4:25 a.m. PST |
What size and composition of force would be needed if NATO was to create a rapid deployment force which had enough bite to cause Russia pause and act as a deterrent to war? What would the Teeth to Tail ration be to support such a force and where would it be best located before deployment to best do its job. Finally who (states) would be in such a force and what say should individual states have in its deployment and use. I look forward to you answers. My option would be as follows (Regiments and Battalions are the same size formations): One Force HQ. One Armoured Recce Regiment. Two light infantry brigades. One Mechanized Infantry Brigade. One Armoured Brigade. One Artillery Brigade. One Air Defense Regiment. Two Helicopter Aero-weapons Battalions. Two Helicopter Air-lift Battalions. One Mechanized Engineering/Pioneer Battalion. One NBC/ Chemical Defense Battalion. One Signals and EW Battalion. Two Replacements/ Security Infantry Battalions. Lots and Lots of Air Support. Enough "Tail" units to support this unit. Teeth to Tail ratio of 1:2 with extra tail supplied as deployment begins. To be under the sole control of NATO and no one member state. Commanders appointed by NATO. Location: Eastern Germany or Poland. Rod Robertson |
GeoffQRF | 02 Sep 2014 5:15 a.m. PST |
"The newly designated EU foreign affairs chief, Federica Mogherini, says Nato countries bordering on Russia need more than a paper pledge that Nato will help them in a crisis. Ms Mogherini, currently Italian foreign minister, said such countries "need to be sure that Article Five is not just a written text"." |
Legion 4 | 02 Sep 2014 7:18 a.m. PST |
I'd say that's a good mix Rod … The HQ would have to be mix of US/UK/France/Germany, etc. … very much like SHAFE. One of the LGT INF units should be the US 173d ABN, one Attack Helo Bn US AH-64s, maybe from the 1st CAV, as well as one Lift/Assault UH-60 Bn from the 101, one US Armored Bde – 1st AD, ADA – US Patriots/with some IRON DOME mixed in. Plus a lion's share of the US CAP/CAS assets. The smaller Light Infantry/Sec Bns should come from smaller Euro units like Belgium, the Dutch, Luxemburg, maybe even Turkey ! The rest should be a mix of the UK, France, Germany (maybe our own TMP Panzer Grenadier CDR Jurgen aka Flecktarn could command one of the Mech units !), Canada, Italy, etc. There are 27 members of NATO to join the party. But countries like Greece who have large economic problems and little to no combat readiness should stay home. They'd just need to be nursemaided and handheld and get in the way, IMO … Just saw on CNN, the US spends 73% of the NATO budget, while the other 27 make up the rest. Let the remainder of the NATO RDF be made up of non-US units other then those I mentioned previously … And yes, I agree, with the RDF being deployed to eastern Germany and/or Poland … |
Tango01 | 02 Sep 2014 3:49 p.m. PST |
NATO moving to create a rapid-reaction force to protect against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe "In a move with echoes of the Cold War, President Obama and other NATO leaders are creating a rapid-reaction force of 4,000 troops to protect against potential Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, officials said Monday. News of the planned "high-readiness force" came as Ukraine's defense minister warned Monday of a "great war" with Russia in which tens of thousands will die. Obama and the leaders of other NATO nations are expected to approve the formation of the rapid-reaction force when they hold a summit in Wales on Thursday…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Rod I Robertson | 02 Sep 2014 4:21 p.m. PST |
King Leonidas and the 4000. Yup, that ought to turn out well. Incredibly they have gone down from 10,000 to 4,000. That's not a deterrent, its a trip-wire to a greater war. Is there no morality at NATO? Putting 4,000 souls in an impossible and likely fatal situation is criminal IMHO. Why does everyone try to do things on the cheap and then wonder why their actions failed dismally afterward? Rod Robertson. |
Legion 4 | 03 Sep 2014 7:31 a.m. PST |
Nah ! The Greeks pobably won't be in the NATO TF/BG … Reminds me of a line from an old movie about Vietnam, "Go tell the Spartans, we did our duty." … |
Weasel | 03 Sep 2014 10:43 a.m. PST |
I imagine the intention is that if you put NATO troops in the area, it'll deter Russian aggression since the Russians don't want to fight NATO troops directly. |
Legion 4 | 03 Sep 2014 12:19 p.m. PST |
That is the concept, I believe … and it does appear sound, at this time … |
Tango01 | 03 Sep 2014 9:27 p.m. PST |
ok. Let's tried again. NATO Wants New Bases, Troops, And Equipment In Eastern Europe To Blunt Russia's Aggression "To blunt Russia's aggression, the Western alliance is considering new bases, new troops, and the economic equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Will the Obama administration go along? With Russian forces entering into Ukraine, NATO is putting together a plan to place the alliance's troops in bases behind the former Iron Curtain. One U.S. official who was not authorized to speak to the press said the presence of U.S. troops inside these bases in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia would act as a "tripwire for Russia. If Putin considers any military action in these countries, they will know that they will be involving U.S. forces too." Officially, however, the Obama administration has gone to great pains to explain that the proposed outposts in these Eastern European countries are not bases, per se. "I do not believe we're talking permanent basing," said Navy Captain Gregory Hicks, who is the spokesman for U.S. European Command. "I believe NATO will be discussing basing for the duration of a level of activity, whether it be an air detachment, ground presence, or port. The discussion is for a persistent rotational presence, it's not about establishing bases. The concept is to use existing infrastructure to accommodate the training."…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 04 Sep 2014 1:08 p.m. PST |
|
Bangorstu | 07 Sep 2014 2:04 p.m. PST |
ThomasHobbes – to be fair the force is going to be based in Poland, so no need for Polish involvement… It's not meant to deal with a situation on its own – it's a tripwire force to show we mean business. To me, seems like a good idea. |
Rod I Robertson | 07 Sep 2014 3:10 p.m. PST |
Does anyone really think that the Europeans and the American electorate want a major European war? A trip-wire force is small enough not to deter an outside attack and big enough to drag us all, kicking and screaming, into a war which we may not be ready to fight. It is a recipe for disaster. What is needed is a large enough force to deter an attack or one which can intervene fast enough and with sufficient force to effect events on the ground and give NATO a chance to mount a proper defence or counter-attack. The fact that the nation is already a member of the NATO alliance is trip-wire enough. This is a foolish policy and we may all regret the decision to go cheap very soon. Rod Robertson |
Weasel | 07 Sep 2014 3:44 p.m. PST |
I'm generally a fan that any policy suggestion, military or otherwise, should have a price tag for projections over the next 20 years, as well as an explanation of where that money will come from. |
Tango01 | 07 Sep 2014 4:14 p.m. PST |
NATO ready to create the new JEF Joint Expeditionary Force operational before 2018. "The UK agrees to launch a joint expeditionary force (JEF) with six other NATO member states, which will allow for the rapid mobilisation of 10,000 troops. A letter of intent, signed with partners from Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Norway, aims to develop the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) so that it is fully operational before 2018. The JEF is a pool of high readiness, adaptable forces that is designed to enhance the UK's ability to respond rapidly, anywhere in the world, with like-minded allies, or on behalf of international organisations such as the UN or NATO. The signing ceremony took place with all 28 defence ministers in Cardiff aboard HMS Duncan on 4 September at the NATO Summit. During the signing, discussions took place on how the agreement will allow the UK and JEF partners to continue with the excellent operational co-operation that has been achieved to date in places like Afghanistan…"
Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Deadone | 07 Sep 2014 5:33 p.m. PST |
Those figures are actually overstated: Romania has only 36 MiG-21s operational. Slovakia has 8 MiG-29s operational with a further 4 in actual proper storage. Bulgaria has 31 Su-25/MiG-21/MiG-29s in various states of operational capability. Bulgaria's fighter fleet is currently at extremely low level of operational capability and air policing is handled by some USAF F-15Cs and Greek F-16s. The artillery is also misrepresented – in most instances it's referring to various 81mm and 120mm mortars and not heavier longer ranged guns/howitsers. For example it refers to Estonia as having 334 artillery pieces. However only about 70 are towed artillery guns/howitsers (mainly old D30s) and the rest are mortars. And finally nearly all the equipment is Russian which means issues with obtaining spares and ammunition, especially as Ukraine is no longer an arms exporter due to its own pressing needs. There's a lot of airframes sitting around in open "storage". Most have been gutted of spares.
It doesn't take into account qualitative aspects – for example all Romanian tanks are basically a heavily modified T-55 complete with old 100mm gun. They are completely obsolete even against older Russian tanks. |
Deadone | 07 Sep 2014 5:33 p.m. PST |
Those figures are actually overstated: Romania has only 36 MiG-21s operational. Slovakia has 8 MiG-29s operational with a further 4 in actual proper storage. Bulgaria has 31 Su-25/MiG-21/MiG-29s in various states of operational capability. Bulgaria's fighter fleet is currently at extremely low level of operational capability and air policing is handled by some USAF F-15Cs and Greek F-16s. There's a lot of airframes sitting around in open "storage" i.e. sitting in open air conditions with no periodic checking and maintenance to preserve operational capability. Most have been gutted of spares.
The artillery is also misrepresented – in most instances it's referring to various 81mm and 120mm mortars and not heavier longer ranged guns/howitsers. For example it refers to Estonia as having 334 artillery pieces. However only about 70 are towed artillery guns/howitsers (mainly old D30s) and the rest are mortars. And finally nearly all the equipment is Russian which means issues with obtaining spares and ammunition, especially as Ukraine is no longer an arms exporter due to its own pressing needs. It doesn't take into account qualitative aspects either – for example all Romanian tanks are basically a heavily modified T-55 complete with old 100mm gun or even plain jane T-55s. They are completely obsolete even against older Russian tanks. |