US-European capability gap grows

vWhen Nato leaders meet on Thursday in Prague to welcome seven new countries into the US-led alliance, they will need no reminding that if the organisation is to have any future military role, the Europeans will have to improve their capabilities.

Joseph Ralston, Nato's outgoing US commander, has no illusions over the long-term consequences of this growing gap between the US and its Europeans allies when it comes to technology and spending.

He said the longer the capabilities gap widens, the less likely allies will be capable of interoperability - the ability to train together and fight together. "Nato forces may be less able to work together in future combined operations," he added.

At present, the US provides 100 per cent of Nato's jamming capability (for some communications), 90 per cent of the air-to-ground surveillance and reconnaissance and almost 80 per cent of the air refuelling tankers necessary to conduct operations.

"Let me emphasise just how important that last point of air refuelling is," Mr Ralston told defence experts at a recent conference in Brussels.

During the first few months of the war in Afghanistan, "virtually every operational mission over Afghanistan, be it Air Force or Navy fighter, or a long-range bomber, was refueled by an Air Force tanker. In order to achieve this vital capability, the US Air Force operates a fleet of 550 tankers." That, added Mr Ralston, "is almost eight times the number available to Nato from the other allies."

As for the 180 intercontinental bombers carrying the Nato insignia, they are also exclusively American, all equipped with the latest generation of precision weapons, and some with cruise missiles.

Another widening gap between the Europeans and the US is strategic airlift - the wide-bodied planes used to transport troops, armored vehicle carriers and humanitarian assistance.

The US has 250 long-range transport planes. "The Europeans have 11," said Lord Robertson, Nato secretary general. "It is hopeless. What do you do? Take the train. Or call for a 53 bus?"

German soldiers did take the train when it decided earlier this year to send its troops to Afghanistan. They waited for days in Turkey because of poor weather. The government then decided to go to the commercial market to lease transport planes. It ended up paying $245,000 per sortie. It needed 160 sorties.

The Europeans keep repeating they have plans to overcome the gap on strategic airlift by modernising the fleet with the A400m carrier. But diplomats say political will is lacking. Defence ministers are fighting for funds to place orders while the finance ministers are working within increasingly tighter budgets. Despite this, Nato's European allies insist they can make up for these shortfalls for strategic airlift by leasing them commercially.

Lord Robertson says they are deceiving themselves if they think they can rely on leasing until the A400m come on stream by the end of the decade. He said he recently telephoned around to see how many Antonovs - the Russian air transport carriers - were available. "Zero", said Lord Robertson. "They were all tied up, transshipping electronic toys. They are simply not available. And the price for them goes up and down, depending on a crisis."

please add me to your europe ping-list.

President Bush is now prodding NATO to step up to the plate and make NATO relevant again.

President Bush is now attempting to work his magic strategery on Europeans. If Bush can get European leaders to think clearly on defense, he's a better than I even thought (and I think he's a real good strategerist).

President Bush [From today's (Nov 20) pre-NATO speech in Prague]:

... To meet all of this century's emerging threats, from terror camps in remote regions to hidden laboratories of outlaw regimes, NATO must develop new military capabilities. NATO forces must become better able to fight side-by-side. Those forces must be more mobile and more swiftly deployed.

The allies need more special operations forces, better precision strike capabilities and more modern command structures. Few NATO members will have state-of-the-art capabilities in all of these areas. I recognize that. But every nation should develop some.

Ours is a military alliance, and every member must make a military contribution to that alliance. For some allies this will require higher defense spending. For all of us it will require more effective defense spending, with each nation adding the tools and technologies to fight and win a new kind of war.

And because many threats to NATO members come from outside of Europe, NATO forces must be organized to operate outside of Europe. When forces were needed quickly in Afghanistan, NATO's options were limited.

We must build new capabilities and we must strengthen our will to use those capabilities.

The United States proposes the creation of a NATO response force that will bring together well-equipped, highly ready air, ground and sea forces from NATO allies, old and new.

This force will be prepared to deploy on short notice wherever it is needed. The NATO response force will take time to create, and we should begin that effort here in Prague....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.