www.militaar.net

No Permanent U.S. F-16 Base In Poland, Minister Says

24 May 2011 09:38

France's foreign policy
Showing the strain
Like so many others, France is finding it hard to fight on several fronts at once

Jul 14th 2011

As for France’s transatlantic ties, Libya has been a bruising experience too. After the fallout over the 2003 war in Iraq, Mr Sarkozy carefully mended relations, taking a risk by confronting deep-seated French anti-Americanism. But the Libyan mission has been something of a wake-up call. Mr Juppé describes as “rather astonishing” last month’s comments by Robert Gates, the former American defence secretary, criticising Europe’s paltry defence efforts. The reality, Mr Juppé retorts, is that “we think the Americans aren’t doing enough.”

Mr Gates is surely right that the Europeans have become over-reliant on American military capacity, in Libya and elsewhere. Yet the latest blow for the French has been that the Americans seem so reluctant to use their own firepower. “The sobering lesson from Libya is that you can’t take the Atlantic alliance for granted,” comments François Heisbourg, at the Foundation for Strategic Research. “For a country that has only just reintegrated fully into NATO, that is a real shock.”

The USA’s electronic attack fighters are a unique, overworked, and nearly obsolete capability. With the retirement of the US Air Force’s long-range EF-111 Raven “Spark ‘Vark,” the aging 4-seat EA-6B Prowlers are now the USA’s sole remaining tactical aircraft type for radar jamming, communications jamming and information operations like signals interception [1]. Despite their age and performance limits, they’ve been predictably busy on the front lines, used for everything from escorting strike aircraft against heavily defended targets, to disrupting enemy IED land mine attacks by jamming all radio signals in an area.

All airframes have lifespan limits, however, and the EA-6B is no exception. The USA’s new electronic warfare aircraft will be based on Boeing’s 2-seat F/A-18F Super Hornet multi-role fighter, and has 90% commonality with its counterpart. That will give it decent self-defense capabilities, as well as electronic attack potential. At present, however, the EA-18G is slated to be the only dedicated electronic warfare aircraft in the USA’s future force – and since the USA is currently the only western country with such aircraft, it would become the sole source of tactical jamming support for NATO air forces as a whole.

Airborne Brigade Combat Team descended on the drop zone at Hohenfels Training Area, Oct. 5, in Europe's first full-spectrum training environmen, or FSTE rotation.

This FSTE rotation has more than 7,500 participants from 17 countries. Planners say the U.S. and multinational forces training together is unusual. There is a Slovakian battalion supporting the 1-4 and role-playing the opposing force, while Slovenian and Polish units are supporting the 173rd replicating the host-nation forces, said Martindale.

Planning for the FSTE took more than six-months as staff regained proficiency in skills, such as, airborne operations, serving as the opposing force and working with the multinational forces in expanded roles.

"In the early stages of an entry operation like this, they have to jump-in and it's chaotic initially, and they are going to rapidly develop the situation and expand their operations and start growing their forces," said Col. John R. Jones, a senior intelligence officer. "In the FSTE, they are establishing for the first time communications, a command post, fighting positions, logistical support, and developing situational understanding of the operational environment."

According to Jones, the jump and early-entry operation is just the beginning. The rest remains to be seen

Finally the forces left under Kremlin control, the Russian army. They're a plausible threat to the Baltic EU and NATO members; Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Only Estonia seems to have noticeable diplomatic troubles with Russia from time to time. Now, do European militar forces suffice to defend the Baltic?
First of all, they would come late. The Baltic Sea happens to freeze at times and block some ports, airports can be turned into concrete versions of Swiss cheese and the land connection with the Baltic is basically one road. So even the glorious 1991 14-division army could not intervene there in time.
The Russian army is on the other hand so much neglected, rusting and rotting that by comparison the EU military budgets were lavish and EU military forces well-trained, well-equipped.

Is the U.S. approach of throwing near-endless amounts of money into the armed forces a better security guarantee for the Baltics? I doubt it, for Washington DC is thoroughly disinterested in the region for any other purpose than using it as a pool for auxiliary forces, a source for UN assembly votes and a region of potential proxies for the sabotage of EU consensus-requiring decisions.

Soobel kirjutas:Huvitav, kas selleks on ka põhjus olemas, miks Lavrov nüüd nii haledalt kiunub? Tundub, et on, muidu oleks venkudel pohlad, mis see NATO oma liikmesriikides toimetab. Aga näe, nemad tahavad salamisi kaasmaalasi kaitsma tulla ja NATO plaanib neile sel juhul tõsimeeli ketuka teha! UÄÄÄÄÄ!

kaur3 kirjutas: ... ja oi kui palju mahuks nendesse lennukitesse konteinereid rakettide, snaipripüsside, külgmiinide, snickersitega jne 1 Kalev Sepp võiks ka oma kolleegidega tulla.