Is the European Union circling the drain?

[MillCreek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/world/europe/euro-meant-to-unite-europe-seems-to-be-dividing-it.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Another interesting article on the fate of the European Union.  In a nutshell, the Union probably needs a central fiscal union with powers to override member states, in order to maintain the Union.  I continue to wonder how long Germany is going to be willing to foot the bills.  A lot of the recent world stock market gyrations are in part due to Germany participating or not in the Greece and European bank bailouts.

I am not optimistic that this will be happening any time soon.  I think that having a robust European Union is in the financial and defense interests of the United States, but if it falls, we go back to working with the UK, France and Germany, primarily. 

[roo_ster]

For the sake of actual Europeans not members of govt's, let us hope so.

If the EU and German policriters continue being successful in buggering the German people into paying the way of profligate & irresponsible S europeans, I don;t think we'll like what later emerges from the German political landscape.

[Fitz]

You mean to tell me it's bad for one entity to bankroll the idiocy of others?

[AZRedhawk44]

Another interesting article on the fate of the European Union.  In a nutshell, the Union probably needs a central fiscal union with powers to override member states, in order to maintain the Union.  to dissolve and let slackers slip into their own quagmire.

Fixed.

I don't envy the Germans at all, and I whole-heartedly support them abandoning the EURO and returning to the Deutschmark. 

[longeyes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/world/europe/euro-meant-to-unite-europe-seems-to-be-dividing-it.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

 I think that having a robust European Union is in the financial and defense interests of the United States, but if it falls, we go back to working with the UK, France and Germany, primarily. 

The existence of the EU is in the financial and defense interests of the U.S. how exactly?  What we have seen from the EU is the ascendancy of noxious statist policies and toxic multiculturalism.  That they have avoided major wars obscures the fact that there has been an internal cultural war going on in Europe that is killing the birthplace of the Enlightenment.

[MillCreek]

The existence of the EU is in the financial and defense interests of the U.S. how exactly?  What we have seen from the EU is the ascendancy of noxious statist policies and toxic multiculturalism.  That they have avoided major wars obscures the fact that there has been an internal cultural war going on in Europe that is killing the birthplace of the Enlightenment.

As the article notes, the EU is America's largest trading partner, and they do provide some defense capabilities in conjunction with us.  The airwar over Libya would be a recent example.  So yes, I would like to see them continue to buy US products and share the load on defense.

[MicroBalrog]

It's a trick. Get an ax.

[longeyes]

Who says we should stop trading with France or Italy?  Not I.

[roo_ster]

As the article notes, the EU is America's largest trading partner, and they do provide some defense capabilities in conjunction with us.  The airwar over Libya would be a recent example.  So yes, I would like to see them continue to buy US products and share the load on defense.

Do note the number of sorties/day before and after the US stopped active bombing in Libya.  The Euros lack the ability to effectively prosecute war beyond their boundaries.  This was demonstrated in the 1990s in the Balkans.

Even the best equipped, trained, and effective Euro force (the UK with zero aircraft carriers capable of launching FW aircraft) can't project force for squat. 

I don;t write that in a gloating manner, but in sadness.

Who says we should stop trading with France or Italy?  Not I.

Ayup.  A customs union would have served Europe just as well.

[MillCreek]

Do note the number of sorties/day before and after the US stopped active bombing in Libya.  The Euros lack the ability to effectively prosecute war beyond their boundaries.  This was demonstrated in the 1990s in the Balkans.

Even the best equipped, trained, and effective Euro force (the UK with zero aircraft carriers capable of launching FW aircraft) can't project force for squat. 

I don;t write that in a gloating manner, but in sadness.

Ayup.  A customs union would have served Europe just as well.

Boy, ain't that the truth, as we have discussed here.  They can pull off some air sorties for a while, until the logistics run out, but a sustained air or land campaign without the logistical tail of the US? Not so much.

[agricola]

Boy, ain't that the truth, as we have discussed here.  They can pull off some air sorties for a while, until the logistics run out, but a sustained air or land campaign without the logistical tail of the US? Not so much.

Once the two aircraft carriers are built and given their planes* things should be a lot better - two of them and Ocean will be far more effective than the 3 VSTOL carriers were.  In fact in many ways the RN of 2019 will be a lot more powerful than the RN has been since any point after 1972.

* this of course assumes that they are built, are given planes and not sold to Argentina

[seeker_two]

* this of course assumes that they are built, are given planes and not sold to Argentina

The Argentinians are already shopping for an aircraft carrier.....and the Faulklands are top of the list....

[roo_ster]

Once the two aircraft carriers are built and given their planes* things should be a lot better - two of them and Ocean will be far more effective than the 3 VSTOL carriers were.  In fact in many ways the RN of 2019 will be a lot more powerful than the RN has been since any point after 1972.

* this of course assumes that they are built, are given planes and not sold to Argentina

Yup, an aircraft carrier that launches all-grown-up FW jets would be a huge shot in the arm.  Not only could the UK better project force, it could better defend any fleet sent out.  You'd need two to keep one ready for ops. 

FTR, I know nothing about the uK's non-AC surface fleet & subs.  I just hope the UK has LOTS of subs to call on as pickets out beyond the range of RW aircraft until the big carriers are ready.

[birdman]

Even the best equipped, trained, and effective Euro force (the UK with zero aircraft carriers capable of launching FW aircraft) can't project force for squat.  .

Forget about one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)

And both the UK and the frogs can still nuke the piss out of people, but their deterrent power has been minimized since their actions have, in general, made out countries realize they are weak.

[roo_ster]

Forget about one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)

And both the UK and the frogs can still nuke the piss out of people, but their deterrent power has been minimized since their actions have, in general, made out countries realize they are weak.

True on both counts. 

I had forgotten about the CdG, not exactly a ship with a happy record of availability or much FW jet capacity(1).  Frankly, two or three carriers is required to have year-round force projection capability.


(1) Looking it up, the CdG deploys/deployed with 18 FW jets, one EW EW prop plane, and a few helos.  Say 20-25 aircraft.  By comparison, the Nimitz hauls 90 aircraft around.  Sounds to me like the USMC assault ships might have more capacity.  OK, after looking it up, the USS Iwo Jima totes ~30 helos and 8 FW jets.  I wonder how many FW jets the IJ could pack in extremis?

[Perd Hapley]

I had forgotten about the CdG, not exactly a ship with a happy record of availability

Seeing as how it's named for de Gaulle, it probably resigns when it doesn't get its way, then demands the navy be re-organized when it comes back into service.

[MillCreek]

OK, after looking it up, the USS Iwo Jima totes ~30 helos and 8 FW jets.  I wonder how many FW jets the IJ could pack in extremis?

They would have to all be Harriers, since the amphibs have no catapult or arresting capability, nor a long enough flight deck for a takeoff run.

[MechAg94]

Maybe a thread veer, but given the OP, if you have a small investment (employer stock) valued in Euros, would it be wise to sell all or part of it?  The stock value is still decent and the exchange rate is still up versus the dollar (as of today at least).

[AZRedhawk44]

Maybe a thread veer, but given the OP, if you have a small investment (employer stock) valued in Euros, would it be wise to sell all or part of it?  The stock value is still decent and the exchange rate is still up versus the dollar (as of today at least).

If Greece and/or Italy:
1. Start rioting, or;
2. Get bailed out

Then you will lose net worth as long as the dollar doesn't drop in parity with the Euro... which the OWS idiots could cause if Wall Street becomes a guerrilla insurgent zone and it becomes difficult to commence trade due to domestic terrorism.

However, if Greece knuckles down and actually starts working and cuts entitlement spending, then the Euro-zone deficiencies could be reversed and your product stock rises in comparable value against the dollar.

Were I a schekel-trader, I'd put my funds in USD and GBP right now.  We're primed for an economic explosion once we get a corporate tax holiday to repatriate a trillion or more USD, and an administration that isn't hostile to business growth.  GBP is just gentle-plodding-stable, but the dollar is about to boom on the world market.

[MechAg94]

Well, if the dollar is going back up, that might be a good reason to sell out.  Right now, the Euro is worth 1.38 dollars so I gain a substantial amount over the sell price in the conversion. 

[KD5NRH]

They would have to all be Harriers, since the amphibs have no catapult or arresting capability, nor a long enough flight deck for a takeoff run.

Clearly, someone needs to develop a seaplane variant of the A-10.  Imagine a couple dozen of those cruising out of an amphibious assault ship.

[roo_ster]

They would have to all be Harriers, since the amphibs have no catapult or arresting capability, nor a long enough flight deck for a takeoff run.

F35 has a VTOL variant.  It ain't an F22, but it is pretty decent.

[MillCreek]

F35 has a VTOL variant.  It ain't an F22, but it is pretty decent.

I know, I have been watching it with great interest, since I have always admired VTOL aircraft.  It is a long way from making it to the fleet, though.  Although just this month, a F-35 B began initial sea trials with a vertical landing on the USS Wasp.  I think the plan is for fleet deployment in 2015.

[erictank]

They would have to all be Harriers, since the amphibs have no catapult or arresting capability, nor a long enough flight deck for a takeoff run.

Yup, they are.  Having said that, there's enough deck space for a STOL takeoff, dramatically increasing combat range and payload.  I would guess that if they ditched all the helos (they wouldn't), they might squeeze in as many as 10 more Harriers.  Don't know about sustaining flight ops for that many AV-8Bs, though - I've no idea what they might require that an LHD carries in limited quantities.

F-35B is, I believe, physically larger than AV-8B and would be carried in lesser numbers.

[birdman]

Yup, they are.  Having said that, there's enough deck space for a STOL takeoff, dramatically increasing combat range and payload.  I would guess that if they ditched all the helos (they wouldn't), they might squeeze in as many as 10 more Harriers.  Don't know about sustaining flight ops for that many AV-8Bs, though - I've no idea what they might require that an LHD carries in limited quantities.

F-35B is, I believe, physically larger than AV-8B and would be carried in lesser numbers.

20 harriers if that is goal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship

The F-35B is about 5ft larger (wingspan and length), so one would expect 16-18 instead of 20.  16-18 f135's is a hell of a lot of firepower for a "mini carrier"