Combat aircraft or helicopters, Europe must choose
(BRUSSELS2) While the main budget gaps are concentrated in tactical and strategic transport, the various European countries continue to invest massively in combat aviation, for quantities that seem disproportionate on a limited geographical territory. There are thus nearly 3.000 combat aircraft in the European armies, including 1500 fully operational. And the planned renewal plans indicate that the European armies will not give up this tool easily. Result while the "mobility-projection" function is designed as a priority for modern forces, it is today the poor relation...
The crisis offers an opportunity to update aeronautics and reorganize both combat aviation and give more priority to projection forces (transport planes, helicopters), which is more phase with the future strategic concept of NATO (1) as well as with the objectives of the EU, the so-called Petersberg missions as extended by the Lisbon Treaty.
In this period of budgetary scarcity, the European States do not have the possibility of developing both an oversized fighter aviation and filling the gaps in terms of force projection (transport planes, helicopters). You will have to choose.
Restructure European combat aviation
Doutsized buying plans
The Netherlands had thus planned to buy 85 JSF (lowered figure), Denmark 48 JSF (balanced decision); France 286 Rafale; Germany 180 Eurofighter; Italy 121 Eurofighter and 130 JSF; the United Kingdom 160 Eurofighter and 138 JSF; Spain 87 Eurofighter; Austria 15 Eurofighter! This was before the crisis...
Today is the time for a re-discussion of equipment, in a certain disorder. The Netherlands plans to reduce the number of JSF orders; Italy has reduced its Eurofighter order to 96 aircraft, the United Kingdom plans to do the same (48 Eurofighter and 78 JSF less according to certain projections), Germany plans 37 less Eurofighter, Norway has postponed the delivery of its JSF in 2018 (instead of 2016) and Denmark is feeling its way (JSF or F18) Etc... Clearly it's a stampede.
Why not joint management, at least partial?
Would it not be appropriate to take advantage of the crisis to overhaul the organization of combat aviation in Europe to have at least part of the equipment managed in common, like the EATC for the transport ? If the 4 countries that participate in the EATC - which participate in a similar air zone - set up a common management system, we have a workforce of combat aircraft, more than generously sized. There are already two European territories - Iceland and the Baltic countries - which resort to other NATO countries for their air defence.
Redirect part of the funding
Helicopters are still a bit of the poor relation of equipment, whereas they are of a usefulness recognized by all in modern operations and the cost is disproportionate to that of a fighter plane. However, for a Rafale or a JSF, you can buy at least 3-4 NH90 helicopters, 5 Super-Puma EC225 helicopters and 7-8 Mi-17 helicopters (2). The mere minimal reduction of a fighter aircraft program therefore makes it possible to quickly make up for the European delay in this area.
Why helicopters?
This is one of the obvious shortcomings of European armies. And the already significant needs can still grow in the future. In all recent missions, we have seen this need, whether for offensive actions (Afghanistan), interposition operations (Chad), or more "civilian" missions such as military training Somalis (EUTM Somalia) or observation in Georgia, not to mention the humanitarian missions (Haiti...). In any case, it is necessary to have a Medevac function.
The helicopter is also an essential asset in terms of rescue operations at sea or in the mountains, rescue and research, evacuation of nationals in danger, even extinguishing forest fires. In short, it is a civil-military tool par excellence, completely in phase with the European missions, known as Petersberg missions as extended by the Lisbon Treaty, like the civil-military function sought by NATO in its new concept strategic.
... and why not Mi17s?
The new European NH90 helicopter is slowly arriving in the armies (Finnish, Dutch, French...). But that's not enough to make up for the delay. In the interlude, we could very well conceive of workarounds such as resorting to the good old Mi17 or its more modern version of attack and transport Mi24. Admittedly, it is Russian material. But several European armies are already equipped with it (standard equipment of Eastern European and Balkan armies). And there would be a certain logic in equipping oneself with this material, robust, proven... and whose technological update kits exist in European companies (British, Czech...).
(1) Read: The “total” approach according to Rasmussen. And NATO-EU cooperation…
(2) The price varies according to the equipment and the volume of purchase, as well as the basis of calculation (with or without development costs)
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)
Why not MI 17s?
– because the modernization kit for an MI 17 (4 to 7 M€ per machine) is almost worth the price of certain new machines, in any case an economic calculation which takes account of the depreciation on often old cells shows that the operation is often uninteresting
– because these devices are not certifiable to European standards, i.e. a government which flies its men in a Mi8/17 has no recourse in the event of an accident and is attacked by the families
– because the Mi17 is the subject of intense lobbying which benefits Anglo-Canadian brokers in particular, who have managed to take 70% of the juicy market (in 100-airnes of M€!) from the outsourcing of the UN and succeeded in ousting 100% of helicopters of European origin. In turn, it is European industry that may be marginalized in the future.
Morality: without wanting to do basic protectionism, a little European preference would benefit both the security of our soldiers in operations and our European wallets.
By the way, should we remember the average age of the European aircraft fleet? Germany and others still field F-4s designed 50 years ago, Spain Mirage F-1s designed 40 years ago, Benelux and Norwegian F-16s date from a program from 30 years ago.
And the austerity measures taken hastily for a few months risk making prestigious air forces like the Royal Air Force second-tier weapons with fewer combat planes than Algeria...
Already, in theory, Libya with its Antonovs has more air transport capacity than France.
A combat aircraft is about twenty of the most advanced technological programs, which determine, to a large extent, the industrial innovation of entire sectors of the European economy. Abandoning its construction would be detrimental to many civilian sectors. Americans have understood this for a long time.
Your reasoning is too “short” in industrial and economic terms.
It is not “either the helicopters” (financial problem) or the combat planes (problem of innovation and research).
Pooling or sharing research in European programs by asking our manufacturers to cooperate and helping them financially to do so would be much smarter. Pool our helicopter fleets as well. In this last sector Eurocopter is our European champion, world number one. So Europe can go there….