Ok guys, this is a discussion about the reconstruction of the European Navy. Ideas and doubts, what's possible and what's not, and so on.
>what they wantGovernment investment and subsidized civilian shipbuilding industry that can compete against Chyna, south Corea and Japan>What they'll getItalians, Germans, French and Brits demonstrating exactly why NATO wasn't a luxury, it is a requirement for a functional military, one that Europe no longer has due entirely to their own choices.
>>64192961At the moment no Navy for Europe due to the poor coordination between the countries
There's no need for anything bigger than a frigate, Europe's international interests can be taken care of at a later date. Frigates and corvettes aplenty to protect territorial waters from both military and immigrant threats, diesel-electric submarines and air forces can handle anti-ship duty. France and UK will keep flexing with aircraft carriers but those can't be relied upon for home defense. Ultimately there should be a pan-european ballistic missile submarine program since UK/FR probably won't share tech.
The big question is "what do you want to do with this European navy?" Because that will determine its structure. Yeah, stuff like carriers may be signifiers of first world superpower status, but they actually have a specific role and if you build one then don't use it they're a waste of money (cough Admiral Kuznetsov cough).In my opinion what Europe needs is a strong green water navy consisting mostly of frigates, backed up by some light carriers (like what Japan is doing right now).
1. Europe doesn't need a bigger navy. It might be a mess but there's no plausible mission profile it can't already handle unless it involves nuking the US for Greenland/Canada. In a US-China war the closest thing to real combat will be in the Indian ocean and ASW is firmly covered for any Russian smoking ships.2. Europe already has world leading shipbuilders and tech. A lot less than it used to for sure but that's an economic challenge.
Kick all the boat people out before you even think of building a European navy. Who is gonna enlist? A bunch of Moroccans?
>>64192961Europe can defend all her internal seas (North, Black, Baltic, Med) with naval patrol aircraft and shore batteries of missiles, any unified European Navy should be a blue water global reaction force otherwise what's the fucking point
>>64192961Step 1 throw out anybody who isn't white, especially jews. That basically eliminates 95% inhabitants who are net economic losses. 90% of white collar crime worth more than 100k euros, and eliminates the major political impetus for both importation of the former problem, interests which would squander naval power, unproductive investment or aid in directed towards non-European nations, and the main political impetus for xenophilia or sympathy for said foreigners at the expense of European interests.Once you do that you have both money and political interests in a naval buildup. Indeed such a buildup necessitates the former measures so don't get pissy about the politics.So lets look at various doctrines.1) Cold War Rusky: a large fleet up SSNs for countering enemy naval assets and perhaps a few SSBNs for deterrence; combined with Cruisers or Large Destroyers. Against a peer adversary this means you'll be engaging in a fighting retreat intentionally and relying on land based air assets for support. Unlike Russia the subs would actually be good, but the lack of anti-sub patrols means you're fucked against a comparable sub force with nuclear powered Carriers. Not ideal but a budget option2) Green Water Chink doctrine with optional forward elements. Probably both the cheapest option and the one most attainable. Just do more of what Europe is already doing with Frigates and Conventional subs combined with land based air power and missiles. Unlike the Chinese who are ambitious enough to send out half-rate carriers to support operations on various islands in SEA Europe doesn't need this nor would it really need a fire brigade to rush around to provide extra anti-sub patrols. And Britain already has good SSNs thus a fleet of 20 or so of them vs the 3 question ones the Chinks have would be the forward elements.
>>641944483) 2nd Rate Yanks, ie power projection. You'd need probably 25 SSNs vs the 50 the US have but probably no more SSBNs than already exist. Probably no more conventional subs than already exist. Not as many frigates as the Green Water plan nor as many large Destroyers as the Cold War plan. 3-4 Supercarrier battle groups with 20 SSNs covering them and the other 5 sprinkled about. It won't let you fuck with everybody but it would let you secure petroleum and fissionable reserves in North Africa, the Levant, and most of Africa as well as threaten all trade which doesn't have the protection of the US. The remaining conventional subs and frigates are mostly there to contain Russia which given their current state should be simple. This plan pretty much requires not only an unabashedly self-interested Europe as previously stated but also a huge amount of either goodwill and cooperation or some kind of confederation against the rest of the (non-white)world based on renewed nationalism which doesn't breakdown into squabbling. So not very likely.
>>64193544thats more or less what they've already got
>>64193641> nuking the US Why not?
>>64192961>combined 1.6 trillion dollar annual military budget>20% of that is capex (320 billion)>1/4th of that is navy (80 billion)>1/2 of that is escort fleet (40 billion)Every year the Euronavy builds 6 Burke III-sized air defence frigates and 6 SSNs (yes attack subs are "escorts") until it has 120 of each
>>64192961The problem is materials and money
>>64192961Good idea. Germans can have their shot at producing it, can't be let anywhere near the command center obviously.
>>64192961The biggest problem is the high intellectual poverty of the political class; there are many examples where politicians understood nothing, even though there were professional analysts
>>64195834Like Schacht for example
a european navy will not exist, because it undermines the sovreignity of european states. what jeets, chinks, vatnigs and muttlards fail to comprehend is that the EU is not a federation, is not an alliance, it's a trading and economic union between european states. each member has its own agenda and its own interests, it's own history and culture, and most of all, its own rivalries that come from millennia of past wars. so no, imbeciles, a european navy will never exist, so long as european nations exist. the only way for a european federation to come through is either one nation taking control of europe by force, or the complete eradication of the national identities and the creation of a single human population that self identifies as european.
>Keep Russia out of the Atlantic and north sea.>Keep North Africa, Levant and Turkey in check.>Secure trade through Suez/red sea choke points.>Littoral fleets for the Baltic and black sea>Some capability to project far overseas, for distant territories (IE Guyana, Falklands etc) and distant allies.Feel like this more or less covers the demands on a hypothetical Euro navy.Could do with some more subsurface assets to counter Russia if the US is out of the picture, definitely some proper ballistic missile defence for destroyers ala SM6/SM3 and maybe some solid basing in the middle eastOtherwise the situation is not so bad, maybe another carrier or two.
>>64192961CUBEᵀᴹ carrier. It's a container ship, but every container has a 76mm OTO inside. Imagine, the broadsides
>>64192961No EU has too many sleepy people in order to make changes
yoorope is not a shithole "country" like jewSA, stupid brown boy.
>>64196688True
>>64192961Ok but what kind of ship?
>>64192961U boats and drones supremacy
>>64194511And? Sounds like they got a navy that fits their needs then. Unless you want to suggest power projection carriers (to project power where exactly?) or fuckhuge battleships that are obsolete, there's nowhere left to go.
>>64197199Maybe at the Suez canal and Gibilterra? And in the Arctic Pole?
>>64192961I think it's also important to have a space program
>>64193646It's not that easy
>>64194415Any united european navy will be concentrated in the med and on sinking immigrant boats, because a new wave of refugees would be the only thing that could bring it into existence
>>64192961The only area of projection is in the Arctic Pole, because there will be competition
>>64192961> European NavyUSA claims the rule over oceans, and won't allow Europe to bulld own big fleet. So, first step should be like:1) Throw USA bases from Europe
