Analysis: Is the time right for a European Air Force?

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 March 2015



While a European Air Force has sound practical reasons going for it, the political obstacles to its creation would almost certainly be too great to overcome. Source: IHS

The European President recently called for the formation of a 'European Army' in order for the continent to better face the growing threats on its doorstep from Moscow and others.

While Jean-Claude Juncker's proposal was dismissed by key member states almost as soon as it was announced, might not the formation of a European Air Force gain more traction at a time of heightened security concerns and squeezed defence budgets? With the equipment costs of air forces typically eclipsing those of armies and navies in terms of procurement, operation, and sustainment, the benefits of pooling resources to help member states better share this burden would appear to be self-evident.

The 28 member states that constitute the European Union (EU) include some 510 million inhabitants across 4,422,773 km². By way of comparison, the United States has approximately 320 million people over 9,857,306 km², while Russia has a population of 145 million over 17,098,242 km². While there are differences in populations and land mass, the EU, Russia, and the United States represent three broadly similar peer power blocs in terms of status and territorial defence requirements.

In terms of defence budgets allocated to air forces, the largest EU contributor is currently the UK, which in 2015 is allocating USD16.8 billion to the Royal Air Force (according to IHS Jane's Defence Budgets ). Compared with this, the US Air Force is to receive USD154.1 billion, while the Russian Air Force will get USD11.3 billion (the Russian rouble has almost halved in value over the past six months compared with the US dollar, so while the budget has fallen in dollar terms, so has the cost of buying equipment in roubles. As such, the real-term budget for the Russian Air Force is, in fact, closer to about USD20 billion).

If the EU was to combine its defence spending, it would have USD69.3 billion to spend on its air force, which would put it at a significant advantage compared with Russia (the 'threat' that prompted Juncker to call for an EU Army). While this remains substantially less than the United States, the EU does not have the same global commitments and undertakings as its transatlantic partner and so would not require the same level of expenditure.

According to IHS Jane's World Air Forces , the EU member states have approximately 1,370 fighters between them (as the EU Air Force is being billed as defensive, only aircraft with a predominantly air defence role have been counted), compared with 1,391 air defence fighters for the United States, and 1,276 combat aircraft for Russia (as the perceived threat, attack aircraft have been included in Russia's figures also).

In terms of plain numbers, a consolidated air force would put the EU on a par with both Russia and the United States. However, the numbers only tell part of the story. Currently, each EU-member acquires and bases its aircraft as it sees fit, with the result that the continent has a disparate inventory of ageing former Soviet types, such as the MiG-29 'Fulcrum', operating alongside the most modern types offered by the West, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. A rationalisation of types across the EU would save vast amounts of money in the procurement, operation, and support of its fighter inventory.

Not only is there no overarching strategy when it comes to aircraft procurement, but their basing also follows national rather than EU priorities. This means that countries such as Austria and the Czech Republic field some of the most advanced types even though they are surrounded on all sides by friendly neighbours, while the lion's share of Europe's inventory is located to the west of the continent, about as far from Russia as it is possible to get while remaining within the EU. As a continent-wide defensive posture, this leaves much to be desired.

While the prospect of a European Air Force might be hard to countenance by many, a blueprint for such an endeavour has in fact been rolled out in the form of a recent agreement between Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands to share the air policing of their territories. This agreement, which was signed on 4 March, will see the Belgian Air Component and Royal Netherlands Air Force take turns in keeping two F-16s on quick-reaction alert from 2016. In doing so, they will become the world's first countries to enter into such a reciprocal agreement and, depending on the results, may well pave the way for a similar EU-wide initiative at a future date.

Of course, as Juncker found out when he postulated the European Army, for every argument in support of a European Air Force there are just as many (if not more) against it.

For such a force to become a reality, there would first be a host of practical hurdles to overcome. Not least of these would be the national priorities and responsibilities of the EU states. If there were to be a reccurrence of the 1982 Falklands crisis between the United Kingdom and Argentina, for instance, it is doubtful that any of the other 27 member nations would want 'their' air force getting involved in what might be perceived as somebody else's colonial war. There are also numerous inter-EU territorial disputes, such as that between Spain and the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, which would make the creation of a union-wide air force highly problematic.

Issues such as the kind of relationship that such an EU Air Force would have to NATO, and the status of non-EU but NATO-member nations within Europe, such as Norway and Turkey, would need to be ironed out. There is also the issue of the neutrality of some member states to contend with, for while the Irish Republic and Sweden are enthusiastic EU partners, they both value their non-aligned status and so might feel uneasy about committing to an institution in the European Air Force that has been so overtly created to counter Russia.

Quite apart from the practical problems with constituting a European Air Force, there are also political arguments against creating one. When Juncker claimed that Europe is facing an unprecedented level of threat from external adversaries, he neglected to mention that it is also being battered and undermined from within.

As the EU's primary military contributor, the United Kingdom would need to be central to any move to develop union-wide defence institutions, such as an air force. With the United Kingdom set to hold an 'in/out' referendum on its continued membership of the EU in the coming years, any such move would be all but impossible to countenance in the current political climate.

There is also an emotional argument against the creation of such an air force, for while many within the EU might (sometimes begrudgingly) accept moves towards greater union, the thought of pooling military capabilities to such a degree will be anathema to them. In many ways, the sovereignty of a modern nation state is built on its armed forces, and while member states have contributed to EU missions and battlegroups, the loss of such an intrinsically national capability as an air force to the greater EU project will be a step too far for most.

So it would seem that, while there might be sound monetary and military reasons to support the creation of a European Air Force, there are as many practical and emotional reasons against it. Therefore, just like the proposed European Army, a European Air Force at this time would appear to be a non-starter to all but the most ardent of Europhiles.

IHS Janes