NATO say that with this agreement, Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Finland plan to systematically cooperate in acquiring maritime munitions with a view to achieve economies of scale and associated lower unit prices.
“The Participants will also discuss other cooperation aspects in support of these munitions, including the potential for common warehousing solutions. The agreement covers a broad range of munition types, including surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, torpedoes, and gun shells.”
At the signing ceremony, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that this was “a significant first step towards establishing European stockpiles of high quality maritime munitions. In time, this initiative will enhance our forces’ interoperability, our ability to share munitions, and our capacity work together in an effective and efficient way.”This MBDM initiative is modeled after similar efforts NATO Allies and partners had initiated in the air and land domains. The first joint acquisitions are expected in the near future.
So the 7 in the list will use the Oto 76mm and 127mm guns while the UK and the US will use BAe 57mm and 5in guns?
Err you might want to Google what 5 inches is in mm.
Well yes. My choice of Imperial units does require a leap of faith on the part of the reader to interpret my shorthand as the BAE Systems Mk45 US manufactured gun.
I doubt it will break down precisely like that, but it’s possible. It’ll be much more interesting to see which future missile and torpedo options are chosen though, both by these 8 and the UK.
5 of these navies (plus Germany) currently operate US missile systems like ESSM, Standard, and in some cases Harpoon. Commonality with other European nations, with domestic development and production, is obviously very appealing, but arming all of their fleets combined still wouldn’t outweigh the huge stockpiles the US will manufacture for both itself and NATO. It’ll come down to economics versus politics, import probably cheaper from the US or buy domestic from the EU and UK (MBDA).
The OTO 127mm and the BAE Systems 5″ MK45 uses the same ammunition.
Thanks for that. Where is it or they manufactured?
Not a simple answer as they are standard naval rounds, they are made by multiple companies in multiple countries. BAE Systems in the US, Leonardo in Italy, Chemring in the UK and many many others. Here is a catalogue for Poongsan in South Korea that makes it for example(P.19)
http://www.poongsan.co.kr/eng/files/ammo-catalogue.pdf
Chemring: https://www.chemring.co.uk/~/media/Files/C/Chemring-V2/PDFs/sector-brochure-munitions-web-300512
Leonardo:
https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/sea/weapon-systems/ordnance-ammunitions
Diehl:
https://www.diehl.com/defence/en/products/ammunition/#naval-ammunition
GTDS/EMGEPRON:
https://www.gtdsinc.com/our-products/ammunition/large-caliber-emgepron/
https://www.marinha.mil.br/emgepron/en-us/areas/ammunition
Interesting info. What about the futuristic guided shells. Will they be interchangeable as between the Oto 127mm and the BAE gun?
Leonardo has an agreement with BAE Systems to offer an adapted version of Vulcano to be fireable from a MK45. It is a matter of getting the electronics to talk to each other and certifying the round for the MK45.
It is important to note that these smart rounds have a reduced explosive payload meaning they are best used against soft targets like radars.
Very informative. Thx.
‘modelled’.
So basically the EU is now using NATO clout to buy munitions for its forthcoming Navy while most EU nations fail to honour the 2% of GDP rules? At the same time 5 EU nations France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (plus Norway) are using NATO to deliver air tanking with new NATO owned A330 MRTTs while us and the Yanks have to fund our own. Lets remind ourselves the MRTT-C programme is an initiative of the EU’s European Defence Agency ……
Personally I think that unless a country pays more than the minimum required (2% GDP) on its own defence as a NATO member state then its should not get the benefits of mutual defence and lower costs like this and should leave. NATO has rules but no one applies them for fear of upsetting people. Well let them defend themselves I say. The EU and the EEC countries before it have been freeloading their defence off the USA and the UK since the ’60s. Time to either pay up or leave and let the EU’s European Defence Agency find the money. For info:
https://www.eda.europa.eu/
While I agree with your view that all members should be obliged to meet the minimum spending requirement, booting countries out for not spending the minimum would either do more harm than good, or not change anything.
Case and point: if we booted France or Germany, what would it change? They’re still our allies, still part of the EU. Any declaration of war against them would trigger the rest of the West to intervene regardless of NATO. All it would do is shift authority away from NATO and to the EU.
@ Callum – While reality says it will never happen for the reasons I stated (no one wants to offend anyone) surely if you have an arrangement for mutual defence and the majority of countries are not pulling their weight (and so not abiding by said rules) there should be ramifications to ensure the few (ie the UK and the USA and even Canada) are not defending the many surely? To exaggerate my point: If Country A decided it was not going to spend money on defence but build new factories to increase exports (bear with me) why should we in the UK support them in conflict especially if those new factories damaged our own manufacturing and ability to generate revenue to fund our own defence?
As for Germany and France being our allies and in the EU recent events would indicate the EU is no friend of the UK and the chief drivers of that antipathy are in fact France and Germany. So that is not safe ground on which to base an argument IMHO.
And regarding the EU itself it is pretty clear it is using the European Defence Agency to build up its own military capabilities which by definition threatens NATO’s role in Europe. if they achieve their stated political aim the individual nation state will be subsumed into the overarching EU structure. I have quietly believed for some years that once the UK leaves the EU and some 80% of NATO spending will be from OUTSIDE the EU then maybe that will be the time, after 70 excellent years, to disband NATO and let the EU build the army, navy and air force they clearly wish to create. The UK can then formally create a trilateral defence pact with the USA and Canada which builds on the combined strengths of ‘5 Eyes’.
In principle, yes, there should be ramifications for failing to meet the minimum requirements of membership. However, in a mutual defence agreement, booting anyone out just results in a net loss to your fighting power. Even if they’re not spending much on their military forces, in the case of major countries like Germany they represent a massive economic ally. Wars are fought with wallets as much as weapons.
Using Brexit as justification to declare France, Germany, and the EU at large as no longer our allies is, to be blunt, fucking stupid. I do actually support Brexit, but everyone who ever thought we’d be able to negotiate a universally better deal with the EU than our current situation is deluded. We want to leave to protect and benefit ourselves, yet somehow when the EU refuses to simply bow down they’re the ones no longer being friendly? Germany in particular has shown consistent willingness to try and get a deal. The one exception to what I’ve just said is France; Macron being a self absorbed narcissist who just wants us gone and crippled so France can dominate Europe.
In regards to your plan for in the event of NATO dissolving, tying ourselves completely into the US is NOT a great choice. In Europe, the UK is the dominant naval power and a major air and land force; in the US we have less manpower and equipment than just the USMC. In Europe, we can be lead partner in various development programmes; in the US, we’d be a significantly lesser partner. Even from outside the EU, we want to be pushing NATO, because NATO gives us influence over European defence industry
@ Callum – To clarify your middle point I was not being ‘fucking stupid’ because I was not in any way suggesting Brexit be used to declare people as no longer allies. Indeed I never mentioned the word. And if you read my comment again you will see I was making precisely YOUR point that the EU are looking after themselves (as they should) and the main drivers of that are France and Germany. Sorry I cannot agree Germany are mere innocents in this matter and forgive me if I don’t respond to the rest of that part of your comment.
Now back to NATO? You wrote:
“However, in a mutual defence agreement, booting anyone out just results in a net loss to your fighting power”
Again forgive me but if they are not spending the bare minimums and playing to other internal political priorities then I would suggest they cannot be relied upon as an ally in combat. What happened in the Balkans right on the EU’s doorstep? It was the UK and the USA that had to do the hard miles and sort it out. Either they do fund defence or they do not.
I also did not suggest “tying ourselves completely into the US”. I suggested a trilateral deal with Canada and the USA. Of course we already rely deeply on each other as part of 5 Eyes so I suspect the Americans and Canadians are more reliable military and security allies than the EU or any European country. We have historic ties to both that we do not have with anyone in Europe. That does not mean we should not be friends with Europe, trade with Europe or do the things every free country does if it so chooses.
And to your last point given the way the UK has been excluded from Galileo despite being the lead nation in the world in satellite building and delivery I cannot see the EU allowing us to have any ‘lead’ in anything once we have left. Airbus / Dassault illustrates my point perfectly. However individual nations recognise our naval and other strengths (like the Netherlands) and work closely with us despite (or maybe because of) Brexit. They are regularly training under FOST, their Marines work closely with the RMs and they have guaranteed a Dutch Navy Frigate will be with every UK Carrier deployment. This is where I see our future relationship with European countries – ie on an individual as needs basis. NATO no longer fits (IMHO) with what the EU has become and wishes to become.