Comments on: Galileo military debate

By: Bill Evans

Bill Evans — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:18:05 +0000

The British are opposed for obvious reasons–they use more American equipment than the other countries in Europe, they have closer ties to the US, and they’re not as closely allied with Europe and the EC, EU, etc.

That said, the political situation is complex, and countries in Europe can have one set of bureaucrats who work with NATO and want to use GPS, and another set of bureaucrats who work with the EU and want to switch their military to Galileo.

By: al

al — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:22:44 +0000

Any idea why the British are opposed to it?

By: Bill Evans

Bill Evans — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:18:43 +0000

“military users of Galileo could help defray some of the costs of the system… British officials were opposed to such a shift.”

This is not really new, it’s just the first time I’ve seen it in the press. At least six years ago a US official involved in GPS negotiations said that one of the main American concerns about Galileo was that in order to justify the cost, European governments would want their militaries to adopt it instead of GPS. NATO has agreed on a GPS standard, and the US was concerned that Galileo supporters would try to reverse that decision. In particular, they expected it from the French, who have not been a strong part of NATO. I suspect that Jacques Barrot is French. So no surprise.

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:29:55 +0000

The effectiveness of GPS guided bombs has been so spectacular (98% hit rate in Kosovo), and their cost so low (they came in at less than half the projected cost when first introduced), that Europe really has no choice but to acquire this capability.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2006108224914.asp