Butter, Butter and no Guns - Labor hangs the RN out to dry...

[Spino]

Found these links whilst perusing the Current Events forum at wargamer.com.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/24/narmy24.xml

Admiral: 'tinpot' armed services
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:37am GMT 24/12/2006


Britain's beleaguered Armed Forces are in danger of being turned by the Government into a "tinpot gendarmerie" incapable of defending UK interests, according to one of the country's top military figures.

Defence cuts and financial infighting at the Ministry of Defence are threatening Britain's status as a world power, said Admiral Sir Alan West in a blistering attack on Labour's defence policy.

Sir Alan West: Government is risking British security

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he said the Government was risking the future security of British interests by reshaping the armed forces to wage long-term "anti-terror" campaigns in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sir Alan, 58, said the MoD was behaving "like these tinpot countries" that fail to invest in major equipment programmes, and spend defence budgets on running rather than developing their armed forces. "That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.

In 10 years' time, the threat facing the UK could be something "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia". He added: "All we could be left with is an Armed Forces that is effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope that no one gets to us."

Sir Alan's comments follow recent criticisms of Government treatment of the Army from General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, the present and former heads of the Army respectively.

The latest attack comes amid speculation that the MoD is about to delay or even cancel its "Carrier Strike" programme to build two aircraft carriers by 2015.

Sir Alan, who retired as head of the Royal Navy this year, said he now feared that the £3.5 billion he had ring-fenced for the project was under threat from MoD officials trying to "undermine the programme" so that the money could be used elsewhere in the cash-strapped department.

He said: "The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it. There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital."

Sir Alan also criticised the Army for not "going through the pain" of addressing its own financial problems in the way the Navy had done over the past few years. He described the Army's attitude towards cost-cutting as "atrocious" and accused senior officers of attempting to "raid" the Forces' overall equipment budget in an effort to solve its own financial problems.

More bad news...

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20070103.aspx

Britannia Flees the Seas
January 3, 2007: Continuing budget problems have already forced Britians Royal Navy to mothball (put into inactive reserve) 13 of its 44 warships. Now it has been decided to mothball another eight, and to cancel construction of two Type-45 destroyers. That will leave only six new Type-45s, plus two new aircraft carriers being built. The government is also considering closing one of the three bases the navy maintains. The budget problems are caused by cost overruns in procurement problems for new ships (destroyers and nuclear subs) and aircraft (the new Eurofighter), as well as training costs associated with troops being sent to Afghanistan and Iraq. The government believes it can get away with these cuts because, well, the U.S. Navy is more powerful than all the world's navies combined, and a close ally of Britain. So if there's an emergency requiring warships…

At this rate the RN will become an exclusively 'brown water' navy capable only of defending the home waters against illegal contraband and unruly marine life. Sure, the UK could retain a few ballistic missile submarines as a last resort life insurance policy but if the carriers get scratched who is to say the boomers won't too? Basically one of the few truly 'proactive' naval powers in the world is now on track to rely entirely on its most trusted ally to not only to help police and secure the world's sealanes but to project power and protect it's own national interests. Shocking, especially in light of the fact that Japan, a nation currently prohibited by its constitution from engaging in 'proactive' power projection, possesses the second most powerful navy in the world. And unlike Europe you can bet your collective a$$es that Japan has contingency plans to become a decidedly pro-active naval power should China's saber rattling turn into saber swinging.

Slightly off-topic rant...

Thanks to similar measures taken by the other left-leaning governments of the wealthier European nations the world's sole superpower that everyone just loves to hate will eventually be expected to assume responsibility as the world's de facto police force (as if we aren't already). Ironic isn't it? We're damned if we do and damned if we don't. All the negative buzz about the US being the sole superpower and taking unilateral action and yet technically speaking we've practically been given this responsibility by wealthy nations who can afford to keep modest sized militaries but simply choose not to. Eventually the only difference between labels like 'unilateral action' and a 'coalition of the willing' will be whether or not US troops get fancy 'UN seal of approval' patches and pins to put on thier uniforms. Eventually the US will be the only nation expected to reliably enforce the UN's bidding (again, as if we aren't already). And non-Americans wonder why the average American gets in a tizzy when talking about the UN. Seriously now, Iraq aside, if you expect Americans to willingly risk their soldier's lives to help the UN and Europe save the world from itself don't be surprised when we start complaining about being the only ones on the front lines and begin disregarding the UN entirely. I guarantee that if the wealthy nations of Europe (and other nations from around the globe) were to rely less on the US and put more effort into the creation and sustainment of armed forces that can do more than simply protect their borders then US foreign policy would probably be alot less cavalier than it seems to be right now. What would Europe do if the US navy was downsized to the point where we could barely protect our own interests around the globe? What if we could only ensure the safe passage of our own trade vessels in international waters? Would Europe withdraw from its socialistic shell to protect its own interests abroad or would its respective economies simply try to take into account the yearly losses due to factors such as piracy and regional instability? :thumbsdown:

/rant

Anyway poor old Nelson must be spinning like a top in his grave...

[Banquo's Ghost]

You're making some rather substantial generalisations, not least that Europe is one socialist hive-mind, and that there is anything left-wing about the British New Labour party. :smile:

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, in spite of the public rhetoric, there are European governments that see a significant economic advantage in the Pax Americana and would like it to succeed. This is one of the side-effects (oh and there are so many) that the neo-con project never considered.

The EU after all, is primarily an economic endeavour (with some political aspirations) not a military project. And it recognises that the primary threats to Europe's well-being will be economic not military - terrorism, for example, is something we have a lot of experience with, and it's not defeated by aircraft carriers.

But don't worry, Tony Blair wants so much to buy a nice new bunch of submarines from the US with really BIG BOMBS.

[lars573]

It's funny really. All, and I mean all, of this happened to Canada's military 30-40 years ago. The budget was cut and cut and cut some more. New Destroyers weren't built and the aircraft carriers were junked. Tanks were mothballed. New parts weren't bough. So that now our Seakings have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky. Now taking almost a Brigade to Afghanistan took all our availble active troops.

[Spino]

You're making some rather substantial generalisations, not least that Europe is one socialist hive-mind, and that there is anything left-wing about the British New Labour party. :smile:

As I mentioned in an earlier thread, in spite of the public rhetoric, there are European governments that see a significant economic advantage in the Pax Americana and would like it to succeed. This is one of the side-effects (oh and there are so many) that the neo-con project never considered.

The EU after all, is primarily an economic endeavour (with some political aspirations) not a military project. And it recognises that the primary threats to Europe's well-being will be economic not military - terrorism, for example, is something we have a lot of experience with, and it's not defeated by aircraft carriers.

But don't worry, Tony Blair wants so much to buy a nice new bunch of submarines from the US with really BIG BOMBS.

I never meant to paint all of Europe with such a broad brush but taking into account the general political and economic trends of the last 15 years you can see where things are going. Watching Spain's reaction in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings spoke volumes as to how other European nations might react to similar pressure and attacks. Exchange a terrorist attack on national soil with more organized and aggressive piracy directed at European shipping in the waters of S.E. Asia and I'm inclined to believe that many European nations would, barring US intervention, be content with a policy of pacification rather than confrontation which, in the Darwinian scheme of things, only encourages a predator or antagonist to be even more aggressive. More importantly if Europe were to suddenly abandon its minimalist philosophy regarding military spending in order to address an impending conflict or crisis the preparation or 'build up' period would require so much time as to ensure failure.

Pax Americana certainly has its advantages but one of the disadvantages is that it can create an atmosphere of resentment for all parties involved. Those who enforce Pax Americana feel resentment it in that they believe they are risking their lives for those who share none of the risks and those who benefit from it feel resentment in that they have little control over how policy is enforced and/or how they will actually benefit from it.

[yesdachi]

It's funny really. All, and I mean all, of this happened to Canada's military 30-40 years ago. The budget was cut and cut and cut some more. New Destroyers weren't built and the aircraft carriers were junked. Tanks were mothballed. New parts weren't bough. So that now our Seakings have a nasty habit of falling out of the sky. Now taking almost a Brigade to Afghanistan took all our availble active troops.
And you need any of that stuff for… :wink:

[BigTex]

Pax Americana is already here. It's been here since the end of the cold war and the scraping of most nations militarys. The problem being those without much of a contribution seem fit to critisize the policy.

It is peace through America, not peace through America with help from France.

Mostly agree with you here Spino. Your predictions will more then likely come to pass.

Pax Americana.

[rory_20_uk]

Yup, used to be Pax Britannia, but things change.

Although there is a need for a small amount of high tech hardware, most of the time at the moment the threat is very low tech foes.

Although America is leading the way of long range, hands off approaches with the only side effect that due to unintentional collateral damage things in fact get worse, the better approach is for more people in the area.

Of course that this is mainly in relation to the Army, although the same can be said of the Navy

I don't see the use of one massive vessel especially with the state of modern missiles and forthcoming combat drones.

Many smaller ships allow presence to be applied in several areas at once, and whilst they'd not be able to intimidate many nations, they would be able to pose a significant threat to modern day pirates.

So, increase the size of the fleet, get some more grunts into the army and increase the size of the army.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Although America is leading the way of long range, hands off approaches with the only side effect that due to unintentional collateral damage things in fact get worse, the better approach is for more people in the area.
I wonder what you're basing that on. You seem to be claiming that there is more collateral damage in current conflicts with modern technology/training than there used to be in prior wars. This clearly isn't the case.

[Tribesman]

The problem being those without much of a contribution seem fit to critisize the policy.

It is peace through America, not peace through America with help from France.

Ah of course , completely ignoring French help .:oops:
The one real time in the past few decades France has not gone along with the plan or helped out was when they said invading Iraq on false pretences without UN backing was a really bad idea .
And guess what , you should have listened to your allies :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Stuff like this just makes me want to cry. We have budget problem because we are fighting two wars. Therefore A seperate budget should be created for fighting those wars. Simple. We could probably afford to double defence spending, even then id would be less than the US, I expect.

Maybe if Blair had done national service he's be less keen to cut our collective ball off.

[Pannonian]

I wonder what you're basing that on. You seem to be claiming that there is more collateral damage in current conflicts with modern technology/training than there used to be in prior wars. This clearly isn't the case.
Precision bombing is good if you know what and where to bomb. In counterinsurgency, which is going to be the main kind of warfare 1st class militaries are going to be involved in for the foreseeable future, this isn't always the case. Actually, more often than not you can't be sure. So the old-fashioned method of getting someone to go in and have a look is going to be better than relying overmuch on improving missile technology. For one thing, the bloke pointing the gun will have a rough idea of what or where he's shooting at. More importantly, if he does make a mistake, the damage done will be less extensive and thus more easily rectifiable. Unless the shooter goes psycho and empties his magazine, a bullet will do less damage than a missile.

Ask Banquo for more details on the subject. He was part of the most successful counterinsurgency effort of modern times.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Pax Americana is already here.

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit. :wink:



I never meant to paint all of Europe with such a broad brush but taking into account the general political and economic trends of the last 15 years you can see where things are going. Watching Spain's reaction in the aftermath of the Madrid bombings spoke volumes as to how other European nations might react to similar pressure and attacks.

I know you didn't but the political tides in Europe are remarkably complex compared to your own country. It is too easy to make generalisations that mislead, just as Europeans are wont to charactersise the USA as one-dimensional.

The trend over the last 15 years has in fact been towards more right wing government. Even nominally left-wing governments are unrecognisable as such to an eye of say, 20 years back. And as your conservatives used to believe, Euro-conservatives are tight-wads with the public purse. Military spending is seen as an easy cut, because the right-wing can point to the US as guarantor. It is in fact the European left who want to be distanced from the US - though this rarely translates into extra spending (in France, ironically for your point, the pride to be separate from US leadership has meant they have the political desire to spend on their own defence!)

You misunderstand why Spain changed governments after Madrid. It was not a desire to give in to terrorism, but anger at the way the government lied about who was responsible. Like the UK, Spain has ample understanding of what one has to do about terrorism, having lived with it for 30 years. Their latest attempt at making political progress has come unstuck, largely because they thought they could treat ETA with contempt after the ceasefire. This is a lesson they could have learned from the British in Ireland, but no-one ever seems to want to talk about how that terrorist problem was solved. Spanish hands will be wringing now, but they will be back at the negotiation table in a couple of years.

This is not apppeasement, but dealing with reality.

As for resentment and America's role, all I can say is your government chose the role, and has to deal with it. I strongly suggest that if US citizens feel resentful, they might elect someone next time who understand the nature of partnerships as opposed to vassals.

[lars573]

And you need any of that stuff for… :wink:
Just in case. A military capable of you know being able to fight a war is a nessisary insurance policy every sovergin nation needs.

[Grey_Fox]

And you need any of that stuff for…
Just in case. A military capable of you know being able to fight a war is a nessisary insurance policy every sovergin nation needs.

That's ironic coming from somebody who thinks a soldier sacrificing his life for the greater good is a moron.

"We need them but I still think they're fools"

[BigTex]

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit.

Any of the great Paxes did not mean complete peace. It meant peace through whichever world power. That meant there was always war, but they were on the small scale. Pax Romania was kept by raiding, waring with countless germans, persians, nubians, numidians, iberians, celts, picts etc. Paxes are a period of overall peace, with no massive conflicts, with no world war's, with no clashes between the powerful countries. We have that, we've had it for awhile.

Pax Americana is here, its been here. With it in the past decades has brought leaps in technology and the sciences. Truly a great age.

[lars573]

That's ironic coming from somebody who thinks a soldier sacrificing his life for the greater good is a moron.

"We need them but I still think they're fools"
That's not what I said, at all.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not to be trite Tex, but I think it's missing the Pax bit. :wink:

As was Pax Romana and Pax Britania...

[Pannonian]

Any of the great Paxes did not mean complete peace. It meant peace through whichever world power. That meant there was always war, but they were on the small scale. Pax Romania was kept by raiding, waring with countless germans, persians, nubians, numidians, iberians, celts, picts etc. Paxes are a period of overall peace, with no massive conflicts, with no world war's, with no clashes between the powerful countries. We have that, we've had it for awhile.

Pax Americana is here, its been here. With it in the past decades has brought leaps in technology and the sciences. Truly a great age.
Aren't you talking about the nuclear peace here? That particular peace as brought about because there were 2 mutually balanced superpowers, each capable of destroying the world. As a result, neither dared overstep the mark, resulting in decades without major wars. After that ended, the world's only remaining superpower gave us 2 enlightened presidents who worked through international agencies to bring peace wherever they could. Then came Dubya. I suppose a Commodus had to come along sooner or later, but couldn't you have given us a few more wise emperors first?

[BigTex]

Aren't you talking about the nuclear peace here? That particular peace as brought about because there were 2 mutually balanced superpowers, each capable of destroying the world. As a result, neither dared overstep the mark, resulting in decades without major wars. After that ended, the world's only remaining superpower gave us 2 enlightened presidents who worked through international agencies to bring peace wherever they could. Then came Dubya. I suppose a Commodus had to come along sooner or later, but couldn't you have given us a few more wise emperors first?

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?:oops:

[Pannonian]

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?:oops:
When was this?

[Redleg]

When I first read the title I thought the discussion was going to be around Register Nurses, butter and a certain type of labor that leaves one hanging out to dry...

Image my surprise to discover its about the Royal Navy.......

[Orb]

I hate our government.
I don't know why, but I do.

[Somebody Else]

Delian League ---> Athenian empire
NATO ---> ?

[JR-]

our glorious UK gov't in its infinite wisdom has decided that Britannia no longer needs to rule the waves.

this is of course a terrible decision.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/savethenavy/#detail

"The MoD is planning to mothball almost half the Navy's 44 warships to cut costs. This money has been wasted, amongst other things, on a war in Iraq we can never win and that should never have been started. The government misled the public and the house to justify it and now we are paying a heavy price. The RN frigates are among the most potent weapons we have. When this is done who will be left to stop illegal immigrants from landing on our shores? Who will seek out and capture drug runners? Who will retake the Falklands when Argentina decides to invade again? As it is we already have 13 warships it would take 18 months to get into action. Act now and sign this petition, for these decisions have almost certainly already been taken. Support the Navy, once these ships are scrapped or sold we will never replace them. Britannia will no longer rule the waves."

[KukriKhan]

With respect, Peregrine_Tergiversate, I'm gonna merge this post with the other thread ("Butter, Butter...") as contributory to the topic, rather than have two competing threads. :bow:

[JR-]

no problem.

as i wrote elsewhere:


This really is a dreadful decision if confirmed.

The Gov't commissioned the Strategic Defence Review in order to find out what duties the Royal Navy would need to perform to secure the Realm, and what resources the Royal Navy would require to achieve this aim.

The SDR concluded that an escort force of 32 escort warships (destroyers, frigates, and potentially cruisers), in addition to the two proposed carriers would be necessary to achieve the desired end.
www.parliament.uk/commons...98-091.pdf
It is worth noting that we are already down to 25 escort warships, so technically the Gov't has already torn up the SDR.

During the Cold War the Royal Navy was configured primarily to contain Soviet Submarines in the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap in order that the Atlantic shipping lanes could not be closed thereby preventing Operation Reforger from shipping in vast quantities of men and materials from the US to halt a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Other primary duties included the UK's stategic deterrent, and maintainance of an ability to act globally in support of military operations.

This resulted in a very large number of specialised anti-submarine-warfare frigates (ASW),and a significant number of anti-air-warfare destroyers (AAW), which together could act as mini-flotillas for independent operations around the globe.

Currently, we have a much reduced ASW role resulting from the end of the Soviet naval threat, and a declining number of surface warships resulting from the post Cold-War 'peace-dividend'. The unhappy result of these twin problems is that Britain now has a naval force ill-configured for current duties, and too small to dispatch independent mini-flotillas for global duties.

One possible solution to this twin problem is the re-introduction of the Cruiser class to the Royal Navy, a single vessel that is large enough to provide global reach, and sufficient self-protection from submarine, surface and air threats that it can act independantly of any supporting vessels.
There was such a project under the research & development moniker of; Future Surface Combattant (FSC) which was sadly cancelled in 2004 for 'cost reasons'. I understand that it is being reconsidered for the 2020+ timeframe, arguably far too late.

At the risk of playing fantasy
-fleets I would humbly suggest the folloing force mix of surface warships as eminently achievable, and very sensible in my opinion.

08x T45 AAW Destroyers (start: now)
12x T24 ASW Frigates (start: 2012)
04x T25 C2 Frigates (start: 2014)
08x T65 Global Cruisers (start: 2018)

This would provide the 32 warships required to meet the SDR, and would do so in a flexible manner that would provide proper escorts for large carrier/amphibious task-forces, as well as maintain the Royal Navy's historic global role.

This is not an unachievable goal, in fact it is both eminently achievable and utterly essential. Why then do we pursue this ridiculous notion of an anti-terrorist coastguard?

regards

[Duke Malcolm]

IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?:oops:

I'm sorry, but I don't recall any such thing in the Pax Britannica (British Peace, not Britain Peace...)
But we are not here to discuss the effectiveness of, nor indeed whether it really is the Pax Americana.

HM Government has never paid much attention to what its commissions have said unless it is particularly favourable to them to do so...

[InsaneApache]

Originally Posted by BigTex
IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?

Only in the American colonies. :laugh4:

[lars573]

There are two minor conflicts at this point in time. Neither of which has caused many casualties. There were far more conflicts with the first President Bush, involving much larger forces then these have. With the victory against the USSR, only one superpower remains, which none can overthrow. Conflicts happen in any Pax, but as I have said they remianed small. IIRC wasnt there a massive near complete revolt in most british colonies during the Pax Britania?:oops:
No. Don't forget the Pax Britannia only lasts from 1815 (end of Napoleonic wars) till 1852 (start of the Crimean war). During that time the only revolt in a British territory I know of is the Upper Canadian rebellion of 1837. Which consisted of 1 rabble rouser and a bunch of drunks from his local pub. They tried to march on province house and got shot by the militia for their trouble. Duration, 1 day.

[lancelot]

What I dont understand is- we have the 5th largest economy in the world approx and the approx 20th largest population.

Why on earth cant we afford all of the bloody ships we want?!?!! What are we doing that is constantly forcing cuts here there and everywhere?

Smells like gross negligence of our resources and finances to me...please someone, tell me- what is wrong with our country? :help:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What I dont understand is- we have the 5th largest economy in the world approx and the approx 20th largest population.

Why on earth cant we afford all of the bloody ships we want?!?!! What are we doing that is constantly forcing cuts here there and everywhere?

Smells like gross negligence of our resources and finances to me...please someone, tell me- what is wrong with our country? :help:

Actually its amazingly simple. Tony's big government costs big money. The Forces are also badly mismanaged. We now pay rent on all our camps and have to book them in advance.

Try being stuck in the guardroom for four hours, on your own, with no toilet and a broken armoury alarm which blinks and wines, ALL the time.

Worse, a note from the sods who now own the camp. "We are aware the alarm is broken" After that someone had writen in still.

[rory_20_uk]

Such things as the generous social benefits sucks up money. Add in such other "winners" as the NHS, and we've got a problem.

~:smoking:

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

an interesting side note of all this from my view, while alot of countries are relying more and more on america for the military strength, Australia has taken a different tact altogether.

Australia has been training more and more higher trained troops, focusing on more special forces and support troops then grunts, its also been developing its own tank force (although using M1 is not a great idea, would of been better with challenger twos instead of those giant mounted shotguns). they have there own very good and highly capable subs designed for the ADF uses. as well as fast deployable destroyers and frigates.

due to its position australia has at last realized that it can not rely on the US for everything, australia is the only country capable of handling international problems in the south-east and south pacific area.

it seems australia wants to have some very big arms on its relative small body.

[Papewaio]

Why big tanks? North is desert... and not much to protect vs how much it would take to protect it (mind you it is mineral and water rich, just population low)... nor would it really be feasible to protect such a large area with vehicles that have a relatively short range...could a tank even make it a quarter of the way from the north coast to the nearest city other then Darwin without refueling?

Can't use the tanks in SE Asia... China is slightly out of our league and is about the only place that having tanks would make sense, but considering they are used in uni riot control there I think we would be out numbered to say the least.

Subs make more sense, despite initial noise issues... bit pointless having very very noisy subs. Subs are one way of stopping a mass invasion of boats.

[Grey_Fox]

due to its position australia has at last realized that it can not rely on the US for everything, australia is the only country capable of handling international problems in the south-east and south pacific area.



Well I'd say the JDF (if they decide to ignore their constitution) is more than capable of force projection.

[lancelot]

Well I'd say the JDF (if they decide to ignore their constitution) is more than capable of force projection.

Agreed. Although they are probably more worried about china than anything else, I would imagine...

[English assassin]

We have budget problem because we are fighting two wars. Therefore A seperate budget should be created for fighting those wars. Simple

I can answer that

First gulf war:1993

UK budget contingency reserve in the 1993 budget =£4 billion :2thumbsup:

(Evil incompetent tory government boo hiss)

Second gulf war 2003

UK budget contingency reserve in the 2003 budget= £nil :skull:

(wonderful labour government presiding over new golden age hoorah hoorah)

[Grey_Fox]

First gulf war:1993

Eh?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can answer that

First gulf war:1993

UK budget contingency reserve in the 1993 budget =£4 billion :2thumbsup:

(Evil incompetent tory government boo hiss)

Second gulf war 2003

UK budget contingency reserve in the 2003 budget= £nil :skull:

(wonderful labour government presiding over new golden age hoorah hoorah)

EA, Desert Storm was '91. Not that that detracts at all from your point. Labour governments are financially incompetant, too many lawyers and trade-unionists.

David Cammeron has actually ruled our automatic tax cuts in favour of ecenomic stability. He will also probably have reduce spending on services. This will make him unpopular and by the time he has sorted out the economy people will be clamouring for a services-orientated Left-Wing government. Then they will over-spend, causing debt and the circle begins again. That is why we have problems when either party has more than two terms.

Hence our current problems.

[English assassin]

:oops:

Golly, doesn't time fly.

Anyway UK budget contingency reserve in the 1991 budget =£3.5 billion so the basic point stands

[Spino]

Australia has been training more and more higher trained troops, focusing on more special forces and support troops then grunts, its also been developing its own tank force (although using M1 is not a great idea, would of been better with challenger twos instead of those giant mounted shotguns). they have there own very good and highly capable subs designed for the ADF uses. as well as fast deployable destroyers and frigates.

I don't understand this logic, the Challenger 2 is in the same class as the M-1A1/A2 Abrams. Both vehicles are classified as main battle tanks and both sport high velocity 120mm guns and a weight in excess of 65-70 tons.


Due to its position australia has at last realized that it can not rely on the US for everything, australia is the only country capable of handling international problems in the south-east and south pacific area.

it seems australia wants to have some very big arms on its relative small body.

Well thankfully Australia remembers the lessons learned during WWII and how perilously close it came to being invaded by Imperial Japan. Australia also has an obscene amount of coastline to protect and sports a hinterland with little to no industrial development. This means that Australia's interior lines of supply and reinforcement could prove to be as big an obstacle as its massive coastline. The time required to move heavier assets (armor & artillery) via rail from one coast to the other is considerable and can mean the difference between successfully repelling an invasion and being in the less desirable position of counterattacking against an entrenched enemy. Small population or not Australia's geography requires that it possess those big arms.


Why big tanks? North is desert... and not much to protect vs how much it would take to protect it (mind you it is mineral and water rich, just population low)... nor would it really be feasible to protect such a large area with vehicles that have a relatively short range...could a tank even make it a quarter of the way from the north coast to the nearest city other then Darwin without refueling?

Can't use the tanks in SE Asia... China is slightly out of our league and is about the only place that having tanks would make sense, but considering they are used in uni riot control there I think we would be out numbered to say the least.

Subs make more sense, despite initial noise issues... bit pointless having very very noisy subs. Subs are one way of stopping a mass invasion of boats.

Because in the unlikely event that someone actually manages to set foot on Australia's shores it's nice to have state of the art armor assets on hand to blast would be invaders to oblivion. It is foolish to rely entirely on APCs or soft skinned vehicles armed with state of the art missile systems to do the job of a tank; they're simply not tough enough to stand up to most modern ordinance and are generally poor at providing direct support for infantry. Furthermore as the current campaign in Iraq has shown, modern main battle tanks still do a damn good job even in low intensity, urban conflicts (in case the invaders manage to take a large town or city). Big tanks may seem like an illogical purchase for a large island nation with large population centers scattered along it's thousands of miles of coastlines but it's all about playing the odds and buying yourself an insurance policy that keeps you covered for an event that may never happen. I've never experienced a fire in my home but I could not imagine not having my fire extinguishers on hand in case one breaks out (let alone not having homeowner insurance around to cover me in the event of damages).

Travel distance by roads is somewhat irrelevant as railways have always been an army's most efficient and expedient means of traveling overland (airborne transports can do the job much faster but that's particularly inefficient as one heavy lift cargo plane = one main battle tank). You can safely bet that Australia's rail lines would immediately be taken over by the military should a crisis arise near or on its shores. Sure, railyards and tracks can be taken out but cutting down a tank's road travel time by hundreds or thousands of miles can make a huge difference.

Subs are great and are the bona fide deadliest assets in any navy but they're not omnipotent and the diesel/electric variety, while extremely quiet (or at least they should be extremely quiet), are severely limited compared to their nuclear counterparts with regard to their speed, range and the amount of ordinance they can carry.

Obviously Australia's naval and air assets should be its top priority but you really need a well balanced ground force to back them up and one capable of holding or taking ground. In any case Australia's geopolitical and geographical situation require that it spend more on defense than a nation of similar population or GNP.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Okay ill try to clear somethings up...

although buying the MBT's seems strange, for the most part they won't be used much in australia, more then likey they are to provide punch, and protection in the ambush prone parts of south-east asia. like someone said relying on (old) thin skinned apcs and dinky's (short/long wheel based landrovers) although they are refitted now with javilins. they are not much use in built-up areas, and the apcs are not all that good anymore.

re the m1a1's vs the challenger 2's, the M1 has 120mm smooth bore main gun aka a big shotgun... the CH2 has a 120mm rifled main gun, it is a lot more accurate, and since the likely places australia will use the tanks is in the dessert or in urban environments (timor) it might be better to have the the shells hitting the mark.

JDF bless there cotton socks, isn't a fighting force, nor would they be in much of a position to building one up in a covert/fast manner. most of the force is centred around support troops, lots of engineers and medics. they are the best reconstruction troops in the world bar-none. but the recons most still use g3's.

The collins class subs are now some of the most advanced non nuclear subs in the world, the Americans were not so impressed by them untill in the war games held on Hawaii, a colins sub sunk/hit/damaged the main aircraft carrier of the US 7th pacific fleet. the are also one of the best intelligance gathering tools we have or could have. they are pact to the brim with gadgets and tools to pick up all sorts of comunnication.

this is a run down of what the Collins did at the wargames called "RIMPAC". "joint wargame in the Pacific, where our plucky sub sunk two Los Angeles class attack subs, penetrated the ASW screen of a Carrier Group, and then sunk the carrier before slipping back out. US Admirals were very, very impressed. less so by the Australian song played through the speaker system for everyone to hear. "we come from a land down under"."


When i say SE Asia i mean the far south east, there is a lot fo struggling countries around the pacific rim, many of which need help at times. while Australia is not the only country in the area that can handle things it is one of few that is willing to lead forces through the UN. japan and Malaysia along with the Philippines and NZ also send troops but not very often want to lead.


i lived and worked in timor for a long time, this is where most of my experience comes from.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Challenger has the following advantages of the M1A2.

1. Rifled 120mm cannon.

2. Chobbham 2 armour, versus the Chobbham 1 on the Abrams.

3. Reliability, the diesel engine is less prone to breakdowns than the turbine.

4. Age, the M1A2 is an upgrade or the A1, the Challie 2 is a new tank about ten years younger with only 3% commonality with Challie 1.

5. Unlike the Americans we share technology. If you want an example of that problem look up the kafufule over the JSF, which we are part-building.

[Mooks]

Even if Australias kickass sounding military doesnt get put to use, it sure will scare any prospecting invader. Not getting invaded in the first place will be a lot better then beating off an invasion.

[Tribesman]

Look , if you Brits are really stuck for a Navy you could always borrow ours .
If we have it on a tuesday and thursday you can have it monday and wedneday , you can even have it on friday , but only for half day since you wouldn't want to delay the start of their weekend session .
But no seriously , you had better have tuesday and wednesday instead since they might want to sleep in late on mondays .

[GoreBag]

It's all rhum, sodomy and the lash anyway.

[English assassin]

US Admirals were very, very impressed. less so by the Australian song played through the speaker system for everyone to hear. "we come from a land down under"."

Did this happen? Please, PLEASE tell me this happened?

[drone]

Did this happen? Please, PLEASE tell me this happened?
I don't know about the music, but I did hear about the pwnage laid down on our fleet. I'm sure the music was just icing.

Wasn't there a problem with the Challenger's rifle-bore cannon? I thought the rifling degraded after heavy use, while the Abrams sabot-based smoothbore got around this. Did they fix this on the ChallengerII?

[Spino]

Okay ill try to clear somethings up...

although buying the MBT's seems strange, for the most part they won't be used much in australia, more then likey they are to provide punch, and protection in the ambush prone parts of south-east asia. like someone said relying on (old) thin skinned apcs and dinky's (short/long wheel based landrovers) although they are refitted now with javilins. they are not much use in built-up areas, and the apcs are not all that good anymore.

re the m1a1's vs the challenger 2's, the M1 has 120mm smooth bore main gun aka a big shotgun... the CH2 has a 120mm rifled main gun, it is a lot more accurate, and since the likely places australia will use the tanks is in the dessert or in urban environments (timor) it might be better to have the the shells hitting the mark.

The Challenger 2 is an impressive tank but there really is little to separate the two vehicles qualitatively speaking. The major differences between the two tanks is their engines and the integration of wireless networking systems for remote targeting and command control.

Challenger 2's 120mm rifled gun is brand new and is probably more accurate than its smoothbore counterparts but characterizing the Rhinemetall designed smoothbore 120mm gun used by the Abrams and Leopard 2 as a 'shotgun' is a bit much. That 'shotgun' took out targets in excess of 4km during the first Gulf War! The difference in accuracy between well designed smoothbore and rifled guns is minimal and is even less pronounced when coupled with an excellent targeting/optics system. Keep in mind we're talking about a modern smoothbore guns and digital fire control systems, not 19th century cannons and crude iron sights. The one advantage smoothbore guns have over their rifled counterparts is what they lack in accuracy they make up for in resiliency, smoothbore guns don't wear out as fast due to repeated use. I believe the Brits opted for the rifled gun because they continue to use HESH rounds against lightly armored vehicles and emplacements. HESH rounds are very effective but are less accurate than HEAT rounds and require the spinning effect of a rifled barrel to offset their instability in flight. In contrast the US and Wehrmacht mainly stick with HEAT rounds for those same targets.

The Challenger 2 uses Chobham 2 armor but since the late 80s all M-1s have depleted uranium plates applied over the Chobham armor, this is mainly what accounts for the extra 5-10 tons of weight on A1 and A2 series. I honestly don't know enough to compare the two tanks in terms of protection. I do know that in a few friendly fire incidents during the first Gulf War the M1-A1 Abrams survived direct hits from armor piercing sabot rounds fired by other M1-A1s. I'm inclined to say the M1A1/A2 Abrams is better protected against armor piercing rounds and the Challlenger 2 better protected against HEAT & HESH rounds. Since the Challenger 2 is a more modern design it's possible that its overall armor defense is probably more effective than the Abrams.

The one advantage the M1-A2 Abrams has over the Challenger 2 is its state of the art wireless GPS networking system; it not only allows a tank commander to see see exactly where he and other friendly assets are on the battlefield but it also allows one one tank to shoot at the target of another tank even if the target is not in its own line of sight! The good news is the Challenger 2 uses the same exact digital fire control system as the Abrams and can be upgraded to implement the same networking system.

The original M-1 Abrams used to have serious teething problems with its turbine engines but that was solved long ago (I believe most of the reliability problems were solved in the A1 variant) with additional improvements introduced in light of the lessons learned during the first Gulf War. The US opted for a gas turbine engine because it provides a much greater power to weight ratio than modern diesel engines and it is much lighter to boot. The Abrams' engine allows it to accelerate and travel at much higher speeds than most modern tanks. Furthermore the engine is of a modular design and can be accessed and serviced quite quickly or, if need be, removed and replaced in one hour! And since it is a turbine engine it can also use pretty much any type of fuel available if the standard JP-4 or JP-8 fuel isn't available; alcohol, kerosene, gasoline, diesel, etc. Reliability may still be a factor but the biggest problem facing the M-1 Abrams' engine is the alarming amount of fuel it consumes; to offset this I believe the Abrams has more internal space allotted for fuel than other tanks.


The collins class subs are now some of the most advanced non nuclear subs in the world, the Americans were not so impressed by them untill in the war games held on Hawaii, a colins sub sunk/hit/damaged the main aircraft carrier of the US 7th pacific fleet. the are also one of the best intelligance gathering tools we have or could have. they are pact to the brim with gadgets and tools to pick up all sorts of comunnication.

this is a run down of what the Collins did at the wargames called "RIMPAC". "joint wargame in the Pacific, where our plucky sub sunk two Los Angeles class attack subs, penetrated the ASW screen of a Carrier Group, and then sunk the carrier before slipping back out. US Admirals were very, very impressed. less so by the Australian song played through the speaker system for everyone to hear. "we come from a land down under"."


That is impressive. I hate to be the one to break the news to you guys but in virtually every single exercise involving subs and aircraft carrier task forces the subs always get through, always. Modern attack subs (especially those used by Western nations and Japan) are simply too quiet for most surface & airborne ASW to pick up, especially if they are operating close to an enemy task force that is generating an incredible amount of noise, noise that helps to mask a sub's approach. The vulnerability of carriers and other large surface vessels to submarine attack is a huge sore spot for the higher ranking admirals who cut their teeth on carriers. It is not uncommon to find these admirals skewing the rules on such exercises so that it is impossible for the carriers to be sunk! However, nailing the two Los Angeles subs is probably what impressed them the most, that's the one thing they certainly didn't expect!

[Vladimir]

Wow you pretty much nailed it there. On the LA class subs though: They are quite old and I'd be interested in hearing more about the Seawolf class. They're big but promising.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Challenger 2 has Bristol armour over Chobbham two when going into a war zone, which adds around 10 tonnes. The Challenger's armour is VERY highly classified, acording to tankies I've met they're not even allowed to look at broken armour. The Abrams has trouble with all-round defence, as seen in Iraq. Tankies from 2RTR tell me the only thing they're worried about is an air-strike. The latest version of the Challie 2 also has a thumb-stick arrangent for driving, rather than the old brake stricks.

What else..... Chobbham 2 was developed to counter hellfire missiles, which were developed for Chobbham 1, Survivability is definately on the Challie 2's side, as is cannon.

I once saw something they did on TV, American program, which compared Challie 2, Abrams 2 and Leopard. Challie 2 came out on top, but that's TV.

It's the tank I'd use.

[Duke Malcolm]

In a brisk effort to return this to the original topic...
How to save money? By not promoting officers! And having Midshipmen in command of the Fleet! (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.7678)

And on a similar note:
How else? By leasing Her Majesty's Ships from private companies! (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.7643)

NB: I might have exaggerated somewhat in describing the links...

[Vladimir]

That's interesting; I suppose it would depend on the mission. I've heard that the only tank that can kill an Abrams is an Abrams, not too sure about the crew though. Isn't the Sabot round still the best anti-armor round in existence? It's not possible to fire it from a rifled bore.

[Tribesman]

And on a similar note:
How else? By leasing Her Majesty's Ships from private companies!

So now , slightly on a tangent but since someone mentioned the Falklands task force , how many of those ships were leased or requisioned from private companies .
And since your most of your merchant marine (like ours and most other western nations) has been reflagged for tax/empoyment reasons how many could they call up now in time of apparent need?

[Spino]

Wow you pretty much nailed it there. On the LA class subs though: They are quite old and I'd be interested in hearing more about the Seawolf class. They're big but promising.

Thanks, I know wayyy too much about this stuff and I don't even follow military tech as closely as I did when I was a teenager.

Those Aussies must have nailed Improved Los Angeles class attack subs because that's pretty much the only variant of the LA class still in service. The Improved LA class is a damn good boat but is obviously showing its age. The word is the Seawolf class is so quiet it makes as much noise at sea as an Improved Los Angeles boat does sitting idle in port! The Seawolf is the ultimate deluxe, limited edition attack sub that comes with everything except a pewter figure and cloth map. Super quiet, high tech, tough, deep diving, loaded with ordinance and even has a set of larger diameter torpedo tubes for 'unorthodox' and next gen weapons systems. Unfortunately the Seawolf will never see mass production, way too expensive for Congress' taste. I believe only three are currently active and one of them is specially modified to be used mainly for spec ops missions.

The Virginia class is America's latest state of the art attack sub, smaller and less capable than the Seawolf but I believe it sports basically the same technology. I don't believe any are in active service yet.


The Challenger 2 has Bristol armour over Chobbham two when going into a war zone, which adds around 10 tonnes. The Challenger's armour is VERY highly classified, acording to tankies I've met they're not even allowed to look at broken armour. The Abrams has trouble with all-round defence, as seen in Iraq. Tankies from 2RTR tell me the only thing they're worried about is an air-strike. The latest version of the Challie 2 also has a thumb-stick arrangent for driving, rather than the old brake stricks.

Given its weight and top secret nature Bristol sounds an awful lot like depleted uranium. Anyway I could swear I remember reading somewhere that US tankers were under the same restrictions regarding damaged armor. I could easily see the Brit military changing the name so as to avoid any unpleasantries with Labor gov't and the rabid anti-nuke crowd. The secret to Chobham armor isn't so top secret anymore, it's supposedly sandwiched layers of ceramic and metal with spaces in between the layers to defeat the non-kinetic nature of HEAT & HESH warheads. On an interesting point I caught a cable TV show that dealt with the M1 Abrams and the upgrade program that takes old M1 marks and brings them up to M1A2 specs. The M1 Abrams definitely sports titanium in some or all of its hull and turret because the guys welding the hulls together mentioned they used specialized techniques and equipment to deal with titanium.

Back to the RN's woes...

It is a terrible idea to have to rely on private companies for critical military assets like supplies and whatnot. It leaves the door wide open to corruption and the less than acceptable standards and practices that private contractors milking fat government contracts are famous for. During the late 18th/early 19th century France's artillery and supply trains were a joke as it was common practise to utilize private drivers and horses for the artillery and supply trains. This made for especially unreliable artillery and supplies during rigorous camaigns and in combat. Napoleon disbanded the practise and poof, France artillery and logistical arms went on to become the best in Europe.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Did this happen? Please, PLEASE tell me this happened?

it certainly did happen, most sub crews in wargames have a sound they play through the pa systems in the sub, which all the people on the carriers and alike will hear through the listen devices they use to find subs...i got the information from a sas medic who was over there, i also saw it in a book about the ADF...



as for the tanks, i was going on what the sas/commandos thoughts on it...interesting point about being worried about air attacks, as the only way moden tanks are going to be brought down is in urban confines and air attack.

i thought there was some problems with tanks being disabled/immobilized by IED's in iraq mkII? leaving the crews in unpleasant situations...? or was that mainly the humvees and bradleys?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

Did this happen? Please, PLEASE tell me this happened?

it certainly did happen, most sub crews in wargames have a sound they play through the pa systems in the sub, which all the people on the carriers and alike will hear through the listen devices they use to find subs...i got the information from a sas medic who was over there, i also saw it in a book about the ADF...



as for the tanks, i was going on what the sas/commandos thoughts on it...interesting point about being worried about air attacks, as the only way moden tanks are going to be brought down is in urban confines and air attack.

i thought there was some problems with tanks being disabled/immobilized by IED's in iraq mkII? leaving the crews in unpleasant situations...? or was that mainly the humvees and bradleys?

back on topic thou,

can't the government sell Wales instead? i really don't like the present trend of selling everything off to companies or giving out contracts for this and that, for the most part it has been a massive failure. Company interest vs public/national interest seems to see the company win more then not.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Spino the Wehrmacht never got it's hands on Leopard II's, and if they did I'd have to say WWII could have ended very differently due to the qualitative difference between a Leopard II and anything that was being fielded by any army at the time. The German army is now known as the Bundeswehr. I normally wouldn't correct someone on messing up a term, but this is no small mistake given the greatdifference between the two forces, their leadership, and so on.

[English assassin]

it certainly did happen, most sub crews in wargames have a sound they play through the pa systems in the sub, which all the people on the carriers and alike will hear through the listen devices they use to find subs...i got the information from a sas medic who was over there, i also saw it in a book about the ADF...

Australia, I salute you !


can't the government sell Wales instead?

It rains, and there are lots of sheep. Other than New Zealand, who probably haven't got any money, who would want it?

[Spino]

Spino the Wehrmacht never got it's hands on Leopard II's, and if they did I'd have to say WWII could have ended very differently due to the qualitative difference between a Leopard II and anything that was being fielded by any army at the time. The German army is now known as the Bundeswehr. I normally wouldn't correct someone on messing up a term, but this is no small mistake given the greatdifference between the two forces, their leadership, and so on.

My apologies, I forgot about the name change. I know the Luftwaffe is still the Luftwaffe. Rather silly that Wehrmacht was changed to Bundweser since the former means defence force or something like that. It's not as if Wehrmacht meant the 'Great Fascist Jackboot Attack Force' or something like that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My apologies, I forgot about the name change. I know the Luftwaffe is still the Luftwaffe. Rather silly that Wehrmacht was changed to Bundweser since the former means defence force or something like that. It's not as if Wehrmacht meant the 'Great Fascist Jackboot Attack Force' or something like that.

It's really the same sort of thing as changing War Department to Department of Defense -- just trying to establish a higher moral tone.

After all, Grossefascist[German for jackboot]sturmgruppe would be a bit of a mouthful, no?

[Banquo's Ghost]

My apologies, I forgot about the name change. I know the Luftwaffe is still the Luftwaffe. Rather silly that Wehrmacht was changed to Bundweser since the former means defence force or something like that. It's not as if Wehrmacht meant the 'Great Fascist Jackboot Attack Force' or something like that.

Sometimes names have more resonance as symbols than through their actual meaning. I have no doubt there were/are many to whom Wehrmacht translates in exactly the way you describe.

For another example, the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) gained a great deal of notoriety whilst Ireland was fighting for her independence, and the name continued to have so much symbolic offensiveness for the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, that hardly any would join the police force making it unrepresentative.

The name has been changed to the unwieldy but neutral Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and catholic participation is improving markedly. It's daft, since I worked with those people and many were very decent fellows, but the very mention of the RUC used to send shivers of distrust up my republican spine.

I would guess the mention of Wehrmacht might do the same to many people. But then one would think the same would apply to Luftwaffe. :shrug:

[Keba]

I would guess the mention of Wehrmacht might do the same to many people. But then one would think the same would apply to Luftwaffe. :shrug:

Both Wehrmacht and Bundeswehr refer to the Armed Forces of Germany (though the Wehrmact refers to the armed forces Third Holy Roman Empire of the German people). The Luftwaffe, the Heer and the Marine being the three components (airforce, army and navy respectively). The only other name change would be from the Kriegsmarine to the Marine when the name of the Armed Forces was changed.

[BDC]

Why do we need a Navy? We have the EU there to act as a big sponge to any aggressors. Anyone who can fight their way through the whole of Europe probably won't be put off by a few warships.

On a more serious note, this is just the government trying to scrape together more funds in the run up to the next election, where Brown will be defeated thoroughly. Probably on military issues or something ironic.

[Ironside]

Australia, I salute you !


The US is actually training with a Swedish sub (rented with crew basically IIRC ~;) ) with the same type of engine (Swedish company involved with the development of the sub). Most likely due to that incident. Recently extended cooperation so the Swedes must still do well there.

Edi: and that have to be the longest posting time I've seen. Took more than 5 min to get this posted after pressing the button

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do we need a Navy? We have the EU there to act as a big sponge to any aggressors. Anyone who can fight their way through the whole of Europe probably won't be put off by a few warships.

On a more serious note, this is just the government trying to scrape together more funds in the run up to the next election, where Brown will be defeated thoroughly. Probably on military issues or something ironic.

That's only to the East, what about the West?

[Pannonian]

That's only to the East, what about the West?
You know as well as anyone does that we're helpless should the Americans ever decide to hammer us. Our armed forces are useless for defence - they're purely for conducting our foreign policy with. If ever our foreign policy collapses to the extent that we need an independent defence force, we're screwed. For overall defence, we need the Americans for the simple reason that we can't afford to offend them. For emergency defence, we need to work with the French for the old reasons. For defence against terrorism, we need spooks for active defence, and a good economy to allow us to spend plenty of slush money.

[English assassin]

The US is actually training with a Swedish sub (rented with crew basically IIRC ) with the same type of engine (Swedish company involved with the development of the sub). Most likely due to that incident. Recently extended cooperation so the Swedes must still do well there.

And what song do the Swedes play when they sink the carrier, Abba, obviously. "Winner takes it all" maybe? :laugh4:

These are those fancy Stirling engined subs then. Stirling engines are the future, I'm telling you.

[KukriKhan]

You know as well as anyone does that we're helpless should the Americans ever decide to hammer us. Our armed forces are useless for defence - they're purely for conducting our foreign policy with. If ever our foreign policy collapses to the extent that we need an independent defence force, we're screwed. For overall defence, we need the Americans for the simple reason that we can't afford to offend them. For emergency defence, we need to work with the French for the old reasons. For defence against terrorism, we need spooks for active defence, and a good economy to allow us to spend plenty of slush money.

There, in 6 sentences, sits UK and Euro (and, by implication, US) foreign/military policy for the next 40 years. Hopefully, US can keep up its end of the bargain, without strutting and fretting its time on-stage.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Technically the Bundeswehr is the German navy, air force, army, Sanitätadienst (I hope that's right...), and possibly something else that I've forgotten. Right now I believe the German army itself is called the "Heer" which means army. I could be wrong but I think the navy might still be called the Kriegsmarine. And the Sanitätadienst is the medical branch of the Bundeswehr. It sort of makes sense for the German Armed Forces to be known as the Bundeswehr since that means "Federal Force" or something along those lines and the new German government was named the Bundesrepublik, or federal republic.

[JR-]

For another example, the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) gained a great deal of notoriety whilst Ireland was fighting for her independence, and the name continued to have so much symbolic offensiveness for the Catholic population of Northern Ireland, that hardly any would join the police force making it unrepresentative.

The name has been changed to the unwieldy but neutral Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) and catholic participation is improving markedly. It's daft, since I worked with those people and many were very decent fellows, but the very mention of the RUC used to send shivers of distrust up my republican spine.

I would guess the mention of Wehrmacht might do the same to many people. But then one would think the same would apply to Luftwaffe. :shrug:
one mustn't forget that the IRA went to a great deal of trouble to murder any Catholic 'traitorous' enough to join the RUC, and usually in a gruesome manner intended to send a message to any other catholics foolish brave/enough to join the police.

[Pannonian]

There, in 6 sentences, sits UK and Euro (and, by implication, US) foreign/military policy for the next 40 years. Hopefully, US can keep up its end of the bargain, without strutting and fretting its time on-stage.
Previous US administrations appreciated the military of their European allies. Thanks to their colonial legacy, they were better at adapting to different environments. Because they came from different backgrounds, they each had different strengths which a wideranging command would appreciate. Because each country had its own military, this meant lots of soldiers with great potential for boots on the ground. And, perhaps most importantly, they were paid for by European taxpayers.

Because the neocons distrusted anything that weren't under their direct control (eg. the struggle between the Pentagon and the CIA), they weren't willing to use diplomacy to give them the extra resources that the American taxpayer didn't have to pay for. As I've said before, unilateralism in policy leads to unilateralism in effort. Weak-kneed pinko liberal multilateralism leads to taxcuts.