Good News for the RN!

[Lancer]

The Admiralty of the Argentine Navy issued the following press release on response:

"****!"

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by thesilentone

Not sure what your point is here

He's saying that the RN is being designed to work with other Navies, not go it alone. Providing something more than a few frigates would make the USN commander be more willing to listen to the RN's input on something.

I too am unhappy we aren't getting involved in darfur, that is exactly what we should be using our military forces for, carrier groups wouldn't do much there. Sure we could bomb sudan into submission like serbia but I get the impression the mujihadeen groups are semi-independent warlord types who wouldn't stop just because their weak govt (currently sponsering them) told them to.

Again, this comes down to secure facilities and/or capable facilities. You seem to be under the impression that any peacekeeping force in Darfur would be operating in a vacuum. Not so. They will need help and support...and Sudan and the countries around it aren't exactly the most secure countries. Or those with the best infrastructure. Hence, a Carrier or two in the Red Sea would be much appreciated, at least until alternate facilities can be found/built.

Every major conflict since WW2 has used carriers. They are safer than airfields in the theater, more secure, don't need to deal with the Host Nation, and can usually deliver support much quicker than USAF counterparts.

[thesilentone]

My point of view regarding the relatively low military expenditure in europe is that enemies that could threaten europe don't appear overnight. Should russia or some other power become an actual threat it would be a gradual thing. Our military isn't as pitiful as some americans seem to think, and we certainly have the technology to put up a credible defence in the years leading up to any conflict. Let's not fall into the same mistakes we were making 100 years ago in some futile arms race that just makes your enemies build up in similar amounts, a utopian peaceful future is something to be aimed for, not purposely avoided.

Africa may still be in turmoil in some parts but in the end greed, as ugly as it is will bring us all together as everyone realises war isn't profitable anymore. The populist aggressiveness displayed in some parts of the middle-east will also moderate, I believe all humans believe in free speech deep down and islamism will either wither and die in the same way european christianity did or moderate in a peaceful economy loving way the rest of the modern world has.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by thesilentone
My point of view regarding the relatively low military expenditure in europe is that enemies that could threaten europe don't appear overnight. Should russia or some other power become an actual threat it would be a gradual thing. Our military isn't as pitiful as some americans seem to think, and we certainly have the technology to put up a credible defence in the years leading up to any conflict. Let's not fall into the same mistakes we were making 100 years ago in some futile arms race that just makes your enemies build up in similar amounts, a utopian peaceful future is something to be aimed for, not purposely avoided.

Africa may still be in turmoil in some parts but in the end greed, as ugly as it is will bring us all together as everyone realises war isn't profitable anymore. The populist aggressiveness displayed in some parts of the middle-east will also moderate, I believe all humans believe in free speech deep down and islamism will either wither and die in the same way european christianity did or moderate in a peaceful economy loving way the rest of the modern world has.

Bull****. Islam will not die or moderate until they have their very own 30 Years War.

And the European militaries are pitiful enough that, 9/12, the American response to NATO's resolution was "...ehh...how about oyu provide some peacekeepers post-Taliban ousting?"

The end result? Most European Countries(surprise surprise) refuse to put their army where there is a chance they might get shot at.


Patroklos , It just clicked where you are. You know, I spent some time at SPAWARSYSCEN there once upon a time...

[Chemical Ollie]

The Swedish stealth subs will sink these floating coffins on any joint training excercise anyway...

[thesilentone]

Originally posted by Lonestar


Bull****. Islam will not die or moderate until they have their very own 30 Years War.

And the European militaries are pitiful enough that, 9/12, the American response to NATO's resolution was "...ehh...how about oyu provide some peacekeepers post-Taliban ousting?"

The end result? Most European Countries(surprise surprise) refuse to put their army where there is a chance they might get shot at.


Patroklos , It just clicked where you are. You know, I spent some time at SPAWARSYSCEN there once upon a time...

Remember that the UK has stood side by side with the US since 9/11. And also remember that I believe poland was helping with a region iraq that had oil, and under agreement would share in some of the spoils of war. The poles were then moved to a more violent region with no such spoils, that sends really bad signals to your allies and that's not the only example.

The dissenters in nato, i can understand the US being annoyed but at the end of the day they had no obligation to join in - it's their choice. Homeland politics plays a big part, you shouldn't look down on them unless they go back on an obligation or treaty. However, none of that says that europe is at risk from invasion, which for many countries, and this thought will only increase in the future: is the purpose many wish armies to uphold.

Edit: regarding your islam/30 year war comment, don't forget islam has had a similar catholic/protestant internal conflict ever since muhammed died (sunni/shia).

[Patroklos]

the hyper nationalists like you

Care to support?

How does commenting on another nations navy make me a nationalist

You're being overly defensive as usual.

Oh silent, I am so tempted to OT nOOb you into the ground right now, but this is the newer, kinder OT so you get a by.

How would you know what usually is

In any case, we can do without your molly type haughtiness, if you wish to address and issue with personal experience of research (w/ linky) feel free, otherwise realize your opinion is merely that.

Realize I am TELLING you some things, vice just giving you my opinion.

So now, to as for your posts...

No, I simply meant we could make our own arrangements with friendly nations if any peacekeeping/united nations actions were needed with our support,

Translation, you will ask use yanks for help. Unless you want to point out the other countries with spare military sea lift/air lift capacity, air support, and operation fluff in their defense budget available to spend on another countries interests (or more important, willing to spend).

This is what I am talking about silent. You seem to think 1.) Britain will never have the need to pursue a defense goal alone, which the Falklands proved false and 2.) that somehow you should be able to draw on the forces of other nations without supplying a useful contingent yourself.

Nobody is telling/asking you to build 11 supercarriers, but you should be able to provide a relevant contingent to EU/NATO/ Western defense expeditions. On the naval side, given your means, that means a couple carriers and why not make them useful capable ones while your at it? France understands this, not sure you you guys are having a problem with this.

Not to mention making your country's defense contingent on the help of others in even the simplest of missions (like providing air support to ground troops) is the height of folly. Luckly for you, your defense establishment is not so na or short sighted, as they state in each white paper.

As long as no one invades falklands again, yes, south america is not our interest. But I can see this falling out of our interests too, if not for the british people there, we wouldn't care.

I seem to remember us saying that about you (Europe/EU) and Africa... for some reason though the US still fits the bill on this one too. This is the greatest example of atrophy in European defense capability and prowess. The fact that Darfur us going on in your backyard (and in former European colonial holdings for that matter *cough* UK) and you guys won't lift a finger to stop it is telling.

Not that you could, since without US support you would be hard pressed to get 1000 troops on the ground there, let alone support them. Europe, the wealthiest population in the world, totally paralyzed and helpless to effect a solution, even temporary.

How is it an odd assertion coming from me? Fact is you have more air power now than in the second world war, you're telling me the insurrections in iraq need more than that?

At the end of WWII the US Navy alone had 36 fleet carriers and over 40,000 aircraft. Research

And no we don't as one carrier sits perched off of Iran year round, and another of NK year round. Now that we have bases on the ground, most Iraq air support is provided by the USAF, and Afghanistan is a mix (the Navy flies sorties through Pakistan corridor).

BUT, when we were first attacking Afghanistan and Iraq almost all non heavy air support (ie not B-52s, B2s, or B1s) was naval, hence the 4 and 6 carriers to support those missions effectively. And it was like that for months. Why was this the case? Because there were no forward ground bases for the USAF to operate out of.

Much of your carrier fleet is either idling or doing training exercises.

Provide one example. Tell me right now what carrier is idoling, doing absolutely nothing? Is there something wrong with training? Is there a reason we shouldn't make our battlegroups prove they are capable via workups before sending them in harms way? Wouldn't you want to have a little practice before heading out? Should our crews get no time with their families?

I have already said this before but let me recap for you. We have 11 active carriers. Of those, as of early this week:

1 is in transit (Currently on a port visit in Australia before relieving a ME carrier)

3 are in drydock or major maintenance availability

3 are on deployment. (one in the Gulf of Oman, on in the Indian Ocean, and one operation off NK)

2 are in their major workup cycles for warfare qualification.

2 are letting their crew get some R&R or doing other various training evolutions.

Yep, just idoling away there. Though I guess it would be accurate to say, given your apparent definition of the term, that the entire defense establishment of the EU nations is idoling away.

Not sure what your point is here

You said it is not cost effective to build supercarriers, as your not a super power. I agreed, and pointed out that two midget carriers is not acting like a super power.

This is where you really show yourself to be clueless, carrier fleets, fighter squadrons and the like are nice and all, but they don't do a thing to stop insurrections.

Really, I bet 99% of the Taliban has a very different perspective on the matter.

But then fighting insurregents is hardly the only thing the Western navies are up to right now.

I too am unhappy we aren't getting involved in darfur, that is exactly what we should be using our military forces for, carrier groups wouldn't do much there. Sure we could bomb sudan into submission like serbia but I get the impression the mujihadeen groups are semi-independent warlord types who wouldn't stop just because their weak govt (currently sponsering them) told them to.

May I point you to ------> Afghanistan.

I bet your troops on the ground in Basra have a different perspective on the US air support we provide them there.

My point of view regarding the relatively low military expenditure in europe is that enemies that could threaten europe don't appear overnight.

Neither do modern weapon systems. Care to tell me when the current UK carrier program started

Charles de Gaul was laid down in 1986. It started sea trials in 1999!

I know it will require research on your part, and maybe you will actually have to post *gasp* a number to support your statements, but the excersice will be good for you

The populist aggressiveness displayed in some parts of the middle-east will also moderate, I believe all humans believe in free speech deep down and islamism will either wither and die in the same way european christianity did or moderate in a peaceful economy loving way the rest of the modern world has.

awwwww....



Let the big boys take this one, you just have fun with your video games.

And also remember that I believe poland was helping with a region iraq that had oil, and under agreement would share in some of the spoils of war. The poles were then moved to a more violent region with no such spoils, that sends really bad signals to your allies and that's not the only example.

Are you a truther, by any chance...

The dissenters in nato, i can understand the US being annoyed but at the end of the day they had no obligation to join in

In Afghanistan, they most certainly did and do.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Really, I bet 99% of the Taliban has a very different perspective on the matter.

And yet naval air power has been real effective against Iraqi insurgents... yep, reeeeal effective!

[Patroklos]

We use the Air Force in Iraq

And I bet the insurgents who found the USA logo inprinted on their forheads with a 2000lbs stamp WOULD have had something differnet to say.

[Lancer]

This is good. If the UK builds carriers that means the US doesn't have to so we can spend money on more worthwhile things, like nukes.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


The chief threat to the U.S. is al Qaeda. Since the fall of the Taliban, they haven't been in a situation where they've been able to hide behind a state sponsor. Thus, the need for a major armed conflict is minimal.

The most effective means of countering al Qaeda is trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the Islamic world -- which mandates even more than the U.S. not engage in any major conflict in the region.

(Can you guess what I think of our war in Iraq? )

At most, we need small commando-type units to launch quick hit-and-run raids against al Qaeda hideouts, headquarters, and training facilities. This implies small, fast, stealthy ships to transport them in and out. And small launching platforms for a few helicopters.

Also, piracy is a growing problem along the Somali and Indoneasian coasts...so again, more small patrol craft are needed.

We need to think small, fast, stealthy and smart -- not big, blundering and hamhanded.

The chief threat is CHINA . Why do you think China is building it's military to take on ours.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We use the Air Force in Iraq

And I bet the insurgents who found the USA logo inprinted on their forheads with a 2000lbs stamp WOULD have had something differnet to say.

Chest thumping to make a point... weak.

The exact opposite can be said for the G.I.s who found Allah Ackbar imprinted on theirs from an IED.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We have 11 active carrieres.

On any given day:

1 is in transit somewhere

3 are in drydock or major maintenance availability

3 are on deployment.

2 are in their major workup cycles for warfare qualification.

2 are letting their crew get some R&R or doing other various training evolutions.

So basically to keep three carriers deployed at any one time at peacetime levels of activity 11 is the magic number. As shown during OIF/OEF we can get 6 or 7 to the front for a limited period of time, maintinence will suffer though.



We don't need carriers to do this, or half of our DDGs/SSN/CGs for that matter.

Actually we should have 15 carriers. 8 for the west coast and 7 for east coast. The Pacific and India oceans are a lot bigger than the Atl. and the Med. When I was in, we had 2 in WestPac, 1 in Hawaii, 2 in overhaul, 1 in SRA, and the other 2 were doing ops off of Calif, Washington etc.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Also remember that we are everywhere, all the time. The idea is not to have to marshal the fleet and then send them somewhere, which would take months. A translant is about two weeks at an economical speed (which we try our best to use, I got yelled at for going to fast all the time ), we can do it faster but you would have to have a couple UNREPS on the way (not the carriers obviously).

When I went aboard ship, our Capt had one speed, and it was 18 knots. Of course was the top speed of our ship. USS Navarro APA-215. We were in Hawaii and left for Long Beach and made in 4 days. So we had to circle around the Catalina Islands for 3 days. On day 7 at 0800 we cross the break water into Long Beach. Capt Borden was so senior, evertime we were in port he was SOPA.

[Patroklos]

Chest thumping to make a point... weak.

Numbers matter. They are not all that matters, but they matter.

The exact opposite can be said for the G.I.s who found Allah Ackbar imprinted on theirs from an IED.

Except, there is about 95% less of them. Ford/Toyota/GMC/Honda are far more effective at killing Americans.