Jump to content

US and Western Defense Policy in the Next Four Years


BansheeOne

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is 27 members, not all admittedly with a Navy, but most do. And those that do not can always contribute to a NATO force of frigates to contribute that way. After all if we can do it with E3 Sentry's, why not a T26 (other Frigates are available).

A standing naval group is a combination of different national assets. I find it hard to believe among all that many members they cant bump up for 8-10 more ships. Particularly if the Aussies contribute for the Far Eastern one.

(Tell a lie, its 30 members now. Well thats inflation for you).

 

I see were you're coming from but it would be difficult to have a joint navy. Some countries, like Germany, wouldn't allow any of there citizens to go to war. Greece and Turkey are to busy watching each other. Spain's a possibility and maybe the Dutch. France would demand that it would be EU controlled against having a NATO control and so on. It's like having too many cook spoiles the broth.

But in regards to the NATO E3 AWAC's brigade and the up coming NATO Aerial refueling brigade there all European based not thousands of miles away on the other side of the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 943
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

...On the naval front, warships these days are militarily like cavalry in 1914 - next to useless.  They are good for peacetime parades and demonstrations against third rate powers.  But in a pier conflict, navies are not instruments of power projection.  In 1982 one of the best navies in the world struggled to secure mastery of the seas against a 3rd rate opponent with six sea skimming missiles and 1950's era jets.   It has only gotten far worse since...

 

Modern navy's is not my strong suit but in the 1982 Falklands war the ships SAM systems were designed against Soviet anti-ship missiles which came at height then in a shallow dive towards the target. The French Exocet's came in at sea skimming height so the SAM's didn't work. Against the USSR they would of probably of worked.

A task force of 70 ships, operating over 10,000 miles away from their home bases, against a numerically superior air force and land force (by a massive margin) i'm surprised we actually won even if we retained the technology advantage.

Edited by TrustMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NATO of course currently has two each Standing Maritime Groups and Standing Mine Countermeasures Groups of four to six vessels each, originally tied to the Atlantic and Mediterranean respectively, but just designated 1 and 2 since 2005 though the AORs have generally remained the same.

I could see another SNMG for the Indian Ocean, where NATO has operated before to secure SLOCs during the WOT and fight piracy; but for now China, unlike Russia, is being termed a challenger rather than an adversary, which to my mind is largely in the political rather than military realm, requiring resilience against influence by economic and technological means rather than protecting seaways to Asia against wolfpacks of Chinese submarines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

 

Modern navy's is not my strong suit but in the 1982 Falklands war the ships SAM systems were designed against Soviet anti-ship missiles which came at height then in a shallow dive towards the target. The French Exocet's came in at sea skimming height so the SAM's didn't work. Against the USSR they would of probably of worked.

A task force of 70 ships, operating over 10,000 miles away from their home bases, against a numerically superior air force and land force (by a massive margin) i'm surprised we actually won even if we retained the technology advantage.

Even in 1982 against A-4 Skyhawks the British did not want to approach too closely to the Argentine mainland.  These days it will be everything that can be managed for navies to defend sea lines of communication at a considerable distance from enemy shores.  For actual power projection, it seems all standoff missiles and land based aircraft now.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, seahawk said:

And you do not need forces in the Indian Ocean either, the Iranian Navy is not a threat.

Well one could make the case that NATO should counterbalance increasing Chinese power projection capabilities in neighboring Africa through their base in Djibouti etc. Would also serve to address American demands for greater NATO contributions within a realistic scope. But currently it's probably sufficient to shift forces from the Mediterranean if thought necessary, which can happen rather quick compared to the time needed to get there from China. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, seahawk said:

And you do not need forces in the Indian Ocean either, the Iranian Navy is not a threat.

Tell that to the crew of the Stena Impero. Or indeed, the half dozen other ships the Iranians have helped themselves to without much response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, seahawk said:

To keep China out of Africa we need more investment there. They create jobs and infrastructure. 

The recent G7 summit at the weekend on China's belt and road initiative said that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

To keep China out of Africa we need more investment there. They create jobs and infrastructure. 

Correct, as do the Koreans and Japanese in competition.

The fruits of lingering African suspicions held against their former colonizers, so to speak. Those suspicions will probably need to be comprehensively (and expensively) addressed if a level investment playing field is to be attained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, seahawk said:

There are enough local powers that have the means to protect international shipping. Maybe they are not that friendly towards us, if they do not want to?

I don't personally care if they like us or not. Our shipping must be protected. If they won't do it, NATO should.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

To keep China out of Africa we need more investment there. They create jobs and infrastructure. 

Certainly, but meanwhile the Djibouti base is reality. It may well disappear once the locals see better incentives, but until underlying conditions change, Chinese power projection capabilities cannot be ignored. Mind, there's no need for hysterics to the point of a Cuban quarantine or Crimean annexion either, just some balance. And again, currently that's probably sufficiently covered by projecting out of the Med. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Certainly, but meanwhile the Djibouti base is reality. It may well disappear once the locals see better incentives, but until underlying conditions change, Chinese power projection capabilities cannot be ignored. Mind, there's no need for hysterics to the point of a Cuban quarantine or Crimean annexion either, just some balance. And again, currently that's probably sufficiently covered by projecting out of the Med. 

Yes, but NATO ships sailing along the cost won´t make the base disappear.

Just look at the real situation:

In 2009, China overtook the United States in becoming Djibouti’s largest trading partner. Between 57 percent and 70 percent of Djibouti’s debt is made up of Chinese loans. The Chinese built a new port and the hugely important rail line to Ethiopia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt get over excited about Chinese loans. What does it take for an African nation to default on a loan and say, channelling Nasser at his best, that they wont be Colonial playthings anymore? I seem to recall Gadaffi did something similar. They have yet to demonstrate the means of  successful power projection as far as Africa, at least as far as boots on the ground is concerned.

China has a hold on Africa, thats true. But its a weak one. They continually complain all the investment they are putting in is not getting them they influence they expected. Because its Africa, and Africans have seen it all before, whether it was Britain and France, America or the Soviet Union, or China and whomever will step up to the plate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the Soviet Union failed too, but I dont think anyone looking at Angola, Ethiopia or Libya today would say their influence was in any way helpful to the continent. If China gets a hold, it will attempt to export its authoritarian, kleptocratic form of Government, and that is going to set African development back decades.

Besides, its time the Africans were left to decide their own affairs. If we got out, I see no reason why China should be allowed to go in. The Age of Empires is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, seahawk said:

There are enough local powers that have the means to protect international shipping. Maybe they are not that friendly towards us, if they do not want to?

It can't hurt to organize patrols, if NATO is up to it.  SLOC stuff in peacetime is good promo for NATO and Western unity messaging. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Still you pretend the West got to decicde who can do what, even tough you say the Age of Empires is over.

You got a group of nations with a better moral compass, go to it. Who you gonna call, Russia and the PRC? Good luck with that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You got a group of nations with a better moral compass, go to it. Who you gonna call, Russia and the PRC? Good luck with that.

 

From an African or Asian perspective, probably yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is essentially, recolonization.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/09/doug-casey/doug-casey-on-chinas-exploitation-of-africa/

I remember pointing this out as far back as 2013, and being slapped over the knuckles about being unfair to China. Its even more apparent now this is just as exploitative as the relationship the White Europeans had. But how many in Africa are willing to call it that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh I see, so Russia can  have a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, China can have one in Africa, but we dont have a right to have any view at all on what happens on the African continent. You dont so much have double standards Glenn  as a hall of mirrors you can lose yourself in.

If the PRC's efforts in Africa result in any form of instability, the African migrant flows will come here, not China. And if that, and the extensive aid we have given Africa over the past 40 years every time there is a major famine, doesnt give us a right to express a view on what China is doing, then what does?

Its not Chinese troops on the ground protecting endangered African wildlife from poachers, its ours. Its not Chinese troops fighting Boko Haram, its French, British and American troops. It wasnt Chinese ships protecting the worlds shipping from Somalian pirates, it was predominantly Western ones. What you express is apathy dressed up as concern for the Africans rights, and its ridiculous, because I refuse to believe the PRC really gives a toss about Africa beyond what they can did out the ground or corrupt out their politicians.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part "it is up the African countries to decide" you don't understand? Or do you still paddle that "white man's burden" crap?

PS. Remind me again why exactly are those species endangered?

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...