If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
|
#362
|
|||
|
|||
|
#363
|
|||
|
|||
|
#364
|
|||
|
|||
In message , phil hunt
writes On 23 Dec 2003 16:07:42 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote: Possibly. Another interpretation is that it's in continuation of british policy of getting bad value for money in military equipment. Another example of the same policy is the MRAV armoured vehicle: Britain spent large amounts of money developing an 8x8 wheeled vehicle (why? there are plenty of others on the market, and its a mature technology so no big breakthroughs are possible), See any hybrid diesel/electric 8x8s out there? Or any rapidly reconfigurable vehicles available off-the-shelf? MRAV had some goals, none of the off-the-shelf candidates met them, turns out MRAV didn't either. But then MRAV wasn't too expensive. The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59 million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's something wrong here. Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat). -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ...
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Derek Lyons skrev i meddelelsen ... You and Phil, and to a lesser extent George, who should know better, don't seem to realize that killing the enemy C&C is how the US fights wars today. The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of operating on their own initiative. Which sounds pretty on paper, but the reality is that those units will be picked off and killed individually, they emphatically won't win the war for you. They won't stop your country from being occupied, they won't accomplish much beyond dying gloriously. (And they won't exist in the kind of country that's most likely to take on the US because of internal politics.) Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able to throw them out the price hasnīt really been low - or do you really view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really effective at protecting them ? If you can devise a doctrine without a conventional decision cycle noone can get inside it. OK, you first. A "not so smart" bomb made out of an inflatable boat, 2 suicidal maniacs and a lot of explosives almost taking out the Cole - thats assymetric warfare. ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch the heart of the CVBG? Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing matter to you ? That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to be. People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions. Forget about taking and holding terrain - just inflict casualties. If you can't beat the enemy's physical strenght attack his will to fight. It might work, but it probably won't. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ? -------------------------------------- Carl Alex Friis Nielsen Love Me - take me as I think I am |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Hix skrev i meddelelsen ...
In article , "Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: The entire idea behind assymetric warfare is to refuse to play by the enemy's rules - so if fighting the US use a doctrine not reqirering an C3I infrastructure, which can be attacked - have lots of small dispersed units capable of operating on their own initiative. One problem here; totalitarian regimes tend not to tolerate lots of initiative in their underlings, which makes preparing for this sort of fighting somewhat harder. Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. -------------------------------------- Carl Alex Friis Nielsen Love Me - take me as I think I am |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:11:37 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt writes On 23 Dec 2003 16:07:42 GMT, Alistair Gunn wrote: Possibly. Another interpretation is that it's in continuation of british policy of getting bad value for money in military equipment. Another example of the same policy is the MRAV armoured vehicle: Britain spent large amounts of money developing an 8x8 wheeled vehicle (why? there are plenty of others on the market, and its a mature technology so no big breakthroughs are possible), See any hybrid diesel/electric 8x8s out there? Does it matter? There are plenty of vehicles. both military and non military, that manage to work perfectly well without being diesel/electric. One must consider how much extra it costs to develop and produce a D/E vehicle, and whether the money might not be better spent otherwise, Or any rapidly reconfigurable vehicles available off-the-shelf? Again, is it really that big a deal? If it is a big deal (which I doubt) a reconfigurable vehicle could be produced by starting with an existing chassis (which would have had all the bugs ironed out of it and therefore be reliable, cut off the rear half of the superstructure, drill some holes for bolts, and MRAV had some goals, none of the off-the-shelf candidates met them, turns out MRAV didn't either. But then MRAV wasn't too expensive. If you work out the ratio of what it cost divided by the amount of military benefit Britian got from it, it was infinitely expensive. MRAV cost (from memory, so probably wrong) Britain $200 million, for which we could have bought about 400 vehicles such as the Patria AMV or XA series. (Less if configured with fancier weapons, of course). BTW, do you (or anyone else) have design specs for FRES? As in weight, armament, armour, etc. The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59 million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's something wrong here. Not really, no. The UK buys the strategic lift and the support infrastructure to be able to put troops, tanks, ships and aircraft far overseas and fight: other countries concentrate on headline-grabbing numbers of frontline assets but aren't able to send them anywhere (and aren't tested in their ability to commit them to combat). There is a good transport infrastructure throughout Europe and in any big war near this part of the world, I'm sure all European countries would be able to cope, for example taking up civilian assets such as aircraft. In other words, the transport etc assets the UK is getting seem to be aimed at allowing it to fight medium-sized wars with minimum (political and economic) disruption to the rest of society. It seems to me that there are 3 roles the UK armed forced can play: 1. small operations, typically peacekeeping or peacemaking, involving a few infantry battalions, e.g. in ex-Yugosolavia or Sierra Leone. 2. "poodling"; i.e. a force that gives a veneer of internationality on an American invasion. This is a symbolic act (since the USA's decision to go to war isn't affected by the size of the poodle force) and can in principle be done with symbolic forces, e.g. a brigade or so. 3. a big war in which vital national interests are at stake, and the nation's entire military force is used in the struggle. It seems to me that the UK is optimising its forces for type 2 conflicts at the expense of type 3 conflicts. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Dec 2003 06:26:52 GMT, Denyav wrote:
The term "Asymetric warfare" does not neccesarily indicate a low technology approach aganist a mighty opponent,it might also contain the highest end approach. For example,Imperial Germanys decision to counter surface might of RN with submarines is a classical example of "Asymetric warfare" even though submarines were not the products of lower technology than surface ships. Good example. -- "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia (Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse the last two letters). |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote: Ok, but remember while the Israelis have occupied land outside their recognized borders for decades without the locals ever being able to throw them out the price hasnīt really been low - or do you really view Israel as a nice place to live. Is their military might really effective at protecting them ? Extremely so, when you consider the huge amount of money and time invested in their destruction by pretty much every country that borders them. They've got a higher standard of living than all of their neighbors, they live longer, and have a moderate guarantee that they're going to be in the same place for a while. Overall, the Israeli military solution seems to be good enough so far. ROTFLMAO. That's suicide. Or did you notice the attack didn't touch the heart of the CVBG? Almost eliminating a billion dollar warship and taking it out of action for over a year plus killing 17 US sailors in the process is a laughing matter to you ? I can certainly see why someone might be upset that a one-shot, not-to-be-repeated attack isn't as effective in the long run, and I can certainly see why someone might think it's funny that other prople can rely on it for their future military actions. That sort of arrogance is probably the largest vulnerability of the US - don't expect the rest of the world to be as defeatist as you wish them to be. Why not? It's worked pretty well so far. "The US will get slaughtered in Afghanistan, like everyone else." "The US will be in another Ivetnam when they invade Iraq." "The Libyans caved in due to worldie pressure." People refusing to give in even in the face of impossible odds have been known to end up winning in the end on several ocasions. ....and have gotten beat into a pulp on many more. Not to mention that most places don't have the "victory or death" mindset that the popular literature hopes for. Especially when fighting against someone who's really not that interested in invading those countries for direct profit, like everyone else seems to do. It worked in Somalia, it worked in Vietnam, it worked in Iran, it worked in Lebanon - why not toss the dice again ? Because it didn't work in Afghanistan and Iraq, in a very blatant and obvious fashion. And without another opposing superpower to pay for it, you won't get another Vietnam. Many folks can't learn, but a lot of countries have gotten the message that the US has figured out how to beat them at their own game. The photos of Saddam put the final nail in that coffin. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
"Carl Alex Friis Nielsen" wrote:
Why do you assume the US will only fight totalitarian regimes ? Name a non-totalitarian regime that has a good chance of going up against the US militarily in the next 20 years. Or that totalitarian regimes can't exist with the suport of the population - remember that only about 20 % of the worlds population share our western values. Name a true regime of that sort with real popular support. Should be simple, right? -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |