NPR

Hugo wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:51 pm
Thanks for the replies lads. If you had to do a top 5/10 of the US's biggest allies, how would you rank such a list? I read a book "Taming American power" recently and I've developed a fascination in who gets the most out of their relationship with the US, who has the most leverage, the most unequivocal support etc. Here are some links regarding that question -

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -a-threat/

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ralia.html

mat the expat wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:39 am

Saint wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:19 am

mat the expat wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2021 7:00 am

Nah, the only comparison to America class LHDs iscwe didn't order theb F35C or enough F35Bs

The America class can only handle around 6 F35s

Wasp class is a bit more aligned towards heli operations, but that's because the US has the Nimitz/Ford class for serious Air operations. In terms of role they're expected to fulfil they're quite close, although the QE class will support a true Amphib operation instead of managing it itself.

Before the fire on the Bonhomme Richard, they were planning on a 50:50 split on Heli Vs F35 based roles. They are also looking at smaller CVs again, not that I expect it to go anywhere.

QE class is full ops CV

Tom Newton Dunn also has more on the extraordinary beef between Raab and the FCDO and, well, seemingly everyone else in Whitehall. He reports that there is “deep anger” that Defense Secretary Ben Wallace was alone in trying to form a coalition to replace the Americans, and that “the FCDO had no interest in joining the MoD effort to find only an extra 3,000 troops and accompanying air power that would have replaced the US’s footprint.” A senior official describes Raab to TND as “a low grade, risk-averse lawyer.” Playbook hears the anger at Raab and the FCDO has made its way to Downing Street. One senior Tory says: “Raab isn’t very on side, he’s often saying and doing things that grate against our agenda.”

SaintK wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:01 am Bit of inter-departmental warfare taking place in Cabinet. Obviously not helped by Raab fucking off on holiday while this was all brewing last week

Tom Newton Dunn also has more on the extraordinary beef between Raab and the FCDO and, well, seemingly everyone else in Whitehall. He reports that there is “deep anger” that Defense Secretary Ben Wallace was alone in trying to form a coalition to replace the Americans, and that “the FCDO had no interest in joining the MoD effort to find only an extra 3,000 troops and accompanying air power that would have replaced the US’s footprint.” A senior official describes Raab to TND as “a low grade, risk-averse lawyer.” Playbook hears the anger at Raab and the FCDO has made its way to Downing Street. One senior Tory says: “Raab isn’t very on side, he’s often saying and doing things that grate against our agenda.”

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

laurent wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:09 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

Or be as mad as the French... (but Mali is enough thank you)

fishfoodie wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:32 pm Just for shits n' giggles I compared the numbers deployed in Afghanistan, versus Northern Ireland, at the peak of the troubles.

NI, Area: 14,130 km²
Helmand Province, Afghanistan, Area: 58,584 km²

Peak Deployment:
NI, Operation Banner
13,000 RUC,[3] 21,000 British Soldiers,[4] 6,500 UDR[5]
Total: Circa 40,500

Against peak PIRA 750

9,500 British Soldiers in Helmand, versus who knows how many Talban; but a damn sight more than 750 !

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:09 pm

laurent wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:09 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

Or be as mad as the French... (but Mali is enough thank you)

Britain could do an equivalent to Mali with equivalent help that France is getting. We can't stabilise Afghanistan

laurent wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:26 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:09 pm

laurent wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:09 pm

Or be as mad as the French... (but Mali is enough thank you)

Britain could do an equivalent to Mali with equivalent help that France is getting. We can't stabilise Afghanistan

Mali is turning into a similar mess.

Brazil wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:18 pm

laurent wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:26 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:09 pm

Britain could do an equivalent to Mali with equivalent help that France is getting. We can't stabilise Afghanistan

Mali is turning into a similar mess.

I was going to say, not getting great traction in France as I understand it.

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:48 am

Slick wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:44 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:37 am
What's he supposed to say?

We've lost the war. Our agency to win it was always highly dubious. We probably last had the theoretical ability to stablise a nation of this scale 40ish years ago. All the while we were fighting a very hot war in Helmand the political class was cutting the military and therefore it's capability to do anything. They are fundamentally unserious.
We can't get everyone out because the Afghan state has crumbled at the first sign of pressure. The US is the only totally independent actor here, let's stop deluding ourselves as to what we could and can achieve.

Parliament is being recalled so expect a shitshow of nonsense as people move our fictional deployable division around on a map of Central Asia and 'something must be done' resounds around Westminster just as it did when we had an Empire. Reminds me of the debate on sending four jets to conduct no risk airstrikes over Syria as lightweights on all sides cosplayed the Norway debate.

The recalling of Parliament actually made me feel a bit sick. What the fuck is that going to achieve apart from hours of virtue signalling from cunts who haven't given a fuck for years.

Yep likewise. Lisa Nandy demanding Britain gets people round the table to sort this out is a classic of the genre - we've lost a war! Why would the Taliban come to London to take lectures off the defeated? The grip on reality just isn't there, and she's a long way from being unique.

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

Saint wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 7:51 am

QE is not full ops CV. In normal ops it's primarily a CV; but there's also a littoral operations mode that's effectively full helicopter. It's designed to carry 250 troops for deployment for landing via helicopter (one of the key design requirements was that it could support a Chinook in it's hangers and aircraft lift without folding the blades. It's a VERY multi-role ship, and to think of it in terms of being a pure deep water force projection ship is missing the point of it, but politician dick waving is what it is

Happyhooker wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:48 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:48 am

Slick wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:44 am

The recalling of Parliament actually made me feel a bit sick. What the fuck is that going to achieve apart from hours of virtue signalling from cunts who haven't given a fuck for years.

Yep likewise. Lisa Nandy demanding Britain gets people round the table to sort this out is a classic of the genre - we've lost a war! Why would the Taliban come to London to take lectures off the defeated? The grip on reality just isn't there, and she's a long way from being unique.

This didn't age well.

Apart from the tory ex military mps, hers was one of the best speeches made today.

Apologies if this has been covered, I'm catching up on this thread

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 7:44 am
2) Our ability to do something right now is pretty limited. We can get our people out whilst the Americans hold the airport, once that's gone it's goodbye. There is no viable option for Britain to directly take on the Taliban

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:08 am Plugged this on the Book thread a while back but worth mentioning again how good I thought Afgantsy was as a history of the Russian war. Always struck me that a lot of the Muhajideen old hands who also fought for the Taliban had far more respect for the Soviets than they did for the Americans. Of course there's an element of 'in my day' as well as men of extreme violence respecting the same, but an interesting observation nonetheless.

Rinkals wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:54 am As for nobody being able to predict this mess, what exactly did they think would happen?

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:10 am

Rinkals wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:54 am As for nobody being able to predict this mess, what exactly did they think would happen?

Nobody thought the Afghan Army would fold in less than a week. I suspect NATO hoped they'd have a few months at least to get their people out.

Happyhooker wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:52 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

It was doable.

I know that a potential eng/fra option was put before the CoS a month or so ago

tc27 wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 1:00 pm

Happyhooker wrote: Thu Aug 19, 2021 12:52 am

Paddington Bear wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:06 am This idea of a UK led coalition to replace the Americans in a hot warzone in Central Asia would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that even the Defence Secretary buys into the fallacy. If you want to be able to do these sort of ops, you need to spend a lot more money on defence.

It was doable.

I know that a potential eng/fra option was put before the CoS a month or so ago

Not sure it was doable - whilst we could replicate the US ground footprint of 2.5k soldiers and even billions in aid to the Afghan government their are three factors in play that make me think it would not hold.

1. The US only got away with such an arrangement because it had an agreement with the Taliban to pull out.

2. The Taliban knew that if they caused too many problems for the US on the ground they would make themselves vulnerable to massive retaliation - something the Europeans had far less capability to do.

3. The ANA's equipment all depended on US civilian contractors.

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:10 am

Rinkals wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:54 am As for nobody being able to predict this mess, what exactly did they think would happen?

Nobody thought the Afghan Army would fold in less than a week. I suspect NATO hoped they'd have a few months at least to get their people out.

Sandstorm wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 11:10 am

Rinkals wrote: Mon Aug 23, 2021 6:54 am As for nobody being able to predict this mess, what exactly did they think would happen?

Nobody thought the Afghan Army would fold in less than a week. I suspect NATO hoped they'd have a few months at least to get their people out.

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:27 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:08 am Plugged this on the Book thread a while back but worth mentioning again how good I thought Afgantsy was as a history of the Russian war. Always struck me that a lot of the Muhajideen old hands who also fought for the Taliban had far more respect for the Soviets than they did for the Americans. Of course there's an element of 'in my day' as well as men of extreme violence respecting the same, but an interesting observation nonetheless.

Why so out of curiosity?

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:35 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:27 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:08 am Plugged this on the Book thread a while back but worth mentioning again how good I thought Afgantsy was as a history of the Russian war. Always struck me that a lot of the Muhajideen old hands who also fought for the Taliban had far more respect for the Soviets than they did for the Americans. Of course there's an element of 'in my day' as well as men of extreme violence respecting the same, but an interesting observation nonetheless.

Why so out of curiosity?

They felt the Russians understood that to make the omelette that is a Russian controlled Afghanistan there would need to be a lot of breaking of eggs along the way.

Slick wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:00 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:35 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:27 pm

Why so out of curiosity?

They felt the Russians understood that to make the omelette that is a Russian controlled Afghanistan there would need to be a lot of breaking of eggs along the way.

Thoughts for a new show “Alan Partridge does geopolitics”

Paddington Bear wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 3:35 pm

Uncle fester wrote: Sun Aug 22, 2021 2:27 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 11:08 am Plugged this on the Book thread a while back but worth mentioning again how good I thought Afgantsy was as a history of the Russian war. Always struck me that a lot of the Muhajideen old hands who also fought for the Taliban had far more respect for the Soviets than they did for the Americans. Of course there's an element of 'in my day' as well as men of extreme violence respecting the same, but an interesting observation nonetheless.

Why so out of curiosity?

They felt the Russians understood that to make the omelette that is a Russian controlled Afghanistan there would need to be a lot of breaking of eggs along the way.

tabascoboy wrote: Tue Aug 24, 2021 4:43 pm "The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the pudding in this case is the Taliban"