Atlantic Future Forum - and NATO/Euro Atlantic defence

Really? I think a new Royal Yacht will come as a surprised to a good many people.

A new national flagship is to be commissioned by the government in a bid to boost British trade and industry globally, the prime minister has said.
The vessel will be the successor to the Royal Yacht Britannia, which was retired in 1997.
 
Brexit mostly... v recently, I had the misfortune of having to endure the butt hurt whining of one their (senior and crusty) diplomatic corp. He was not happy ('foolish and self defeating'). The experience was only ameliorated by my suspicions that he was that crusty, he wouldn't be around long for this world, plus the fact that the majority of the other nationals represented at said soiree were equally repugnant, self absorbed and generally a bit bat shit crazy.

I believe (personal opinion), that the reason that such (US) opinion exists, is partly because once fully out (of the EU), they will loose their useful idiot inside that camp. Part of the US policy, since the Atlantic Charter is to keep us down and to heel. The Brits suddenly out of their box and doing their own stuff is not in their manual.

Although, Eisenhower did go on record to regret cutting us down too far (Suez, et al), they don't really see us as anything other than another interest to manage.

Y

ETA, I say the above as an Anglo-Australian. The US learned divide and rule from the Masters.
It’s not a bad thing to upset the Americans in this way, firstly, they do their best business when they are angry, which is why they are one of the richest nations of earth, they are angry A LOT. Secondly, whilst they have all the gear, they certainly have No Idea, they are good businessmen yes, but lack global knowledge, spatial awareness or common sense, their idea of debate is to shout down the opposition, shake their fist and .....we’ll shout a lot and be loud.
Us Brits on the other hand, on the most part are shrewd, cunning and tend to arm ourselves with the facts, our biggest problem is walking into a room with a loaded gun and then proceeding to shoot ourselves in the foot!
On the whole, I’d rather be in the USA’s pocket than the EU’s, less dangerous, we at least know where we stand, and a damn sight easier to get what we want, even if it is on the Americans terms!
 

Yokel

LE
This is an American film made in the seventies I think. It makes the point that the United States needed to import something like sixty different raw materials, and makes the point that power over the sea is necessary for power over the land.



International stability and trade depends on the free movement of shipping.
 

Yokel

LE
Iranians in the Atlantic?

UPDATED: Iranian Warship Thought to be Headed to Venezuela Left Port with 7 High-Speed Missile Boats Aboard

The seven missile craft aboard Makran are each approximately 57 feet (17.5 meters) long and match the Peykaap family of medium-sized fast attack craft operated by Iran. There are several variations of these craft in Iranian service, although all are generally similar. The latest Peykaap-II type (also known as the Bavar class) is 57 feet long and can carry two anti-ship missiles and two 12.75 inch torpedoes. The missiles could be of the Kowsar or Nasr types, which are derived from Chinese models with a quite modest range of around 18 nautical miles.

Additionally, the ship could be carrying other military equipment not readily apparent from the imagery. A converted oil tanker, Makran is the Iranian Navy’s newest and largest warship. Its new role has been compared to the U.S. Navy’s Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). Like the ESBs, the 755-foot long Makran is designed to be a mobile sea base for small boats and aircraft capable of operating anywhere around the world. The conversion added a large flight deck, the capacity to carry boats and other equipment on deck and additional cargo below.

There has been concern that Venezuela may attempt to acquire ballistic missile technology from Iran. Some areas of the deck are now covered, so it has not been possible to assess the full cargo of the ship. Venezuela’s regime, led by President Nicola Maduro, has talked openly about acquiring arms from Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian special forces belonging to the IRGC’s Quds force may already be assisting the Venezuelan military.

If the boats are delivered, they may form the core of an asymmetrical warfare force within Venezuela’s armed forces. This could be focused on disrupting shipping as a means of countering superior naval forces. Shipping routes to and from the Panama Canal are near the Venezuelan coast.
 
Iranians in the Atlantic?

UPDATED: Iranian Warship Thought to be Headed to Venezuela Left Port with 7 High-Speed Missile Boats Aboard

The seven missile craft aboard Makran are each approximately 57 feet (17.5 meters) long and match the Peykaap family of medium-sized fast attack craft operated by Iran. There are several variations of these craft in Iranian service, although all are generally similar. The latest Peykaap-II type (also known as the Bavar class) is 57 feet long and can carry two anti-ship missiles and two 12.75 inch torpedoes. The missiles could be of the Kowsar or Nasr types, which are derived from Chinese models with a quite modest range of around 18 nautical miles.

Additionally, the ship could be carrying other military equipment not readily apparent from the imagery. A converted oil tanker, Makran is the Iranian Navy’s newest and largest warship. Its new role has been compared to the U.S. Navy’s Expeditionary Sea Base (ESB). Like the ESBs, the 755-foot long Makran is designed to be a mobile sea base for small boats and aircraft capable of operating anywhere around the world. The conversion added a large flight deck, the capacity to carry boats and other equipment on deck and additional cargo below.

There has been concern that Venezuela may attempt to acquire ballistic missile technology from Iran. Some areas of the deck are now covered, so it has not been possible to assess the full cargo of the ship. Venezuela’s regime, led by President Nicola Maduro, has talked openly about acquiring arms from Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian special forces belonging to the IRGC’s Quds force may already be assisting the Venezuelan military.

If the boats are delivered, they may form the core of an asymmetrical warfare force within Venezuela’s armed forces. This could be focused on disrupting shipping as a means of countering superior naval forces. Shipping routes to and from the Panama Canal are near the Venezuelan coast.
Some sort of arms deal does appear to be the most likely reason.
 

Yokel

LE
Future War and the defence of Europe

Future War and the Defence of Europe offers a major new analysis of how peace and security can be maintained in Europe: a continent that has suffered two cataclysmic conflicts since 1914. Taking as its starting point the COVID-19 pandemic and way it will inevitably accelerate some key global dynamics already in play, the book goes on to weave history, strategy, policy, and technology into a compelling analytical narrative. It lays out in forensic detail the scale of the challenge Europeans and their allies face if Europe’s peace is to be upheld in a transformative century. The book upends foundational assumptions about how Europe’s defence is organised, the role of a fast-changing transatlantic relationship, NATO, the EU, and their constituent nation-states. At the heart of the book is a radical vision of a technology-enabling future European defence, built around a new kind of Atlantic Alliance, an innovative strategic public-private partnership, and the future hyper-electronic European force, E-Force, it must spawn. Europeans should be under no illusion: unless they do far more for their own defence, and very differently, all that they now take for granted could be lost in the maze of hybrid war, cyber war, and hyper war they must face.
 
Future War and the defence of Europe

Future War and the Defence of Europe offers a major new analysis of how peace and security can be maintained in Europe: a continent that has suffered two cataclysmic conflicts since 1914. Taking as its starting point the COVID-19 pandemic and way it will inevitably accelerate some key global dynamics already in play, the book goes on to weave history, strategy, policy, and technology into a compelling analytical narrative. It lays out in forensic detail the scale of the challenge Europeans and their allies face if Europe’s peace is to be upheld in a transformative century. The book upends foundational assumptions about how Europe’s defence is organised, the role of a fast-changing transatlantic relationship, NATO, the EU, and their constituent nation-states. At the heart of the book is a radical vision of a technology-enabling future European defence, built around a new kind of Atlantic Alliance, an innovative strategic public-private partnership, and the future hyper-electronic European force, E-Force, it must spawn. Europeans should be under no illusion: unless they do far more for their own defence, and very differently, all that they now take for granted could be lost in the maze of hybrid war, cyber war, and hyper war they must face.
EU Europe has such an overwhelming advantage over their main potential adversary, Russia, in terms of money, manpower, and technology that there is no need for any new 'radical visions" to deal with this. The defence problems in EU Europe are purely political, and there can be no technological solution which will resolve this.

The answer to the defence of Europe lies in Berlin and Brussels, end of story.
 

Yokel

LE
Do you really think that Germany et al would be able to deploy the same number of tanks and combat aircraft as the US?
 
Do you really think that Germany et al would be able to deploy the same number of tanks and combat aircraft as the US?
They can deploy more than the US. Europe (just counting the EU plus UK) have a bigger economy and population than the US. They have the money to build the tanks and aircraft, and the manpower to man them.
 

Kaye

LE
They can deploy more than the US. Europe (just counting the EU plus UK) have a bigger economy and population than the US. They have the money to build the tanks and aircraft, and the manpower to man them.
There is more money, there are more people and a comparable tech base in Europe as compared to the US. The European military stance is dependant on it's geopolitical stance. The latter doesn't really exist and is eroding as we speak. Hence the EU trying to step up it's integration using COVID as an excuse (Never waste a good crisis).

At the end of the day there are too many different interests within the EU to formulate the kind of singular long term set of ideas that is needed for a credible stance on defence issues. This is the weak point that geopolitical adversaries like Russia and China (and Iran and Syria...) are putting leverage on; and it is the weak point that geopolitical allies like the US, the UK and Israel are leaning on too! Europe can -and is- played apart too easily. This is not a fixable issue.

Edited cuz'of Inglish Schpellinck
 
There is more money, there are more people and a comparable tech base in Europe as compared to the US. The European military stance is dependant on it's geopolitical stance. The latter doesn't really exist and is eroding as we speak. Hence the EU trying to step up it's integration using COVID as an excuse (Never waste a good crisis).

At the end of the day there are too many different interests within the EU to formulate the kind of singular long term set of ideas that is needed for a credible stance on defence issues. This is the weak point that geopolitical adversaries like Russia and China (and Iran and Syria...) are putting leverage on; and it is the weak point that geopolitical allies like the US, the UK and Israel are leaning on too! Europe can -and is- played apart too easily. This is not a fixable issue.

Edited cuz'of Inglish Schpellinck
And yet during the Cold War West Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands fielded large and credible tank forces. They could do so today as well if they wanted to. The size of their defence is entirely in the hands of each country. They have a structure called NATO to operate through. They did all this before 1990, they can do it today.

The EU Europe countries, note I am saying "countries", not the EU as an institution which I agree is part of the problem, hold such a massive advantage over Russia in terms of fundamentals that the notion that the latter poses a serious threat to any "Europe" willing to do anything themselves is laughable.

As for the US, MAGA hasn't gone away you know. Plenty of Americans are still asking themselves why they should make sacrifices in their daily lives on behalf of people who aren't willing to do the same for themselves.

As I said above: "The defence problems in EU Europe are purely political ... The answer to the defence of Europe lies in Berlin and Brussels, end of story."
 
As I said above: "The defence problems in EU Europe are purely political ... The answer to the defence of Europe lies in Berlin and Brussels, end of story."
There never has been political will. A credible top tier nation's military force IMHO is one that can reach out worldwide and sustain its supply chain alone rather than just settle on defending itself.

There are only two Countries in Europe capable of doing this alone. The frogs and us.

I doubt Russia could realistically sustain military intervention far from it's near neighbour's. The Yanks can reach out and touch you anywhere in the world and fcuk you up. That's a proper military.
 
There never has been political will. A credible top tier nation's military force IMHO is one that can reach out worldwide and sustain its supply chain alone rather than just settle on defending itself.

There are only two Countries in Europe capable of doing this alone. The frogs and us.

I doubt Russia could realistically sustain military intervention far from it's near neighbour's. The Yanks can reach out and touch you anywhere in the world and fcuk you up. That's a proper military.
And yet during the Cold War the Germans had loads of tanks and planes but now they don't. They don't need to have a top tier military that can reach out across the world. They just need to have one which makes invading Europe impractical.
 
And yet during the Cold War the Germans had loads of tanks and planes but now they don't. They don't need to have a top tier military that can reach out across the world. They just need to have one which makes invading Europe impractical.
Yes and no. Germany has global goals and has done for a while. They couldn't and cannot protect them.

We shouldn't pander to nation's that want to wait to be rolled over.
 

Yokel

LE
And yet during the Cold War the Germans had loads of tanks and planes but now they don't. They don't need to have a top tier military that can reach out across the world. They just need to have one which makes invading Europe impractical.

Have the German armed forces suffered more under Merkel (ex Communist party - remember) than her predecessors?
 
Have the German armed forces suffered more under Merkel (ex Communist party - remember) than her predecessors?
There's a whole thread on German defence problems and politics, which is a more appropriate place to discuss questions like that. In short though, the current German defence policy seems to be the consensus policy and that consensus will have to shift tor there to be any change.

As I've said before, the key to the defence of Europe lies in Berlin and Brussels.
 

Yokel

LE
An Iranian frigate in the Atlantic - something to think about.

 
Last edited:
Top