Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Atlantic Future Forum

Yarra

Old-Salt
The US has still maintained a sizeable and expensive military, that is expected to intervene on behalf of NATO. But an increasing burden is being placed on the US by its partners overseas, who are more worried about their collective welfare states then making necessary contributions to an alliance. With one in particular providing the necessary hard cash to help modernize the Russians military.

Then when you have other issues like China, Iran, Climate Change etc. Where National interests collide and take precedence over being mates. If we can’t work with each other, we will work against each other raising tensions further.
Burden sharing has been a problem for some time. Things were getting better, but CV19 has put everything back by some considerable margin. I am often struck how some of the smaller NATO Nations take their collective responsibilities far more seriously than certain large (freeloading) Nations. These smaller nations are not always the ones with the obvious motivation.
 
Burden sharing has been a problem for some time. Things were getting better, but CV19 has put everything back by some considerable margin. I am often struck how some of the smaller NATO Nations take their collective responsibilities far more seriously than certain large (freeloading) Nations. These smaller nations are not always the ones with the obvious motivation.

You are correct, but the 2 percent goal seems to be ready to fail in spectacular fashion. Why is it that a country like Poland can strive to meet it whilst the Germans just shrug it off? If everybody would just meet the agreed upon spending goal then nobody would question the value of the alliance. It does make me wonder what kind changes might be in store with a 2nd Trump Term if the man feels vindicated.
 
You are correct, but the 2 percent goal seems to be ready to fail in spectacular fashion. Why is it that a country like Poland can strive to meet it whilst the Germans just shrug it off? If everybody would just meet the agreed upon spending goal then nobody would question the value of the alliance. It does make me wonder what kind changes might be in store with a 2nd Trump Term if the man feels vindicated.

because for Germany, NATO, and it’s costs, became an irrelevance in 1989.
 
because for Germany, NATO, and it’s costs, became an irrelevance in 1989.
Pre-89 everything was paid for by the UK & US anyway in West Germany.

We still had rationing until the mid-50's and paying back war loans until the 90's - all the while paying to build Germany into the country it is today after it fucked itself, again.

Easy to be fair and socialist with other people's money - same old shit, la de da.
 

Yokel

LE
because for Germany, NATO, and it’s costs, became an irrelevance in 1989.

But a lot of people thought like that - not just Germany. If you think back to the ARRSE discussions in the the years leading up to the 2010 SDSR you will remember that it seemed that everyone insisted state on state conflict or geopolitical tension was a thing of the past. That nice Mr Vlad would cause no problems.
 
Pre-89 everything was paid for by the UK & US anyway in West Germany.

We still had rationing until the mid-50's and paying back war loans until the 90's - all the while paying to build Germany into the country it is today after it fucked itself, again.

Easy to be fair and socialist with other people's money - same old shit, la de da.
Not quite true. The West German government was required to pick up a significant element of the occupying powers' costs
 
Not quite true. The West German government was required to pick up a significant element of the occupying powers' costs
The Germans are still paying part of the cost of American bases in Germany today. The same is true for South Korea and many other countries. The bases are not there at no cost to the hosts. This was covered on another thread.
 

Yokel

LE
According to a speech by the new Director General of M15, the threats to the UK (and by extension the rest of the West - including NATO/Five Eyes) are varied and include espionage and disruption by Russia, China, and Iran. The Iranians have tried to disrupt the international energy supply. Putin has tried to disrupt democratic processes and routine NATO activity. Xi has opted to coerce neighbours and trading partners.

Is it time to build a new partnership of nations committed to playing by the rules?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
But a lot of people thought like that - not just Germany. If you think back to the ARRSE discussions in the the years leading up to the 2010 SDSR you will remember that it seemed that everyone insisted state on state conflict or geopolitical tension was a thing of the past. That nice Mr Vlad would cause no problems.

It may have been the prevailing zeitgeist for metropolitan globalist post-history types but that's not the Arrse that I recall; probably because most of us on the site at that point were still pretty grumpy about participating in the latest state on state conflict and how the powers that be were generally f@cking it up.
 

Yokel

LE
It may have been the prevailing zeitgeist for metropolitan globalist post-history types but that's not the Arrse that I recall; probably because most of us on the site at that point were still pretty grumpy about participating in the latest state on state conflict and how the powers that be were generally f@cking it up.

I seem to remember every man and his dog arguing that all future conflicts would be near carbon copies of Afghanistan. A number of capabilities have been allowed to decline, or were cut to focus on Afghan operations.

The North Atlantic is key to the alliance's a ability to deter or respond to European crisis, so this seems apt:

 
Last edited:

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I seem to remember every man and his dog arguing that all future conflicts would be near carbon copies of Afghanistan. A number of capabilities have been allowed to decline, or were cut to focus on Afghan operations.

The North Atlsntic is key to the alliance's a ability to deter or respond to European crisis, so this seems apt:


I suggest that you re-visit multiple threads relating to women in the infantry where the opposite was forcibly argued and over an extended period.

As far as the North Atlantic is concerned, I agree with you entirely and the RN's fallen into exactly the same trap as prior to WW2 and for much the same reasons.
 

Yokel

LE
I suggest that you re-visit multiple threads relating to women in the infantry where the opposite was forcibly argued and over an extended period.

As far as the North Atlantic is concerned, I agree with you entirely and the RN's fallen into exactly the same trap as prior to WW2 and for much the same reasons.

No it has not - the carriers are part of our commitment to NATO, including ASW with multiple helicopters with dipping sonar and fighters to deal with attack and reece aircraft.

Carriers were critical in the Atlantic theatre in World War Two, and a large part of NATO's ability to protect resupply convoys. The same applies today.

In the years before WW2, faith was put in detecting submarines underwater and they were expected to attack underwater as single units, and not attack on the surface in numbers.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
No it has not - the carriers are part of our commitment to NATO, including ASW with multiple helicopters with dipping sonar and fighters to deal with attack and reece aircraft.

Carriers were critical in the Atlantic theatre in World War Two, and a large part of NATO's ability to protect resupply convoys. The same applies today.

In the years before WW2, faith was put in detecting submarines underwater and they were expected to attack underwater as single units, and not attack on the surface in numbers.

A quick re-read of Walker RN suggests otherwise.

Victory in the Battle of the Atlantic was achieved by closing the air gap (long distance aircraft) and the creation of dedicated hunter groups operating on the radical but long resisted assumption that U-boats were most likely to be found in the proximity of convoys.

Anti-submarine work was a Cinderella field of endeavour pre-war, and that includes RAF support, or rather the lack of it, for Coastal Command..
 

Yokel

LE
When the war came the U boats attacked on the surface at night, and as Wolfpacks. It took years to develop the tactics and technology to counter them.

The 'Hunter groups' you refer to were called Support groups, and were able to go to the aid of convoys under attack. The Escort Carrier played a major role, not just against U boats but also against Kondors. The Swordfish could carry a radar and rocket projectiles to punch holes in U boats.

The modern RN cannot be accused of not taking ASW seriously, which was what you suggested.
 

Yokel

LE

Carriers could easily be tasked to protect crisis response shipping from air and submarine threats. This was the primary role they had as part of NATO. See the comments on this thread about carriers and NATO sea control.

...the primary mission for the CV/CVN in the North Atlantic was not ASW (it was an additional role) but rather AAW to prevent the Backfire/Bears from attacking the convoys. The A-6/A-7s were the organic tankers to push the F-4/F-14 CAP stations out to a range to shoot the archer, not the arrows. Obviously, those roles swapped a bit when you started facing a surface threat or got close enough to land to start contemplating strikes against those Soviet Naval Air Arm airfields.
 

Yokel

LE
Will the talks do anything to contribute to trade deals post BREXIT? Many of our leading companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls Royce have ties to their American counterparts. Components and sub assemblies for defence, aerospace, marine, and other high tech sectors are a significant British export.

American companies can rely on UK subcontractors to achieve the Quslity standards demanded, and to protect intellectual property.
 

Yokel

LE
One of the things bring looked at in the wake of COVID-19 is the security of supply chains. I wonder if this was part of the discussions - not just in terms of cyber security but also in terms of reshoring manufacturing capabilities to the West?

I also wonder if Canada should have been asked to participate due to historical links, their Atlantic coastline, and their contributions to NATO?
 
One of the things bring looked at in the wake of COVID-19 is the security of supply chains. I wonder if this was part of the discussions - not just in terms of cyber security but also in terms of reshoring manufacturing capabilities to the West?

I also wonder if Canada should have been asked to participate due to historical links, their Atlantic coastline, and their contributions to NATO?
The statement was incredibly vague, but it sounds like it mainly has to do with operating aircraft carriers in cooperation with each other, now that the UK has its own full sized carriers.
 

Latest Threads

Top