Don't hold your breath waiting for a callback, Jet. When they return the call, you'll get a robo-voice with a heavy accent. Kinda like when I have to talk to TracFone customer service for my $19.95 Walmart emergency cellphone.
That Europe is utterly unable to project power became obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear when they came begging us to help in Libya because they were running out of ammunition, and virtually nothing that has occurred since then has diminished that impression. You can bet that Beijing has been paying attention.
Just to address the story about 'running out of ammunition' which just refuses to die....
One nation ran low on PGM's. That was Denmark. They have a small combat air fleet that, at the time had been heavily engaged providing air cover in Afghanistan, actually dropping bombs... They had orders in for munitions but they were not going to be delivered in time. They actually borrowed from the Netherlands and purchased some urgently from Israel. Ultimately the Danish stocks were too low, they did address this post war. At the time they were only spending c1.3% on defence, with a lot of focus on COIN in Afghanistan, where they were very active. They've now hit 2%...
The story, which came from the Washington Post conflated that with another story at the time about the UK running low on 1 type of munition. That munition was Dual Mode Brimstone. The UK, at one point was down to single figures of DMB. However, the reason for this was actually very prosaic, and not an issue, Dual Mode Brimstone was brand new in service with only a tiny number delivered by the manufacturers (it was rushed into service for Libya). It turned out to be so useful as the only low collateral weapon available from fast air to any NATO air force (including the US) that it became the weapon of choice if there was a risk of civilian casualties from any other munition. A perfect storm of small numbers and large demand. The UK actually had over 2,000 Single Mode Brimstone (MMW only) in stock and rapidly converted hundreds of these to make sure the RAF didn't run out. All subsequent production of Brimstone since 2010 has been multi-mode.
I've seen this same story multiple times, including that the UK and France were running low and had to get munitions from the US.....which has no truth in it. Particularly for the rather obvious reason that neither the RAF Typhoon, Tornado or AdA Rafale and Mirage were compatible with US munitions.....
Interesting. I'd read this shortage was true and that the plan was initially for America to participate in the initial surge of missile strikes only and then step back to a supporting role to let the Europeans have their short and glorious war. That's something to watch for. Thanks.
The US was definitely needed for intel and kicking down the door on the AD system as quickly and effectively. In 2011, and even today, there isn't anyone with the full capabilities to do that apart from the US (we've seen the Russian's spectacularly fail at it in Ukraine, the Israeli's can on a limited local basis against limited opposition and usually pre-attrited over a long period, the Chinese are the unknown here).
But... Europe's capabilities there have improved since then (2011 was a low point with limited budgets and lots of expenditure on COIN in Iraq and Afg, so what little cash there was wasn't reaching air forces). Enablers like Tankers, Recon, Transport have all increased massively in capability, with more AEW on the way. F-35 also helps with several hundred now available....but...there are still gaps in space based reconaissance, long range strike and SEAD/DEAD (although some get resolved if F-35 gets through its current weaponry malaise, and other developments) . What will be needed though is the ability to replace or supplant the US in planning/organisational terms and things like geo-spatial data which the US has traditionally led on...
The good news is there is light at the end of the tunnel...submarine availability should improve dramatically in the future as dockyard improvements are coming on stream at Devonport and Faslane, decommissioning is getting underway and the last Astutes are coming out of Barrow.
There are limited supply chains and workers to build and maintain subs (just as in the US). A delay in a the nuclear deterrence platform will require a shift of resources from SSNs to SSBNs.
This will also be an issue with US SSN construction and maintenance as the knock-on effects of COLUMBIA class delays are felt at EB and HII.
This problem occurred over decades in both the US and UK as the peace dividend was realized. It is an issue that will require a generation to replenish the talent pool—it won't be fixed simply by throwing money at infrastructure (although that also requires significant upgrades).
cant' say much about Europe that hasn't been offered here today. But, been saying this for decades....... we should cozy up to India, Big Time. all of the time. They have the manpower, the economic strength, and a vested interest in keeping the southern tier of Asia quiet. India should be to us now, as China has been to Russia lately. If not an equal partner, 'pert near. Near enough to make PRC uneasy and circumspect.
China has been pushy and even grabby at the India border since the late 40s. India would seem to be a natural U.S. ally in the region. FYI, campbell...we say "purt near" heah. ☺
Actually the UK was helping with the strikes into Yemen recently.
UK was/and is providing Voyager tankers for the US Navy strike fighters...all very discrete but there were quite a few cycling through Akrotiri and down the Red Sea...then being relieved and cycling back up.
Not really a surprise, when the USN needs lots of Drogues to refuel some strikes from distance they tend to call on the UK as they did in 2001...
The tanker support is realistically a more practical help than using those tankers to tow some Typhoon 1,600 miles down from Akrotiri to drop some Paveway IV or Brimstone then tow them all the way back....
There are no SSN out there at present to assist with Tomahawk strikes, HMS Queen Elizabeth is just going in for her first big refit and Prince of Wales is working up for CSG25 which will involve the Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific from late April this year, including Exercise Talisman Sabre in Australia.
With the current state of Europe and their newly voiced desire to (finally) revive their defense capabilities, I think we might be able to turn the Atlantic and GIUK Gap (especially with Finland et al now holding the Baltic) over to UK/EU to keep the Russians under control on the water. Let their attack subs and ASW take over for us so we can get everything to the Pacific. The major threat from Russia would likely be Air/Ground anyway...and they have to be prepared for that more than anything.
The key point will be the ability to anticipate what China is doing - recognizing the runup to the war so we can rotate forces. Getting the Ohio boats and the attack boats into the area ahead of time will be key to, at least, giving the Chinese something to seriously worry about when they kick things off. Surface forces will be on the fringe at the start - and due to circumstances and ethos and hope, we usually give up the first move and the initiative. We have to have a plan to absorb it, neutralize it as much as possible, then be in position to effectively strike back in ways the Chinese do not anticipate so we can upset their center of gravity.
The center of gravity is, of course, their fleet. For all the missiles and planes they can use to shoot at Taiwan and us, their grand invasion plan is thwarted without their fleet. So first hard strikes need to be at their ships. If they go with the blockade strategy, we need coordinated strikes on the individual task forces they have evidenced. Being in the middle of an anti-air/missile drill when several attack subs fire torpedos will give you a bad day. Meanwhile, launching 2,000 lb Quickstrike-ER marine mines to blockade their ports or into the Strait would also put a hitch in their giddyup.
If you look at recent UK (and Norwegian plans) that appears to be the general direction anyway. Project Cabot is focused on the GIUK gap, utilising Type 92 Sloops and Type 93 UUV's as an ASW barrier, with Norway likely to replace the 4 remaining Fridjtof Nansen Class Frigates with 6 Type 26 frigates focused heavily on ASW (possibly with Merlin onboard). Add in the P-8 and UK SSN's and 6 Norwegian 212CD subs and the Russian Northern Fleet is unlikely to have any freedom of movement, but then again...that was never what they planned anyway...
The Taiwanese need a command-activated CAPTOR mine with a heavyweight torpedo payload that can be heavily seeded into the waters around Taiwan. Make a blockade or invasion horribly, horribly expensive. Combine with Ukrainian style USVs and the approaches to the invasion coasts can become very, very expensive for the Chinese to cross.
I think they do have the CAPTOR mines off the landing beaches and sea approaches to the harbors. The Ukrainian USVs were originally developed by the US for Taiwan with that in mind and were then given to Ukraine - and then Ukraine upgraded them. So I think they've got that covered, thank goodness.
So more P-8s and (hopefully debugged) tankers, Super Hornets and some sort of commercial hull loaded with whatever Anduril starts cranking out next year?
I assume China is going to China. Like they always do when the Dragon is in ascendency, they want their interests secured (even if it takes them out the 3rd island chain) and internal tranquility. The elites of neither Europe nor North American will convince me otherwise.
Great article as usual. "... Last year, the British did some strikes with us, but the strikes of the last few weeks? No, it is America alone. Even though the vast benefit of an open Red Sea goes to Europe, no European is to be seen..." My keen "spidey sense" is getting a whiff of a familiar pattern here. The "vast benefit" math just seems to rear its ugly head often enough.
UK is providing the tankers that are refuelling the USN strikes...
We could use those same tankers to tow a couple of Typhoon down from RAF Akrotiri, 1,600 miles one way to drop some Paveway IV and Brimstone in solidarity...then tow them 1,600 miles back...or do the more sensible and efficient thing and use those same tankers to refuel the US Superhornets...
"in the Red Sea....No, it is America alone. Even though the vast benefit of an open Red Sea goes to Europe, no European is to be seen." Just thinking out loud, and not advocating this, but what if the U.S. solved the Houthi problem like we did the Barbary Pirate problem? Totally eradicate them, open up that SLOC to commercial traffic again. What could/would Europe say if we charged a toll for this new safe passage? Just enough to recoup our expenditures (and ongoing upkeep) since "they" had sat back waiting for the free ride. They'd still be saving money and time by the Red Sea/Suez route. We charge a moderate, fair amount because TANSTAAFL. Couldn't take more than 2 decades until we broke even. Thoughts?
So the question could also be....is the US going to ask China, South Korea, Japan etc. for funds as its their goods in the main passing through...
There is some speculation that the EU isn't particularly that upset by some of the additional shipping costs as they act as a de facto tariff on Chinese imports...
Yeah, we can expect little from Europe in Asia if there is war. Not nothing. But close enough for planning purposes.
Commander Salamander's discussion of will, capacity, and desire in regard to the Article V NATO mission in Afghanistan is instructive.
I've been amazed that some have criticized Trump's statements that America might not defend NATO members that spend too little on defense. The assumption is that Article V is some automatic trigger for war. All Article V says is that an attack on one is an attack on all and ultimately, each state gets to decide what its response will be. Which can include fighting.
Clearly, not many NATO countries decided to fight at America's side in Afghanistan when Article V was invoked. And I thank Britain and Canada in particular. Many allies sent troops for other missions. And others provided non-military support. No treaty negates will, capacity, and desire.
There are currently 32 NATO countries...every single one deployed to Afghanistan in ISAF....including 3 nations that weren't even members then but are now....
Contributions varied but they were all there....the Danish took, per capita, a similar casualty rate as the US....deployed in the worst place in Afg (Helmand) alongside the UK and Estonia...
US - obviously...
Canada
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Italy
Poland
Denmark
Spain
Romania
Netherlands
Turkey
Czech Republic
Norway
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Slovakia
Portugal
Belgium
Croatia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Albania
Montenegro
Greece
Iceland
Turkey
Luxembourg
North Macedonia - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Sweden - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Finland - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Most of these countries weren't set up for out of area operations, most had never fought in the Middle East, Asia or desert in their entire national histories...but they still showed up...
Most of them "showed up" because we underwrote some or all of their logistic requirements, and many were so hampered by "national caveats" that they could not fire a shot. Kudos to the nations with the most critical "niche" capabilities.
I retired in 1991. Wasn't there but suspect some of those allies were just extra mouths to feed in relatively safe compounds. "national caveats" are as onerous as any internal caveats are to individual militaries. A coalition of the willing needs to be willing. Back around 1985 when our FFG went NRF we had a small short-lived problem with a 2-3 of our SELRES in terms of caveats and willingness. May God bless the SELRES CDR in charge because those caveats got ki-Boshed in short order. Regulars and SELRES became as one. I left a year later and am still wondering if any of the TAR's converted from PN & YN to tech/mech ratings ever showed up.
I can't speak from first-hand experience--never left CONUS and I was a reservist REMF prior to 9/11, anyway--but allies under ISAF mostly didn't fight. The point of my comment. But perhaps "I Saw Americans Fight" was just American troop rudeness to our allies.
I thought it was the Dutch and not the Danes who were in the thick of it. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I almost mentioned them but their overall casualties didn't match Canada and Britain.
You are correct. However, (and I didn't say this above) the allied military people I spoke with were not happy about the national caveats, which were imposed by their political masters. ISAF was further suffocated by having to run so many decisions through Brunssum. One of the ISAF Commanders leaked his final report to various allied HQs before submitting it to NATO HQ. To say the latter was not amused is an understatement.
Europe's purposes in the Indian Ocean and Pacific were due to colonialism and mercantilism. In the Americas as well, but started to fade with the Monroe Doctrine. The writing was on the wall at the end of WWI and colonialism dead after WWII.
America is different; courtesy of the late Professor Harold W Rood of Clairmont-McKenna College. Namely America is an island nation surrounded by the Eurasian landmass. With the longest coastline in the world. Therefore a need to man the ramparts, as Rood put it, to engage our enemies on their ground away from our borders. Also the need to physically separate, by thousands of miles, exigencies of war from our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We need to engage our enemies over there, so they are not wreaking havoc over here. In the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, the North Sea and Baltic to name a few. Not off our coasts or the Gulf of America. Therein lies the need to re-establish ourselves as an undisputed maritime power; a seamless continuity of the US Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. With construction and dry dock maintenance for all.
Can't count on France at all in the Pacific; look at the problems on New Caledonia in WW2. Then look at current problems and who is likely encouraging them.
We need to build a lot more submarine weapons, fix our boats, and encourage the Australians to harden their bases. Harden San Diego and Puget Sound too. The next Pearl Harbor could be a lot closer to home.
Probably cannot harden enough for the Red Most Likely opening salvo. Boy! It sure would be nice to have the mobility and capabilities of 6-8 modern submarine tenders that could anchor up in obscure atolls.
Europe will be busy in the Baltics and the Sulwalki Gap at least. Why wouldn't Putin make a move? Conversely why wouldn't Xi and Kim make a move if Putin went first?
It might all kick off when the US and Israel bomb Iran and Iran launches their ballistic and cruise missile at their many Gulf targets. Golden opportunity for Xi , Kim, and Putin.
I think the Russians are out of "Schlitz" and it will be at least 5 years before they can even dream of attacking a NATO country. Other types of ops? For certain: cyber, economic, political, these are where Russia will have to operate for quite some time to come. This was paid for in Ukrainian blood.
They're down now to a maximum of 3,000 tanks, 2,000 of which have been driving around for a fair while...and those tanks are qualitatively far less capable than those fielded in 2022...and that figure includes all of the recoverable tanks from storage. after that the cupboard is bare...
Similar story with AD, IFV, APC, Artillery, logistics etc etc.
They've blown their Soviet inheritance over the last 3 years (though in truth block obsolescence was going to kill it over the next 10 years).
Without that mass what do they have?
They're now stuck in a situation where any new production (which is limited) is replacing losses rather than replacing equipment that was reaching total obsolescence, which can only mean their overall force will shrink (see their Air Force for this example)...add in the fact that major capabilities have no replacement in place or even credible at the current time (have a look at Russian ASW aviation assets, all totally obsolete, yet there is no programme to replace and no platforms that can be developed to do so...).
Why is the "Suwalki Gap" still there? When Putin sent his tanks and paratroops to take Kiev, he should have been confronted at once with the prospect of losing his Kaliningrad exclave. To my mind it's still a key bargaining chip in ending the Ukraine war, and the West has every right to use it.
Only 100 years from Britain having mastery of the seas, and France and Italy being regional powers. France at least has a carrier, which is more or less global, but man, only one hundred years. And let's not even go back to earlier times.
I am really concerned of any kinetic action in the Pacific. I don't know if USA's manufacturing gap can be closed (I certainly wish so), but man, not looking good.
Europe is too busy navel gazing at its own decline at the moment. Please leave a message.
Making fun of RUS regression to Empire under Catherine while their own elites are remaking of the continent under singular "democratic" control.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a callback, Jet. When they return the call, you'll get a robo-voice with a heavy accent. Kinda like when I have to talk to TracFone customer service for my $19.95 Walmart emergency cellphone.
"Your call is very important to us. Please remain on the line until it is no longer important to you."
That Europe is utterly unable to project power became obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear when they came begging us to help in Libya because they were running out of ammunition, and virtually nothing that has occurred since then has diminished that impression. You can bet that Beijing has been paying attention.
Just to address the story about 'running out of ammunition' which just refuses to die....
One nation ran low on PGM's. That was Denmark. They have a small combat air fleet that, at the time had been heavily engaged providing air cover in Afghanistan, actually dropping bombs... They had orders in for munitions but they were not going to be delivered in time. They actually borrowed from the Netherlands and purchased some urgently from Israel. Ultimately the Danish stocks were too low, they did address this post war. At the time they were only spending c1.3% on defence, with a lot of focus on COIN in Afghanistan, where they were very active. They've now hit 2%...
The story, which came from the Washington Post conflated that with another story at the time about the UK running low on 1 type of munition. That munition was Dual Mode Brimstone. The UK, at one point was down to single figures of DMB. However, the reason for this was actually very prosaic, and not an issue, Dual Mode Brimstone was brand new in service with only a tiny number delivered by the manufacturers (it was rushed into service for Libya). It turned out to be so useful as the only low collateral weapon available from fast air to any NATO air force (including the US) that it became the weapon of choice if there was a risk of civilian casualties from any other munition. A perfect storm of small numbers and large demand. The UK actually had over 2,000 Single Mode Brimstone (MMW only) in stock and rapidly converted hundreds of these to make sure the RAF didn't run out. All subsequent production of Brimstone since 2010 has been multi-mode.
I've seen this same story multiple times, including that the UK and France were running low and had to get munitions from the US.....which has no truth in it. Particularly for the rather obvious reason that neither the RAF Typhoon, Tornado or AdA Rafale and Mirage were compatible with US munitions.....
Interesting. I'd read this shortage was true and that the plan was initially for America to participate in the initial surge of missile strikes only and then step back to a supporting role to let the Europeans have their short and glorious war. That's something to watch for. Thanks.
The US was definitely needed for intel and kicking down the door on the AD system as quickly and effectively. In 2011, and even today, there isn't anyone with the full capabilities to do that apart from the US (we've seen the Russian's spectacularly fail at it in Ukraine, the Israeli's can on a limited local basis against limited opposition and usually pre-attrited over a long period, the Chinese are the unknown here).
But... Europe's capabilities there have improved since then (2011 was a low point with limited budgets and lots of expenditure on COIN in Iraq and Afg, so what little cash there was wasn't reaching air forces). Enablers like Tankers, Recon, Transport have all increased massively in capability, with more AEW on the way. F-35 also helps with several hundred now available....but...there are still gaps in space based reconaissance, long range strike and SEAD/DEAD (although some get resolved if F-35 gets through its current weaponry malaise, and other developments) . What will be needed though is the ability to replace or supplant the US in planning/organisational terms and things like geo-spatial data which the US has traditionally led on...
Fascinating, I didn't know that. Thanks.
SSNs from the UK? Good luck with that. They have the same issues that US SSNs do with regard to maintenance.
HMS Audacious appears to be on the way to be the UK's USS Boise (at least as of last August).
https://www.navylookout.com/end-in-sight-for-royal-navy-attack-submarine-woes/
The good news is there is light at the end of the tunnel...submarine availability should improve dramatically in the future as dockyard improvements are coming on stream at Devonport and Faslane, decommissioning is getting underway and the last Astutes are coming out of Barrow.
This isn't an infrastructure issue alone:
“The MOD’s 2023 Major Projects data suggests there is a serious risk that the reactor core production project at Rolls-Royce in Derby could cause delays in the new Dreadnought submarine programme.” (https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/increasing-risk-of-problems-in-derby-delaying-dreadnought-schedule/)
There are limited supply chains and workers to build and maintain subs (just as in the US). A delay in a the nuclear deterrence platform will require a shift of resources from SSNs to SSBNs.
This will also be an issue with US SSN construction and maintenance as the knock-on effects of COLUMBIA class delays are felt at EB and HII.
This problem occurred over decades in both the US and UK as the peace dividend was realized. It is an issue that will require a generation to replenish the talent pool—it won't be fixed simply by throwing money at infrastructure (although that also requires significant upgrades).
I wouldn't read too much into IPA ratings...
A SSN to move some ammo? Sounds like a very expensive way to do it.
Has USS Boise been returned to service? Ten years waiting on a drydock seems stupid, even for the Navy
Even worse than that. Not expected to return to service until late-2029, which means it would not have been at sea for 14 years!
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2024/02/23/sub-boise-will-begin-its-overhaul-nine-years-late-with-12b-contract/
And have a designed life of what, 30 years?
cant' say much about Europe that hasn't been offered here today. But, been saying this for decades....... we should cozy up to India, Big Time. all of the time. They have the manpower, the economic strength, and a vested interest in keeping the southern tier of Asia quiet. India should be to us now, as China has been to Russia lately. If not an equal partner, 'pert near. Near enough to make PRC uneasy and circumspect.
China has been pushy and even grabby at the India border since the late 40s. India would seem to be a natural U.S. ally in the region. FYI, campbell...we say "purt near" heah. ☺
'n bless yer heart!
Actually the UK was helping with the strikes into Yemen recently.
UK was/and is providing Voyager tankers for the US Navy strike fighters...all very discrete but there were quite a few cycling through Akrotiri and down the Red Sea...then being relieved and cycling back up.
Not really a surprise, when the USN needs lots of Drogues to refuel some strikes from distance they tend to call on the UK as they did in 2001...
The tanker support is realistically a more practical help than using those tankers to tow some Typhoon 1,600 miles down from Akrotiri to drop some Paveway IV or Brimstone then tow them all the way back....
There are no SSN out there at present to assist with Tomahawk strikes, HMS Queen Elizabeth is just going in for her first big refit and Prince of Wales is working up for CSG25 which will involve the Med, Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Pacific from late April this year, including Exercise Talisman Sabre in Australia.
The RAF tankers routinely show up on ADS-B west and southwest of Jeddah.
With Jeddah being the second busiest airport in the Middle East, thats mighty crowded airspace...
https://x.com/AirNavRadar/status/1709237240163889465/photo/1
As a note and aside, where did that Houthi missile that fell short land?
Check out the civil air picture around 22-23Z...
https://www.flightradar24.com/22.83,37.94/6
The Voyager consortium were probably happy to do that because there was no air threat.
They're RAF crewed and tasked. Airtanker has no control over deployments.
With the current state of Europe and their newly voiced desire to (finally) revive their defense capabilities, I think we might be able to turn the Atlantic and GIUK Gap (especially with Finland et al now holding the Baltic) over to UK/EU to keep the Russians under control on the water. Let their attack subs and ASW take over for us so we can get everything to the Pacific. The major threat from Russia would likely be Air/Ground anyway...and they have to be prepared for that more than anything.
The key point will be the ability to anticipate what China is doing - recognizing the runup to the war so we can rotate forces. Getting the Ohio boats and the attack boats into the area ahead of time will be key to, at least, giving the Chinese something to seriously worry about when they kick things off. Surface forces will be on the fringe at the start - and due to circumstances and ethos and hope, we usually give up the first move and the initiative. We have to have a plan to absorb it, neutralize it as much as possible, then be in position to effectively strike back in ways the Chinese do not anticipate so we can upset their center of gravity.
The center of gravity is, of course, their fleet. For all the missiles and planes they can use to shoot at Taiwan and us, their grand invasion plan is thwarted without their fleet. So first hard strikes need to be at their ships. If they go with the blockade strategy, we need coordinated strikes on the individual task forces they have evidenced. Being in the middle of an anti-air/missile drill when several attack subs fire torpedos will give you a bad day. Meanwhile, launching 2,000 lb Quickstrike-ER marine mines to blockade their ports or into the Strait would also put a hitch in their giddyup.
If you look at recent UK (and Norwegian plans) that appears to be the general direction anyway. Project Cabot is focused on the GIUK gap, utilising Type 92 Sloops and Type 93 UUV's as an ASW barrier, with Norway likely to replace the 4 remaining Fridjtof Nansen Class Frigates with 6 Type 26 frigates focused heavily on ASW (possibly with Merlin onboard). Add in the P-8 and UK SSN's and 6 Norwegian 212CD subs and the Russian Northern Fleet is unlikely to have any freedom of movement, but then again...that was never what they planned anyway...
The Taiwanese need a command-activated CAPTOR mine with a heavyweight torpedo payload that can be heavily seeded into the waters around Taiwan. Make a blockade or invasion horribly, horribly expensive. Combine with Ukrainian style USVs and the approaches to the invasion coasts can become very, very expensive for the Chinese to cross.
I think they do have the CAPTOR mines off the landing beaches and sea approaches to the harbors. The Ukrainian USVs were originally developed by the US for Taiwan with that in mind and were then given to Ukraine - and then Ukraine upgraded them. So I think they've got that covered, thank goodness.
So more P-8s and (hopefully debugged) tankers, Super Hornets and some sort of commercial hull loaded with whatever Anduril starts cranking out next year?
Going to war with China seems to be a folly the american elites cannot let go of...the Europeans would be wise to stay well clear.
I don't assume war is inevitable. I do assume China is the pacing threat and we should measure our power against that threat.
But then again, I'm hardly one of the elite ...
I assume China is going to China. Like they always do when the Dragon is in ascendency, they want their interests secured (even if it takes them out the 3rd island chain) and internal tranquility. The elites of neither Europe nor North American will convince me otherwise.
My main concern is the less the bright elites here have painted themselves into a corner... The paint they used being imported obviously...
We should plan for a combined assault from Russia China NK and Iran. Thanks you neocons.
Great article as usual. "... Last year, the British did some strikes with us, but the strikes of the last few weeks? No, it is America alone. Even though the vast benefit of an open Red Sea goes to Europe, no European is to be seen..." My keen "spidey sense" is getting a whiff of a familiar pattern here. The "vast benefit" math just seems to rear its ugly head often enough.
UK is providing the tankers that are refuelling the USN strikes...
We could use those same tankers to tow a couple of Typhoon down from RAF Akrotiri, 1,600 miles one way to drop some Paveway IV and Brimstone in solidarity...then tow them 1,600 miles back...or do the more sensible and efficient thing and use those same tankers to refuel the US Superhornets...
"in the Red Sea....No, it is America alone. Even though the vast benefit of an open Red Sea goes to Europe, no European is to be seen." Just thinking out loud, and not advocating this, but what if the U.S. solved the Houthi problem like we did the Barbary Pirate problem? Totally eradicate them, open up that SLOC to commercial traffic again. What could/would Europe say if we charged a toll for this new safe passage? Just enough to recoup our expenditures (and ongoing upkeep) since "they" had sat back waiting for the free ride. They'd still be saving money and time by the Red Sea/Suez route. We charge a moderate, fair amount because TANSTAAFL. Couldn't take more than 2 decades until we broke even. Thoughts?
So the question could also be....is the US going to ask China, South Korea, Japan etc. for funds as its their goods in the main passing through...
There is some speculation that the EU isn't particularly that upset by some of the additional shipping costs as they act as a de facto tariff on Chinese imports...
Yeah, we can expect little from Europe in Asia if there is war. Not nothing. But close enough for planning purposes.
Commander Salamander's discussion of will, capacity, and desire in regard to the Article V NATO mission in Afghanistan is instructive.
I've been amazed that some have criticized Trump's statements that America might not defend NATO members that spend too little on defense. The assumption is that Article V is some automatic trigger for war. All Article V says is that an attack on one is an attack on all and ultimately, each state gets to decide what its response will be. Which can include fighting.
Clearly, not many NATO countries decided to fight at America's side in Afghanistan when Article V was invoked. And I thank Britain and Canada in particular. Many allies sent troops for other missions. And others provided non-military support. No treaty negates will, capacity, and desire.
Here's those 'not many' NATO countries...
There are currently 32 NATO countries...every single one deployed to Afghanistan in ISAF....including 3 nations that weren't even members then but are now....
Contributions varied but they were all there....the Danish took, per capita, a similar casualty rate as the US....deployed in the worst place in Afg (Helmand) alongside the UK and Estonia...
US - obviously...
Canada
United Kingdom
France
Germany
Italy
Poland
Denmark
Spain
Romania
Netherlands
Turkey
Czech Republic
Norway
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Slovakia
Portugal
Belgium
Croatia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Albania
Montenegro
Greece
Iceland
Turkey
Luxembourg
North Macedonia - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Sweden - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Finland - Not in NATO at the time but deployed
Most of these countries weren't set up for out of area operations, most had never fought in the Middle East, Asia or desert in their entire national histories...but they still showed up...
The Ukrainian's did too....
Most of them "showed up" because we underwrote some or all of their logistic requirements, and many were so hampered by "national caveats" that they could not fire a shot. Kudos to the nations with the most critical "niche" capabilities.
I retired in 1991. Wasn't there but suspect some of those allies were just extra mouths to feed in relatively safe compounds. "national caveats" are as onerous as any internal caveats are to individual militaries. A coalition of the willing needs to be willing. Back around 1985 when our FFG went NRF we had a small short-lived problem with a 2-3 of our SELRES in terms of caveats and willingness. May God bless the SELRES CDR in charge because those caveats got ki-Boshed in short order. Regulars and SELRES became as one. I left a year later and am still wondering if any of the TAR's converted from PN & YN to tech/mech ratings ever showed up.
Indeed. Afghan operations were much better managed when they were in the hands of the CFC-A.
I can't speak from first-hand experience--never left CONUS and I was a reservist REMF prior to 9/11, anyway--but allies under ISAF mostly didn't fight. The point of my comment. But perhaps "I Saw Americans Fight" was just American troop rudeness to our allies.
I thought it was the Dutch and not the Danes who were in the thick of it. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I almost mentioned them but their overall casualties didn't match Canada and Britain.
Dutch were in Uruzgan (Tarin Kowt) under RC South. Australian's were there as well.
Danish were in Helmand, mainly out of MOB Price in Gereshk
You are correct. However, (and I didn't say this above) the allied military people I spoke with were not happy about the national caveats, which were imposed by their political masters. ISAF was further suffocated by having to run so many decisions through Brunssum. One of the ISAF Commanders leaked his final report to various allied HQs before submitting it to NATO HQ. To say the latter was not amused is an understatement.
Most were a net drain. A few actually fought, fewer well.
But all relied upon the US for logistics. Some nations seemed to be there only for the big PX
Europe's purposes in the Indian Ocean and Pacific were due to colonialism and mercantilism. In the Americas as well, but started to fade with the Monroe Doctrine. The writing was on the wall at the end of WWI and colonialism dead after WWII.
America is different; courtesy of the late Professor Harold W Rood of Clairmont-McKenna College. Namely America is an island nation surrounded by the Eurasian landmass. With the longest coastline in the world. Therefore a need to man the ramparts, as Rood put it, to engage our enemies on their ground away from our borders. Also the need to physically separate, by thousands of miles, exigencies of war from our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
We need to engage our enemies over there, so they are not wreaking havoc over here. In the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean, Red Sea, the North Sea and Baltic to name a few. Not off our coasts or the Gulf of America. Therein lies the need to re-establish ourselves as an undisputed maritime power; a seamless continuity of the US Navy, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine. With construction and dry dock maintenance for all.
India would be a very valuable ally.
India has no allys least one that has armed pakistan to the teeth payed by american taxpayer
India's endemic, systemic corruption would ruin the US.
Can't count on France at all in the Pacific; look at the problems on New Caledonia in WW2. Then look at current problems and who is likely encouraging them.
We need to build a lot more submarine weapons, fix our boats, and encourage the Australians to harden their bases. Harden San Diego and Puget Sound too. The next Pearl Harbor could be a lot closer to home.
Probably cannot harden enough for the Red Most Likely opening salvo. Boy! It sure would be nice to have the mobility and capabilities of 6-8 modern submarine tenders that could anchor up in obscure atolls.
Destroyer tenders too.
Europe will be busy in the Baltics and the Sulwalki Gap at least. Why wouldn't Putin make a move? Conversely why wouldn't Xi and Kim make a move if Putin went first?
It might all kick off when the US and Israel bomb Iran and Iran launches their ballistic and cruise missile at their many Gulf targets. Golden opportunity for Xi , Kim, and Putin.
I think the Russians are out of "Schlitz" and it will be at least 5 years before they can even dream of attacking a NATO country. Other types of ops? For certain: cyber, economic, political, these are where Russia will have to operate for quite some time to come. This was paid for in Ukrainian blood.
I think 5 years is being generous....
They're down now to a maximum of 3,000 tanks, 2,000 of which have been driving around for a fair while...and those tanks are qualitatively far less capable than those fielded in 2022...and that figure includes all of the recoverable tanks from storage. after that the cupboard is bare...
Similar story with AD, IFV, APC, Artillery, logistics etc etc.
They've blown their Soviet inheritance over the last 3 years (though in truth block obsolescence was going to kill it over the next 10 years).
Without that mass what do they have?
They're now stuck in a situation where any new production (which is limited) is replacing losses rather than replacing equipment that was reaching total obsolescence, which can only mean their overall force will shrink (see their Air Force for this example)...add in the fact that major capabilities have no replacement in place or even credible at the current time (have a look at Russian ASW aviation assets, all totally obsolete, yet there is no programme to replace and no platforms that can be developed to do so...).
Why is the "Suwalki Gap" still there? When Putin sent his tanks and paratroops to take Kiev, he should have been confronted at once with the prospect of losing his Kaliningrad exclave. To my mind it's still a key bargaining chip in ending the Ukraine war, and the West has every right to use it.
Well said.
Only 100 years from Britain having mastery of the seas, and France and Italy being regional powers. France at least has a carrier, which is more or less global, but man, only one hundred years. And let's not even go back to earlier times.
I am really concerned of any kinetic action in the Pacific. I don't know if USA's manufacturing gap can be closed (I certainly wish so), but man, not looking good.