tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post1815662365238882665..comments2024-01-12T18:59:05.080+00:00Comments on Defence With A "C": The A-10 SubsidyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-12907649418292232142016-06-03T23:58:18.983+01:002016-06-03T23:58:18.983+01:00The invasion and the COIN campaign that followed a...The invasion and the COIN campaign that followed are two seperate things. Blair and Bush made their minds up and invaded. The post-invasion environment created the requirement for the COIN operation. There was no option of just leaving it at that stage. Once it all kicked off they had to deal with the aftermath. Another COIN war that chose us. The only way to have avoided it would have been to not invade in the first place, but for whatever reason they felt they had to (the Chilcott Inquiry will be very interesting reading when it's released...)<br /><br />The difference with North Korea, China and Russia is that the US can't realistically engage them without triggering a massive conflict. Libya was very different. Just because you can't help everyone, doesn't mean you shouldn't help the people you can.<br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-17957388512290599952016-06-03T23:45:26.228+01:002016-06-03T23:45:26.228+01:00I think you rather missed the point. I didn't ...I think you rather missed the point. I didn't literally mean 1 on 1. "Gladiators vs Bricklayers" is a sometimes used theory in economics and game theory. A gang of Bricklayers who lay 60% as many bricks at their rivals at 50% of the price are good value. A gang of Gladiators who are 60% as good as their rivals at 50% of the price are likely to die and represent horrible value for money. One of the enduring myths of "quality vs quantity" in the defence realm is the idea that you can produce near comparable systems for a fraction of the cost. In order to even get close in quality you're typically going to have spend almost as much. Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-81685486258897015702016-06-03T22:44:05.567+01:002016-06-03T22:44:05.567+01:00But you have jumped from perception of threat to s...But you have jumped from perception of threat to securing the country after we toppled Saddam. Not to mention on what legal basis is that give the right for us to invade another country. If Blair and Bush had been leaders of a small country they would be most likely up on war charges in the Hague. My point is did we need to topple Saddam to counter that threat, real or imagined? If you'd like to point to a specific piece(s) you wrote it would be more helpful perhaps. <br /><br />We sit back while the North Koreans are starving. We sit back while China and Russia suppress any form of dissent from within. As soon as sanctions would lifted from Iran the western countries straight away were sucking up to secure trade. There is a case to be made that if we set law/standard internationally then they must be upheld across the board. <br /><br />M Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-29893734590401320112016-06-03T22:29:11.441+01:002016-06-03T22:29:11.441+01:00But it is not gladiatorial combat i.e 1 on 1. Its ...But it is not gladiatorial combat i.e 1 on 1. Its whatever you can produce vs whatever they can produce. All well and good having a missile that can shoot anything but if you can only afford 10 and your opponent can afford 11 missiles your dead. <br /><br />M Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-59528597805294328522016-06-03T22:07:00.435+01:002016-06-03T22:07:00.435+01:00The perception at the time - real or imagined - wa...The perception at the time - real or imagined - was that Iraq posed a risk to its neighbours, predominantly through the possibility that it might use the fabled (and yet to be discovered) WMDs. So off the government went. Once they had finished with Saddam they now had to secure the country against the return of his supporters and to ensure it wouldn't pose a risk to its neighbours any longer. The government of the day decided that was worth the expense. I'm a little frustrated now that I've pointed you twice to go and read my other works on COIN which you don't appear to have done (I wrote them out once so I wouldn't have to keep writing them down) and that would demonstrate that I have a differing view on the level of committment required compared to someone like Blair and the traditional wisdom of COIN.<br /><br />Much of that theory is based around British involvement in places like Oman (which we very much did get involved in. I'd encourage you to go and search up the brief history on Google as your primer). Northern Ireland was a COIN campaign. Fundamentally all COIN campaigns are at their core a policing matter, it's just that some require a little more firepower and some unique skills that the local police can't generate, to say the least. They are a cross between war and politics at a very local level.<br /><br />The US opted to intervene in Vietnam because they were afraid the consequences of not helping would spread much further than just Vietnam. Their approach to the campaign can be debated for certain, but they felt they had no choice at the time but to intervene, because the consequences in their estimation were a lot worse. This is what I mean. I can't imagine the US ever envisioned itself fighting a COIN war in south-east asia, but their perception of the geopolitical position forced their hand. They didn't choose it, it choose them.<br /><br />Libya wasn't a COIN campaign so a little out of the scope of our discussion, but fundamentally everyone watching from the sidelines knew that they couldn't just sit back and watch Gaddafi carry out a threat to slaughter his own people. The shadows of Rwanda loomed large and it would have been catastrophic for the international community to simply stand around and watch. It was not about popping Gaddafi per se, it was about protecting the population. Then the issue of Gaddafi became a matter for the international criminal court, until fate intervened. What happened after that was down to the Libyan's themselves. They were on a decent course for a while until the General National Congress decided that election failure was clearly the fault of the people and not them and proceeded to go a bit mad. Not only was that not especially predictable, but nor is the argument for standing around and doing nothing in the first place justified because it might lead to more fighting. You're basically complaining because a civil war re-ignited. The civil war was there first, NATO didn't create it, and indeed it created the conditions to end it. That fresh parties are now at each others throats is not NATO's fault, it did its bit.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-67959774741573316722016-06-03T21:42:53.346+01:002016-06-03T21:42:53.346+01:00The problem with 50% (or indeed 60% etc) solutions...The problem with 50% (or indeed 60% etc) solutions is that this is effectively gladatorial combat; if you don't win, it means you've died. A ship (just as an example) that can only intercept 66% of incoming rounds is in trouble if you fire 3, or indeed 4, rounds at it. It might be cheaper, but it's also dead. Sometimes spending the extra is absolutely worth the price. Sometimes being penny wise leads to being pound foolish.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-60825656390837029262016-06-03T19:52:38.510+01:002016-06-03T19:52:38.510+01:00ISIS invaded because they could, the current secur...ISIS invaded because they could, the current security situation in Iraq is down to us destroying the Iraqi army. Who was Iraq threatening? Was there no other way of us deterring them from invading other countries than spending billions destabilize the country to them spend billions more trying to re-stabilizing and FAILING!<br /><br />Some perhaps do but my view is success and failure is simply if the profit to us is greater than the cost, and i am not just talking monetary here.<br /><br />But your completely ignoring the costs. Sticking to your original goals and measuring that as success or failure without any thought to the gains got by doing so and the costs of getting there means you could throw vast amounts of natural resources away for goals that actually yield very little which has actually harmed your society. Sometimes it might actually be wiser to quit, look at alternatives. <br /><br />We never went to war in Oman as far as i'm aware it was a very small operation and one we executed well, how many troops? What was the cost of that operation? What were the alternatives? What did we gain? these questions have to be answered to justify. <br />Ireland was a policing matter <br />I don't know much about Malaysia to comment. <br /><br />What about Vietnam look at the costs to America in manpower, money, etc and look at the end result that war did not justify the costs to american society. If America hadn't fought that war in the way that it did it would have had greater amount of labour, capital and production available during the war years to be used for the benefit of its society, not to mention the cost of looking after those injured and the loss of activity from those that died. <br /><br />Tell me what did we gain from interfering in Libya? Is the amount dead actually less than if Gaddafi was in power? Do we even have the right to decide upon who should be government of a country and actually facilitate there accession to power? And if we have the right to do that then surely Russia has the right to do so too?? <br /><br />MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-55918329453465498032016-06-03T19:27:36.702+01:002016-06-03T19:27:36.702+01:00Regarding type 45 my point wasn't whether or n...Regarding type 45 my point wasn't whether or not it is an improvement but the way it is presented as such. Any weapon now is superior to something built 30 years ago, unless your doing something seriously wrong. The problem is that isn't sufficient justification by its self for us to have that weapon system in our inventory, e.g there may be another weapon for half the cost(I MEAN ALL COSTS) that can do the job over 50% as well that means it would be superior. Of course the profit margin is probably lower so this option isn't promoted by defence companies, which also explains why there solutions are always expensively tech based options.<br />M<br /><br />P.S This is not an argument against the type 45Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-47862860496578650522016-06-03T19:17:47.940+01:002016-06-03T19:17:47.940+01:00British COIN wars since WW2:
- Malaysia, to prote...British COIN wars since WW2:<br /><br />- Malaysia, to protect it (and its resources) from a Communist insurgency,<br />- Oman (twice), same as above,<br />- Northern Ireland, home soil,<br />- Iraq, to prevent Ba'athist regime elements from regaining power,<br />- Aghanistan, to prevent the Taliban from regaining power,<br /><br />All of these things were deemed, either directly or indirectly, to be connected to UK security. Thus none of the above can be ignored. That's what I mean about COIN wars choosing you; they're either occur in an area where you have an interest or they don't. If you don't have an interest you can leave it to someone else. If you have an interest in the location (and remembering that politicians decide what areas/alliances are valuable at the time, based off the advice given to them) then you have two choices; intervene or watch your interest slip away. Thus you don't really get to choose. If an insurgency is happening somewhere of interest to you then you have no choice but to try and counter it. Any notion that you have a choice in the matter is really an illusion.<br /><br />I agree with you that there are other approaches to the problem. Like I said, use 'COIN' in the search function and it should take you back to some of my older posts, and again, I'll be posting something on the subject soon anyway. <br /><br />The invasion of ISIS is utterly unconnected with the goals of the counter insurgency stage of the Iraq campaign, which was to prevent the return of Ba'athist elements to power and leave behind an Iraq that would no longer be a threat to its neighbours in the region, which is exactly what it produced. In a kind of odd way the struggles of the Iraqi army have shown just how little threat it now poses to its neighbours.<br /><br />I think the main problem people have in analysing Iraq, Afghanistan and even places like Libya, is that people see anything less than perfection as a failure. While that's an admirable goal to aspire to, it also unrealistic and totally ignores in most cases what the objectives were originally. The objectives being the reason you went in in the first place and the stick by which you should measure your success or failure.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-50249138625769622482016-06-03T18:27:41.355+01:002016-06-03T18:27:41.355+01:00I totally disagree with we choose COIN conflicts, ...I totally disagree with we choose COIN conflicts, they have nothing to do with national security or defence of our sovereignty. There is no way you can validate the Iraq war (to me) and as for Afghanistan while i agree something needed to be done regrading 9/11, there are always more than one option, and anyway that was accomplished by 02 the nation building for the next 12 years was a complete fucking waste of our resources and effort, there were other ways of keeping the Taliban or those friendly to AQ away from power. Not to mention it is very hypocritical how Afghanistan was targeted but others were not. <br /><br />Did you not see the massive amount of ground ISIS managed to take from a more numerous better equipped Iraqi army. How you could view the current situation as anything but a failure amazes me. If you class it as a victory then there has never been such a pyrrhic victory. There was a problem with piracy of Somalia a few years back and our strategy to deal with the situation was to send ships worth 100's of million to patrol the waters, its just completely resource inefficient and that is the mindset of those in power. Should we ever fight a war when it really matters it we continue in this mindset against an opponent who doesn't we will end up with the same result France had against Germany in WW2. <br /><br />MAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-23101671055496914322016-06-03T17:38:01.511+01:002016-06-03T17:38:01.511+01:00Given the ability of Type 45 to salvo fire its wea...Given the ability of Type 45 to salvo fire its weapons in a way Type 42 had no hope of replicating I'd suspect it's a lot more effective against the current generation of threats than Type 42 was against its contemporaries. Not least because Type 45 is built using some of the lessons learned from the Falklands, such as the high mounting of the radar.<br /><br />Notice also I left the requirements generally quite broad and didn't specify a solution. I set out the problem that needed to be fixed and threw out a few examples, which is how good procurement normally starts. How specifically the problems presented are resolved is almost irrelevant as long as the solution works.<br /><br />As for COIN, I have some old posts setting out my stance on it, and another one is actually the next up on the to do list. That will hopefully give you a little more clarity on my personal position. I would also argue your point that Afghan/Iraq were "lost". ISIS spilled over the border from Syria and Iraq is fighting them, precisely the sort of thing we want. Nor is Iraq causing instability for its neighbours in the region, the main reason for removing old Saddam. The Afghan government meanwhile is still anti-Taliban. It is fighting them, not providing them with training areas and protection, which is also what we wanted. So purely in terms of achieving strategic objectives, both countries have actually been wins.<br /><br />One thing I will leave here is my stated position on COIN and whether we should be doing them, a drum I've been banging for many years now; you don't get to choose your COIN wars, they choose you. This has been true for a very, very long time, is likely to continue to be true into the future.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-12449341630932787652016-06-03T16:22:02.561+01:002016-06-03T16:22:02.561+01:00While i agree with your views that the UK needs to...While i agree with your views that the UK needs to have its army focus on providing it's own indirect fires and defence against air attacks rather than rely on the Air-force, in the context of COIN i think it is irrelevant. We had a massive numerical/technological advantage in Afghanistan/Iraq we still lost, no weapon can make up for piss poor strategy/tactics in employing your forces, is the lesson that should be learned from those conflicts. There should NOT be any more COIN wars, special with the current financial position of the western nations. I think there needs to be more emphasis on tactics/strategy of how forces are going to be used and then buy/make equipment that is most cost effective means of meeting those aims. Currently it seems more about nice shiny equipment rather than how it is actually going to be used and what effect it will have. An SA-80 rifle has a firing rate of 600 RPM but your never going to actually get that rate of fire in combat. It really annoys me how defence people say how much better the type 45 is than its predecessor but that's totally irrelevant in regard to how much we have improved our capability. It should be how good is it against today's aerial threats compared to its predecessor was against the aerial threat it faced.<br /><br />M<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com