Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

Ketara wrote:I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

Wolverines! Oh wait wrong movie.

Does Russia sell China gas yet?

Joey wrote:Why do Americans assume the Chinese are baying for their blood? They are far more interested in a war with India or Japan than in fighting the largest navy on earth and a huge nuclear power.

Because war with Japan or India would invite US involvement.

We're the world's peacekeepers, if only by virtue of being the biggest kid on the block.

Ketara wrote:

Joey wrote:We just need to stop pretending that we're capable of fighting a land war overseas and simply rely on reserves.

To be honest, except for the two World Wars, that has always been Britain's policy. We have roughly 100,000 men in the army at the moment, the same number who were in the BEF a hundred or so years ago. In that period, the population of Britain has climbed tremendously, and the Empire has collapsed. Therefore relatively speaking, one could say we field far less men in proportion to population size, but have much reduced overseas commitment to counterbalance it.

So a hundred thousand men equipped for a campaign anywhere in the world combined with the best Navy and air force we can scrape together would seem to be the best solution. Surprisingly enough, that's pretty much what we have.

This. Britain's footing outside of an actual war has always been a very small active force. A policy the US emulated until post WWII.

Ketara wrote:I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

No. While the sabers start rattling in Washington, more than one analyst is furiously rewriting the same reports that have been produced since the late 80's. China's major wartime focus has always been on Russia; with southern and eastern military districts focusing on the countries that they border like Vietnam and Taiwan. When large scale war games are held the tactics of the OPFOR are always Russian. It seems odd in a way for China to turn on what was once thier primary arms supplier, but it also makes sense. China can seize natural resources and standing Asian populations from Russia far more easily than the US...you know with that whole ocean thing between us.

Ketara wrote:

Joey wrote:We just need to stop pretending that we're capable of fighting a land war overseas and simply rely on reserves.

To be honest, except for the two World Wars, that has always been Britain's policy. We have roughly 100,000 men in the army at the moment, the same number who were in the BEF a hundred or so years ago. In that period, the population of Britain has climbed tremendously, and the Empire has collapsed. Therefore relatively speaking, one could say we field far less men in proportion to population size, but have much reduced overseas commitment to counterbalance it.

So a hundred thousand men equipped for a campaign anywhere in the world combined with the best Navy and air force we can scrape together would seem to be the best solution. Surprisingly enough, that's pretty much what we have.

In terms of manpower yes, but not in terms of money spent. The modern armed forces have a huge amount of equipment, vehicles, logistics, etc. Challenger 2s are cool but we don't really need them.
Also the BEF was huge because the threat of war was growing. During the Pax Britannia the army was only a few tens of thousands strong (will double check this once I get home).
The US Nimitz class carriers cost about $4.5 billion (£2.8bn) according to wikipedia. It's well within Britain's means to build a fair few of these, plus a few more Type 45s.
Hell I'd be up for doubling or trippling the defence budget anyway, truth be told.

But why? Who are Britain's threats? The Argentinians?

Easy E wrote:But why? Who are Britain's threats? The Argentinians?

EVERYONE

Easy E wrote:But why? Who are Britain's threats? The Argentinians?

Well the 200th anniversary of Waterloo is coming up in 2015, more than enough time to spend vast sums on a new military. Yea I'm saying it, I read Sarkozy's lips to your Prime Minister at the last Euro meeting. He said something to the effect that "I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. " Sounds like a declaration of war to me...

Easy E wrote:But why? Who are Britain's threats? The Argentinians?

Everyone who's not British.
It's 22 miles from Dover to Calais, for God's sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Why do Americans assume the Chinese are baying for their blood? They are far more interested in a war with India or Japan than in fighting the largest navy on earth and a huge nuclear power.

Because war with Japan or India would invite US involvement.

We're the world's peacekeepers, if only by virtue of being the biggest kid on the block.

You think America is going to get involved in a land war between the two biggest nations on earth?
Airstrikes and supplies, maybe. But don't expect a d-day-esque landing on the east coast of china. Not that they'd need to anyway, the USN is more than capable of blockading China's coastline.

Joey wrote:You think America is going to get involved in a land war between the two biggest nations on earth?

Yes.

Joey wrote:But don't expect a d-day-esque landing on the east coast of china.

Of course not. There is no way that a WWII-type war could occur at this point in history with current technology.

A D-Day-type defensive line would be destroyed by modern techniques and equipment.

Ketara wrote:I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

That would be a short war. The Russian military is a joke.

Joey wrote:In terms of manpower yes, but not in terms of money spent. The modern armed forces have a huge amount of equipment, vehicles, logistics, etc. Challenger 2s are cool but we don't really need them.
Also the BEF was huge because the threat of war was growing. During the Pax Britannia the army was only a few tens of thousands strong (will double check this once I get home).

However, during that period you also have the disastrous Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, which pretty much put paid to the concept of an army that small.

You have to remember, in every army, there's two people in logistics for every person on the frontline. Out of that hundred thousand we have, only forty thousand odd are most likely capable of actually being deployed, the rest operate in a support capacity. If we cut the army to a mere twenty or thirty thousand, we'd only be able to deploy ten thousand men. That would spell the end of Britains capacity to intervene significantly in a military capacity anywhere in the world.

The BEF was brought in through the Haldane Reforms after the serious straining of the reserves system after the second Boer War. it was planned primarily as a continental incursion force, however it was also planned to be capable of operating anywhere in the British Empire to fight off any significant threat, or to be capable of being deployed anywhere required to protect British interests.

That's the line we still follow now in a nutshell, even if a continental support role is now no longer seen as the primary priority.

The US Nimitz class carriers cost about $4.5 billion (£2.8bn) according to wikipedia. It's well within Britain's means to build a fair few of these, plus a few more Type 45s.
Hell I'd be up for doubling or trippling the defence budget anyway, truth be told.

Unfortunately, our country is bankrupt. Which kind of sucks.

We're finishing off the Queen Elizabeth Carriers, which will significantly amplify our operational and support radius and capacity. We also plan to build/upgrade our frigate fleet into new advanced models following that (since we've done that with destroyers, carriers, and subs now, they're the last thing left).

The only problem as things stand really, is with aircraft. That's our current deficiency. Although another ten or so destroyers would, I think, be very beneficial.

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Only in a world with two opposing super-powers. In a multi-lateral world there's no gaurentee of that whatsoever.

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Neither is the enemy of the US. Both have quality cuisine.

Ketara wrote:

Joey wrote:In terms of manpower yes, but not in terms of money spent. The modern armed forces have a huge amount of equipment, vehicles, logistics, etc. Challenger 2s are cool but we don't really need them.
Also the BEF was huge because the threat of war was growing. During the Pax Britannia the army was only a few tens of thousands strong (will double check this once I get home).

However, during that period you also have the disastrous Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, which pretty much put paid to the concept of an army that small.

You have to remember, in every army, there's two people in logistics for every person on the frontline. Out of that hundred thousand we have, only forty thousand odd are most likely capable of actually being deployed, the rest operate in a support capacity. If we cut the army to a mere twenty or thirty thousand, we'd only be able to deploy ten thousand men. That would spell the end of Britains capacity to intervene significantly in a military capacity anywhere in the world.

Slight correction...intervene significantly in a land military capacity. And it's somewhat miss-leading. In a "conventional" war that we've not had for a while, the last probably being against the Argies, a small army is fine. Napolean himself said "The Royal Navy with 10,000 men can tie down 100,000 men in France". With overwealming naval and air superiority you can put those men pretty much wherever you like. And you'd satisfy the first priority of the armed forces which is to protect its nation. So what if we can't send troops to Afghanistan? Britain should be safe, first and foremost.

Ketara wrote:
Unfortunately, our country is bankrupt. Which kind of sucks.

We're finishing off the Queen Elizabeth Carriers, which will significantly amplify our operational and support radius and capacity. We also plan to build/upgrade our frigate fleet into new advanced models following that (since we've done that with destroyers, carriers, and subs now, they're the last thing left).

The only problem as things stand really, is with aircraft. That's our current deficiency. Although another ten or so destroyers would, I think, be very beneficial.

Obviously we also need more aircraft and, more importantly, pilots trained to fly them.
One small point though, Britain is not "bankrupt". There's ample wealth to devote to defence if we had the political will.

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

Ketara wrote:I would genuinely be interested to see the Chinese go to war with the Russians. Does this make me a bad person?

No, just an endangered species!


Incidentally, I agree with Joey. Not gonna lie, it feels weird.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

What do you think would happen to China's economy if the US Navy sank all outgoing/ingoing freight? Yeahhhhh, that's not very likely. China doesn't have all that many resources, especially coal. Given that 90% of its land borders with other countries are deserts or mountains China is very vulnerable to a blockade.

Ketara wrote:

Joey wrote:In terms of manpower yes, but not in terms of money spent. The modern armed forces have a huge amount of equipment, vehicles, logistics, etc. Challenger 2s are cool but we don't really need them.
Also the BEF was huge because the threat of war was growing. During the Pax Britannia the army was only a few tens of thousands strong (will double check this once I get home).

However, during that period you also have the disastrous Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny, which pretty much put paid to the concept of an army that small.

You have to remember, in every army, there's two people in logistics for every person on the frontline. Out of that hundred thousand we have, only forty thousand odd are most likely capable of actually being deployed, the rest operate in a support capacity. If we cut the army to a mere twenty or thirty thousand, we'd only be able to deploy ten thousand men. That would spell the end of Britains capacity to intervene significantly in a military capacity anywhere in the world.

The BEF was brought in through the Haldane Reforms after the serious straining of the reserves system after the second Boer War. it was planned primarily as a continental incursion force, however it was also planned to be capable of operating anywhere in the British Empire to fight off any significant threat, or to be capable of being deployed anywhere required to protect British interests.

That's the line we still follow now in a nutshell, even if a continental support role is now no longer seen as the primary priority.

The US Nimitz class carriers cost about $4.5 billion (£2.8bn) according to wikipedia. It's well within Britain's means to build a fair few of these, plus a few more Type 45s.
Hell I'd be up for doubling or trippling the defence budget anyway, truth be told.

Unfortunately, our country is bankrupt. Which kind of sucks.

We're finishing off the Queen Elizabeth Carriers, which will significantly amplify our operational and support radius and capacity. We also plan to build/upgrade our frigate fleet into new advanced models following that (since we've done that with destroyers, carriers, and subs now, they're the last thing left).

The only problem as things stand really, is with aircraft. That's our current deficiency. Although another ten or so destroyers would, I think, be very beneficial.

I am a frequent opponent ( as much as that matters for a private citizen) of the F-35 programme which appears to be what the RN is looking to buy for their carriers. I'm much better versed in US carrier aircraft but as it stands from the aircraft operating in the early 90's, the pinnacle of USN air power: The F-14 was the fastest and longest ranged carrier borne fighter, the A-6 was the longest ranged and heaviest load carrying carrier borne bomber, the F-18 doesn't have the range of either, or the speed of the F-14 (or the carrying capacity. The F-14 wasn't exactly a slouch as a fighter-bomber), or the capacity of the A-6. When you compare the marginal ability of the F-18 to the F-35 the F-35 looks great...then compare price tags. How is it that the Russians and Chinese are producing 5th generation fighters at 1/3rd the cost of our 5G fighters?
It's my personal opinion that the RN should look backwards rather than forward when looking for fighters to put on their new carriers. Having stealth multirole fighters sounds great until you hang a 300M USD price tag on them(that's the cost assosiated with RandD not just flyaway). Even at 140M thats excessive, the Eurofighter joins that crowd @ 197M USD BEFORE being navalized, The Rafale M isn't much better at 120(ish)M USD.
There's nothing stopping BAE (or someone else) from forming a partnership with NG or MD to initiate domestic (British) production of a next generation F-14 or domestic navalized variants of the F-15 (including the STOL/MTD variant merged with the Silent Eagle to introduce a sort of 4.75G fighter). The 1998 costs of those respective airplanes less any further development and adjusted for inflation was 50.57M and 41.39M respectively. Gain the designs, develop for CATOBAR navalization(F-15) or simple modernization (F-14) and have the MoD impose a cap of 75M USD (48ishM GBP) voila a capable naval fighter at less than half the flyaway cost of the F-35C. I'm a genius...if only it were that simple.

Joey wrote:Slight correction...intervene significantly in a land military capacity. And it's somewhat miss-leading. In a "conventional" war that we've not had for a while, the last probably being against the Argies, a small army is fine. Napolean himself said "The Royal Navy with 10,000 men can tie down 100,000 men in France". With overwealming naval and air superiority you can put those men pretty much wherever you like. And you'd satisfy the first priority of the armed forces which is to protect its nation. So what if we can't send troops to Afghanistan? Britain should be safe, first and foremost.

Unfortunately, Napoleon lived in an age without modern communications and aircraft and missiles. In this day and age, if I we wanted to invade France, they'd be able to keep tabs on where our troops were a lot more easily then they could back then.
Heck, there are a million different factors why that strategy really no longer applies.

There's also the issue of the Royal Navy being less and less relevant to an offensive situation (still highly relevant defensively).

If our issue is simply to protect the mainland, then devoting am mere ten thousand men to home defence might suffice. However, we have interests and commitments worldwide which render that to being a pipe dream. A hundred thousand barely covers our current trade interests and foreign policy.

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

What do you think would happen to China's economy if the US Navy sank all outgoing/ingoing freight? Yeahhhhh, that's not very likely. China doesn't have all that many resources, especially coal. Given that 90% of its land borders with other countries are deserts or mountains China is very vulnerable to a blockade.

The same thing that would happen to US eonomy if the US blockaded China...

67.5 billion pounds? Which is what, 100 billion dollars or so?

Haha, you call that a budget? Our 600 billion budget wipes the floor with that!

I like how we're playing the good guys over in the pacific once again. IIRC, Vietnam isn't too keen on China after that little scuffle they had in the late 70s. A weird feeling just swept through me at the thought of protecting that area from China.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

What do you think would happen to China's economy if the US Navy sank all outgoing/ingoing freight? Yeahhhhh, that's not very likely. China doesn't have all that many resources, especially coal. Given that 90% of its land borders with other countries are deserts or mountains China is very vulnerable to a blockade.

The same thing that would happen to US eonomy if the US blockaded China...

US could still buy goods from Europe/South-East Asia.Remember you are fortunate in having access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.

Samus_aran115 wrote:67.5 billion pounds? Which is what, 100 billion dollars or so?

Haha, you call that a budget? Our 600 billion budget wipes the floor with that!

I like how we're playing the good guys over in the pacific once again. IIRC, Vietnam isn't too keen on China after that little scuffle they had in the late 70s. A weird feeling just swept through me at the thought of protecting that area from China.

It's much closer to 700B than 600.

Joey wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Joey wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Zyllos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:It wouldn't surprise me if they moved into Taiwan or Vietnam. They've been posturing pretty aggressively towards both and the South China sea is looking like a future conflict zone.

Oddly enough, Vietnam likes the US more despite our mutual history, because the US is a far more kind trading partner than China is.

And that right there is a powerful weapon in itself.

An enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Vietnam isn't a very meaningful ally militarily. China could take them and there's little we could do to stop it short of taking the fight into mainland china with bombing campaigns.

What do you think would happen to China's economy if the US Navy sank all outgoing/ingoing freight? Yeahhhhh, that's not very likely. China doesn't have all that many resources, especially coal. Given that 90% of its land borders with other countries are deserts or mountains China is very vulnerable to a blockade.

The same thing that would happen to US eonomy if the US blockaded China...

US could still buy goods from Europe/South-East Asia.Remember you are fortunate in having access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean.

They could likely move significant freight through Russia and they're purchasing anti shipping capability faster than any nation in history. They don't want to contest us on the oceans, they want to be able to sink us in the south china sea. I'm not convinced that we would fight for Vietnam or Taiwan in the first place. Certainly Europe wouldn't if we didn't go in first. They aren't worth grounding the global economy and the U.S. import market to a halt.

They're also not worth grounding the Chinese export market to a halt.

The US probably would fight for Taiwan, I'd have to check but I'm fairly sure we are obligated by treaty to defend them, otherwise China would have already taken the island over.
We have feth all interest in Vietnam's freedom, anymore.

Oh noes! And new Zealand increased their armed forces budget by one thousand dollars, a 200% increase from their original $250! Those hobbits are gonna be armed to the teeth.