Officer of Engineers

I think you answer your own statements right next.

Without the brand new toys, how is the ADF going to stay revelent? The only way they can is to use or at least learn about the new toys through its allies, ie the US. Both Canada and Australia are very much the junior members of ABCA.

No, not ignorance, just going by the desperation of my CF in trying to stay revelent, and I see very much the same kind of thing happenning in Australia. Just look at your officer exchange program, especially at the Staff level, would tell you how dependent you are on American military thinking and platforms.

__________________
Chimo

dave angel

wrt to the officer exchange programs, doctrine etc..

an interesting discussion on a 'canadian forces' thread came to the conclusion (not in so many words, but intellectually) that the UK, Canadian and Australian military forces are becoming specialised 'sub-contracter' type forces that provide the US lead or supported coalitions with very specialised capabilities (ASW, peacekeeping, SF etc...) and leaving the concept of 'full spectrum dominance' in warfighting - still having a capability in most areas, but specialising in specific areas they do well.

given that, is it a good idea to rely on US doctrine and practice in those specialisations? - in effect, becoming a much less resourced clone of the US military. granted british, canadian and australian forces have to be able to 'fit in' with US forces, but does not the very differences with US doctrine in those specialist areas make the british, canadian and australian forces of such use to the US in these combined operations?

as an example: the americans have perfected air dominance, american armoured manouver warfare is a thing of beauty, they are things the american military does well - brilliantly - but compared to british and canadian forces, american peacekeeping doctrine is pants. i'm given to understand that there are large variations in SF doctrine as well.

how far can interoperability go before it turns a drill into a hammer?

Officer of Engineers

I'm not sure that we follow the US in all leads. In fact, they follow us in some. Peacekeeping as you mention but arm'd recee as well. Canadian arm'd recee sqdrns are in demand by the US. The American Stryker Bdes have at least studied Canadian LAV III practises.

Selective will have to tell you where they lead the Americans in thinking but I do know the Americans were strongly looking at the British performance in Basra.

Most noteably, the one area where all three do lead the Americans is battalion and company level deployments. The Americans only recently re-org themselves from full division size deployments down to brigade. We're years ahead of them when it comes to deploying battle groups and company groups.

TopHatter

That's putting it mildly
The United States is without peer for blowing a country to Kingdom Come. Rebuilding it or peacekeeping is another story entirely.
We seem to pat ourselves on the back for Germany and Japan, forgetting that was 60 years ago and things have changed.

__________________
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.
~John Quincy Adams

dave angel

do you think that this is because US companies are lead by captains and battalions lead by majors, or because of a much more centralised 'senior officer centric' mindset within the US armed forces - or perhaps just the 'overwelming force' doctrine?

as an anecdote, a friend from sandhurst who has just done a staff tour in baghdad said that one difference he noticed between the US and UK armies was that an american company commander spent his time being told what to do and a british company commander spent his time telling others what to do.

ps. apologies for hijaking a perfectly good thread.

TopHatter

Think nothing of it old boy, I do it all the time, just ask the Colonel

Officer of Engineers

American battalions are commanded by LCols.

Different histories deriving differnt cultures resulting in somewhat different doctrines. We were borned of the British Empire where small company size outposts were the norm throughout the Empire.

The professional American military force was borned out of their Civil War where mass was the decisive force.

As such, we expect our company commanders to be all things, including being Ambassadors. Theirs just have to get their people to the right place at the right time.

Unipidity

Im having difficulty understanding why Aus would need a carrier fleet. Or much of a blue water fleet at all. Unlike the UK or France, I doubt Aus has pretensions of being able to project power and be a major world player. The fact that so little is spent on defence makes this abundantly clear. Who is Australia expecting to attack any time soon? India? A purely defensive force has no need for bloody expensive and vunerable carriers... submarines are probably the most obvious candiate instead, and multi-purpose DDGs could easily escort glorified passenger liners in the case of an E Timor. At the very least, wait until UCAVs are developed to the point at which you can design a weapons system around them.

TopHatter

I suppose it's all about having a mobile airfield that can actually project power.
A submarine can threaten, but it can't actually influence events by it's mere presence like a flattop can.
Or something like that

Anon

"We seem to pat ourselves on the back for Germany and Japan, forgetting that was 60 years ago and things have changed."

We seem to have done just fine in Panama, Afghanistan, and to date Iraq as well.

The UN policekeeping policies are the problem, not US forces.

rickusn

Tophatter:

Im surprised!!!!!!!!At You

A submarine can threaten, but it can't actually influence events by it's mere presence like a flattop can.
Or something like that
__________________


Of course a "submarine" not only can but has(Falklands is a great example) and does. A flattop is powerful and yet only a target.


Its the "silent service" and therefore usually(barring serious failures) not on the front page.

But make no mistake the USN submarine fleet could close down world trade and sink any OPFOR(or send them scurring back to port) at any time. Not to mention ending the world as we know it. Do they do it alone? No. But what they do is very lonely.

"Influence"? at least 95% of world trade goes by sea. Submarines in general control all of that. And USN submarines protect all of that.

Next?

TopHatter

Well, everything that I've read indicates that American "nation-building" and "peacekeeping" is usually a ham-fisted overbearing affair.
Yep, Panama was a great success, no question about it.
Afghanistan and Iraq are far from over.

Mostly what I was referring to was the difference between American and British peacekeepers in Kosovo.
Colonel, could I trouble you for any thoughts or anecdotes?

TopHatter

Oh boy, I really stepped into it on this thread
What I meant was, a carrier is a highly visible presence with a very well-known capability. It means that the United States is serious as a heart attack about what is going in a particular region. It's not unlike when one of the Iowa's would show up in your backyard in the 80s. True shock and awe...without firing a shot
Yes, large (but powerful) surface ships can correctly be described as "targets" (especially to my ex-roommate, the ex-fast attack bubblehead) but with their battle group escorts (which in the case of the CVBG's usually includes a sub) the capital ships won't go down easily.
The Falklands was a great example of a sub influencing events because the Argentine navy was virtually defenceless against the Royal Navy fast attack nukes commanded by what are arguably the most dangerous warfighters on or under the sea: A Royal Navy submarine captain.

My whole point was, submarines can fcuk up your world six ways from Sunday and you'd never know what happened until it was all over (maybe)
A carrier though is a highly visible symbol of gunboat diplomocy. The submarine wouldn't want any part of that previous sentance...especially the "highly visible" part.

mastercaster

Perhaps the Aussies could afford one of these in, say, another 15 yrs or so. By that time, manpower needs for this projected type of vessel should be way down. U.S. studies have found that a major consideration in the cost factor per year is the manning issue. New technology, coupled with the lower manning issue and the eventual debugging of the JSF program should make the CVNX an attractive propect in the long run.

TopHatter

Agreed. That's why all of the surplus USN supercarriers are basically useless to other navies. Too big, too much manpower requirements, too expensive to operate and too much capability for any other country's foreign policy, except perhaps Britain and France.