Quotulatiousness

February 11, 2012

Argentina accuses Britain of deploying nuclear weapons in Falkland Islands

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Military — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:21

Raising the rhetorical stake yet again, Argentina has taken their complaint to the United Nations:

Argentina has accused Britain of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands and “militarising” the south Atlantic.

The Argentinian foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, lodged a formal protest at the United Nations on Friday and showed slides of British military bases in the region, saying they represented a threat to all south America.

He said Buenos Aires had intelligence that a Vanguard submarine was operating in the area. “Thus far the UK refuses to say whether it is true or not,” he told a press conference in New York. “Are there nuclear weapons or are there not? The information Argentina has is that there are these nuclear weapons.” Quoting John Lennon, he added: “Give peace a chance.”

Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant, said London did not comment on the disposition of nuclear weapons or submarines but that it was “manifestly absurd” to say it was militarising the region. Britain’s defence posture remained unchanged, he said.

There was a report in the press that the Royal Navy had sent a nuclear powered submarine to the south Atlantic, but that it was conventionally armed. No nuclear power is in the habit of detailing where their nuclear weapons are deployed, so don’t expect Britain to break ranks with the others.

Also in the Guardian, Marina Hyde characterizes the decision to send a member of the royal family to the Falklands is the wrong kind of gesture:

The technical military term for the decision to deploy the second in line to the throne to the Falkland Islands is William-waving. If dispatching a fancy new warship to the archipelago on the eve of the 30th anniversary of the conflict with Argentina sends a message, then dispatching Prince William makes a hand gesture.

Of course, the Duke of Cambridge is not in the South Atlantic in his capacity as the male lead from the latest, successful instalment of the hit-and-miss Windsor Wedding franchise. His other day job is as an RAF search and rescue pilot, which is genuinely commendable — but need he really have been sent to the Falklands this week in a posting described by William Hague as “entirely routine”? If the foreign secretary truly wishes to claim that the deployment of Prince William is a business as perfunctory as deciding whether to serve tea or coffee at a meeting, then that is a matter for him. But many of us will find our disbelief simply impossible to suspend in this case, and will nurse a deep suspicion that such things are discussed at prime ministerial level.

February 7, 2012

Contrasting Canadian and Australian approaches to national defence spending

Filed under: Cancon, Military, Pacific — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 00:08

Matthew Fisher considers the way Australia deals with defence spending in comparison to Canada:

Australia may not immediately spring to mind as the country with which to best compare Canada’s defence spending, but it is not that much of a stretch. They share the same values and allies, have similarly robust resource-based economies, generous welfare nets and military histories from the Boer War through to the war in Afghanistan that usually have dovetailed.

Although Canada’s economy is nearly twice the size of Australia’s — and has about 40 per cent more people — Canada lags far behind in defence spending.

Australia spent $29 billion on its armed forces last year. That is about $7 billion more than Canada did. Given the relative size of the two economies and populations, for the federal government to match Australia on defence spending would require an annual out-lay of between $35 billion and $40 billion, rather than the $22 billion that was spent last year.

There are reasons why Australia spends more. But taken together, they do not account for the staggering gap between the two countries.

Support for — or hostility toward — defence spending in Canada follows the usual political fault lines. This is in sharp contrast to Australia, where there is a broad political consensus that adequate funding is vital to the national interest. So much so, in fact, that for Australian parliamentarians and the media, defence spending is not a hugely controversial subject.

February 2, 2012

Where are the carriers today?

Filed under: Military, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:47

Just in case you were wondering where the US Navy has its major surface fleet components distributed, here’s a non-classified snapshot, courtesy of Stratfor:

The Naval Update Map shows an approximation of the current locations of U.S. Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), based on available open-source information. No classified or operationally sensitive information is included in this weekly update. CSGs and ARGs are the keys to U.S. dominance of the world’s oceans. A CSG is centered on an aircraft carrier, which projects U.S. naval and air power and supports a carrier air wing (CVW). The CSG includes significant offensive strike capability. An ARG is centered on three amphibious warfare ships, with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) embarked. An MEU is built around a heavily reinforced and mobile battalion of Marines.

January 23, 2012

Raising the wreck of the earlier HMS Victory

Filed under: Britain, History, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 00:01

The famous British warship HMS Victory preserved in Portsmouth was built to replace an earlier ship lost in a storm in 1744:

The remains of a 300-year-old warship are to be raised from the sea bed, according to reports.

The wreck of HMS Victory, a predecessor of Nelson’s famous flagship, was found near the Channel Islands in 2008.

The British warship, which went down in a storm in 1744 killing more than 1,000 sailors, could contain gold coins worth an estimated £500m.

The Sunday Times says the Maritime Heritage Foundation is set to manage the wreck’s raising.

It also reports that the charity will employ Odyssey Marine Exploration to carry out the recovery.

The American company found the ship four years ago, with the ship’s identity confirmed by a bronze cannon.

January 17, 2012

Details on the British defence cuts

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:43

The unit hardest hit by the reductions will be the Brigade of Gurkhas:

In a statement, the MoD revealed it was looking to shed 2,900 posts from the army, around 1,000 from the RAF and 300 from the Royal Navy.

The total is higher than the first round of the process last year, and there are expected to be more compulsory redundancy notices this time.

The MoD announced it was looking to shed approximately 400 Gurkhas — one in eight of the brigade. Approximately 500 infantry privates with more than six years’ service will also be axed.

The senior ranks of the army have not been spared. Eight brigadiers and 60 lieutenant colonels are expected to go.

The Royal Navy will lose five commodores and 17 captains. Nineteen Royal Marine officers will be shed, but no one from the ranks.

The RAF will lose up to 15 air commodores and 30 group captains. The MoD believes that by slowing recruiting, and not replacing those who leave, the navy and the RAF will be able to achieve the cuts they need without a “tranche 3″ of redundancies. The army needs to shed almost 20,000 jobs over the next eight years and will continue to make cuts for years to come.

January 2, 2012

Australia the hot destination for former RN, RCN, and USN sailors

Filed under: Military, Pacific, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:00

Australia’s job market is very tight, and the military is feeling the pinch. Strategy Page explains how the military is coping:

Noting that Britain was downsizing its armed forces, and cutting loose a lot of experienced personnel, the Australian Navy has sent recruiting officers to Britain to see if there would be interest among some of these former (or soon-to-be former) British sailors in joining the Australian Navy. The navy is particularly interested in obtaining personnel with technical skills. Years of low unemployment in Australia (partly because China is buying so many raw materials) has caused a shortage of engineering and technical specialists in the navy. The mining companies have been luring away a lot of technical personnel with higher pay and better working conditions. As a result, for example, the navy only has crews for three of its six submarines.

For over two years now the navy has been recruiting foreigners who possess needed technical skills. Australia is a nation of immigrants, and the admirals point out that recruiting a foreigner is cheaper than training an Australian to do these tasks. But sending recruiters to foreign countries is a new angle. Australia has also been offering navy jobs to sailors from Canada, New Zealand and the United States. All four foreign nations share a common language and, in general, culture with Australia. Moreover, sailors from these foreign nations have gone through similar security vetting. The recruiting offers are being sweetened with quick granting of Australian citizenship after less than a year of service.

December 26, 2011

Evaluating French aircraft carrier performance in the Libya campaign

Filed under: Africa, Europe, Military — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 10:59

Strategy Page summarizes the efforts of the French aircraft carrier de Gaulle in the recently concluded Libyan operations:

The French nuclear aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, put in an epic performance of sustained combat air operations off Libya this year. From March to August France was one of the major contributors to the effort, flying 25 percent of the air sorties and contributing many of the warships off the coast of Libya. The 4,500 French air sorties put their aircraft in the air for 20,000 hours. About 30 percent of French sorties were flown from the de Gaulle and over half the French strike sorties were flown from the de Gaulle. Most (62 percent) of the carrier sorties were combat missions (usually bombing). The de Gaulle averaged 11.25 sorties per day when it was conducting air operations. The de Gaulle spent 120 flying days off Libya, in one case 63 straight days conducting combat operations. Aircraft operating from the de Gaulle spent 3,600 hours in the air and conducted 2,380 catapult takeoffs and carrier landings.

French warplanes carried out 35 percent of the bombing missions, using 950 smart bombs. These included 15 French made SCALP missiles and 225 Hammer GPS guided bombs. French helicopter gunships flew 90 percent of NATO helicopter attack missions, using 431 HOT missiles and thousands of cannon rounds. French warships fired over 3,000 rounds of 100mm and 76mm naval gun rounds at sea and land targets off the Libyan coast.

December 22, 2011

Britain, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands

Filed under: Americas, Britain, History, Military — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 15:39

Yesterday, I sent a Twitter update linking an article about rising tensions between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands:

The South American trade group Mercosur, wrapping up a two-day summit in Uruguay, has sided with Argentina in its ongoing dispute about the Falkland Islands, which it calls the Malvinas, announcing it will ban boats with Falkland Islands flags from their ports.

[. . .]

Note the flurry of activity since 2010. The dispute has become heightened over resources, as British firms explore for oil in the waters surrounding the islands.

I described the article at the link as “early moves in the next Falklands War”. I then followed up with a another Tweet: “Of course, if Argentina decides to take the Falkland Islands, Britain no longer has the navy to stop them. No carriers = no force projection”

This struck Craig Chandler as seriously misunderstanding the risks: “War can still happen. Do not delude yourself.” I responded that I was “Not deluded about risk of war. Just realistic about outcome.” That is, I didn’t think Britain had any chance of pulling off a victory if Argentina resorted to the military option (again).

Craig had a remarkably positive view of British military power: “Britain would crush them. Missiles, Jets etc… Lot’s of ways to fight a modern war” and “Britain allies would join with them. An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. Thus, victory would be 100% for Britain”. I responded “Even Reagan had to be cajoled into supporting Thatcher in 82. Obama? Doubt he feels any strong attachment to the UK.” “The UK would have to lodge protest in UN, impose trade sanctions, sit back and accept facts on the ground.”

I was starting to struggle with Twitter’s 140 character limit, as there was much I wanted to say that couldn’t easily be condensed into Twitter-friendly lengths. I’ve said on the blog that Britain’s scrapping of the Harriers and decommissioning/scrapping the remaining aircraft carriers was an open invitation to Argentina to try the Falklands issue again. Argentina’s President Cristina Kirchner wouldn’t be using words like “arrogant” (describing the British government) and characterizing the Prime Minister’s comments as an “expression of mediocrity and almost of stupidity” without good reason.

Britain was lucky in 1982, as the government of the day was desperately seeking economies in the budget and (as there was no war with anyone on the horizon), scrapping their aircraft carriers looked like a great way of reducing costs. They’d reduced their military presence in the South Atlantic in an attempt to both save money and appease Argentinian feelings. The announced reductions prompted Argentina’s military rulers to use an external war for internal political benefit. Argentina struck before the intended “economizing” took place. Had they waited six months, Britain would not have had the means to launch the counter-attack that retook the Falklands.

Even with the aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible each operating several extra Harriers, the British were just barely able to keep enough aircraft going to fend off the majority of Argentinian attacks (losing two destroyers, two frigates, and several support ships sunk or severely damaged). With the Argentinian navy almost entirely confined to base after the sinking of the ARA Belgrano, the British could concentrate on air defence.

Having fought the fleet into position for the invasion, it was possible to pull the more vulnerable ships further out of range for Argentinian air strikes (as even at this stage, losing one of the carriers would endanger the entire mission). While it was much more than a “mere matter of marching”, the smaller but much better trained British forces (primarily Royal Marines, paratroops, Guards, and Gurkhas) were able to defeat the Argentinian troops and bring the military campaign to a close.

Anyway, Craig had an even more positive view of Britain’s likely political and military support today: “The USA owes the UK much for Iraq and Afghanistan there is also the entire Common Wealth. Argentina would be invaded.” “It would be all out war. No acceptance. The Common Wealth and other UK allies would come to support.” I think there’d be some forms of support short of military action: in 1982, for example, New Zealand sent a frigate to the Indian Ocean to replace a Royal Navy ship that was needed to support the Task Force. The rest of the Commonwealth gave verbal and diplomatic support, but no significant military assistance. Today’s Commonwealth is hardly a significant military player — Canada, Australia, and New Zealand combined could not even provide a full division of troops, and none of them would be willing to get involved in a land war in South America on Britain’s behalf.

As far as the islands themselves, there have been some significant changes since 1982, the most significant being a new Royal Air Force base with permanently stationed modern Typhoon fighters (although only four of them at last report). The island transportation net has vastly improved since 1982 — when the only permanent roads were within Port Stanley proper — with all-weather roads now linking all mainland settlements. In addition to the RAF base personnel, there is a British garrison force of a reinforced infantry company and supporting troops, and the Falkland Islands Defence Force which is a company-sized unit of part-time troops.

Argentina’s armed forces have also changed significantly since the war. Two of the most significant changes were post-war fall of the military Junta and the elimination of conscription (creating a more modern, better-trained professional army, navy and air force). The Argentinian navy no longer has a purpose-built landing ship (the ARA Cabo San Antonio was retired shortly after the war and replaced with a modified cargo vessel). They have three submarines in service (replacing the one sub active in 1982), and have replaced all their WW2-vintage ships with more modern designs from France and Germany. The marines, who were the best of the Argentinian troops in 1982, are organized in five battalions of infantry, with supporting artillery, anti-aircraft, engineering and special forces detachments.

Anyway, back to the Twitter exchange that started this. After I’d responded to Craig’s last comment, Colby Cosh joined the discussion: “Sign me up for a bet on 2 PARA if it comes to that, will you?”. I’ll just reproduce the rest of the exchange in approximately correct order below:

NR: “Admire the Paras, but you can’t drop from that far away.”
CC: “I guess they must have teleported onto Goose Green last time.”
NR: “They certainly didn’t fly in from Heathrow!”
CC: “I’m guessing they’ll use the Bay-class ships they built for pretty much that exact mission?”
NR: “Not without air cover.”
CC: “I’m no admiral, but somehow I did get the memo about the fetish for “capital ships” being obsolete.”
NR: “Carriers still relevant.”
CC: “Meanwhile, the Argie navy has not exactly thrived under civilian rule. Not sure if that’s relevant?”
NR: “For a short-haul invasion, you don’t need a massive navy. Air cover is the key. UK only has 1 sub in region normally.”
NR: “No way at all to prevent an invasion, but in 82 UK still had (barely enough) carrier air to cover counter-attack. No longer true”
CC: “Air cover *less* important for Bay class now with close-in antimissile guns. And RN is still operating two carriers, you know.”
NR: “UK paid off Ark Royal and Invincible. Replacement ships still years from launching.”
CC: “The RN just tried out HMS Ocean (I think it was Ocean) as a platform for Apache in the Gadhafi raids.”
CC: “Replacements for fixed-wing capability, yes. Ocean & Illustrious are configured for choppers now.”
NR: “Chopper-equipped force versus missile-armed fighters? Outcome not good for choppers without lots of luck.”
CC: “Helicopters are the name of the game in an amphib op anyway; hence the reconfig.”
NR: “For amphibious work, choppers are great support. Not designed to fight against fixed-wing fighters.”
CC: “We’re forgetting that the islands themselves are garrisoned much more heavily than in ’82.”
NR: “Still indefensible vs Arg”
CC: “The Typhoons that are there are certainly at the sharp end until RN’s Harriers are replaced.”
NR: “Not enough of them to matter.”
CC: “You’ve convinced me to worry about this a little more than I would’ve”
NR: “I’ll post a “Mission Accomplished” banner. ;-) ”

Colby did point out some weaknesses in my original contention: for example, I’d forgotten about the construction of the new RAF base, but it isn’t equipped to fight a war: it’s an expensive trip-wire. Four aircraft aren’t going to be enough (especially as Britain had, as of the Libya campaign, only 69 qualified Typhoon pilots). I’ll admit I’m a bit less sanguine about Argentina just waltzing in to Port Stanley this time, but I still think if they can pull off a quick disabling strike followed by a landing, Britain will not be able to reverse the outcome like they did in 1982.

December 15, 2011

China’s first aircraft carrier at sea

Filed under: China, Military, Pacific — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:17

From the Guardian, including this satellite image:

A US satellite company says it has taken a photograph of China’s first aircraft carrier during trials in the Yellow Sea.

It is believed to be the first time the 300-metre ship, a refitted former Soviet carrier, has been photographed at sea since it was launched in August.

DigitalGlobe said one of its satellites took the picture on 8 December and an analyst at the firm spotted the ship this week while searching through images.

Stephen Wood, director of DigitalGlobe’s analysis centre, said he was confident the ship was the Chinese carrier because of the location and date of the image. The carrier has generated intense international interest because of what it might portend about China’s intentions as a military power.

The former Soviet Union started building the carrier, which it called the Varyag, but never finished it. When the USSR collapsed, the ship ended up in Ukraine.

December 7, 2011

Reason.TV: How Pearl Harbour made America a global power

Filed under: History, Japan, Military, Pacific, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:05

A minor quibble: though Craig Shirley asserts that the only way Americans could fight overseas before Pearl Harbour was with the Chinese air force, at least 16,000 Americans were serving in the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, or the Royal Canadian Air Force:

Long before Pearl Harbor, a steady stream of Americans had started moving northward across the border to join the Canadian armed forces. By the beginning of 1941 some 1,200 Americans comprised about 10 percent of RCAF officer strength and 3 percent of the other ranks. A U.S. influx totaling about 10 percent of RCAF recruitment continued until, at the time of Pearl Harbor, over 6,000 U.S. citizens were serving in the RCAF, of whom 600 were instructors in the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. By the same time nearly 10,000 Americans were serving in the Canadian Army. After Pearl Harbor a reverse movement resulted in the absorption of over 26,000 Canadians into the U.S. armed forces during World War II.

From Military Relations Between the U.S. & Canada by Stanley W. Dzuiban.

Greek army reduces from 30 to 19 brigades

Filed under: Europe, Military — Tags: , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:15

Strategy Page lists the initial impact on the Greek armed forces due to the financial squeeze:

The current financial crisis in Greece has led to enormous cutbacks in government spending. The military has not been exempt. This year alone, the defense budget will be cut about a third. Over the next two years, the reduced budget will be cut another 15 percent. The army will lose 11 of its 30 brigades, but the air force has disbanded one of 16 squadrons, but kept the aircraft in service by moving them to surviving squadrons. The navy has retired some older patrol boats.

The army is apparently coping by disbanding many reserve units and retiring older tanks and equipment. There won’t be much new equipment purchased for the next few years, at least. Training will also be cut, because operating vehicles, aircraft and ships for these exercises is expensive. The reduction of training will decrease the combat capabilities of the troops. But the government does not want to dismiss lots of the 156.000 active duty troops. That will just increase the already high (approaching 20 percent) unemployment rate. It’s never a good idea to have a lot of professional soldiers among the unemployed.

December 6, 2011

Argentina puts more pressure on Britain to negotiate over the Falkland Islands

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:07

The Argentinian navy has been boarding fishing vessels for “illegal” operations in Argentinian waters (that happen to be the seas around the Falklands, South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands — all British territories):

Argentine patrol vessels have boarded 12 Spanish boats, operating under fishing licences issued by the Falkland Islands, for operating “illegally” in disputed waters in recent weeks.

Argentine patrol commanders carrying out interceptions near the South American coast told Spanish captains they were in violation of Argentina’s “legal” blockade of sea channels to the Falklands.

[. . .]

President Cristina Kirchner has adopted a steadily more beligerent stance towards Britain’s South Atlantic possessions.

A newly formed gathering of South American nations meeting in Venezeula backed Argentina’s sovereignty demands at the weekend.

Argentina’s claim over the Falklands was backed by a newly formed block of South American and Caribbean countries, CELAC, on Saturday with unanimous approval. Mrs Kirchner used the last UN General Assembly meeting to put Argentina’s claims of sovereignty over the Falklands on a par with Palestinian claims to statehood.

As predicted, now that Britain’s Royal Navy no longer has any aircraft carriers, there’s literally no way that Britain can prevent Argentina from another invasion (the one nuclear submarine on patrol in the area could cause damage, but not repel Argentinian forces). Back in the last war between Britain and Argentina, the United States had to be cajoled into supporting Britain: I very much doubt that Barack Obama would be as willing to provide support to a country he clearly disdains.

Royal Navy to pay double purchase price to keep warship in drydock for five years

Filed under: Britain, History, Military — Tags: — Nicholas @ 10:05

Sounds insane (unless you usually pay attention to the cost of military equipment), but — for a change — it’s a valid use of funds:

A contract has been awarded to keep a Royal Navy warship stored and unready for sea in dock for five years. The amount to be paid is approximately double what the ship cost to purchase in the first place.

The vessel in question is HMS Victory, Nelson’s famous flagship at the Battle of Trafalgar, which remains in commission as a Royal Naval warship, though her seagoing days are long behind her. It has just been announced that a deal for her next five years’ maintenance has been struck for £16m.

Historical records indicate that Victory — in her time one of the most powerful warships afloat — cost £63,176 to build, which according to the Bank of England is equivalent to just over £8m in today’s money. The five-year maintenance deal will thus cost twice what it cost to build the ship in real terms.

November 18, 2011

An antidote to the “OMG! China will eat our lunches” meme

Filed under: Americas, China, Economics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

For those inclined to worry overmuch about the rise of China as a world power (as opposed to merely as an economic competitor):

The real importance of this story does not, however, have much to do with Brazil’s jittery nerves about Chinese investment. It is to remind us about a key Chinese vulnerability that is often overlooked by pundits: China’s growing dependence on natural resources located far from its frontiers.

Beijing’s chosen national strategy — to achieve great power status by becoming the industrial workshop of the world — locks it into a complex and difficult set of dependencies and relationships with countries and markets all over the world. Access to those resources traps China in complicated geopolitical tradeoffs that can blow up in unexpected ways — as when China had to scramble to protect its citizens in Libya. Chinese companies become the object of public anger if they are seen to be economically exploitative, unwelcoming to local labor, or environmentally destructive. And, of course, in the event of a confrontation with the United States, China’s entire supply chain and overseas investments are helpless hostages.

Strategically, the only way out of this trap would be to build a blue water navy and air force that could threaten US command of the seas. But a build up of that kind would not only trigger a massive US response; other countries like Japan, India and Australia would join together to ensure that China did not overturn a maritime status quo that is well trusted by other world powers.

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord, for the link.

November 15, 2011

Idiotic British defence decision is USMC’s gain

Filed under: Britain, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:44

Lewis Page explains why the USMC is getting a lovely windfall from Britain’s crack-brained decision to get out of the aircraft carrier business:

Blighty’s famous force of Harrier jump-jets, controversially disposed of during last year’s defence review along with the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, have been reprieved: the radical vectored-thrust jets, believed by many to have been the best strike planes in Britain’s arsenal, will fly (and almost certainly, fight) again.

However they won’t do so with British roundels on their sides or British pilots in their cockpits. The mothballed fleet of 74 Harriers, plus the UK’s inventory of spare parts, is being bought up lock, stock and barrel by the US Marines.

The US Marines possess a substantial air arm of their own and operate a large fleet of Harriers, with slightly different equipment but structurally the same. They anticipate that the British planes, engines and spares, many of which are in nearly-new condition and have been recently upgraded at significant expense, will allow them to keep flying Harriers into the mid-2020s without difficulty.

“We’re taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It’s like we’re buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it,” Harrier expert Lon Nordeen tells the Navy Times.

Older Posts »
« « Stephen Gordon: One does not simply end supply management| Don’t expect China to save your economy » »

Powered by WordPress