Our infrastructure needs a major overhaul in order to:
From the Wikipedia supercarrier article, regarding the British QE class:
Giving evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee, the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Alan West explained that interoperability with the United States Navy was as much a deciding factor of the size of the carriers as the firepower of the carrier's airwing: "I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.10
"I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.10
Sure, light carriers are handy for swatting pirates, but are they more handy than an equivalent amount of resources, yard time and man-hours spent building corvettes or submarines?
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Frigates and corvettes would be the larger share of such a navy, with two or three escort carriers to allow the smaller ships to operate in tasks on sea-lanes beyond the reach of land based aircraft.
An EU navy would not want a massive number of big ships, and while any military vessel could be used to create mischief, the modern light aircraft / heavy helicopter carrier would seem best suited to complementing a backbone of frigates and corvettes, in particular when acting in support of sea-lane protection and disaster relief.
Obviously two largeish light aircraft carriers already exist in one of the EU navies, but as alluded to above, are due to be de-commissioned and replaced with super carriers ... which seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction, and so its no surprise to me that the Pentagon had a hand in the decision.
Fortunately France seems to be backing away from participation in the supercarrier boondoggle. If the Hayugo class helicopter carrier costs around ¥110b, that is around €800m, considerably less than the roughly £2b (~€2.5b?) that the Queen Elizabeth class was supposed to cost sometime last year. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
... so there's three EU Sea Control Ships, even after the Invincible class UK light carriers are decommissioned.
You need planes to patrol a sea lane over the horizon, you need helicopters for anti-piracy in sea-lanes, you need them to be on ships if there is not going to be a arm-twisted-behind-back-friendly-base onshore, if you are going to send helicopters up you need to be able to provide them with air cover.
On an EU basis, all up, three mean that you can have two task forces at two hot spots and still have a reserve. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
You could run two simultaneous taskforces as an emergency measure, but it wouldn't be sustainable in the long term.
Regards Luke -- #include witty_sig.h
In which case, four would be needed to support one extended mission and one on call, or for classical escort missions ... which the five spread across the EU at the moment would cover. After 2015, there would be the three light carriers for one extended mission and the amphibious assault vessels on call, acting a classical escorts, or other short-term tasks. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
I mean, if the objective is to get a convoy from point A to point B without having it attacked by guys in rubber dinghys armed with rusty kalashnikovs... won't one to three perfectly ordinary non-aircraft-equipped ships suffice?
It's not like we'll be having running battles with pirates equipped with American destroyers or privateers in Chinese light cruisers... Not unless things get rather a lot nastier than they are now.
Strategic in terms of ensuring that Europe is a compelling trade partner on fair trade terms for the Mahgreb, West Central Asia, Arabia, West Africa?
And while ecological sustainability implies that all regions should have food self-sufficiency and energy self-sufficiency as goals, a goal of self-sufficiency does not mean autarky ... Fortress Europe would be a much grimmer place to live than a Europe that is viewed by its neighbors as a compelling trade partner. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
When we make sure, that all we produce all what we need ourselves, which path for development will be open for Africans?
Building a domestic industry to satisfy their domestic needs? Charging fairer prices for the resources that we'll need during the transition?
Besides, I didn't say we shouldn't trade with them on fair terms. I just said we shouldn't make supply of certain critical products dependent on trade.
Finally, I happen to think that we owe quite a lot of reparations to quite a lot of African countries - even if not necessarily for the crimes of the various and sundry colonial empires (although they are far more recent and serious than is generally acknowledged), then at least for many of the post-colonial - ah - incidents where Western(TM) interests have been put before local interests by meddling (ex-)colonial powers.
Isn't this giving up on the possibility for taking the way of cooperation? Not using the advantages of cooperation will make it economically much more attractive then really not to be engaged at all.
Considering the way Western(TM) powers have historically behaved in the rest of the world, I'm not sure "not being engaged at all" is a bad thing for the rest of the world.
Snark aside, I am not a particularly strong believer in the notion that the developing world needs Western Benevolence(TM). It seems to me that what quite a lot of the developing world needs is for The West(TM) to stop stealing its resources, and stop instigating the wars and propping up the dictatorships that facilitate the looting.
I am quite confident, in fact, that if we engaged the developing world in a fair and honest fashion, we could come to an equitable agreement on how to manage the transition period during which the third world needs our technology and we need their natural resources.
Yes, there are probably countries that are too tyrannical, too corrupt, too politically unstable or otherwise have a sufficiently appalling political culture that it it will be the next best thing to impossible to engage them constructively. But I am not convinced that they are in the majority.
It seems to me that what quite a lot of the developing world needs is for The West(TM) to stop stealing its resources, and stop instigating the wars and propping up the dictatorships that facilitate the looting.
Sarko's recent emphasis on embracing the southern shore of the Mediterranean as part of the European economic zone would seem obviously intelligent and potentially mutually beneficial, if intelligently pursued. The entire Mediterranean basin was once and can again be a single economic area. It is impossible to believe that this idea originated with him. Nor should his advocacy taint the idea.
Development and integration of this area into a common economy on a basis of mutual benefit could greatly enhance the influence of the EU in the world and possibly defuse some of the religious tensions festering in France, Holland and Germany. It would provide a venue for the profitable employment of multi-lingual second and third generation African and North African immigrants to Europe. It could be a win on many levels. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Charging fairer prices for the resources that we'll need during the transition? I think the prices for that resources are already rather high. The resource rich countries often suffer already a form of Dutch Desease. But of course the natural resources are not distributed equally in the developing world. To assume the developing world as one solidaric block is pretty nonsense.
Besides, I didn't say we shouldn't trade with them on fair terms. I just said we shouldn't make supply of certain critical products dependent on trade. But agriculture is one low level product, which doesn't need too much capital. Another thing especially in norther Africa would be solar energy. As well rather critical I would say. We don't buy enough toys, that for many countries the export of toys is a valid option.
incidents where Western(TM) interests have been put before local interests by meddling (ex-)colonial powers. Again very unequally distributed, and strongly in those countries, which may indeed have enough natural resources to have built their economy for some time around trading resources.
Considering the way Western(TM) powers have historically behaved in the rest of the world, I'm not sure "not being engaged at all" is a bad thing for the rest of the world. Civilisatory colonisation was a huge step forward in Africa. But even when you disagree with that, now that they had contact, and currently live depending on imported technology with too many people to feed in their traditional ways of life, insulation would hardly work for them.
It seems to me that what quite a lot of the developing world needs is for The West(TM) to stop stealing its resources, and stop instigating the wars and propping up the dictatorships that facilitate the looting. I don't consider trade as stealing. The dictatorships support is mostly a cold war relict. Regime change brings instability. But for most resources not even a stable country is really needed. Sanctions hit the full population far more than any dictator. It is not clear to me, what you propose, that we don't buy stuff from developing countries of which they have little use at all? Because paying them well is propping up dictatorships and paying them little is stealing?
I am quite confident, in fact, that if we engaged the developing world in a fair and honest fashion, we could come to an equitable agreement on how to manage the transition period during which the third world needs our technology and we need their natural resources. I hope so, but don't think so. Most of the developing world is gouverned by people, who care more for themselves than for their people, pretty indipendent of Western involvement or not. Especially Africa suffers extremely from tribal wars and racism among groups foreigners can hardly identify. Many African nations need massive interference with their internal affairs to reconciliate, similar as on the Balcan. Obviously we are not willing to play such a role, as it would be denounced as colonialism. But the view the West is responsible for the lack of development in most poor countries is far from reality. But for going for cooperation, one needs reliable partners. Left on their own, it is not likely that poor countries become reliable. I predict therefore, I do not widh, that 'Fortress Europe' will be much closer description of 2050 than intensive cooperation. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Snark aside, I am not a particularly strong believer in the notion that the developing world needs Western Benevolence(TM). It seems to me that what quite a lot of the developing world needs is for The West(TM) to stop stealing its resources, and stop instigating the wars and propping up the dictatorships that facilitate the looting. I am quite confident, in fact, that if we engaged the developing world in a fair and honest fashion, we could come to an equitable agreement on how to manage the transition period during which the third world needs our technology and we need their natural resources.
multiple recc's! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
