Peter Cairns

I quite like the idea of getting something similiar to the CMBO firepower specs for the squad just by putting the cursor over the team or the weapon, rather than having to look it up by switching screen or having to check the manual. Peter.

GSX, I've talked to a lot of Scots in the British army over the last few years and i know a lot more people who have very good comnnections, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will have no more problem recruiting than any other small european army. By and large the scots are a fairly patriotic bunch (like most nations). If we can average almost 4.2% of 17-35 year old males in the armed forces compared to the UK figure of 3.6%, we should have enough. We also have ethnicity on our side, `Scotland has a far lower percentage of immigrants than England, and for a range of reasons enlistment from ethnic minorities is lower. I am all for getting as many from smaller ethnic groups in because it's good when the armed forces reflect the wider population, but it's difficult. The problem south of the border is that as a proportion relatively few young black people join the British army, and as for young asian muslems, well you can more or less forget it since Iraq. Actually the largest ethnic group in the British army are probably the Scots. To be honest I don't mind you being against independence a lot of people are including many Scots, but like most people on this forum, I prefer it when you address the arguements rather than, simply post a few dismissive lines. John, I'd accept what you say in many respects, There are some real cock ups in terms of British procurement that go way beyond home grown and their have been some very good home grown stuff too, What is pretty lamentable are some of the collaborations we've been in. As to the MR4, it's the late deliver and cost over runs. Because of these the 18 plus aircraft that we're hoped to be about £100-150m each, have turned in to an order for twelve which will probably come in at a project cost of over $250m each, which good plane or not ( and it's still a 50's airliner after all), is far to much for what we are getting. I've never actually argued that Off the Shelf was the answer but I did content and still do that a nation of Scotlands size would not face higher costs because it was small and had to buy in rather than home produce. Plenty of small nations buy off the shelf and get by fine, and there are a good few like the Belgians and recently Singapore that have built up good export orientated defence companies. I agree that as others do it there is no reason why the UK can't have a successful arms industry and in some cases we do, it's just UK procurement that seems screwed up. In the situation of having to equip an army with a combination of inherited equipment and bought in I see nothing wrong with shopping around to find what suits you best and buying it in, indeed if the FRES meets our needs at is the right price I'll buy that. I certainly have no problem taking our share of the new Panthers, if it meets the spec. But I don't want Warrior good as it is, because it's to heavy for a C-130 and tracked, and I wouldn't touch Saxons witha barge pole. I don't think we'll ever agree on the Tornado, the F-15 beat it in to service and was a world beater when it arrived, and it has grown and developed since and a still world class today. It's had it's problems and it's overuns, but it still managed to beat the Tornadoes replacement Typhoon, for the recent S. Korean order, which for me shows just how poor a project Tornado in both types has always been. Flamingknives The principle reason for sending the Para's and Marines to SL, was that, as in the Falklands where the took the lead, they are not only the best Front line units we have ( the SAS being highly specialised), but also the most rapidly deployable. The advantage of the likes of a Stryker or LAV over a landrover are to fold, Firstly it's psychological, in a lot of peacekeeping situations the fact that it looks like a real miltary vehicle and not just a pick up has an effect. Secondly, It is just overall a far more capable vehicle, for all the danger from RPG's I still firmly believe that like WW2 the big danger to infantry are the three M's, ( mines, Mortars and Machineguns), and although a stryker isn't perfect against these three it makes a land rover look like a coffin. Actually head on a Stryker will fair far better against a flat bed with a 23mm, than it will against a 0.5 HMG, It's about accuracy as much as fire power, and the Stryker is far more likely to get the first shot off and make it hit. although I do like the option of a turret with say a bushmaster, even if only on a six wheeled recon variant. Lars, Your absolutely right, I have no illusions how difficult it will be to get my own party collegues no to distort things to keep existing jobs or get new ones in their home towns. If it can be done it has to be by proving that the money we save can be put to better use either in the armed forces or the civilian sector. it;'s particularly difficult when people are offering the carrot of offset, which often turns out to be not what it seems, In the South African case of Gripens and Hawks, it looked great on paper, until it turned out that more than half of the work off set to South african companies was then sub contracted back out of the country. Final general note for everyone, Mad as it might sound I am really enjoying this even though I seem to be out numbered at least three to one. Why? Firstly because like any hypothetical discussion, ( it could as easily be the future of the Danish army), I find these things fun. Secondly, Destructive testing... Before you put your product out on to the market you give it a good work out and test it till it quite literally falls apart, then you keep the bits that stand up, and replace the bits that don't. The more I have to answer and justify myself the better the final policy will be able to stand up to scrutiny and attack, So keep up the good work people, your helping me a lot. Peter.

John, The recent programmes you mention prove my point, the question I was answering was " Won't costs rise for a small nation". my arguement was "No it's when you develop your own to meet a narrow national need, that's when costs rise". The recent examples you give are all ones where the UK has gone off the shelf and made good choices. The home grown projects, Like Nimrod, (not to mention the disaster of Nimrod AWACs), Astute (although a lot of that is US tech), Typhoon and Phoenix, have been a mess. the reason I find Javelin, Stryker or similiar attractive is exactly because it meets our needs at a good price and offers a good low risk solution. The UK programmes you quote are examples where the UK has done what I think Scotland should do. The Tornado comes in two distinct versions, the ADV variant was supposed to meet the UK's air defence needs, and did so, But if we had bought and equivelent number of F-15's we would have got a better plane for lower cost. Over the North Sea as an Interceptor the F-15 would easily have matched the Tornado. Over Germany in an active air superiority battle the F-15's performance makes the Tornado look like a Joke. So with to distinct types of air battle to try to cover, the UK bought a plane that was only decent at one, that's a bad choice. As for deep low level strike, so what. The RAF talked about it's excellent gust response and low level stability, thats code for it's fine in a straight line but turns like a brick, so stay as low as you can because if anything finds you your dead meet. The GR1 in the gulf showed that what the RAF had committed to was a plane that was good at a type of mission that everyone else had abandoned. What the US was going with PGM's we were trying to do by flying through flak. When we did go to medium altitude ( which was far more effective) we needed Buccaneers to buddy along to designate targets. When the MRCA project was established the RAF had a bad case of finest hour syndrome. It wanted a plane that could be the "B of B" spitfire and the Dam Busters Lancaster all in one. What it ended up with was a fighter that was no Spitfire, and a Bomber that was no Lancaster. nether were world class or war winners. As a procurement project it was a mess, it never met it's objectives, was late and over budget, we only sold them to the saudi's because the US put limits on F-15 sales and they got a huge backhander from Thatchers boy..... As to the list of King-sized Pigs breakfasts, I agree the MOD couldn't order a Pizza without paying too much to have cold lasange delivered to the wrong address.... To be honest I think we generally agree. If there is a good "Off he Shelf" system out there that meets your needs at a price you can afford, then buy it. Distorting your procurement to bolster, or sustain defence jobs when it leads to poor kit, or other kit being delayed, abandoned or bought in too few numbers, is false economy. Peter.

flamingknives They did do well, both the Paras and the Marines, just as generally the US did very well in Somalia, What we didn't have in SL was a BHD, where we found that a Land rover was as vulnerable as a Humvee when it came up against RPG's. The fact that their were no major incidents where a Land Rover with a 7.62mm GPMG was up against a Land Cruiser with a twin 23mm ZSU, shouldn't blind you to the fact that it's no match for it. The proliferation of cheap smll arms and anti tank weapons in the third worls means that the type of forces that were fine for fighting the IRA ( and the stuff in SL, wasn't even that heavy), leaves you to vulneralbe. That's why I think deployable medium wait forces like Stryker are much more the way to go. What I am saying is that it should be equipped or designed to match or better what we can expect to meet, ( that includes T-55 v Javelin), rather than the "we'll we got by with landrovers in SL so they'll do". Lars Why do all the other nations Scotlands size have armies, t persue their foreign policy objectives and defend their country. Admitting that like Belguim or Denmark we can't do everything isn't at all the same as saying we can do nothing. You could make the same arguement for Canada ( if this doesn't wake Dorosh up nothing will). With an ally like the US on it's door step why not just integrate with that, The answers is because what the US wants and what Canada wants aren't always the same, and as an independant country Canada in tose situations wants to be able to go it's own way, after all they didn't go to Iraq. Your arguement seems to be unless you can replicate the abilities of bigger nations and do everything, their is no point in having an army. If you look at UN operations , you'll see troops from around the world deployed mostly from nations that hired or needed help to get their. In that respect what I am suggesting isn't unusual, in fact it's more the norm. As to your kit arguement that seems way off line. try looking at the costs and overruns of current and recent UK defence programmes and compare them to the costs and effectiveness of buying off the shelf. For me the Classic was the Tornado, it was suppose d to be the MRCA, ( Multi Role Combat Aircraft) and it ended up as too seperate planes, neither much good, late, and over budget. It was an F-15 built by committee and neither as good a fighter or strike aircraft. The eurofighter is little better, and as for battlefield communications thats been an embarassment for decades. If I had a choice I'd buy off the shelf rather than try to develop our own, and besides the one thing I am sure of is that if we ever get independence ( and it's a big if i'll admit), every major arms producer in the world will be at our door on day one with their catalogues, peter.

Helocopters can't fly in space. Peter.

At the moment chinas spending is put at about $50bn that's the same as the UK's, Given it's size and the fact that it's got 20 times the population that's hardly excessive. however if you take it that the UK spends about 45% on it's 200,000+ personnel, Thats about about $50,000 a head on wages. Now if the Uk like america has wage levels around 20 times that of China, then thae same spending would let them finance, 4m personnel, which they more or less do when you look at support. In reality the vast bulk of the chinese army is for internal purposes only and the modern bit that people are worried about in terms of power projection is probably equivelent to Britain and France. What that means is that we have a sort of status quo by choice. China has a spending level which is economically sustainable and allowing them a steppped modernisation of mainly obsolete forces ( some would argue with general economic growth 8-10%, it's defence spending in real terms is static or falling). All lot of the high tech stuff it has bought, it's got dirt cheap from a desperate Russia with a huge amount of technology transfer that has probably alowed it to advance it's indigenious designs twenty years for a fraction of what it would have cost to develope it independantly. Just look at the way the links with ex-soviet design houses has effected designs for things like the L-15 and compare it with the cost abd delays in the indian LCA programme. China has a force structure that means it can't really threaten or invade it's main regional rivals ( S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan ), but on the other hand, no one even the US could effectively invade them. thats a pretty stable situation and useful for china, it lets it flex it's muscles and act big at the minimum expense. In the long term it might even end up doing to Taiwan what we did to the Soviet Union, in order to meet the percieved threat of Chinese military power Taiwan would need to devote a larger and larger share of it's wealth to defecne allowing China to forge ahead even further economically. I am not a fan of china, but I've often thought they had the best nuclear detterent of them all in that, the successfully deterred both the US and the USSr for decades witha nuclear force that was far smaller and more affordable than either of their rivals. Final point on China. I think we are generallly underestimating it as an arms exporter. We tend to judge arms sales on value not volume, that means that 40 F-15K's at $40m each, counts for a lot more than 100 J-7's at $5m each. But it's like VCR's or DVD players. When Chinas weren't very good at not that much cheaper we didn't import a lot, now that they are damned good and really cheap, we import far more. The actually value of the goods hasn't gone up that much say 40%, but in numbers it might have tripled. An what has happened to those domestic companies who used to make VCR's and VD Players. The chinese are doing great business in small arms at the moment and are moving up in terme of technical proficency and weapon size. As they make inroads in export markets on price and quality then the market for Western alternatives shrinks for two reasons. One, as people go for Chinese rather than more capable Russian stuff ( again J-7 not Mig 29) to meet their needs the arguement for the likes of the F-22 and F-35 weakens, so orders for these fall, meaning that production runs are cut and unit cost rises, thus making them less competative. Secondly as things like the L-15 close the gap technically on the likes of S. Koreas new T-50 but are a third cheaper, they start to compete head to head and actually squeeze us out. If anyone has figures I'd be interested to see them, but I suspect that China may not be in the top five for sales, but might already be in the top three for volume. In effect they are starting to do the same for arms as they did for computers and electrical goods. The ones to watch over the rest of the decade will be trainers, light attcak aircraft and increasing communications and EW systems. Peter.

They have to be just about every major nation in europe plus the Us, in which case you'd have to be pretty nuts to go. The US can go to places like Iraq, without the UN or EU, but not the likes of Scotland, ( or Norway, or finland, or Denmark, or Austria),. Small Western European nations just don't do it, unless they have some special need or mandate, usually ex colonial, which Scotland doesn't. Besides given the kind of budget we'd have by the time we bought a couple of assault ships we'd have a pretty thread bare army, and then we'ed be back to Sierra Leon, being able to independantly transport a force that was too lightly and poorly equipped to do the job, which would be a bad idea. Peter.

Steve, Any update of what of the current Russian and Chinese stuff has been turning up in Syria. I don't expect the likes of SU-27's, but given what we are seeing in Iraq and the question of infiltration, I would have thought anyone wanting to sell some of the nastier anti-personnel stuff and small arms would be in there hopeful of finding eager buyers. Peter.

So tell me Efraim, just exactly what is it about using a first class simulator of small scale unit combat to simulate warfare in say 50 years time as opposed to 50 years ago that you are so afraid of or against. So far all I have seen is a belief that looking three or four decades ahead and setting in on other planets and moons in this solar system, might be the basis for a good game that people would want to play and buy. What particular form of heresy or blasphamy would this be committing. Peter

The other side of overload is too much tactical information leading to people lower down the command chain making inappropriate decisions or second guessing their Co's. initiative is all vert well but if veryone has full knowledge then people will start to take inappropriate actions. Sometimes you order people to hold their position and give supporting fire,even whenyou know they are being out Flanked and put in danger because that's what you need them to do to get the job done. But if they knew the danger, would they hold the way you want too, or put their own saftey first and either alter firing position to defend themselves or even fall back. Sometimes too much knowledge can be a dangerous thing. look at FPS' a lot of the time people all share the same view and knowledge but rarely work as a team, because no one is in command. There are real dangers in passing to much information to low down the command chain. Peter.

Tarquelne It doesn't matter how many UAV's feed it in, if two images from 45 deg apart are different and both projected on to the chest screen of the same guy, he will stand out like a flashing Christmas tree in the dark. Besides if you have a cloud of Micro-Uav's with that capacity, why waste time with the guy in the suit, when you can just have them relay the targets to stand off weapons. That's like having a squadron of F-18E's to had targeting data to a coastguard corvette with a 40mm. Anyway any future "Predator" suit would have to work right across and beyond the visual spectrum, as well as having little or no EM signature.... Peter.

Lars Not if you are only using it once every couple of years. On a major long term deloyment like Bosnia, you replace the troops every six months, but most of the gear stays put. If you are replacing a Mech Bn with another you don't switch the vehicles, just the men. Shipping rates are high, but are you really saying that the cost of shipping the equipment for a Bn to the adriatic costs more than the running costs (including crew) of a 12,000 ton transport for two years. Hell if it cost that much the world economy would grind to a halt. New Zealand is going for a three type fleet, MRV( multi role vessel, that can carry troops), OPV ( Off shore Patrol vessel under 2,000 ton) and IPV (In shore patrol vessel under 500 tonnes). The difference is that they see themselves having a role ( including humanitarian and disaster relief) in the Southern Pacific with very few other allies to help. Scotland is in Western Europe where we thankfully have few disasters ( ok their is the Scottish football team) and a whole set of close EU allies who already have this kind of capacity. It's not just the UK, but also France, Italy and Spain. Turn to any of these nations and say " we'll cover the cost if you take us and if not we won't go" and they'll do it. Look at it from their point of view, the cost may be higher, but if they were sitting in port they'd have to pay the cost of that. This way all costs are covered so they gain. In addition if they don't take us and we don't go, what do they do, seen their own troops or just let it fester. It makes sense for small countries that want to make a contribution to use the excess capacity of the large countries who feel they need to have the capacity to independently intervene. It also makes sense for the EU, as it stops small countries wasting resources on half sized compromised versions of things that we already have enough of. If the UK won't take us others will, particularly the US. If Scotland was to offer troops for Dufar if the US carried them, the C-17's would be in the air within 48hrs, because the US wants something done, but doesn't want to ( or right now can't) send it own people in. This way both sides win, we can play a part, and the US can get what it wants without putting GI's in the firing line. But It only works if we have partners and a shared interest. That's a good thing as it stops us being somebodies Monkey, while stopping us trying to be Little Britain and bite of more than we can chew. As a small country we have limitations, the key is making the best of them and not trying to be something we are not. We would be a relatively rich country of 5m, not a big player of 60m like the UK. Thats not weak or bad, just different. Peter.

To do what we don't face a Naval threat and we would only use assault ships once very few years, why buy them when we can charter sea lift or hitch a lift from someone bigger, Like I said, the UK France and the like can keep the big stuff. For your average UN peacekeeping making operation we're not going to be storming the beaches. look at Sierra Leon, we had a helicopter carrier wiyth Harriers that couldn't bomb anything and troops with nothing heavier than Landrovers. The people on the front line were under equiped to pay for aircraft that we couldn't use. Peter.

GSX Try checking some figures, for more than 30 years with less than 10% of the UK population, Scotland has provided Close to 12.5% of UK uniformed manpower. At the height of GW1, it was estimated that between 20-25% of UK Army manpower in the field were Scots. It's not Just Scottish regiments, but throughout the British Army. On current numbers od the 104,000 in the British Army, some 12,000 plus are Scots. recruitment won't be a problem for Scotland, maintaining it's current size and meeting it's commitments will be for the UK.... Sergei Your a bit closer, Scotlands share of the UK's £25bn defence budget would be around, £2.25bn, I can't honestly see the Scottish public forking out more than £2bn, and probably about £1.8bn. There aren't pacifists it's just given the choice of Schools and hospitals and tanks and planes, they won't go for the planes. Having said that as we don't need Trident, or Hunter killers, No aircraft carriers or assalt ships let alone type 45 frigates, and probably not something as sophisticated as Eurofighter, things could and should get better for the army. Look at Steves figures, yu can probably buy three Strykers for am M1A2, so we could probably get four six wheeled APC's for the price of a challenger. If our share of the challenger fleet is about 35, thats enough to buy over 100 Strykers. Our share of the Typhon buy is 20 aircraft at £60m each, in theory if the army got half of that because we went for a cheaper aircraft, that could buy us 500 Strykers, near enough to mechanise a six regiment army. Peter.

I am with Micheal on this i think we get a fair bit of leeway before the shutters come down. For example there is supposed to be no politics but in the discussion of the "Will we be in Syria" and the "Iranian President" posts there was some pretty political stuff. However as it never got nasty and was pretty much focused on the merits of the scenarios and the probability of either, they let it go. What gets me is this, Just, why would you want to start an "I'll Never Ever Play This Game, Ever" post anyway.... Peter.

Hows this for a compromise, Set up a second forum option for CMx2 called CMx2 ( I don't want to play Shock force), and let them all post their, then once a week Steve can go in and post a bogus story about Strykers being able to leap 40' gaps or something just to drive them all mad. Peter.

Another issue is how vulnerable and effective people are depending on the number of windows. If a room with a squad (8mx8m), might have four windows facing out or only one. Would the firepower of the defender be reduced because they couldn't all fire out the window at the same time, or would the lack of "eyes" effect there observation. Equally would people firing in to the buiding be more likely to hit as they would have fewer windows to split their fire over, and would their be a limit to casualties because their could only be a few at the sole window. All interesting stuff. Peter.

Of real importance will be "Gable Ends" as in many prefab buildings the ends have few if any openings. This means that you can in effect group at the end of the building with the occupants unable to either see or engage you. The whole subject of building design will be crucial. Another example is the number of buildings in rural settings in the Middle East, which have a courtyard design, with the buildings built in to a high wall with very few windows, most of which are internal. This structure gives good protection (particularly against wind and blown sand) but doesn't give a defender many opportunities to fire out. The ability to make wholes in walls either with explosives or simply knocking out bricks will be an issue, should it be allowed, yes but for defenders only pre game, like digging in, or allowed in game by engineers or after a delay. Should such improvisied fireing appetures be abstract or actually specific like a form of deformed terrain. Peter.

Of course if we ever do get it to work, we then face the problem of Friendly Fire, you know. In your "chameleon suit" you line up an unsuspecting target and open up, only to find half way through the first clip, that "Chuck" is standing in between you. Peter.

It wasn't theorectically impossible to split the atom before it was done, the people who did it were working on the basis of a theory of the structure of the atom that said it could be done. There may indeed be a way found in the future to conceal moving infantry from view from more than one point at a time, but it just won't be the one you are suggesting because it relies on projecting multiple incompatable images on the same surface at the same time. In the 19th century people suggested ways to get to the moon, these included a giant cannon, or even rockets. however they also included flocks of swans carrying baskets, and the oder from french cheese. Your suggestion is in the swans and cheese catagory, they won't work... others might but not yours. peter.

Oh and it was never theorectically impossible to go faster than the speed of sound, or fly (or even the arguement against trains, as the human body couldn't stand speeds above 30mph), people stated these things and believed them, but few proved them or had a theoretical basis for them.. There is a fundamental difference between saying, "You'll never be able to build a plane that can go that fast", Technical/technological. and "You can't go faster than the speed of light because E+MC2, means that anything with mass by definition , can't reach the speed of light" thats, Theoretical. Peter.

But two people at different angles and ranges will intersect at the point of the target with the reactive camoflage, and that means two different images from two different points being projected from the same point to fool both, and that's impossible. I doesn't have to be atree or wall, if the view b to A has a shadow background, and C to A a blue sky, then to fool both a has to project dark shade and blue sky on his chest at the same time. As to lots of things that were thought impossible, as this is about geometry prove me wrong POST A PICTURE OF A FOUR SIDED TRIANGLE. Like I said this isn't technological, it's theoretical. Peter.

sgtgoody (esq) I'll try to explain this as slowly as possible. (God this is getting like Father Ted with Dougal in the Caravan, "Small...Far Away",...). Imagine a triangle with three different sized sides, The points are A,B, and C. With me so far, good. Point A is the target that has reactive camoflage. Point B is the first observer. Point C is the second observer, B is closer to the target than C, B and C are seperated by less distance than from A to B or A to C, but still apart. still with me. Now If you take the line from B to A and continue it half the distance you get a tree directly behind A that B would see if A wasn't there. This is what A must project at the right scale, detail level and ambient light to fool and observer at B. Now if we continue the line from C to A twice trhe distance we get a red brick wall. which is what A must project at the right detail, scale and Ambience to fool C. Now Lets hope you can follow this... THEREFORE TO FOOL BOTH B AND C, A MUST SIMULTANIOUSLY PROJECT BOTH A CLOSE TREE, AND A DISTANT RED BRICK WALL ON THE SAME SURFACE AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH IS THEORECTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE NO MATTER HOW MANY F***KING FO CABLES YOU USE........... I can't get the hang of adding diagrammes so if anyone who can understands this please could you draw the above and add it, as I have my doubts sgtgoody (esq) will get it yet. Peter.

You know I have a sense of DeJa Vu here, because everything I am hereing about women rings with what they said about them, going on to the land during WW1, or taking jobs in Factories in WW2, They couldn't do it, it wouldn't work... Well surprise surprise, they did do it and it did work, and we'ed never have one either war without them. Come to think of it worse still, I think some in the US they were saying the same thing about Black soilders in my lifetime, and I am only 44. Hell, I have a mate who now lives in New Jersey and he says he still meets guys who don't think an african american can be an NFL Quarterback. Peter.

Good stuff but does it suggest that all those people with none intel Macs will be bypassed and BF will launch for Intel in say July.. As I havve no plans to upgrade for at least a year, that would mean no CM:SF for me till mid 2007. Peter.