I agree. The first thing the US should do is scale back it’s overseas commitments. Bring the troops home from Europe, adjust war planning to assume Europe will defend itself against any threats on their own, leave the ME to it’s own devices. Canada, Mexico and Venezuala make up the bulk of US oil imports so you could leave the ME problem to the Europeans.

I bet the US could easily cut it’s defense outlays by 40% if it changed some of it’s overseas policies.

I thought Venezualan oil was really really bad quality?

I really wonder how deep in sh!t economy must be until some people realize that all the hordes of F-xx and CVN-xx are nothing but freaking waste of money if they do nothing but lie around, train for nothing and get hangared/repaired/serviced/fueled/scrapped.

Does that not also apply to all countries on the planet? Or is buying weaponry an exclusivly American problem? There are many countries far poorer then America that spend money for weapons instead of far more needed things like food and water, I think you should worry about those countries first, the African continent would be a good starting place.

Cut him some slack until he gets his bags unpacked at least.

We aren’t all as enamored with the Messiah as some. These are important decisions that have to be made, there is no time for ‘cutting slack’

And this is different to American Abrams support how? How on Earth do you think we got sent the Abrams? By C-17? Mass airlifting heavy tanks is an exercise almost too expensive to contemplate, otherwise they wouldn’t build designs like the Fast Sealift Ship. I’m willing to learn, but how would he know what ‘the same modern standard’ of the ‘latest M1s’ (which are still a mid-80s design) was if he was in the British Army?

You actually think Germany could and would support the OZ tanks force in times of war? If Australia started losing tanks inwar do you think Germany would supply more in a hurry, i sure don’t. Lets face it Germany is the weaker ally both physicaly and Politicly to have out of a choice between them and America. Nothing is going to change that any time soon and no amount of whining will alter the fact that Australia made the correct choice.

What I will say is that asking Germany to become a partner in effect by puchesing Leo tanks off of them would have been a disaster had conflict boken out and spares were needed. Germany has to be real carefull who and what conflicts she backs, Australia pick one germany doesn’t like and there goes all your spare parts chain halted. besides even if they weren’t such a political liability and were willing to help just how would they get anything anywhere? How would Germany send in replacement tanks or spare parts, by Sea and that in itself is a liability in wartime. Challenger II is ok but not up to the same modern standard as the latest M1’s, thats according to my mate who has been in the Army as a tanker for the last 12 years too, the British Army too…

China for Ukraine represents a good middle ground. You really don’t want to be on the wrong side of the Russians with the west weary of getting them into Nato. The Georgian lesson and a less aggressive U.S administration means its not the right time to be closer to the West.

China on the other hand can exploit Ukraines expertise in Arms design and manufacture which were passed on from soviet times. And Ukraine will benefit financially from such deals. Since Chinese have patched up with Russians, its unlikely to upset them that much. Russia would also think Chinese influence on Ukraine as a counterweight to the West.

I’m not sure we should read so much into this at the moment, its not exactly a strategic alliance.

Oh ok, I thought you were being sarcastic, sorry I went off on you!
🙂

No worries, I’ve done a similer thing myself before

You don’t seem to understand how a naval exercise works. Usually in these cases the sub and the carrier group is put in a “box” together to force an engagement and one side or the other has artificial restrictions or advantages depending on who they are simulating or if they want to not reveal full capabilities. It is rare for both sides to use their full sensor capabilities and just go at it (it would provide no real training).

For example I’ve taken part in exercises where the ship I was on was simulating another class of ship and our radar and sonar both had range restrictions placed by the rules of the game, we were also told to stay within a certain area to simulate a straights transit, all of that was to help train a submarine and some aircraft. I’ve also seen exercises where the subs were told to stay at periscope depth to give the battlegroup lookouts a chance to practice spotting them in all weather conditions, these games are all about training and have specific objective, and the rules are written to meet them.

Unless you are privy to all the rules of engagement, what restrictions are placed on both sides (if any) and the time restrictions on the war game bragging about these “kills” is useless.

Oh well I wasted my time above, that’ll teach me not to read through the thread before opening my big trap! But yeah this guy knows what he’s talking about and said it better then I.