Future of the EU
 

Future of the EU

Now that France has rejected the EU constitution, what will the future hold? The Dutch have also rejected it and reports from Luxemburg seem to indicate that the elected government will have to be reformed if the projection holds up and they too reject it. My friends in the UK are telling me that it will never come to a vote before they assume the top seat this fall. As it stands now, it wouldn’t pass and they are telling me that in a case like this, it would be less than proper to have the vote at this time.


Anyone from across the pond able to give us some depth on this. Are the French just trying to improve their position, or is French Nationalism still having visions of empire. The Dutch have explained their position somewhat, and the reasons seem to be valid. But the reporting here seems to be avoiding the hard questions with the French. And here, it would appear that the government will soon move against some of the EU trade actions. It would seem that we were waiting for the constitution to be ratified and perhaps for the change of leadership after rotation. But the list of large corporations (read campaign contributors) with complaints seems to be forcing some sort of action sooner than later.

Re: Future of the EU
 

My fingers have gone on strike, and refuse to write anything about this topic. Kidding aside, I have made a somewhat developed answer on another board, merely dealing with objections to the treaty itself, and to the way it was sold to those silly... to the most appreciated voters. Other interesting opinions about the Whole Thingy can be found in the same thread, though I was the only Frenchman on duty. Link is here .

A succinct summary: the treaty was about as clear as muddy water, with various articles reducing other provisions, among other things. A clear picture is very difficult to get, even for scholars of legalese and pol sci. Check your knowledge of the proposed treaty by answering the following questions: what bodies hold power in the proposed treaty? Who do we elect directly? Who is responsible before whom? What are the differences compared to the current system? How are decisions taken? (Special cases where unaminity is required must be mentioned as well, as per articles IV 440 and 441... or was it 441 and 442? and linked articles) I did not like the picture I got, but I cannot be sure I read (and understood) everything related to the political institutions. Still, it seems *very* odd to vote on something the average voter is unlikely to fully understand, given the awful presentation of the Whole Thingy.

The campaign was the yes was about as convincing as... Well, let's just say the no vote has climbed in the polls thorought the "official" campaign (starting in early May or so). The arguments were vague to say the least, there was not much in the ways of emotion, and some examples were simply wrong. Add to that the marginalisation of the naysayers, and the felt omnipresence of the yes campaigners in the media, and you have the recipe for a failure.

Two quotes from the father of the treaty himself, the former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (technically not supposed to campaign under French law); the effect of the quotes is kept, but I cannot recall their exact wording (it can be found if needed). "I would be the first to recognise the Constitution is a much better remedy for insomnia than most of the medecine they sell in drugstores." "The treaty could be cut by one third without removing anything important from it." Got to wonder why nothing was done to help matters eh? And a lovely quote from a right-wing meeting: "Only the decrepit old timers would say no". How persuasive.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Seriously, the EU is really just a bloated beurocracy that desprately needs to be reorganized into the first European World Empire.

Re: Future of the EU
 

JHC, how the hell can you know that for which you would be voting? It must have taken 40 thousand lawyers to write that thing. No way am I going to attempt to digest it. I do hope you guys can work it out. But please don’t crap all over my euros in getting it done. I would really hate to have to go to China to hedge my holdings. Not sure how I would place that order anyway. I guess I would just issue an order for “x” tones of 100 Yuan notes (sick).

Not to mention the lenghts they have gone to for counting money with their fingers.

http://www.tooter4kids.com/china/Hand.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

The Dutchm valid reasons? Oh, trust me, I'm a Dutchman.

THE MAJOR REASONS FOR OUR REJECTING THE TREATY IS SIMPLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WERE VERY VERY POORLY INFORMED.

I'm not eligible to vote yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif but if I was eligible to vote, I'd have voted YES.

Re: Future of the EU
 

It does really depend on what the grand vision of the EU is? A united states of Europe, a trading block where you don't need passports or something in between.

We're long past option 2, you'd never get the UK to go for option 1 so it's probably option 3. Sadly half the guys who wrote the constitution wanted integration and the other half didn't. So you get grand statements of how the EU will rule the continent ignoring any form of democracy, balanced out by sub sections and articles cutting those statements back.

Result - A confused mess which would probably be used by the Eurocrats to extend their powers far futher than anybody intended. That was the previous EU treatys have meant anyway.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Sorry, when I read the title of this thread I thought that it was going to be about the Star Wars Expanded Universe (EU).

Re: Future of the EU
 

Kind of like how the federal government in the US constantly encroaches upon the powers of the state governments, stealing more and more central power and authority with every passing year... I forsee the exact same thing happening with the EU if it is ever made to be more than a glorified Trade and Research Alliance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

Well said. Sooner or later all of us, those not associated with the power of Government, will be subservient to those who are. I fear that one day Government will give way to the corporate mentality that human beings are little more than a renewable resource cropped for exploitation. They say slavery has pretty much ended, I say that it has only just begun. As the margin between the worlds wealthy and poor continues to widen more and more "elite" people are adopting the "all about me" mentality turning their noses up at folks who have to work for a meager living.

But what can we do? As the population curve continues to accelerate toward the big 7 billion mark, the freedoms that many of us have enjoyed for most of our lives will begin to disappear in the wake of unchecked population growth.

There is no hope for a happy future, just one of more of the same or less than what we have now. Sure this is a gloomily view of the future, but the evidence is not lying to us. Its there for all too see. The future is gloomy and the only way people are going to be able to live is by surviving upon the hand me down hand outs of their elitist governments who's members have grown fat and decadent on the backs of the starvation and destitution that they have caused with their "Me Only" life styles.

The bleakness of a Soilent Green type of future is a distinct and real possibility whether we like to admit it or not. Sooner or later our ability to survive in an economic capitalistic environment will grow unattainable and people will begin to slip into poverty and ultimately utter complete destitution. It is already happening even though many of our governments deny it. If you deny something that is happening all around you, perhaps you can make it not happen at all. Those who subscribe to the ideal that nothing is wrong with our societies and our way of living are just kidding themselves. One day, and I fear it won't be that far off, say forty or fifty years, there will be another war, sparked not by the politics of nations, or even by the desire to control all that can be controlled, but by a far more simple source, the fundamental need to survive and to take what others have in order to do so.

Some will want what you have, and you will want to keep it. They will cloak their intentions behind a vial of lies, but when it boils right down to it, it will not be a war about ideology, religion, or even rights; it will simply be a war over greed. And when this war has been fought many times over, what will remain will not be worth having as our race begins to slip into extinction. And when the day comes that the last human on Earth draws breath, his or her death will not be an act of God, but an act of mercy. We will have brought this upon ourselves for allowing our faith in those we elect to lead us, blind us to the old saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(Subscribe now to Atrocities Doom and Gloom News Letter. Garrenteed to depress even the most optomistic person. Subscription rates are 50% off news stand prices.)

Re: Future of the EU
 

I do beleive things are going to get worse - Alot worse - Before they get better. But they will get better. Civilization goes in cycles.

Re: Future of the EU
 

The curve civilization follows is not a smooth one either. There's a long, slow slope to the peak of any given society, then a sharp, rapid fall to the bottom. Then that culture/society inevitably dies out or becomes far less influential on a world wide scale than it was formerly (very fortunate if it survives in any form). After, a new society or nation will rise from the ashes of the old, or it will be engulfed by another nation. It is the age-old pattern of thigns. However, this won't work the next time, since everything is so integrated on a world wide basis. The entire world will fall to the depths, and then rise again...or not. We'll see. Actually, I hope I don't live to see it.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Hey Atrocities, can I be a regular contributor to The Atrocities Doom and Gloom Newsletter? I think I could help you bring it to new depths. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

If you can be bothered. I mean there's not much point, is there? With illiteracy rates climbing steadily in the western world it's a wonder anyone can still read it, we'll have to start producing a pictures-only version so that the faceless hordes that fuel the capitalist machine can consume without actually having to learn or understand anything. Eventually we'll all just be mindless slaves to some greater power, living in a state of deluded ignorance like in the Matrix, all the while fuelling some huge, bloated and corrupt elite, although to be honest even that doesn't matter an awful lot since the Earth is due to be swallowed up in a nuclear inferno when the sun goes nova in a few billion years anyway, so I don't really see the point in doing that, I mean we're all just meaningless carbon-oxygen motes anyway, cells in a vast, unthinking, uncaring global organism, bouncing randomly off one another while we wait to be recycled into alternative arrangements of matter. Matter. Hah! There's an ironic word- everything's made of matter, but what does it matter? Sigh. Honestly, I'd shoot myself if it not for A) the fact that I'd have to buy a bullet, and in so doing help support the guns companies which are a key part of the sinister global entertainment-industrial-military complex that overshadows human destiny B) an act of such futile despair that it would only add to the world's misery and so help usher in the bleak future of oppression, poverty, misery and drudgery that now is the ultimately-inconsequential fate of all humankind.

Ah well, at least we still have milkshake.

**This post was brought to you by the "Atrocities-is-Marvin-from-the-hitchhiker's-guide" awareness campaign. If you would like to help, please send photos of lovely babies and happy events; tasty confections lovingly home-baked by your wife and/or sweet old grandmother; personal testimonies demonstrating humanity's capacity for generosity and selflessness; cute puppies; upbeat articles from local newspapers that illustrate instances of indiviuals or small groups attaining justice in disputes against multinational corporations or soulless beurocratic regimes; bluebells; mittens; kittens etc to:

Atrocities
The Big Swamp Under the Bridge
Squornshellous Zeta

--
Dogscoff: Seething with apathy.

Re: Future of the EU
 

But kittens are still great right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

Kittens shall rule the Earth.

Dogscoff, I love you man. That was simply brillant. You are now the official editor of my Doom & Gloom News Letter.

Seriously, that was just poetic. Well done!

Re: Future of the EU
 

Shouldn't this be an OT?

The EU is already a Military Alliance, perhaps even a Partnership. Even though each nation has its own military, cooperation runs deep and occurs more often than not - in fact, I think cooperation occurs always.

Re: Future of the EU
 

And I would like to be the first to welcome our new feline overlords.

*me goes out and buys up tons of catnip toys, balls of string, cartons of fresh cream etc...

Re: Future of the EU
 

Strat that is clearly rubbish. You have the French who quit NATOs millitary side and kicked them out of their country during the cold war. Ignore most of Eastern Europe as rotting ex-soviet kit with no spare parts ain't much good. If/when Turkey is a member you'll have all the fun of Turkey/Greece/Cyprus. The German airforce which can't fit any decent missiles to it's planes as then it would stop being 'defensive', France's history of co-operation on any joint defence project (only if they get all the work and none of the bills), EuroJeep which has been going for over 50 years! 50 years!

And that list glosses over such issues as the French trying to sell Exocet to Argentina during the Falklands and the recent 'disagreement' over Iraq.

Frankly I'm struggling to see much succesfull European co-operation apart from Tornado and MBDA.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Why can't Germans fit any decent missiles on their fighters? For as far as I know, the limitations on their military date from before the Second World War. Versailles and all that.

OK, so I'm wrong about the cooperation occuring always, but still it occurs quite often - even if it isn't the whole of Europe that's cooperating. I still consider it to be a MA/Partnership.

Re: Future of the EU
 

well, the thing with no big military in the EU is the fact that the people overhere see no big use in having a big and modern army, I think the Us spends like 10 times as much as the whole EU does on it's army.

and the EU is mainly an economic union, with focus on economy, which is also the only real valid reason the constitution was shot, as it gave too much power to multinationals and such.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Now I think about it the German fighter thing was back in the cold war. Everybody who brought F-4s from the US (UK, Japan and a quite a few others) got Sparrow missiles except Germany, due to internal political arguments as I remember. The money was there (this was the cold war there was always the money http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif), no technical problems but bits of the goverment objected and so the Luftwaffe got no Sparrows.

I think they may have sorted that by now, but with the Green party in coalition goverment anything is possible (except common sense:))


Interesting reasoning boran. I've heard people state the exact opposite, that it gives too much power to unions and will lead us all into German stylee recession and unemployment.

As for the non-millitary, the EUs "Nordic Battle Group" composed of Sweden, Finland, Norway (not quite sure why they're there, but they are) and of course the mighty Estonian army (both of them) has been announced and treatys signed. It's not an army, just troops wearing EU badges supporting the common foreign policy of the EU. Nope nothing army like about that at all....

And if you believe that are you interested in this fine Baghdad timeshare? A very up and coming area.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

I say the EU should allow Germany to modernize their military and re-arm.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Let by-gones be bygones? Certainly.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Interesting and more-or-less on-topic article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4617721.stm

Yeah yeah, we do need armies and weapons and stuff, but wouldn't it be nice if some of that cash could be pointed in more constructive directions?

Re: Future of the EU
 

Bah. People being scared of Germany after all these years? Quite...well, fearful, no? Unless Hitler is reincarnated, happened to live in Germany during yet another mega-depression and everyone ignores Germany, I don't really see how Germany is a threat. It is probably better to let Germany rearm anyway - surrounding nations and people would probably keep an eye on Germany - since it is known to be potentially armed, it would be best to watch it. However, if people thought Germany was helpless and not willing to make weapons...*smirk*...

Of course, a civilian or two might notice army movements and such...in this age, it would be fairly difficult to create a army. Then again, it is the risk of the Digital Age...which confers many advantages, and disadvantages. For example, people with an internet connection or cell phones can keep track of troop movements, with relative ease. Also, now everyone has cars, motor boats, and so on. If a war is started, secrecy would be a difficult thing to pull off. Therefore, deception would become the great shield.

Also, the ability to control communications, civilian properties, war management, and so on shall become critical. Currently, it is too easy for outside influences to affect warfare. I predict that World War III, along with other wars shall change warfare, not just in equipment and tactics, but also behavior and control.

Re: Future of the EU
 

I think it was Germans not trusting themselves. They could of brought them, their allies wanted them to buy them (take some pressure of the RAF and USAF if the cold war kicked off) and they had the money. But they didn't.

Random relavent(ish) point: The Abrams, main tank of the US army, has British armour and a German gun. It does have a US engine, that's why fuel economy is so poor http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

Eh...perhaps. Then again, isn't the Abrahms pretty old, relatively speaking? Sure, there have been retrofits, but the design itself is old. (1980s design)

As to the powerplant...courtesy of Wikipedia.

------------------------------------------------------------
The M1 Abrams is powered by a 1500 hp (1119 kW) Lycoming gas turbine, and a 4-forward/2-reverse speed transmission, giving it a governed top speed of 42 mph (67 km/h) on roads, 30 mph (48 km/h) cross-country. Crews have often removed the engine governor and achieved speeds of around 60 mph (100 km/h) on relatively smooth cross-country ground; however, damage and instability to the drivetrain (especially to the tracks) can occur at speeds above 45 mph, resulting in severe danger for the crew. The tank can be fueled by diesel fuel, kerosene, JP-1 jet fuel, any grade of gasoline, or even (theoretically) alcohol.

Range:
M1 : 498 km (310 mi)
M1A1: 465 km (288 mi)
M1A2: 391 km (243 mi)
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Future of the EU
 

The Abrams is a late 70’s tank and is powered by the Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. The Allison X-1100-3B transmission provides four forward and two reverse gears. The US Army has selected Honeywell International Engines and Systems and General Electric to develop a new LV100-5 gas turbine engine for the M1A2. The new engine is lighter and smaller with rapid acceleration, quieter running and no visible exhaust. The original M1’s are being upgraded to a2 standards, and are no longer deployed in theaters where tank on tank combat is expected.

As to the range, that depends on a lot of variables. The 137,000lb reported weight of the tank is as shipped. Field kits and reactive armor can add another 18,000lbs. And soft terrain such as sand or bog can more than ½ the range. But too much is made of this. When compared to the M60, it is shorter, but the M60 is a medium tank and as such expected to have longer legs at the expense of firepower and armor. Some Soviet tanks have very long reported ranges, but this includes external stores that would not be available during combat (I would hope), And it should be remembered that tanks are not intended to drive themselves 100s of miles into combat. They ride on wheeled carriers or trains.

Britain and Germany both field expellant tanks of their own, although neither has the field qualifications of the M1. But being close allies, I’m sure that the need for modifications has been passed along as they were discovered in combat. Also, the M1 costs a lot of money, and most 1st world countries would like to keep large purchases in their native economies.

Tanks have become land fighters, once the frame is developed; electronics become the area of advancement. The M1 is more or less the state of the art for large tanks. Any bigger, and you won’t be able to deploy it or use existing bridges in combat. The main gun can basically soot to the horizon, with is the limiting factor for direct fire weapons. Recent mods have been electronic in nature, and the all weather capability of the tank has been much improved. There have also been some changes to the exterior of the tank intended to harden it against small caliber rounds and light rockets. The track and road wheels have always been the place to disable tanks with light weapons. While tank killers get lots of press, lighter AP type weapons can do a lot of harm to armored columns.

The US is starting to deploy several wheeled armored vehicles. They are faster, longer legged, and most of all lighter and more air mobile. The M1 was built to go toe to toe with the Soviets on the German plain, and as such is over kill for most to the tasks it faces today. But when called upon to be a main battle tank, it has yet to meet its equal. I’ll quote some results from GW1.
[quote]

In his book "Desert Victory - The War for Kuwait", author Norman Friedman writes that "The U.S. Army in Saudi Arabia probably had about 1,900 M1A1 tanks. Its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground (because of the stabilized gun mount) gave it a capability that proved valuable in the Gulf. The Abrams tank also has… vision devices that proved effective not only at night, but also in the dust and smoke of Kuwaiti daytime. On average, an Abrams outranged an Iraqi tank by about 1,000 meters." The actual numbers of Abrams M1 and M1A1 tanks deployed to the Gulf War (according to official DOD sources) are as follows: A total of 1,848 M1A1 and M1A1 "Heavy Armor" (or HA) tanks were deployed between the US Army and Marine Corp (who fielded 16 M1A1's and 60 M1A1(HA) tanks).
As the Gulf War shifted pace from Operation Desert Shield to Operation Desert Storm, and the preparatory bombardment lifted, U.S. Abrams tanks spearheaded the attack on Iraqi fortifications and engaged enemy tanks whenever and wherever possible. Just as they had done in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi Army used it's tanks as fixed anti-tank and artillery pieces, digging them into the ground to reduce target signature. However, this also prevented their quick movement and Allied air power smashed nearly 50% of Iraq's tank threat before Allied armor had moved across the border. After that the Abrams tanks quickly destroyed a number of Iraqi tanks that did manage to go mobile.
The Abrams' thermal sights were unhampered by the clouds of thick black smoke over the battlefield that were the result of burning Kuwaiti oil wells. In fact many Gunners relied on their "night" sights in full daylight. Such was not the case with the sights in the Iraqi tanks, which were being hit from units they could not even see. Concerns about the M1A1's range were eliminated by a massive resupply operation that will be studied for years as a model of tactical efficiency.
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks. {/quote]

Re: Future of the EU
 

Side note: The Leopard tank is a German tank, and is more widely used IIRC than the Abrams - but that's probably 'cause the US military command is too stinkin' afraid to let anyone else, even their allies, even get close enough to the Abrams tank that they could see where to climb into it.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Honestly, you try for a joke and you end up with more than is healthy to know about US tank engines. Still interesting stuff.

Wouldn't most of the stuff about the M1 apply to the Challenger. Except the Challenger would have better armour, better gun, but slower to target.

Aren't they're Abrams in Australian service and a few other places? I think that was from Steel Panthers so could be utter rubbish.

Not being an expert on such matters can I confirm something, I have heard the LeClerc tank is the fastest main battle tank in the world. Light armour, large engine, etc. This seems too much like a dodgy fact cooked up to produce various bad jokes about French tanks being very fast as reversing so they aren't shot at before surrendering.

Re: Future of the EU
 

Steel Panthers is historically accurate IIRC, so it might very well be true.

The LeClerc MBT is not the fastest MBT in the world, I read about a tank that could reach up to 70 or 80 or so kph on a road and just over 100 kph on a race track, but I forgot it's name and I haven't got the magazine in which I read it on hand.

Huh? Mesa no get dis.

Re: Future of the EU
 

We use Leopard 2s, as well as LAV-25 (though I think we produce our own version) and m113s

Re: Future of the EU
 

The Abrams has a short(ish) range and eats fuel (so does evey other tank but that ain't the point http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif). Also a stereotypical US designed engine will have a fuel efficiency measured in gallons per mile (that would be hundreds of litres per kilometre for European types)

So assume that as the US built the engine it would be like the cars. Not a good joke and doesn't improve with explanation. Hey ho.

Re: Future of the EU
 

When it comes to gas turbines, the US sets the standard. Gas turbines are more durable and reliable than diesel internal combustion engines, and have a much longer service life between overhauls. The US uses them in everything; many of our war ships use geared gas turbines as do many aircraft, landing craft, etc. Generators using turbines fueled by natural gas provide 40% (IIRC) of the tipping power to the US electric grid. Also, when the M1 was in development, a diesel prototype was tested, it had a huge caterpillar diesel engine and was found to be underpowered and with only marginally better fuel economy. The engine was so large that it limited the amount of space that could be used for fuel. The only prototype that met the spec for speed was the Chrysler turbine. Cooling is another factor to be considered, the M1 does not have a liquid cooling system, which is a problem area for every other tank in the world.

Comparing a mil spec engine to something that Detroit puts into mass produced cars is silly. AFAIK, the only US combat vehicle in wide deployment to use a civil production engine is the HMMWV. Of note is the fact that during GW1, the US Army was able to keep its tanks fuel in what was the largest, farthest reaching armored maneuver since WWII. Sure, they had complete freedom of manuvor because of total air superiority, but it would be assumed that in any large armored battle the same would exist. Every time US designed aircraft have gone up against their Soviet contemporaries since the end of the war in SEA, the Soviet aircraft have been swept from the sky. As to providing fuel to the tanks in Germany, there is a propositioned infrastructure that includes hardened storage as well as a system of distribution points. An M1 can be refueled as fast as it can be rearmed. Finally, the war for which the tank was built would have been a delaying action probably in the Fulda Gap. Range would not have been a big issue as the initial battle would have been a delaying action to buy time for American air power to come to bare. By plan, it would have been a shoot and scoot action, designed only to slow the Soviet advance. There was never any confidence that a counter offensive would have been successful. It would have come down to negotiations and the threat of nuclear escalation. Another problem was not knowing what the French would have done. They were/are luke warm as to their NATO responsibilities, and there was some concern that they would close their airspace and sit WW3 out.

Re: Future of the EU
 

A. Joke. I'll repeat that. Joke
B. Any comparison of US vs Soviet aircraft is silly as the pilot quality of the soviet drivers has been poor at best.
C. Not serious. Just in case A. was missed.
D. Well actually Rolls Royces sets the standard of gas turbines, it's just national bias stops the US buying them as often as they should. Take a look at the littoral combat ship engine progamme.
E. Cat engines are awful, only buying Perkins and stealing a great deal of their technology gave them a hope.
F. Lets be honest France sitting it out would have depended on the Soviets agreeing. They might of done or might not have.
G. If you are interested may I point in you in the direction of http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/npapers/np4/np4.pdf where the US tried to work out how the cold war might have panned out if it went hot. Fascinating read


To drag this back on topic, you do have to wonder why other countries are going on with referendums for the EU constitution. If the Dutch and French have said no and all countries have to ratify it does that imply that they will keep on asking Holland and France until they produce the right answer?

Re: Future of the EU
 

Yep, I’ve seen that a few times. It was once held in high esteem, but today is just seen as the beginning of computerized war planning. Also, the gamers did not have access to the full capabilities of their assets, not having the needed clearances.

At the time of the games, US capabilities were not very good with conventional forces. The draw down from SEA and the lowering of standards needed to support that war were still having a dramatic effect on the military. All of the services were also deeply involved in a shift to electronics; this can be seen in how the games were run. Also, the damage done by one particular secretary of state had cost us a generation of fighters, strike aircraft and MBT’s. Depending on which administration was in office, we would have gone nuclear at the first opportunity, or written off SEA and Europe at the first opportunity. It was not until the Regan administration that the military was given the freedom to become the dominate organization that it is today.

Lucky for us that intentions were overestimated on both sides. We now know that the Soviets were more concerned about us invading their satellite states, and had few if any designs on Europe. During that period, the only place were we resolved to defending was the Middle East. I doubt that many of you know how close it came to happening in 73. I can remember standing on a large base here looking at thousands of blue helmets lined up on the parking lots. Fresh paint drying in the sun. At the time it never dawned in me that the men were already gone, the base was all but empty. It was a little ruse for the recon sats. I would assume that the intent was to make someone think that US forces were going somewhere with a UN mandate. Fact is, the unit in question was already gone, and if needed would have been in theater somewhat sooner than expected. I have since learned that the Soviets had an airborne division on the tarmac too. The Soviets were making blatant threats to intervene on behalf of the Syrians and Egyptians. And had the Israelis been able to exploit their crossing with an advance on Cairo, I think the Soviets would have intervened just to salve the pride of their administration. That would have been a dangerous situation. The superpowers would have been forward based on the wrong side of the front lines, and this would have been a real bad situation for Israel and Egypt.

Re: Future of the EU
 

To get this back on topic, I been doing some digging and have come to the conclusion that the problem is freedom of movement and the right to work. The western workers fear an influx of cheap eastern labor. And well they should. They will foot the bill in the long run.
It’s already happened here, the factory jobs went to other countries, and the illegals do the manual labor that is left. Every year sees a lessening of benefits for the true working class. I don’t know the answer, but there is no way the west can raise the rest of the world to our standard of living. So I guess the global economy will pull us down closer to theirs.

Re: Future of the EU
 

It all depends on the jobs that are being done. France, Germany and Italy to a lesser extent have large manufacturing bases, jobs that can be done a hell of alot cheaper in anywhere east, Europe or Asia. The UK doesn't. Oh sure there's bits and bobs and a few specialist firms, but that's the keyword. Specialist and requires a high level of knowledge and experience to get it done. The UK economy is now mainly services and other non-manual jobs.

I would say that's one of the reasons why average Eurozone unemployment rate is 10%+ and rising while the UK rate is less than 5% and falling. Of course there are others, but you can't lose a job you don't have.

What will happen in the future? Well prediction is a mugs game so I'm keeping my mouth shut http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Future of the EU
 

I was going to let this pass, but what the heck. I don’t think pilots are the problem with the performance of soviet aircraft. Now that we jointly train with them, they are seen as being of high quality. The problem is with their command and control structure and the lack of flexibility in their actions

Re: Future of the EU
 

As the average Russian unit gets barely enough hours to stay qualified on the jet, that's a problem. Wasn't a problem in the Cold War and of course back then the whole support and ground infrastructure also worked. They also had numbers and kit such as the AA-11. (So good that when Germany re-unified and the West German airforce got their hands on one they immediatedly started developing the IRIS-T as copy with Western electronics)

As I understood your point you were talking about US designed aircraft vs Soviet designed aircraft in combat that has happened. The only ones I can thing off all have one side with well trained pilots and decent C3I support on the ground against badly trained pilots with no backup. Always favouring the side with the US planes. So you can't judge the planes on that performance. I would also point you at the recent India-US airforce exercises where the F-15s were badly mauled by the Flankers. Now it may have been a rigged exercise (no AWACS and limited range AMRAAMS) but the Indians operated under the same restrictions (the fact they don't own any AWACS platforms is neither here nor there).

So just assuming the Soviet airforce would be swept from the sky is a tad arrogant.

Re: Future of the EU
 

I wouldn’t call that an exorcise, more like a sales pitch for the F22. Which is what it became and may have been from the beginning. 2nd line F15’s that were not allowed to use their radars in passive mode, not to mention equipped with older radars. No Awacs support, so they just broadcast their positions until the SU’s fired on them. And with a 100km range advantage, guess who won. Had it been F14’s with AIM 54’s it would have been a little different outcome. And had the F15’s been free to use normal tactics; I would think it would have been a lot different.

AA 10 70-170km

AIM 120 50-70km

AIM 54 210+km


Much has been said about long range kills with advanced missiles, but the reality has usually been that the dirty work happens closer in.

Here is the transcript of the first AIM 120 kill. While the target was marked as hostile at long range, the closing speeds insured that combat occurred much closer in.
By the time Benji 41 had weapons release, the range was down to 8 miles. On tape, this is about a 15 second conversation.

Re: Future of the EU
 

No AIM-54s in active service anymore. Soon to be no F-14s either. Anyway back to the point.

I'm not saying it was a realistic exercise, it clearly was designed to say 'Look the F-15s are rubbish! Buy the F-22 or we're all going to die,' However the Indians had no AWACS, and were using older model Flankers as well. Also using Indian designed radars which weren't brand spanking new either.

So without the big force multiplier of brand new radars or AWACS the comparable era Soviet/Russian planes beat the US planes. So just saying Soviet designed planes would be swept from the sky is a big statement and based on one sided fights. Even the forces/training/etc up and it becomes a fight.