Day 1 Morning Session: New Canada’s Military Culture
After breakfast, Captain Ocampo escorts the Canadian delegation over to one of the buildings in the complex – the Hans Kurth Memorial Meeting Center. It’s a simple building, designed to be a space for meetings, presentations, or briefings. The lobby is spacious. There are bathrooms to either side of the lobby as well as various artifacts from the ROD’s military history, such as a piece of the Berlin Wall and a Japanese machine gun captured during World War 2. There is also a plaque on the wall with a picture and biography of Captain Hans Kurth, an infantry company commander who was killed in Iraq in 2004.
Captain Ocampo leads you into a large conference room where you are greeted by the Minister of Defense, the Honorable Magnus McHammerhands. McHammerhands introduces the ROD chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. He also introduces you to the head of the Dalmatian Intelligence Service, the chief historian, and the 8 other field grade staff officers in the room. He also introduces a dalmatian named Daisy and a black lab named Emmie who are in the conference room, making the rounds to get head scratches and tummy rubs.
This morning we would like to talk about Canada’s military and its relationship with the rest of the country. We believe that one of the foundations of a professional military force is its relationship with the nation it serves. Here are some ideas and recommendations for discussion:
• The military represents the nation. Its behavior is a projection of national interest and ideals. The world will see the Canadian military and associate what they do with the country as a whole.
• The military should be representative of the nation. All ethnic, races, and religious groups should be represented. All regions and socioeconomic classes. There need not be quotas, but there should not be barriers to any particular group of people.
• The nation should support its military. There should be some level of pride in the troops and what they represent, even if specific policies are not popular.
• A military career should be a positive and attainable goal in Canada. There should be no military royalty or warrior class. Leaders should be appointed based on experience, merit, and ability, not on wealth or family tree.
The situation in Canada is not ideal at the moment, but much of the protesting seems to be directed at the government that deployed the troops, not at the troops themselves who are seen as only following orders. How can you, as the leaders of the Canadian military, build a stronger relationship with the country that you serve? How can you maintain military bearing and discipline, while embracing your citizens and their cultures?
Republic of Dalmatia Imagi-Nation
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am
(General, George Thornton): "The reason the Canadian Citizens joins the Military is for the adventure but its mostly for the money they earned for their services to our country and the added benefit of earning respect for their community, and to the main governing body, its more of a job then a refection of our country as a whole, pretty much our relationship goes as follows, Join the Military and you'll be justly rewarded for your dedication."
(General, Vincent May): "Just like what the Army General said, the career in the military is a Positive and attainable one as you get better income and earn respect if you sign up, but when it comes to Leadership through, that is one such thing that is excluded from the non-officer ranks, and theirs a good reason why its in place. if an officer that was raised from the ranks ether gets captured or decides to defect and joins a terror group like AL-Kabab, it gives the enemy a tactical advantage as they can gain the knowledge on Western military strategies and tactics and used them against us, which can be a headache to not only our military but to other Western military's as well, imagine seeing AL-Kabab in the battlefield using tactics similar to the USMC as their lead by a rouge US officer."
(Major Tim Connor): "The suggestion of cultural representation in the military is...a rather touchy and... uncomfortable subject, its rather... complicated to explain that part when it comes to our country of course."
(General, Vincent May): "Just like what the Army General said, the career in the military is a Positive and attainable one as you get better income and earn respect if you sign up, but when it comes to Leadership through, that is one such thing that is excluded from the non-officer ranks, and theirs a good reason why its in place. if an officer that was raised from the ranks ether gets captured or decides to defect and joins a terror group like AL-Kabab, it gives the enemy a tactical advantage as they can gain the knowledge on Western military strategies and tactics and used them against us, which can be a headache to not only our military but to other Western military's as well, imagine seeing AL-Kabab in the battlefield using tactics similar to the USMC as their lead by a rouge US officer."
(Major Tim Connor): "The suggestion of cultural representation in the military is...a rather touchy and... uncomfortable subject, its rather... complicated to explain that part when it comes to our country of course."
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
General May, your comments are quite bewildering. Military tactics and doctrine are all over the internet. Anyone can download field manuals and SOPs, to include terrorist groups or even those crazy wargamers. Doctrine and tactics are already in the wrong hands! All the more reason to train your enlisted to be leaders. If you want to have a professional force, you must create professionals, not just day laborers in uniform.
It's your country and we are just making recommendations, but remember why you are here. You want to learn how to turn the Canadian military into a competent and professional force.
It's your country and we are just making recommendations, but remember why you are here. You want to learn how to turn the Canadian military into a competent and professional force.
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
After a decent lunch at the DFAC, the participants return to the conference room for the afternoon session. Emmie is asleep in the corner of the room, but Daisy seems to have disappeared.
Day 1 Afternoon Session: The Warrior Ethos
Modern warfare is complex. It involves aircraft flying overhead, ships offshore, artillery and rockets firing deep into enemy territory, drones buzzing around, and fighting in the electronic and cyber spectrums. But all this high-tech gadgetry and multi-dimensional focus cannot change the fact that at some point a young soldier will have to take physical possession of a piece of ground and be prepared to shoot, stab, bludgeon, or strangle another human being that is trying to stop him.
To be blunt, Canada’s soldiers need to toughen up. They need to embrace the warrior spirit. They need to be prepared to do ugly, unimaginable things to survive and to win. This attitude needs to exist in every branch of the service, in combat units and in support units. Here are some points and recommendations to discuss:
• Canada’s soldiers need to learn controlled aggression. They need to want to fight, to be aggressive and competitive. They need to want to win. They also need to be disciplined though. They need to be cold and calculating in how, where, and when they give in to their violent animal instincts.
• Discipline is essential. Discipline is NOT mindless following of orders. Discipline is adherence to principles and a code of conduct. You want your troops to think.
• Troops should have pride in their units. Canada has a fantastic military heritage that it should leverage to build esprit de corps.
• Professional soldiers are experts in their field. They should know their weapon systems intimately, know how to fight without weapons, know field craft and survival. Officers and senior NCOs should know how to employ their units and weapons, how to coordinate with other units, know to take care of their troops. They should know LOGISTICS. Everyone should know how to maintain their own weapons, equipment, and vehicles.
Canada already got a taste of the warrior ethos at Grunt Week, but what can you do to impart this culture into the whole force? How do you get the troops to want to fight? How do you make them physically and mentally tough? How do you get them to laugh at the gas chamber?
Imagine for just a second a tired Canadian soldier. He’s been up for 36 hours. He just walked 5 miles in the dark with a 100 lb rucksack. His unit attacked an enemy position and prevailed after shooting and stabbing its way through a bunker complex. The adrenaline is wearing off and exhaustion is setting in. A civilian technician arrives to service this soldier’s rifle. The soldier jumps to his feet ready to punch the technician who is reaching for his rifle. This young warrior wants to beat the technician to death, but he controls himself. He is disciplined. He picks up his own rifle and moves away to service it himself alongside his mates, because he is a professional and he can maintain his own weapon.
How do you get your soldiers to be this tired Canadian soldier?
Day 1 Afternoon Session: The Warrior Ethos
Modern warfare is complex. It involves aircraft flying overhead, ships offshore, artillery and rockets firing deep into enemy territory, drones buzzing around, and fighting in the electronic and cyber spectrums. But all this high-tech gadgetry and multi-dimensional focus cannot change the fact that at some point a young soldier will have to take physical possession of a piece of ground and be prepared to shoot, stab, bludgeon, or strangle another human being that is trying to stop him.
To be blunt, Canada’s soldiers need to toughen up. They need to embrace the warrior spirit. They need to be prepared to do ugly, unimaginable things to survive and to win. This attitude needs to exist in every branch of the service, in combat units and in support units. Here are some points and recommendations to discuss:
• Canada’s soldiers need to learn controlled aggression. They need to want to fight, to be aggressive and competitive. They need to want to win. They also need to be disciplined though. They need to be cold and calculating in how, where, and when they give in to their violent animal instincts.
• Discipline is essential. Discipline is NOT mindless following of orders. Discipline is adherence to principles and a code of conduct. You want your troops to think.
• Troops should have pride in their units. Canada has a fantastic military heritage that it should leverage to build esprit de corps.
• Professional soldiers are experts in their field. They should know their weapon systems intimately, know how to fight without weapons, know field craft and survival. Officers and senior NCOs should know how to employ their units and weapons, how to coordinate with other units, know to take care of their troops. They should know LOGISTICS. Everyone should know how to maintain their own weapons, equipment, and vehicles.
Canada already got a taste of the warrior ethos at Grunt Week, but what can you do to impart this culture into the whole force? How do you get the troops to want to fight? How do you make them physically and mentally tough? How do you get them to laugh at the gas chamber?
Imagine for just a second a tired Canadian soldier. He’s been up for 36 hours. He just walked 5 miles in the dark with a 100 lb rucksack. His unit attacked an enemy position and prevailed after shooting and stabbing its way through a bunker complex. The adrenaline is wearing off and exhaustion is setting in. A civilian technician arrives to service this soldier’s rifle. The soldier jumps to his feet ready to punch the technician who is reaching for his rifle. This young warrior wants to beat the technician to death, but he controls himself. He is disciplined. He picks up his own rifle and moves away to service it himself alongside his mates, because he is a professional and he can maintain his own weapon.
How do you get your soldiers to be this tired Canadian soldier?
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am
(Brigadier General, Scott McCoy): "Expose our soldiers in a Gas Chamber!?! Good God!!."
(General Thornton): "The New Canadian Army does not possess a Gas Chamber since the New Canadian Government banned all forms of WMD's in the country, it would be considered illegal to do that on our own troops, but the infantry are given training to use a Gas Mask in case the enemy uses such weapons on the field. As for this Tired Solider, we do see the benefits of toughing up the soldiers for the fight, but our Army budget went towards expertly training the crews of our Leapord 2 Tanks as the vehicles are rather expensive to replace if they are lost in Combat as we have to import it from Germany, the Infantry training was meant so we can quickly raise regiments easily and in a cost effective manner, we do discipline the troops to a certain extent, but its to ensure they will carry out the orders of the superior officers to the letter.
(Admiral Kirk): "Im not sure about giving the Royal Canadian Navy Crews the same kind of training as the Canadian Army, since we fight at sea in our ships, not on land, as the crew just needs to learn how to use the ships guns. discipline is necessary, but its mostly used by the ships officers to govern the crew and keep them in line and to root out any mutineers onboard, besides most of the crew serving are taken by the press gang system."
(General Thornton): "The New Canadian Army does not possess a Gas Chamber since the New Canadian Government banned all forms of WMD's in the country, it would be considered illegal to do that on our own troops, but the infantry are given training to use a Gas Mask in case the enemy uses such weapons on the field. As for this Tired Solider, we do see the benefits of toughing up the soldiers for the fight, but our Army budget went towards expertly training the crews of our Leapord 2 Tanks as the vehicles are rather expensive to replace if they are lost in Combat as we have to import it from Germany, the Infantry training was meant so we can quickly raise regiments easily and in a cost effective manner, we do discipline the troops to a certain extent, but its to ensure they will carry out the orders of the superior officers to the letter.
(Admiral Kirk): "Im not sure about giving the Royal Canadian Navy Crews the same kind of training as the Canadian Army, since we fight at sea in our ships, not on land, as the crew just needs to learn how to use the ships guns. discipline is necessary, but its mostly used by the ships officers to govern the crew and keep them in line and to root out any mutineers onboard, besides most of the crew serving are taken by the press gang system."
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
Apparently, we misunderstood the reason you came to this meeting. It seems that you flew halfway across the Pacific to make excuses for your poor military and why you cannot do anything to improve it. We will be happy to continue the meetings for the next 4 days if you are interested in learning how to build a professional military, but if you are just going to explain why you cannot change anything than you might as well just go home now. Thus far we have only heard excuses.
Why are you so terrified of a gas chamber? It used CS gas (also known as tear gas) and it’s made of plywood. If you would like, the ROD officers present in this room can take a collection of the money in our pockets at this moment and buy you a gas chamber. Then you can just toss a CS grenade into it for training if that isn’t too difficult for your troops.
And please tell me that your navy uses conscription and not impressment. The press gangs essentially kidnap people for service. Your navy crews certainly need to do more than just “learn to use their guns†and your attitude toward the enlisted sailors is abhorrent. Apparently, your attitude toward sailors is the same as your attitude toward the infantry. If you can’t afford all of your tanks AND highly training infantry, then you need to scale back the size of your army.
Why are you so terrified of a gas chamber? It used CS gas (also known as tear gas) and it’s made of plywood. If you would like, the ROD officers present in this room can take a collection of the money in our pockets at this moment and buy you a gas chamber. Then you can just toss a CS grenade into it for training if that isn’t too difficult for your troops.
And please tell me that your navy uses conscription and not impressment. The press gangs essentially kidnap people for service. Your navy crews certainly need to do more than just “learn to use their guns†and your attitude toward the enlisted sailors is abhorrent. Apparently, your attitude toward sailors is the same as your attitude toward the infantry. If you can’t afford all of your tanks AND highly training infantry, then you need to scale back the size of your army.
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3475
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
Apparently, Redleg, you underestimated the determination of the New Canadians to remain ignorant of what it takes to field an effective army. Canada is stubbornly obtuse and incapable of objective self-evaluation. At this rate, Canada will team n a pox on the international community, careening around various parts of the world, shooting up the place like a passel of American cowboys fresh off the trail and looking for trouble. The Army simply refused to learn anything and, while your efforts are commendable, Canada will not learn anything at all until it admits its faults to itself. You just can't fix wilful stupid. In fact, you probably SHOULDN'T. The LAST thing the world needs are more EFFECTIVE stupid Canadians. At the current rate, the Canadians themselves will rid us of the problem. Please don't interfere.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am
(Brigadier General, Scott McCoy): "Wait? the Gas Chamber is using Tear Gas for training? Normally when we think of a Gas Chamber is normally used as a tool of execution by deadly gas."
(General Thornton): "I guess we where misunderstood, very well we will adopt these ideas into the infantry training program as it seems to have some merit."
(Admiral Kirk): "The Royal Canadian Navy will do the same with our sailors, as for the Press Gang system its only used when we are in desperate need for sailors to fill in, its not used regularly."
(General Thornton): "Let go on with this meeting."
(General Thornton): "I guess we where misunderstood, very well we will adopt these ideas into the infantry training program as it seems to have some merit."
(Admiral Kirk): "The Royal Canadian Navy will do the same with our sailors, as for the Press Gang system its only used when we are in desperate need for sailors to fill in, its not used regularly."
(General Thornton): "Let go on with this meeting."
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
After a good night’s sleep, the ROD and Canadian teams are ready for another day of discussions. We are glad that the Canadians are at least considering the topics covered. It’s up to Canada to implement any changes, but it’s quite clear that changes are necessary, and the status quo will only lead to disaster.
Daisy is back with us this morning, but Emmie has disappeared. Joining us is a young boxer named Randy. Randy is young and has a lot of energy…too much energy for Daisy’s liking. She snaps at Randy to let him know that this is serious business, it’s not a playground. Randy moves to the other end of the room for some head scratching.
Day 2 Morning Session: Strategic Objectives
Strategic and theater-level objectives are critical. This is not tactical decision making, this is decided whether or not to invade another country or whether to initiate a military campaign. Activity in Mauritania and Venezuela are recent examples. LOGISTICS are enormously important at this level. Here are some points for discussion:
• Always have a mission. What do you want to accomplish? Never initiate a military campaign without deciding what you want to do and how you will know when you are done. What is the desired end-state?
• What does Canada stand for? Does military intervention fit with your values and national identity?
• What are Canadians willing to kill for? What are you willing to die for? Undertaking a military campaign will undoubtedly include both killing and dying. Is it worth what you are trying to accomplish?
• Alliances and partnerships are important. Sometimes you can operate by yourself, but sometimes you need help. Sometimes the help you need is not with the fighting…it can be in the area of communications, logistics, or even public opinion. The enemy of your enemy can be your ally, even if you don’t like them.
Daisy is back with us this morning, but Emmie has disappeared. Joining us is a young boxer named Randy. Randy is young and has a lot of energy…too much energy for Daisy’s liking. She snaps at Randy to let him know that this is serious business, it’s not a playground. Randy moves to the other end of the room for some head scratching.
Day 2 Morning Session: Strategic Objectives
Strategic and theater-level objectives are critical. This is not tactical decision making, this is decided whether or not to invade another country or whether to initiate a military campaign. Activity in Mauritania and Venezuela are recent examples. LOGISTICS are enormously important at this level. Here are some points for discussion:
• Always have a mission. What do you want to accomplish? Never initiate a military campaign without deciding what you want to do and how you will know when you are done. What is the desired end-state?
• What does Canada stand for? Does military intervention fit with your values and national identity?
• What are Canadians willing to kill for? What are you willing to die for? Undertaking a military campaign will undoubtedly include both killing and dying. Is it worth what you are trying to accomplish?
• Alliances and partnerships are important. Sometimes you can operate by yourself, but sometimes you need help. Sometimes the help you need is not with the fighting…it can be in the area of communications, logistics, or even public opinion. The enemy of your enemy can be your ally, even if you don’t like them.
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am
(General Thornton): "New Canada has always respond to threats all across the world from rebellions in forgien country's to Terror attacks, etc we would not have considered backing down in a military engagement, our mission in those two countries was to remove the Terror groups there, to which our intel thought they where uneducated in practicing Conventional Warfare, the solution was to deploy forces on mass to overwhelm the enemy and remove the terror group from the country, logistics can be a big task to support a large force but, it was worth it. As for Alliances and partnerships we only side with country's are Canada's most trusted allies in our Coalition."
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3864
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
After a decent lunch at the DFAC and a short walk with Daisy and Randy, we start on the next session.
Day 2 Afternoon Session: Expeditionary Warfare
Canada does not have any significant threats on its land borders. That means that, for the army at least, it will have to travel to fight. The navy and air force fight at sea and in the air, but if the battlefield is a significant distance from home, they will have to set up bases to operate from as well. This is called expeditionary warfare – the deployment of troops to fight abroad.
Expeditionary warfare is all about LOGISTICS. It’s about getting the right resources to the right place at the right time. Those assets include combat forces, support units, supplies, and the transporting units themselves. And all of these troops that you are moving across the globe have to arrive in a condition to fight.
Also remember that you can deploy troops without fighting. Power Projection can be used to threaten someone, or to demonstrate military might as a deterrent. Here are some points for us to discuss:
• What is the best way to project power? Navy ships off the coast? Troops on the ground? If you just want to demonstrate commitment to a cause you don’t necessarily need to deploy legions of troops.
• Strategic mobility and tactical mobility are not the same thing. Tactical mobility is moving about the battlefield, or even around the theater of operations. Strategic mobility is moving troops, equipment, and supplies from one theater to another. Many tactical transports (like helicopters) are not capable of strategic movement. Transport aircraft are great for moving people and some supplies and small vehicles, but their capacity is extremely limited compared to ships.
• Think very carefully about what you need to deploy. Do you really need 100,000 troops in an operation? Remember that you have to sustain whatever you deploy, and that sustainment takes up valuable resources just like the troops and vehicles do.
• You MUST plan ahead for sustainment. It takes a while to ships to move around the globe. You need to anticipate needs and be proactive in sending personnel, equipment, or supplies.
Remember that construction takes time as well. If you don’t have allies that are willing to let you use their airfields and facilities, you may have to build them yourself. Building things takes time and resources.
Bottom line for expeditionary warfare is this: you have to transport everything. Planning is key – what you’re deploying, how you’re getting it there, how long it will take, and in what order you are moving it.
Day 2 Afternoon Session: Expeditionary Warfare
Canada does not have any significant threats on its land borders. That means that, for the army at least, it will have to travel to fight. The navy and air force fight at sea and in the air, but if the battlefield is a significant distance from home, they will have to set up bases to operate from as well. This is called expeditionary warfare – the deployment of troops to fight abroad.
Expeditionary warfare is all about LOGISTICS. It’s about getting the right resources to the right place at the right time. Those assets include combat forces, support units, supplies, and the transporting units themselves. And all of these troops that you are moving across the globe have to arrive in a condition to fight.
Also remember that you can deploy troops without fighting. Power Projection can be used to threaten someone, or to demonstrate military might as a deterrent. Here are some points for us to discuss:
• What is the best way to project power? Navy ships off the coast? Troops on the ground? If you just want to demonstrate commitment to a cause you don’t necessarily need to deploy legions of troops.
• Strategic mobility and tactical mobility are not the same thing. Tactical mobility is moving about the battlefield, or even around the theater of operations. Strategic mobility is moving troops, equipment, and supplies from one theater to another. Many tactical transports (like helicopters) are not capable of strategic movement. Transport aircraft are great for moving people and some supplies and small vehicles, but their capacity is extremely limited compared to ships.
• Think very carefully about what you need to deploy. Do you really need 100,000 troops in an operation? Remember that you have to sustain whatever you deploy, and that sustainment takes up valuable resources just like the troops and vehicles do.
• You MUST plan ahead for sustainment. It takes a while to ships to move around the globe. You need to anticipate needs and be proactive in sending personnel, equipment, or supplies.
Remember that construction takes time as well. If you don’t have allies that are willing to let you use their airfields and facilities, you may have to build them yourself. Building things takes time and resources.
Bottom line for expeditionary warfare is this: you have to transport everything. Planning is key – what you’re deploying, how you’re getting it there, how long it will take, and in what order you are moving it.
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am
(Admiral Kirk): "Well there is one minor threat near New Canada that where cracking down on, mainly the smuggling and transportation of the drug Cannabis from the island nation of Karmanaskis, as you know Cannabis has been made illegal by the New Canadian Government last year, under the Cannabis Prohibition Act, the Royal Canadian Navy is working in conjunction with the New Canadian Coast Guard to stop the Trafficking of this insidious plant, same goes for the RCMP at the 49th parallel border."
(General Thornton): "When It comes to Logistics its based on what we where dealing with such as Mauritania's capital, it would take thousands of troops just to storm into the city to combat the Militants, as under the strict guidelines of the New Canadian Army's Battlefield doctrine, where basicly the sledgehammer on the ground. however logistics is carried out the Quartermaster and the Main Command Staff who governs the operation."
(Major Tim Connor): "Yes like what the Army General said, its up to the top officers to make logistical choices, and we did demonstrate our ability to quickly build bases of our own in Mauritania with the engineers and a large army of Civilian Construction workers we brought in."
(General Thornton): "When It comes to Logistics its based on what we where dealing with such as Mauritania's capital, it would take thousands of troops just to storm into the city to combat the Militants, as under the strict guidelines of the New Canadian Army's Battlefield doctrine, where basicly the sledgehammer on the ground. however logistics is carried out the Quartermaster and the Main Command Staff who governs the operation."
(Major Tim Connor): "Yes like what the Army General said, its up to the top officers to make logistical choices, and we did demonstrate our ability to quickly build bases of our own in Mauritania with the engineers and a large army of Civilian Construction workers we brought in."
-
chrisswim
- E5
- Posts: 7316
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
Dang, its their fault, they should have gotten this right. We did our part, then we're finished thank you very much...!
Use this example....
1965: Suharto's Indonesia was being very aggressive towards Malaysia / the RAF.
Tupolev Tu-16 (Badger) from a base in Sumatra started runs down Malaysia towards Singapore.
The ADS was very effective, but the MOD decided to play a trump card.
Apologies, the dates are lost in the sands of time, but in 1965 three Vulcans took off from RAF Butterworth.
They were in flight refuelled by Victors on detachment to RAF Tangah.
The first Vulvan entered the Java FIR and was challenged.
My recollections were as follows:
'This is Jakarta control. Please identify yourself.'
'This is Britannic, a four jet, FL 600 en route to Darwin'.
Jakarta control, 'Britannic means RAF?'
'Yes'.
'Aircraft type?'
'Avro Vulcan.'
Total rt silence.
Thirty minutes late another high flyer appeared on the Jakarta FIR radar.
Repeat conversation.
Thirty minutes later the third Vulcan passed over Jakarta without any rt contact.
All Tupolev Tu-16 (Badger) incursions ceased.
It's called 'Projecting strategic presence.'
Post script: Victor decided to do a victory fly past at Tangah, but forgot he had a 1k litre tank in the bomb bay.
Alas, he pulled too much G and presented a spectacular pyrotechnic along the main runway :-O
Use this example....
1965: Suharto's Indonesia was being very aggressive towards Malaysia / the RAF.
Tupolev Tu-16 (Badger) from a base in Sumatra started runs down Malaysia towards Singapore.
The ADS was very effective, but the MOD decided to play a trump card.
Apologies, the dates are lost in the sands of time, but in 1965 three Vulcans took off from RAF Butterworth.
They were in flight refuelled by Victors on detachment to RAF Tangah.
The first Vulvan entered the Java FIR and was challenged.
My recollections were as follows:
'This is Jakarta control. Please identify yourself.'
'This is Britannic, a four jet, FL 600 en route to Darwin'.
Jakarta control, 'Britannic means RAF?'
'Yes'.
'Aircraft type?'
'Avro Vulcan.'
Total rt silence.
Thirty minutes late another high flyer appeared on the Jakarta FIR radar.
Repeat conversation.
Thirty minutes later the third Vulcan passed over Jakarta without any rt contact.
All Tupolev Tu-16 (Badger) incursions ceased.
It's called 'Projecting strategic presence.'
Post script: Victor decided to do a victory fly past at Tangah, but forgot he had a 1k litre tank in the bomb bay.
Alas, he pulled too much G and presented a spectacular pyrotechnic along the main runway :-O
Chris
-
MechCommander
- E5
- Posts: 3581
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 1:09 am