Des nouvelles de la British Army

[Service de semaine]

Le dernier tue en Afganistan a ete nomme. Il s'agit du Rifleman Nash du 1 Rifles.

De nationalite australienne, il s'etait engage le 9 mars 2008...a peine le temps de faire ses classes et d'apprendre les bases du boulot de fantassin et neuf mois plus tard il est tue au combat.

"An Australian Citizen, Rifleman Stuart Nash was born in Sydney on 19 April 1987, and enlisted in The Rifles on 9 March 2008 in Gloucester. He attended the Combat Infantryman's Course at the Infantry Training Centre in Catterick, where he quickly established himself as a popular and confident character with maturity beyond his years and a positive influence on his peers".

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/RiflemanStuartNashKilledInAfghanistan.htm

RIP

[Samsquamch]

Quelle horreur, l'age de mon petit frère. Depuis 2001, cette guerre aurait pu être gagnée depuis longtemps, à coup de construction d'écoles et de dispensaires...

RIP, real peace.

[Philippe Top-Force]

Catalogue complet des véhicules et équipements de la British Army.

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/ARMY_VEHICLES_EQUIPMENT.pdf

En le lisant, il y a des progrets à faire dans la communication de notre MinDef.  :-[

Rien que sur leur site internet

http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/equipment.aspx

The Warthog is on its way

An Equipment and Logistics news article

19 Dec 08

Providing improved protection to British troops in Afghanistan 100 Bronco vehicles have been bought by the MOD from Singapore Technologies Kinetics to be converted into Warthog armoured vehicles.

Bronco will become the armoured, all-terrain vehicle Warthog

Bronco will arrive in the UK in 2009 to undergo transformation to become the armoured, all-terrain vehicle Warthog, replacing the Viking in Afghanistan.

Warthog will be powered by a 7.2 litre engine producing 350 bhp and will be able to move through water - all while carrying up to 14 troops and offering advanced armoured protection that is currently available with the Viking.

When not in the water, the highly agile, all-terrain vehicle will be able to climb steep gradients, cling to severe slopes, tackle vertical obstacles and roll across trenches.

Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:

"Warthog will be true to its name as a beast of a vehicle that can manoeuvre across difficult terrain, power-up steep gradients and even cling to slopes. Warthog will provide improved protection to our troops in Afghanistan's Green Zone, where water and a fragile infrastructure make it difficult for other vehicles to operate. It will be able to move through deep water while carrying troops at the heart of our operations."

A protected gun mount, extra armour, specialist electronic counter-measure equipment and communications tools will be added before Warthog is deployed on operations.

Warthog will be powered by a 7.2 litre engine producing 350 bhp and will be able to move through water

Warthog will come in four variants - a troop carrier, an ambulance, a command vehicle and a repair and recovery vehicle. The ambulance variant will be capable of carrying casualties, medics and kit. Warthog's repair and recovery variant will be fitted with a crane and winch, and will have the capability of towing another 18-tonne Warthog vehicle back from the front line.

President of Singapore Technologies Kinetics, Mr Chee Jhuen Sew, said:

"We have been delighted by the close and constructive relationship established between the UK MOD and ST Kinetics. UOR [urgent Operational Requirements]contracts demand speed, openness and trust; that all these have been realised across culture and distance testifies to the professionalism existing within the UK MOD today."

More than 100 Bronco vehicles have been bought from Singapore Technologies Kinetics in a deal that is worth over £150million.

They are just one of a number of Protected Patrol Vehicles that will be bought as part of a £700million package of Urgent Operational Requirements recently announced by the Defence Secretary John Hutton.

Bronco will be delivered to the UK in 2009 where it will undergo integration work. It is currently in service with the Singaporean Armed Forces.

When the Vikings are brought back from Afghanistan they will be used by the Royal Marines on training exercises.

[Dadou]

Salut

Paru  hier dans le STRAITS TIME

[Buzz]

depuis quand l'armée britannique utilise des SAR 21?

[Mat]

Elle ne l'utilise pas, mais cette arme fait partie (si j'ai bien compris le papier) du catalogue de ST Engineering, au même titre que le Bronco dont il est question ou que le CIS40, l'Ultimax100 (qu'il est pourri ce nom  :lol:)...

mat

[Buzz]

Ok merci pour l'info mat

[Will]

est ce un avion, est ce un oiseau? non c est Will qui passe vite dire bonjour et bonne annee rapidement (mais en retard)  =D

Apres l armure Chobham, les scientifiques au UK proposent le super bainite, un acier ultra restistante mais produit pour un fraction du prix de armure traditionnel et qui pese la moitie du poids. Le metal est produit par un process a bas temperature et n utilise pas de "alloy", aussi on remarque les trous en surface pour "deflect" les projectiles. Des premiers exemples sont en tests balistiques actuellement.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7811567.stm

http://www.sourceuk.net/article/11/11531/in_defence_of_science.html

Sans etre trop rapide, j espere que ceci va etre un tres important devellepoment, qui reduit le cout des vehicules blindes tres grandement et donne un bon niveau de protection =|

[collectionneur]

Moins lourd, moins cher et plus solide  :O

Si ces promesses se réalisent, les ingénieurs qui ont conçu cela vont ce faire déboucher par l'industrie automobile  :lol:

[Philippe Top-Force]

LONDRES (Reuters) - Thales a remporté un contrat de plus de 200 millions de livres (212 millions d'euros) en Grande-Bretagne portant sur la vente de missiles Starstreak destinés aux forces armées britanniques.

Ce contrat mobilisera une centaine d'emplois du site de Belfast, où le ministre de la Défense britannique Quentin Davies a annoncé le contrat vendredi, précise Thales dans un communiqué.

Le Starstreak est un missile terre-air de courte portée comportant trois mini-missiles dotés chacun de leur propre système de guidage et charges explosives.

Le contrat de Thales couvre également la maintenance des missiles jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient retirés du service en 2020

[g4lly]

Moins lourd, moins cher et plus solide  :O

La solution des trou trou est une vieille solution de "perforated armour" abandonnée sur les char francais et allemand depuis que la menace n'est plus essentiellement les fleche du pacte de varsovie.

Visiblement comme d'habitude on revient au ancienne méthode en les agrémentant avec des nouvelles pour pallier les lacunes quelles avaient.

Will le blindage st destiné au char lourd ou plutot au blindé moyen?

Dans l'article ... on dit qu'en fait le truc est pas plus solide que les meilleurs acier de blindage etranger ... juste qu'il est nettement moins cher.

“Due to the unique process by which we have developed this new armour, Super Bainite is able to match the ballistic performance of the very best off-shore armour steels for a fraction of their cost.”

...

Super Bainite develops its exceptional strength through a new low-temperature process called "isothermal hardening".

The steel is heated to 1,000C, cooled to about 200C and then held at this temperature for a period of time before cooling to room temperature. Initially, the team held the steel at about 200C for just over two weeks to achieve the right ballistic protection.

However, this was too slow for the process to be commercialised. The researchers subsequently reduced the heat treatment time to eight hours by transforming the steel at 250C instead of 200C.

Importantly, the work gives the UK an indigenous armour steel manufacturing capability, benefiting industry.

[Service de semaine]

Quand le Chief of the Defense Staff tape un grand coup dans la fourmiliere en expliquant que plus de la moitie des pertes britanniques en Afghanistan sont dues aux erreurs et friendly fires.....ou  comment s'assurer l'adhesion de la troupe !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4329353/Defence-chiefs-blame-misakes-by-troops-for-damaging-UKs-fighting-ability.html

In the article, the CDS writes that mistakes made by British troops on the battlefields in Helmand are having more of an effect on the fighting capability of the armed forces than the Taliban.

He writes: "Evidence shows that more than half our accidents and incidents are down to human factors. In other words it is our people who are causing the most damage to our fighting capability. We must do something to drive down the number of accidents and incidents.

(...)

Sir Jock's comments come a week after two British soldiers were killed in a suspected friendly fire attack in Helmand, southern Afghanistan, during a battle with the Taliban.

Captain Tom Sawyer, 26, and Corporal Danny Winter, 28, were killed when they were hit by a Javelin missile fired by British troops on January 14th.

(...)

Sir Jock's comments follow the publication of a document in The Sunday Telegraph in November in which General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, revealed that 10 out of the 89 soldiers killed in combat in 2007 were "entirely avoidable accidents".

Au moins, il a le courage de regarder les choses en face...

[g4lly]

VIDEO: Royal Marines conduct Op DIESEL in Helmand

Video footage of troops from 45 Commando Royal Marines taking part in Operation DIESEL in the Upper Sangin Valley, Helmand province, on 7-8 February 2009.

La video par ici

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Video/VideoRoyalMarinesConductOpDieselInHelmand.htm

[Will]

Selon le Daily Telegraph:

Le nombre de soldats britaniques en Afghanistan va passer a 10 000 d ici 12 mois.

10,000 British troops to be fighting Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months

More than 10,000 British troops will be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 9:40PM GMT 21 Feb 2009

More than 10,000 British troops will be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan within 12 months Photo: GETTY

Defence chiefs believe the 8,300 troops currently serving in the south of the country need to be bolstered by an extra battle group of between 1,500 and 1,800 men within a year.

The deployment will push the Britain's Armed Forces to the very limit of its fighting capability and will raise fears that the entire operation has now fallen victim to "mission creep".

It is understood that the Army's top generals have given their support for the plan and are now awaiting approval from the Treasury and other areas of government.

The so-called "mini-surge" has been ordered in a direct response to a decision by President Barack Obama to send an extra 17,000 combat troops to counter the growing threat posed by the Taliban.

Although the figure was less than the 30,000 which had been called for by the US military, defence sources believe the move has sent a direct message to the US's and Britain's Nato partners that they must do more to help win the war in Afghanistan.

The new British battle group will consist of an infantry battalion, composed of around 700 troops, bolstered by at least one rifle company of 120 troops. The force will be supported by signallers, medics, engineers and elements of the Royal Artillery.

The Army has notched up a series of major successes against the Taliban, including the retaking of Musa Qala in northern Helmand, a former insurgent stronghold, as well as the operation to create a functioning hydro-electric power station at Kajaki.

But the much vaunted plans to bring reconstruction to the region have stalled, following the deterioration of security in the province.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has now increased troops numbers in Helmand every six months since 2006, when just 3,300 troops were sent to southern Afghanistan to secure the area and to allow reconstruction to begin.

John Hutton, the defence secretary, has persistently called on Britain's allies to do more of the "heavy lifting" in Afghanistan but, apart from France, virtually all have refused to do so.

There are around 56,400 Nato troops in Afghanistan and of those 24,900 are from the US. Britain has the second largest contingent with 8,300, followed by Germany which has 3,460, although most of these are based in the relatively peaceful north.

Canada, one of Britain's major allies in southern Afghanistan, has 2,830 troops based in Kandahar province and has lost 108 soldiers in battle. However, the Canadian government confirmed last week that it plans to withdraw all its troops from the country within two years, a move which will create a vacuum that can only really be filled by the US or Britain.

Mr Hutton said last week that he had not yet received any request from the US for extra troops but added that UK force levels were kept under constant review.

He said: "We haven't received any such request yet, and we obviously keep our force levels in Afghanistan under literally constant review, because we have an obligation… a duty of care, if you like, to make sure that our operations are being conducted as safely as possible; and if there's a need, either for more troops or for more equipment, obviously we look very, very seriously at that."

The arrival of the extra battle group will follow the deployment of a special 300-strong force of bomb disposal troops, which is expected to arrive in Afghanistan in the next few weeks. Details of the deployment are to be announced by Mr Hutton in Parliament next month.

It is understood that extra ammunition technical officers (ATOs), who specialise in bomb disposal, will work closely with troops from the Intelligence Corps to try and discover supply routes of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) into Helmand and the location of bomb factories.

Taliban IED attacks now account for around 70 to 80 per cent of all casualties suffered by British troops, according to defence sources.

---

Bergen-Hohne: un soldat a ete arrete apres avoir essaye de vole une ambulance blindee. Il a reussi a faire 500m avant de se crashe dans un arbre car il etait totallement bourre  =D

Un ''entretient sans cafe'' va suivre tres bientot pour lui.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7902845.stm

[Service de semaine]

Baisse d'un tiers du budget des Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) de la British Army pour 2010 en raison des contraintes budgetaires

From Defence Management.com

The Treasury has taken steps to reduce the MoD's urgent operational requirement budget by up to 30 per cent next year in a move that will surely cause additional strains and pains in the ministry's budget writes Patrick Macgill.

The MoD is facing a potential budget "time bomb" in the coming years after defence ministers quietly admitted that the Treasury had slashed urgent operational requirement (UOR) funding by nearly 30 per cent for the coming year.

In a discrete written answer in January, Defence Secretary John Hutton revealed that the UOR budget for 2009-10 would only be £635m. Last year the UOR budget was £900m.

The Treasury has funded the UOR budget as part of the reserve fund going to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fund allows for the MoD to procure urgently needed equipment such as newly armoured vehicles and bring them up to operational standards very quickly.

Given the rapidly changing nature of the Taliban's tactics, the MoD has taken advantage of the UOR fund on numerous occasions in order to adapt to new threats. So far in the current year 2008-09, the MoD has spent over £1bn on UORs.

Based on MoD estimates for the next financial year beginning in April, the total cost of UOR projects is expected to also top £1bn.

However, in the current year all of the costs exceeding £900m are expected to be covered by the Treasury.

This is not expected to be the case in the coming financial year. Under new Treasury rules, the MoD will have to pay back any costs exceeding the £635m fund two years from now.

If the projections on UOR spending are correct, the MoD would therefore owe the Treasury £365m in the 2011-2012 budget. With the department's budget already stretched thin by minimal spending increases, two wars and a massive procurement budget, repaying the Treasury hundreds of millions of pounds that could be used for urgent priorities or operations will be problematic.

It is not known how long MoD officials knew about the payback clause and whether they began to formulate their UOR spending requests for the coming financial year before or after the Treasury revealed the spending limits.

The problem stems from the fact that the MoD's own budget is severely limited. Even high profile programmes such as the new aircraft carriers and FRES (Future Rapid Effects System) have not been immune to delays and in some cases, cuts. Funding for new programmes is hard to come by and often takes years from concept to delivery.

Procurement officials as a result have formed a dependence almost exclusively on the Treasury's contingency and reserve funds for new equipment. If it can be used in current operations, the equipment can be procured under the UOR process.

The UOR fund has produced a number of mainstays and highly regarded upgrades in the Armed Forces. Mastiffs and Jackals along with other armoured vehicles have been procured, up-armoured and introduced to operations in months in order to better protect troops from mines and improvised explosive devices. The Harrier force has received a number of engine modifications and new weapons systems to help it operate more effectively in the Afghan conditions. The vast landscape has also produced a need for airbourne surveillance. MoD officials as a result have procured a number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to improve surveillance and intelligence for ground operations.

Now however it appears that procurement officials became overly reliant on the UOR fund. The gloomy economic outlook has forced the Treasury to tighten spending across the entire government. Despite the intensity of operations in Afghanistan and a possible troop surge of several thousand troops, the Treasury's rule will apply to the MoD as well.

"This is a deeply worrying development," Liberal Democrat shadow Defence Secretary Nick Harvey stated. "The MoD relies hugely on UORs to meet the operational needs in Afghanistan."

As a result the MoD faces a number of tough choices, none of which are desirable. Either the MoD will have to further delay high profile procurement programmes and continue to make cuts to current programmes in order to account for the £365m payback, or UORs for Afghanistan will have to be limited. The latter option could ultimately affect troops on operations and limit their access to new equipment designed to improve capabilities and safe lives.

The reactions to the Treasury's new limits on UOR spending were largely negative.

"Salami slicing of UOR funding is the very last thing that should be permitted or even contemplated - to do so is to gamble with the lives of our serving men and women," said Commander John Muxworthy, CEO of UKNDA, an organisation that lobbies for higher spending on defence.

He labeled the affair as "defence on the cheap," pointing out the while Treasury is in the process of launching a multi-billion pound bank rescue deal that will see tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers money injected into the financial institutions, it is demanding a few hundred million pounds back from the MoD.

"Defence, as politicians of all parties often recite, is the first priority of any government. If the will were there they could save our Armed Forces - for they are in need of saving," he added.

With a troop surge pending in the coming months, Harvey questioned where additional funds would come from to safeguard them and give them the needed capabilities.

"The Government has no choice but to make decisions as where its priorities lie, but the operation must surely come first. Parliament must be allowed to scrutinise any funding choices," Harvey stated, adding "without the resources to meet our obligations, success in already difficult conditions in Afghanistan will be that much harder."

With the success of the government's long term policy in Afghanistan tied directly to defeating the Taliban, reduced funding will force troops to either do more with less, or increasingly rely on both the US who is already rumoured to be sceptical of Britain's capabilities and commitment in Afghanistan, or NATO countries who Hutton has gone out of his way to criticise in recent weeks.

Either way, the MoD faces more uncomfortable financial decisions in the year.

[Will]

L'avenir? 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Video/FutureVehicleConceptComputerAnimation.htm (video)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/ModUnveilsFutureUkDefenceTechResearchPlan.htm

un article sur les gadgets dans quoi est interesse le MoD sur les annees a venir. Une chose interessante est ce materiel ''D30'', un materiel ''shock absorbant'': j ai vu un royal marine se faire enveloppe son doigt par un morceau de ce materiel, il a mis son doigt sur une table ou un autre a tappe dessus avec un marteau  :O Ca a l air assez utile pour tout ce qui est en dessous de armure car c est tres flexible apparament.

---

chiffre du MoD:

Recrutement +7,1%, depart de soldats -8,3%. La crise financiere n est pas que mauvaise?

Malgre ceci le nombre de personnels militaire n est qu a 97,2% du total qu il faudrait...l infanterie n a que 94,7% du nombre de soldat qu il faut. Mais c est une amelioration sur l an avant.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/ArmedForcesManningIncreases.htm

[Menchi]

Ça fait un peu trop jouet à mon goût pour être crédible ce dessin 3D. Avec tout ces compartiments qui s'ouvrent pour découvrir un drone volant et des drones terrestres, les formes rondes (surtout le module arrière), on dirait vraiment un jouet Fisher Price…

[Will]

oui je pense aussi...ils disent que ca sera le remplacant des tanks. Normalement les tanks actuelles seront en service jusque aux annees 2030s donc je pense on aura le temps de discretement oublie cette chose  =D On verra quoi plus tard.

[P4]

NINoBxJjp14

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&hl=fr&v=NINoBxJjp14

[Chaps]

Un bon article qui résume l'état des forces britanniques après la période Irak + Afghanistan

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13022177

On y apprend qu'il y a (avait) quelques tensions entre UK et US notamment en Irak.

PS: J'avais mis "bon" car il fesait le tour de la question et apportait différents éléments "neufs" pour ceux qui ne suivent pas l'actualité chaque jour. Je ne pense pas que cette article soit le reflet exacte de l'armée Uk ...

Et puis "the Economist" c'est pas un petit journal folklorique.

Quant aux critiques entre US et UK, il serait normal qu'elles soient plus durs car aux USA, on considère que la British Army doit pouvoir faire la même chose que US army avec le même genre de technologie et de procédures... Ils savent/pensent que les autres "allies" seront toujours différents/inférieurs à la British Army.

Tout comme les Français (et d'autres) pensent que Uk est plus proche des USA que de l'Europe.

[Will]

''bon'' me semble tres relatif. Un article par une personne anonyme qui montre de un cote un probleme tres largement connu (que on doit depense plus sur la defence au UK...on est pas les seuls) et qui ecrit un avis sur les relations entres americains et britaniques qui va au contraire de l avis de chaque soldat des deux cotes avec qui j ai deja parle ou lu...

Il semble partir du idee que on envois des soldats pour faire plaisir aux americains et pas par notre propre interet. Si reelement les politiciens americains sont si insatisfaits de l effort britanique en afghanistan, je dois me demande ce qu il pensent de celui des autres allies OTAN et de ce que serait l alternative sans notre aide. 

[Tancrède]

You point it with a needle, Will. Chaque fois que je vois des articles sur des soldats opérant dans le sud (généralement US, Anglais, Australiens, Canadiens ou Néerlandais), je vois une série d'accusations sur les autres pays qui n'en font pas assez. Et ces accusations sont accompagnées de quantités de petits chiffres et d'anecdotes sur les magnifiques faits d'armes de tel ou tel ou les morts à déplorer de chacun.

Et j'arrive pas à voir ça autrement que comme une course à l'échalotte pour faire plaisir aux Américains: faut se sortir les doigts des yeux, aucun pays européen, Angleterre comprise, n'aligne des effectifs stratégiquement significatifs par rapport aux USA. Et avec les 30 000 gusses supplémentaires du Surge made in Obama style, le rapport sera encore plus ridicule. Bien sûr, les soldats se comportent bien, comme on peut l'attendre de professionnels, et ils ne sont pas ridicules au niveau du combat, mais dans l'absolu, même 8000 britanniques, c'est tout simplement très petit autant par rapport au théâtre d'opérations et au conflit que par rapport au niveau d'engagement américain.

Mais le plus grave, c'est que tous, européens, australiens, canadiens et autres, nous avons l'impression de devoir fournir des excuses aux Américains pour ne pas mettre toutes nos armées à leur service sans même avoir de mot à dire sur la stratégie globale ou la façon de les employer. Et si jamais nous envoyions autant d'hommes qu'ils le veulent et qu'on avait voix au chapitre, le fait est que ça resterait dans le cadre d'un conflit dont ils ont décidé la nature depuis 8 ans. Et on voit tous les alliés se lancer des anathèmes pour montrer à quel point ils font mieux (à leur toute petite échelle) et à quel point ils sont de bons alliés des USA: de vrais toutous faisant le beau et agitant la queue!

Conclusion: nos élites dirigeantes ont une vraie mentalité de colonisés.

A titre personnel, jen pense fondamentalement qu'il y a un problème à résoudre en Afghanistan et autour, et que la solution passe, entre autre chose, par des moyens militaires importants. Mais pas comme ça.

[Chaps]

Si je comprends bien, Will conteste le fait que UK est en Irak et en A-Stan juste pour faire les toutous des USA mais pour leur propre intérêt. C'est l'opposé de ton opinion.

[Service de semaine]

Bien vu Tancrede, fine analyse...la position de "US Poodle" pese neanmoins de plus en plus aux Brits qui vont en plus se voir "envahis" par les US dans la RC(S) alors qu'avec pres de 150 KIAs ils ne doivent pas avoir l'impression de demeriter...

[Tancrède]

C'est vrai Chaps; je pointais en fait plus le fait que Will avait bien souligné que l'article était infiniment plus sur l'orientation générale de l'action armée des brits que sur les problèmes matériels et humains des armées par ailleurs très bien connus et documentés depuis plusieurs années. J'ai fait une mauvaise liaison: mal exprimé, my bad.

Mais mon point reste: on dilue souvent le débat pour ou contre la guerre en Afghanistan, sommes-nous les caniches des USA.... Sous le couvert des actions particulières des petits groupes tactiques sur le terrain (bravoure, sacrifice, approbation ou non du mâitre américain avec une tape sur le dos....) ou des diverses polémiques que les équipements et les effectifs.

Or tant qu'on se prend à comparer nos engagements respectifs dans des arguties invraissemblables pour savoir si on met 200 ou 300 bonshommes de plus, voire une brigade, on joue le jeu américain. C'est en ce sens que je suis en désaccord avec Will: ni les Anglais ni nous ni les Allemands ou aucun autre membre de l'ISAF ne prends vraiment de décisions avant tout fondées sur ses intérêts. Le leadership américain est trop fort et fausse trop le questionnement. Mais après ça, crois-je qu'il faille agir en Afghanistan et autour? Oui, mais pas comme c'est le cas actuellement, car la direction américaine pèse tout simplement de façon trop absolue: c'est pas avec 6, 7 ou 8000h que les Britanniques vont influer sur les décisions, et encore moins avec 3 ou 4000 que nous allons le faire, surtout que les Brits et nous avons une part encore plus faible des moyens véritablement stratégiques (airlift, airpower, C4ISR, moyens satellitaires, drones....). Je suis pas euro-déiste, mais si au moins on avait une position commune dans un contingent européen unique (même avec une répartition interne des tâches), on serait déjà un peu moins ridicules.

J'emploie le terme ridicule à dessein pour souligner mon point: si on était sur un forum type WAFF, j'aurais déjà sur le dos les néerlandais, anglais, canadiens et australiens hurlant la bravoure de leurs quelques centaines de soldats et leurs quelques dizaines de morts pour montrer à quel point leur contribution est considérable et pas ridicule. Je sais bien et j'ai déjà dit plus haut que je ne remettais pas en cause les soldats: ce sont des pros, ils font ce qu'on leur dit de faire et ils le font généralement bien. Mais répliquer par les anecdotes de bravoure et d'efficacité du niveau tactique n'est pas un argument pour contester la réalité stratégique.

De même, je sais bien que 8000h en Afghanistan à l'année, c'est un effort considérable pour les Brits après 8 ans de projection assez lourde. Mais de la même façon, 8000h, c'est pas grand-chose au regard du conflit, des enjeux et de l'engagement  américain.

Pour faire une analogie, je dirais que le fermier qui a bien élevé ses 5 vaches peut être content de les voir belles, saines et grosses; mais la réalité la plus évidente est que c'est quand même pas ses 5 vaches qui vont changer le cours mondial (ou même seulement régional) du lait ou de la viande bovine.