Re:How do others see FCT/NAC/NSL relating (was Re: Locations of Stars)

Glover, Owen wrote:

> -OK, here John has presumed an almost total UK oriented NAC. Yet I get
the
> impression that the majority of people on the list seem to give the
NAC a US
> operational flavour. Population wise the NAC is probably largely US in
> influence. Ascribing the FCT with an anti-NAC behaviour or philosophy
then
> would seem even more unreasonable.
>
> ?

Well I see it a combination of the best of the two. For instance MY
OPINION
only, but I think while units would eventally standardize TOE (Tables of
Organizatin and Equipment), especially by Rot Hafen time, units on the
two sides
of the Atlantic would always maintain their own flavor. I think that in
special
operations the SAS Model would prevail to some extent, with some
modifications
from the US model, (the ability to operate more efficiently in larger
groups a
closer reporting structure of teh 4-mn patrols to larger "teams") since
both
have a long history of being highly successful.  The naval traditions
would be
very interesting, perhaps surface pundits being brit-influenced, but I
have to
believe the carrier aviation remains a realm of greater US
expertise/doctrine,
and perhaps Submarine based (that's arguable) stuff too. Marines? A toss
up.
RAF/USAF? heck if I know.

As military forces transition to space-based forces I think the most
interesting
struggle in any nation is between the navy and the air force. Popular
science
fiction uses the naval model (and marines) , most likely because of
ships and
what not. But it seems to me that the air force estalishments will have
their
teeth more firmly sunk into space when the political reaaportionments of
responsibilities occur.

Sorry Owen, this turned into something a little bit different than what
you
asked.

Los