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

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.