What's going on in Ukraine?

[Uncle fester]

Perun's latest on Russian casualty numbers has a bunch of interesting points but unfortunately he doesn't go too much into conclusions for the future bar the enormous problems Russia will have attempting to rebuild their army.

One item I'd not realised is the scale of the losses of the forced conscripts from Donetsk and Luhansk. It is nothing less than horrific and a clear strategy of effective depopulation removing anybody who may have issues with Russian occupation. People need to have a very real long hard think about what giving Russia its existing occupied borders actually means.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja6-espHVSE

Been remarked on before just how badly treated even the ethnic Russians in the occupied territories have been treated.

[Hellraiser]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

There were obvious off the shelf solutions to both those issues but I doubt there was the stomach in Whitehall to have BA's next MBTs and IFVs be German.

[inactionman]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

Challenger 3 isn't looking too bad, that's essentially a new turret and gun on existing challenger 2 hulls, it's they ajax that had noise issues - along with the cost and time issues you've noted.

They're testing F35 on the Prince of Wales, I think there was an exercise deployment late last year. So, only the 15 years with no fast jet air arm.

I've been lucky to spend many fascinating (although frequently infuriating) years in Defence Equipment and Support, and I'd agree that we constantly underperform, but I'd balance that by saying it is a very complex environment with constantly changing capability requirements whose pace of change does not align to procurement lifecycles (basically, in plain English, we want and design one thing one day, and when it's half built we realise/some minister unilaterally decides* we need something else)


*I'm being unfair. The books have to balance, governments change, enemies and potential theatres of conflict change, our alignment with NATO has to work, and we're dependent upon integration with third party/allied kit for a shitload of our capability, all of which impacts upon procurement programmes. Usually all detrimentally.

[inactionman]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

There were obvious off the shelf solutions to both those issues but I doubt there was the stomach in Whitehall to have BA's next MBTs and IFVs be German.

I understood Challenger 3 turrets would be Rheinmetall, although in joint venture with BAE.

But, yes, having the King's Royal Hussars driving a Leclerc or a Leopard just wouldn't do.

[SaintK]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

Challenger 3 isn't looking too bad, that's essentially a new turret and gun on existing challenger 2 hulls, it's they ajax that had noise issues - along with the cost and time issues you've noted.

They're testing F35 on the Prince of Wales, I think there was an exercise deployment late last year. So, only the 15 years with no fast jet air arm.

I've been lucky to spend many fascinating (although frequently infuriating) years in Defence Equipment and Support, and I'd agree that we constantly underperform, but I'd balance that by saying it is a very complex environment with constantly changing capability requirements whose pace of change does not align to procurement lifecycles (basically, in plain English, we want and design one thing one day, and when it's half built we realise/some minister unilaterally decides* we need something else)


*I'm being unfair. The books have to balance, governments change, enemies and potential theatres of conflict change, our alignment with NATO has to work, and we're dependent upon integration with third party/allied kit for a shitload of our capability, all of which impacts upon procurement programmes. Usually all detrimentally.

Thanks for clarifying. I was trying to recall what I'd read in Private Eye about these!

[inactionman]

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

Challenger 3 isn't looking too bad, that's essentially a new turret and gun on existing challenger 2 hulls, it's they ajax that had noise issues - along with the cost and time issues you've noted.

They're testing F35 on the Prince of Wales, I think there was an exercise deployment late last year. So, only the 15 years with no fast jet air arm.

I've been lucky to spend many fascinating (although frequently infuriating) years in Defence Equipment and Support, and I'd agree that we constantly underperform, but I'd balance that by saying it is a very complex environment with constantly changing capability requirements whose pace of change does not align to procurement lifecycles (basically, in plain English, we want and design one thing one day, and when it's half built we realise/some minister unilaterally decides* we need something else)


*I'm being unfair. The books have to balance, governments change, enemies and potential theatres of conflict change, our alignment with NATO has to work, and we're dependent upon integration with third party/allied kit for a shitload of our capability, all of which impacts upon procurement programmes. Usually all detrimentally.

Thanks for clarifying. I was trying to recall what I'd read in Private Eye about these!

I used to work in this area and I frequently got lost, there's just such a lot going on and it never sits still long enough for anyone to get their head around it. Ajax came from a programme called Future Rapid Effect System that has been stop-start for at least 30 years (eta: actually a quick check says it was mooted in 1999 so only the 26!), and has had god knows how many names and proposed bits of kit.

Ajax is one of the family of vehicles they're bringing in under the programme, I think there's 6 of the buggers. I'm not sure if one or all have noise issues but it was bad enough for the MoD to step in - the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review was needed to try to get it sorted.

[Hellraiser]

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

There were obvious off the shelf solutions to both those issues but I doubt there was the stomach in Whitehall to have BA's next MBTs and IFVs be German.

I understood Challenger 3 turrets would be Rheinmetall, although in joint venture with BAE.

But, yes, having the King's Royal Hussars driving a Leclerc or a Leopard just wouldn't do.

That is correct but it's still a stop gap as it's simply upgrading existing tanks not building new ones, essentially because the manufacturing base for MBTs no longer exists in the UK and would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

The Ajax is a complete clusterfuck though. The wrong vehicle, for the wrong job, at the wrong time. BAE literally offered to build CV90s entirely in Newcastle and were still turned down.

[Margin__Walker]

New US Abrams variants are all built on 1980s hulls iirc, so it's not that unusual. Even if it ends up okay as a platform, clearly Ajax has been a money/time pit and I'm sure they wish they went off the shelf now. They've at least done that with Boxer.

[Hellraiser]

New US Abrams variants are all built on 1980s hulls iirc, so it's not that unusual. Even if it ends up okay as a platform, clearly Ajax has been a money/time pit and I'm sure they wish they went off the shelf now. They've at least done that with Boxer.

No, but the Yanks have thousands of Abrams hulls. Less than 450 Challenger 2s were built and only about 150 were planned to be upgraded to Challenger 3s with the rest cannibalized for parts or scrapped.

[Margin__Walker]

New US Abrams variants are all built on 1980s hulls iirc, so it's not that unusual. Even if it ends up okay as a platform, clearly Ajax has been a money/time pit and I'm sure they wish they went off the shelf now. They've at least done that with Boxer.

No, but the Yanks have thousands of Abrams hulls. Less than 450 Challenger 2s were built and only about 150 were planned to be upgraded to Challenger 3s with the rest cannibalized for parts or scrapped.

Sure, but ultimately thats in the ballpark of the kind of MBT formation the UK would be looking to field if we are serious about spending money efficiently with inter operability with EU partners in mind.

GDP spends need to rise across the board, but realistically it's not realistic expect the UK to be fielding a large armoured formation any time soon. There has to be some focus on spending and we'd probably be better served prioritising naval and air assets. With the expectation that ideally the likes of Poland, France and Germany would be better able to deploy large armoured formations in future.

[laurent]

New US Abrams variants are all built on 1980s hulls iirc, so it's not that unusual. Even if it ends up okay as a platform, clearly Ajax has been a money/time pit and I'm sure they wish they went off the shelf now. They've at least done that with Boxer.

No, but the Yanks have thousands of Abrams hulls. Less than 450 Challenger 2s were built and only about 150 were planned to be upgraded to Challenger 3s with the rest cannibalized for parts or scrapped.

Sure, but ultimately thats in the ballpark of the kind of MBT formation the UK would be looking to field if we are serious about spending money efficiently with inter operability with EU partners in mind.

GDP spends need to rise across the board, but realistically it's not realistic expect the UK to be fielding a large armoured formation any time soon. There has to be some focus on spending and we'd probably be better served prioritising naval and air assets. With the expectation that ideally the likes of Poland, France and Germany would be better able to deploy large armoured formations in future.

France will have Leclerc modernised but so far 200 only. TBF the Leclerc is the more modern one so the old hulls are quite ok.

the french are modernising their motorised stuff which was our oldest component what is really lacking is long range artillery (LRU are too few) and anti aircraft.
We produce excellent anti aircraft stuff but only italy and English navy are onboard with SAMP/T. Meaning we cannot produce Aster it in high volume.

Europe should not buy any American kit from now on (easier for the French to say than most others I know) as we produce 95% of our stuff (the main thing we do not are catapults arrester wire and Hawkeyes) .

[Hellraiser]

New US Abrams variants are all built on 1980s hulls iirc, so it's not that unusual. Even if it ends up okay as a platform, clearly Ajax has been a money/time pit and I'm sure they wish they went off the shelf now. They've at least done that with Boxer.

No, but the Yanks have thousands of Abrams hulls. Less than 450 Challenger 2s were built and only about 150 were planned to be upgraded to Challenger 3s with the rest cannibalized for parts or scrapped.

Sure, but ultimately thats in the ballpark of the kind of MBT formation the UK would be looking to field if we are serious about spending money efficiently with inter operability with EU partners in mind.

GDP spends need to rise across the board, but realistically it's not realistic expect the UK to be fielding a large armoured formation any time soon. There has to be some focus on spending and we'd probably be better served prioritising naval and air assets. With the expectation that ideally the likes of Poland, France and Germany would be better able to deploy large armoured formations in future.

I do get all that. And frankly it wouldn't be as much of an issue if the RN wasn't such a mess. Ultimately small scale production of bespoke MBTs and IFVs is no longer a runner strategically. It really has to be off the shelf mass produced and producible; which basically means German or South Korean armour.

Leopard 2A8 orders (most of which are new builds) are now over 600, it looks like the Spanish are going to replace their remaining 2A4s with 2A8s which will bring it close to 700, and KNDS has just announced the takeover of a train factory in Görlitz to switch over to production of parts for Leopards.

And there are >1,200 Lynx IFVs now on Rheinmetall's order book.

[fishfoodie]

Ultimately small scale production of bespoke MBTs and IFVs is no longer a runner strategically. It really has to be off the shelf mass produced and producible; which basically means German or South Korean armour.

Back to the Future !!

Europe developed the Panavia Tornado, & spread the manufacturing & costs around several Nations, & made it a success; why can't they do the same with MBTs & IFVs ???

There's hulls, engines, optics, fire controls, comms, etc, etc, so there's plenty of scope for re-use of things like a good hull design, & then having an open design so that when the next gen of optics come along, there's an open design that means that optics can be upgraded, & a snazzy new turbine can be put in the engine compartment.

The added advantage is the US are being cunts, & the Orcs have demonstrated their kit is shit, so if you were an Indian or Australian Minister, you'd far prefer to buy from a friendly Country, or Countries (bribes not withstanding !)

[Kiwias]

Timothy Snyder gives his view on the 'peace talks'

Peace or Partition?
Russians and Americans speak about Ukraine, without Ukrainians
Timothy Snyder
Feb 17

Tomorrow in Ukraine, Russian soldiers will attack Ukrainians. Russian drones and bombs and rockets will target Ukrainian homes. A criminal war of aggression will continue.

Tomorrow in Saudi Arabia, Russian officials will discuss the future of Ukraine with an handful of Americans, delegated by a president who sympathizes with the Russian view of the war. The Russians will have the luxury of talking about Ukraine without the presence of Ukrainians.

The headlines are about “peace negotiations.” But what is really going on? How should we think about this unusual encounter in Saudi Arabia?

Here are ten suggestions, drawn from years on working on relations among the three countries, and from some recent personal observations at the Munich Security Conference.

1. Be critical of the words on offer. Question the word “peace.” The term used in the media is “peace negotiations.” The United States and Russia are not at war. Russia is at war with Ukraine, but Ukraine is not invited to these talks. Russian authorities, for their part, do not generally speak of peace. They present the talks with the United States as a geopolitical coup, which is not the same thing. The highest Russian officials have repeatedly stated that their war aims in Ukraine are maximalist, including the destruction of the country. Informed observers generally take for granted that Russia would use a ceasefire to distract the United States and Europe, demobilize Ukraine, and attack again. This is not a plan that the Russians are working very hard to disguise. It is a simple point, but always worth making: there could indeed be peace tomorrow in Ukraine, if Russia simply removed its invasion force.

2. Consider the horrid negotiating tactics of the United States. They are are so disastrously bad that they call into question whether these talks can even really be considered negotiations. Trump and everyone around him keeps emphasizing that the United States is in a hurry. But no negotiator would so this. Admitting urgency grants to the other side the easy move of dragging their feet to get concessions. And these are already on offer! Members of the Trump administration and Trump himself keep conceding essential points to Russia in advance of any actual talks and in public (territory, NATO membership, timing of elections, even the existence of Ukraine) — issues that are not only essential to Ukraine but elemental to Ukrainian sovereignty. The only way such American behavior makes sense is if we consider that the Americans are negotiating as Russians. But if everyone in Saudi Arabia is on the same side, these are not negotiations. “Talks” is safer.

3. Don’t forget that law and ethics are part of reality. The United States has chosen to negotiate with the aggressors (the president of the Russian Federation has been indicted for war crimes) rather than support the victims. By reaching out to Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump has ended the Russian leader’s international isolation. By speaking of Putin as someone who supposedly wants peace rather than as the aggressor in the bloodiest war since 1945, or as someone who has been indicted for war crimes, Trump is seeking the cleanse the the moral stain from the person who broke the most fundamental of international laws by invading another country. Even if the talks have no other consequences, Trump’s rehabilitation of Putin is a meaningful one for Russia.

4. Emphasize the absence of Ukraine. It is a truism of international history, as well as simple common sense, that if you are not at the table then you are on the menu. Discussions with Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine create a structural situation in which the basic interests of Ukraine and Ukrainians cannot be represented. No historical analogy is perfect, of course; but precedents for such treatment in Europe include the Munich accords of 1938 and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939. A longer record can be found in the history of colonialism.

5. Remember that Ukraine is a sovereign state and the victim of the war. The combination of pageantry and mystery around such talks elevates their participants to the central actors of the story. If summitry storytelling is done carelessly, it can create the impression that Russia and the United States somehow have the authority to decide the future of Ukraine. It is very possible that they will try to do force Ukraine to do things, using coercion or blackmail, and it should be made clear that is implied in any agreement about Ukraine without Ukraine. No agreement between Russia and the United States has legal application to Ukraine. It is certainly worth knowing and mentioning that Ukraine has patiently built consensus around its own peace formula. It is worth reviewing, if only for background knowledge of the basic issues.

6. Consider what we know about power. In war, there are winners and losers. Aggressors make peace when it appears to them that their aggression is no longer in their interest. Talking is incidental to this. It is rather surprising to hear Trump people, who talk so much about strength, repeatedly making the left-wing summer-camp point that all we really need for peace is to get together and talk. If the Trump administration were serious about getting to peace in a hurry, they would apply pressure to Russia and accelerate support for Ukraine. Since they are doing neither of these things, they either misunderstand power or they are not aiming for peace.

7. Resist Russian propaganda. For Russia these talks are an occasion to spread their line. Russian propagandists will have things to say about the legitimacy of the Ukrainian state, the patterns of Ukrainian history, the people who govern Ukraine, and so on. The talks will be their occasion to try to get international reporters to repeat those claims.

8. Be critical of American propaganda as well. The Russians have liked to spread stories about supposed waste in Ukraine. The Trump people have their own use for this. It fits their sense of grievance, which is how they approach every subject. Trump’s people focus on the idea of “recouping the costs” of U.S. aid to Ukraine. This is unserious and misleading. The main US budgetary problem is that the wealthy do not pay their share of taxes. All talk by this billionaire-dominated administration of recouping costs is dubious for that reason alone. Most of the American military contribution to Ukraine stays in the United States, keeping factories running and paying American workers. In general the weapons the US has sent to Ukraine were obsolescent and would have been destroyed, at costs to the US taxpayer, without ever being used. The U.S. has contributed less to Ukraine than has Europe. As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. lags far, far behind the countries that the Trump people relentless criticize. The effective cost to Europeans has in fact been far higher, since sanctions on Russia mattered far more to European economies than to the U.S. economy. The essential costs of the war in Ukraine have been paid by Ukrainians, not only in huge economic losses, but in millions of forced migrations, hundreds of thousands of injuries, and tens of thousands of lost lives. In resisting Russia, Ukraine has also provided tremendous economic and security benefits to the United States. What the United States has learned from Ukrainians about modern warfare — and that is just one of many benefits — easily justifies the costs, even in the most narrow security terms.

9. Weigh Trump’s vulnerabilities. For decades now, Trump has tended to repeat what Soviet and then Russian leaders say. He speaks to Putin regularly and has expresses his fascination. He repeats Russian talking points on the war. The notion that the war is costly to the United States is a point where Putinist and Trumpist propaganda overlaps, and seems targeted to one of Trump’s obsession that he is being ripped off. Ukraine, of course, is the party that has suffered the economic costs. But redefining the war as an opportunity for the United States to make money seems designed to manipulate Trump.

10. Reflect on colonialism. Russia’s war against Ukraine has been obviously colonial, in every sense of the word. Moscow denies that Ukraine is a state, that Ukrainians are a people, that their elected leaders are legitimate. A war cloaked in such colonial ideology enables the exploitation of stolen Ukrainian resources, right down to and including stolen children. In recent weeks, the Americans have begun to speak with great interest of Ukraine’s mineral resources. At the Munich Security Conference, Americans asked the Ukrainian president to concede half of his country’s mineral wealth forever in exchange for a pat on the head today. It could well be that the United States intends to use the threat of Russian violence in order to seize Ukrainian wealth— “we could stop the war, but we need your resources first.” A protection racket, in other words.

So: in repeating the notion of “peace negotiations” might we not be contributing to a charade? From the facts noted above, three possible framings of the Russian-American talks emerge. First, the Americans sincerely want peace but are just stunningly incompetent. Second, the incompetence is by design; the game is rigged to generate an agreement between Russia and the U.S. that is unacceptable to Ukraine. Third, Putin and Trump have already worked out common plans for the colonial domination of Ukraine, and the talks just provide cover.

[Niegs]

Ultimately small scale production of bespoke MBTs and IFVs is no longer a runner strategically. It really has to be off the shelf mass produced and producible; which basically means German or South Korean armour.

Back to the Future !!

Europe developed the Panavia Tornado, & spread the manufacturing & costs around several Nations, & made it a success; why can't they do the same with MBTs & IFVs ???

There's hulls, engines, optics, fire controls, comms, etc, etc, so there's plenty of scope for re-use of things like a good hull design, & then having an open design so that when the next gen of optics come along, there's an open design that means that optics can be upgraded, & a snazzy new turbine can be put in the engine compartment.

The added advantage is the US are being cunts, & the Orcs have demonstrated their kit is shit, so if you were an Indian or Australian Minister, you'd far prefer to buy from a friendly Country, or Countries (bribes not withstanding !)

And surely this war has taught the West a lot of lessons about what's most needed. I've not idea that those are, but maybe....

Fewer MBTs, more IFVs with excellent weaponry? Missile and artillery batteries + plan to accelerate ammo production a priority? More MANPADs and drones? Elevated national service requirements among those who don't already require it? I imagine they could sign up a lot of drone operator reservists if they didn't have to also become foot soldiers.

[Jock42]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

[Jock42]

Ultimately small scale production of bespoke MBTs and IFVs is no longer a runner strategically. It really has to be off the shelf mass produced and producible; which basically means German or South Korean armour.

Back to the Future !!

Europe developed the Panavia Tornado, & spread the manufacturing & costs around several Nations, & made it a success; why can't they do the same with MBTs & IFVs ???

There's hulls, engines, optics, fire controls, comms, etc, etc, so there's plenty of scope for re-use of things like a good hull design, & then having an open design so that when the next gen of optics come along, there's an open design that means that optics can be upgraded, & a snazzy new turbine can be put in the engine compartment.

The added advantage is the US are being cunts, & the Orcs have demonstrated their kit is shit, so if you were an Indian or Australian Minister, you'd far prefer to buy from a friendly Country, or Countries (bribes not withstanding !)

And surely this war has taught the West a lot of lessons about what's most needed. I've not idea that those are, but maybe....

Fewer MBTs, more IFVs with excellent weaponry? Missile and artillery batteries + plan to accelerate ammo production a priority? More MANPADs and drones? Elevated national service requirements among those who don't already require it? I imagine they could sign up a lot of drone operator reservists if they didn't have to also become foot soldiers.

How close to the front to drones need to be operated (obviously not talking about reaper etc)? Could be wrong but aren't UKR operators infantry or attached arms?

[Yeeb]

Purely at the sharp end, they've been actively trying to increase the number of warm bodies in the armed forces for years, and defence spending has increased year-on-year since 2015, so it's not entirely like they've been sat on their hands doing nothing.

This recruitment is outsourced to Capita and they're well below targets - last I heard recruitment rates had dropped from about 95% to less than 70%.

To give Capita some benefit of doubt, despite them not doing an amazing job (taking ages to do basic background and medical checks, for example) It's not all on them - the overall benefits for soldiers could do with looking at, and aspects such as decent, clean housing for soldiers' families has been sadly lacking for a fair few years. You're asking young lads and lasses to make notable commitments and accept significant life change - and no little risk, if and when shooting starts - for relatively poor recompense.

These issues are across the board - one of the factors influencing the fleet composition of the navy is the staffing levels they can support.


I also think the situation in Ukraine has deteriorated further and more rapidly than expected, in terms of Russian belligerence and Trump's Manchurian act. Not sure how useful our beautiful new aircraft carriers will be in a potential land war in Eastern Europe. Arguably we could do with a functioning ajax, AS90 replacement and Challenger 3 fleet PDQ.

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

[laurent]

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

or you could have gotten real carrier and aircrafts, instead you have huge helicopter carriers and Fat Amy .

[Yeeb]

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

or you could have gotten real carrier and aircrafts, instead you have huge helicopter carriers and Fat Amy .

Eh? Genuinely don’t know what you mean there, desole

[Jock42]

Beautiful new aircraft carriers without any suitable planes
Ajax replacements 5 years behind schedule and umpteen £billion over budget
Challenger 3 tank upgrade that makes the crew sick and suffer from tinnitus when driven at speed
We arre so fucking useless at procurement!!!!

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

I'm not an avgeek but how effective would the harrier be in a conflict where the RN/RAF don't have air superiority?

[Yeeb]

I think you're confusing C3 with Ajax (which has been sorted now).

The F35B issue really seems to depend on which source you read.


Anyway Starmer can go fuck himself.

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

I'm not an avgeek but how effective would the harrier be in a conflict where the RN/RAF don't have air superiority?

Zero chance of Uk armed forces being deployed without lots of alllies and / or beating up some tiny country armed with Tucanos where a harrier would still be more than adequate perhaps versus f35’s that don’t work properly. The US marines still have them and I think Italy too so still have some use.

[tabascoboy]

The soft approach from the new US Government is emboldening Russia in many ways to push for what they want

So much for "independent" Russians - they’ve come crawling to Trump on their knees, pulling out some papers claiming that U.S. companies supposedly lost $300 billion due to the conflict with Russia, while Russia has only grown stronger under sanctions! And now, they’re suggesting that the U.S. should shift its focus to joint projects—like in the Arctic—to achieve greater success together.

[Jock42]

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

I'm not an avgeek but how effective would the harrier be in a conflict where the RN/RAF don't have air superiority?

Zero chance of Uk armed forces being deployed without lots of alllies and / or beating up some tiny country armed with Tucanos where a harrier would still be more than adequate perhaps versus f35’s that don’t work properly. The US marines still have them and I think Italy too so still have some use.

I don't think the Allies would have enough superiority over Russia

[laurent]

Selling off our harriers for buttons was a very strange decision , possibly the most damaging to uk armed forces since Labour canned the tsr2 for the f111 which ended up never getting bought. That would have meant our shiny new carriers at least could have started with some aircraft before they broke down in the Solent after ten miles

or you could have gotten real carrier and aircrafts, instead you have huge helicopter carriers and Fat Amy .

Eh? Genuinely don’t know what you mean there, desole

There was a partnership with France to develop a carrier (CATOBAR) after the Charles de Gaulle.
It was dropped for the Queen Elizabeth class (STOBAR).
Also the Eurofighter was developed not to be carrier capable. One of the many reasons the french left that program.

Fat Amy is the cute nickname for the F35 (got that from a US pilot ) in case you did not know.

[Yeeb]

or you could have gotten real carrier and aircrafts, instead you have huge helicopter carriers and Fat Amy .

Eh? Genuinely don’t know what you mean there, desole

There was a partnership with France to develop a carrier (CATOBAR) after the Charles de Gaulle.
It was dropped for the Queen Elizabeth class (STOBAR).
Also the Eurofighter was developed not to be carrier capable. One of the many reasons the french left that program.

Fat Amy is the cute nickname for the F35 (got that from a US pilot ) in case you did not know.

Ah I see, perfect answe, thanks.
I didn’t know that about the carriers, probably did about the eurofighter but forgot, and in any case you ended up with those decent refales so alls good there. Joint ventures often have compromise like the Panama Tornado did as that was a shit fighter because it was built as a strike.

And deffo didn’t know about Fat Amy , presumed that was a NZ navy reference - my bad.

[Yeeb]

I'm not an avgeek but how effective would the harrier be in a conflict where the RN/RAF don't have air superiority?

Zero chance of Uk armed forces being deployed without lots of alllies and / or beating up some tiny country armed with Tucanos where a harrier would still be more than adequate perhaps versus f35’s that don’t work properly. The US marines still have them and I think Italy too so still have some use.

I don't think the Allies would have enough superiority over Russia

Let’s hope we never find out as don’t want a Hiroshima perma tan

[Hellraiser]

Ultimately small scale production of bespoke MBTs and IFVs is no longer a runner strategically. It really has to be off the shelf mass produced and producible; which basically means German or South Korean armour.

Back to the Future !!

Europe developed the Panavia Tornado, & spread the manufacturing & costs around several Nations, & made it a success; why can't they do the same with MBTs & IFVs ???

There's hulls, engines, optics, fire controls, comms, etc, etc, so there's plenty of scope for re-use of things like a good hull design, & then having an open design so that when the next gen of optics come along, there's an open design that means that optics can be upgraded, & a snazzy new turbine can be put in the engine compartment.

The added advantage is the US are being cunts, & the Orcs have demonstrated their kit is shit, so if you were an Indian or Australian Minister, you'd far prefer to buy from a friendly Country, or Countries (bribes not withstanding !)

And surely this war has taught the West a lot of lessons about what's most needed. I've not idea that those are, but maybe....

Fewer MBTs, more IFVs with excellent weaponry? Missile and artillery batteries + plan to accelerate ammo production a priority? More MANPADs and drones? Elevated national service requirements among those who don't already require it? I imagine they could sign up a lot of drone operator reservists if they didn't have to also become foot soldiers.

There is no substitute for MBTs. No other platform exist that provides the same utility. The ubiquity of drones will be countered by active protection systems like Trophy and the re-emergence of SPAAGs using the likes of Skyranger.

[Hellraiser]

EU government's are apparently in advanced planning stages for the creation of a European defence procurement fund to increase defence spending and aid Ukraine. Baerbock hinted that it could be ~€700 billion. Won't be announced until after the German election.

It also appears that the EU is going to remove defence spending from the Growth and Stability Pact 3% deficit limit.

Additionally the EU will not lift sanctions on Russia even if the US does, and is preparing another sanctions package.

[tabascoboy]

While Erdogan isn't exactly a leader with an unimpeachable record, probably a wise move here by Zelensky to try and make sure as many parties as possible have a say - especially with Turkey's Black Sea concerns and interests

[PornDog]

or you could have gotten real carrier and aircrafts, instead you have huge helicopter carriers and Fat Amy .

Eh? Genuinely don’t know what you mean there, desole

There was a partnership with France to develop a carrier (CATOBAR) after the Charles de Gaulle.
It was dropped for the Queen Elizabeth class (STOBAR).
Also the Eurofighter was developed not to be carrier capable. One of the many reasons the french left that program.

Fat Amy is the cute nickname for the F35 (got that from a US pilot ) in case you did not know.

Lizzie is STOVL, not STOBAR

[laurent]

Eh? Genuinely don’t know what you mean there, desole

There was a partnership with France to develop a carrier (CATOBAR) after the Charles de Gaulle.
It was dropped for the Queen Elizabeth class (STOBAR).
Also the Eurofighter was developed not to be carrier capable. One of the many reasons the french left that program.

Fat Amy is the cute nickname for the F35 (got that from a US pilot ) in case you did not know.

Lizzie is STOVL, not STOBAR

Correct could not land a Rafale on it cause its a bit small with 284 m (450m would do though) the rafale could take off from the ski jump (did that for Indian navy).

[Biffer]

EU government's are apparently in advanced planning stages for the creation of a European defence procurement fund to increase defence spending and aid Ukraine. Baerbock hinted that it could be ~€700 billion. Won't be announced until after the German election.

It also appears that the EU is going to remove defence spending from the Growth and Stability Pact 3% deficit limit.

Additionally the EU will not lift sanctions on Russia even if the US does, and is preparing another sanctions package.

The second of those is rather important - and will also help Greece and Poland in particular in meeting stability pact requirements.

[laurent]

EU government's are apparently in advanced planning stages for the creation of a European defence procurement fund to increase defence spending and aid Ukraine. Baerbock hinted that it could be ~€700 billion. Won't be announced until after the German election.

It also appears that the EU is going to remove defence spending from the Growth and Stability Pact 3% deficit limit.

Additionally the EU will not lift sanctions on Russia even if the US does, and is preparing another sanctions package.

The second of those is rather important - and will also help Greece and Poland in particular in meeting stability pact requirements.

Only if Poland starts buying EU made stuff the useless feckers buy US or Korean for the most part...

[Hellraiser]

Italy is the big one with relation to the 3% limit and defence spending. Watch this space.

[Flockwitt]

EU government's are apparently in advanced planning stages for the creation of a European defence procurement fund to increase defence spending and aid Ukraine. Baerbock hinted that it could be ~€700 billion. Won't be announced until after the German election.

It also appears that the EU is going to remove defence spending from the Growth and Stability Pact 3% deficit limit.

Additionally the EU will not lift sanctions on Russia even if the US does, and is preparing another sanctions package.

The second of those is rather important - and will also help Greece and Poland in particular in meeting stability pact requirements.

Only if Poland starts buying EU made stuff the useless feckers buy US or Korean for the most part...

The South Korean joint venture stuff makes a lot of sense actually, positives for all sides. Also it's not really like the Poles have that much of a choice. The EU stuff has such a limited manufacturing base the order books are pretty much full there anyway. But bringing in off the shelf digital tech which the Poles don't have and matching it with their industrial base works.

[Sandstorm]

Italy is the big one with relation to the 3% limit and defence spending. Watch this space.

Brown shirts are expensive.

[Hellraiser]

Italy is the big one with relation to the 3% limit and defence spending. Watch this space.

Brown shirts are expensive.

*sigh* If you are going to make a flippant joke at least get the colour right.

[tabascoboy]

[geordie_6]

Trump going all in on the Russian narrative? Saying that Ukraine should not have started the war...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/s/JGlw0t3Vcz