You're in the army now - well, maybe.

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Unfortunately I do not think it is just domestic politics.  Similar kites are being flown across Europe and a US Army senior officer flew the same kite not long ago. One of the lessons Ukraine has reminded us of again is that in a real war numbers count. Deaths aren't in the hundreds or low thousands like in Iraq or Afghanistan  (not counting the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans obviously.....) but tens of thousands, probably well into hundreds of thousands now. And equipment expenditure on a biblical scale, the collective west can't supply Ukraine's shell needs. In that type of war numbers count. 

Which is why I view it all as a wakeup call against complacency rather than a claim that WWIII is imminent, or, even more absurdly, politicians and military chiefs are trying to make it happen.

[Kickstart]

1 hour ago, pete_mcfarlane said:

I can't help thinking that a lot of the criticism is down to us (for once) collectively preparing for the next war, so our forces are no longer able to fight the 1980s version of WW3. 

 

Unfortunately it isn't an option of one or the other, rather a need to be able to counter both. And whichever we don't prepare for is the option an adversary will choose.

 

5 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

And equipment expenditure on a biblical scale, the collective west can't supply Ukraine's shell needs. In that type of war numbers count. 

 

True. From memory of reports, we no longer even produce the ammunition for the 120mm rifled weapon on the Challenger 2, and think we only have 1 factory producing small arms ammunition for the military

 

All the best

 

Katy

[C126]

Paper by R.U.S.I. about ammunition production capacity:

 

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ramping-what-will-it-take-boost-uks-magazine-depth

 

Hope of interest.

 

[jjb1970]

Just looking at the defence budget is a bit meaningless too in that it doesn't tell you what you get for that money, efficiency, how much is wasted etc.

How much do we pay for a 155mm shell compared to China? The army budget is a mess and a large part of its equipment needs replacement or upgrading but how much of that is down to woeful procurement and program management? FRES was a colossal blind avenue and we ended up back where we started by rejoining the Boxer program. Ajax is how many years late, the Warrior upgrade cancelled,  AS90 desperately needs replacing, the Challenger upgrade doesn't fill me with optimism. It all adds up to an awful lot of wasted money at the same time as the army basically needing to be recapitalisation.

I get the impression that one of the reasons European armies have happily offloaded so much stuff to Ukraine is they saw an opportunity to force the hand of treasury departments to open to toy box. I suspect they're being rather optimistic. 

[C126]

Private Eye is a good monitor of defence purchasing and supply, tendering, etc.  Read it fort-nightly and weep...

 

[Hroth]

34 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I get the impression that one of the reasons European armies have happily offloaded so much stuff to Ukraine is they saw an opportunity to force the hand of treasury departments to open to toy box. I suspect they're being rather optimistic. 

 

Probably all their stuff that is close to "Use By" dates and they'd have to pay to dispose of.

Of course, as you say, the next problem is to get some pocket money to restock.

 

The one good thing that the Russian/Ukraine disaster is showing the people in charge is how much materiel will be needed to hold off the Russians* in a conventional bust-up.  I should imagine that Treasury Departments are wetting themselves as they find out how much it all might cost, and that the backwoods politicians will be wondering where their electoral bribes tax cuts will be coming from if more has to be set aside for defence.

 

* Other potential foes are available.

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, Hroth said:

The one good thing that the Russian/Ukraine disaster is showing the people in charge is how much materiel will be needed to hold off the Russians* in a conventional bust-up.

Depends on how quickly Russia can rebuild, it's burned through a hell of a lot.

[MJI]

Had a son a tiny bit concerned.

So I told him, drone operator and drop grenades on the heads of russians.

 

He would be up for that over any troopwork.

[Roddy Angus]

29 minutes ago, MJI said:

So I told him, drone operator and drop grenades on the heads of russians.

That's how I got drawn in.  Advertised for those interested in computer games, back in 1983, and I ended up as a Blowpipe operator.  For those not in the know, Blowpipe was a manually guided anti-aircraft missile, with a limited anti-vehicle capability.

 

Roddy

[APOLLO]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

Just looking at the defence budget is a bit meaningless too in that it doesn't tell you what you get for that money, efficiency, how much is wasted etc.

How much do we pay for a 155mm shell compared to China? The army budget is a mess and a large part of its equipment needs replacement or upgrading but how much of that is down to woeful procurement and program management? FRES was a colossal blind avenue and we ended up back where we started by rejoining the Boxer program. Ajax is how many years late, the Warrior upgrade cancelled,  AS90 desperately needs replacing, the Challenger upgrade doesn't fill me with optimism. It all adds up to an awful lot of wasted money at the same time as the army basically needing to be recapitalisation.

I get the impression that one of the reasons European armies have happily offloaded so much stuff to Ukraine is they saw an opportunity to force the hand of treasury departments to open to toy box. I suspect they're being rather optimistic. 

 

Who needs tanks, guns, artillery, aircraft carriers etc these days. ?

 

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

 

War has changed, it's digital now and remote controlled.

 

We need to change our game, Quickly.

 

Brit15

 

 

[burgundy]

4 hours ago, C126 said:

Paper by R.U.S.I. about ammunition production capacity:

 

https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/ramping-what-will-it-take-boost-uks-magazine-depth

 

Hope of interest.

 

I am old enough to remember when we had Royal Ordnance Factories, which had considerable production capacity that was "just in case" rather than "just in time". In terms of efficiency, they were massively inefficient but were maintained for many years on the basis that we might suddenly need to surge production of small arms, ammunition, explosives, propellants, etc. From the mid 80s, the assumptions, on which the requirement was based, changed, so that it made sense to rationalise the capacity; the RSAF Enfield duly became a housing development. 

Would it have made sense to keep that capacity going for the last 40 years with no obvious purpose? What would the opportunity cost have been?

Now, of course, we are facing payback time. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Reorte]

48 minutes ago, APOLLO said:

 

Who needs tanks, guns, artillery, aircraft carriers etc these days. ?

 

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

 

War has changed, it's digital now and remote controlled.

 

We need to change our game, Quickly.

They're cheap to use, not cheap to intercept.

 

The idea that war is now a remote thing has been thrown up numerous times over the years but whilst you can lay waste remotely, or be a constant thorn in the side, you can't control. The Houthi's would've been gone before this began if that wasn't the case.

 

Also look at what's going on in Ukraine. There's all this stuff there too, both cheap drones and modern high tech, but it's as well as, not instead of.

[Reorte]

1 minute ago, burgundy said:

Would it have made sense to keep that capacity going for the last 40 years with no obvious purpose? What would the opportunity cost have been?

Any military spending is a complete waste of time that doesn't make sense until you actually need it.

[burgundy]

3 minutes ago, Reorte said:

Any military spending is a complete waste of time that doesn't make sense until you actually need it.

Unfortunately, when you actually need it, it is probably too late. 

Best wishes 

Eric 

[Michael Hodgson]

4 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

How much do we pay for a 155mm shell compared to China?

 

Perhaps we're missing a trick here.

Couldn't we reduce our defence spending or get more ammo for the same money by buying it from the People's Republic?  😁

[Michael Hodgson]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

Any military spending is a complete waste of time that doesn't make sense until you actually need it.

Not entirely true.  The military in peacetime have often done useful work in their local community that would not otherwise have got done becasue local councils lack of funds for the job.  And training young chaps to build Bailey Bridges or whatever can  turn wet-behind the ears school-leavers into adaptable or skilled workers when they've finished their stint.

 

Ammunition that doesn't need to be fired at the enemy isn't wasted money if it has saved us fighting a war; it just that we can't demonstrate that there would otherwise have been hostilities.

 

It's rather like spending money on sewerage.  There's no votes in that - until there's stinking brown stuff flowing down the street.

[Bernard Lamb]

2 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Who needs tanks, guns, artillery, aircraft carriers etc these days. ?

 

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

 

War has changed, it's digital now and remote controlled.

 

We need to change our game, Quickly.

 

Brit15

 

 

That is expensive.

In Ukraine they are using toy drones that cost around £200. One will take out a group of enemy soldiers but they need to use two to destroy a tank. War has indeed changed. The Russsians seem to be unable to stop them using all the high tech resources at their disposal.

Bernard

[melmoth]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Perhaps we're missing a trick here.

Couldn't we reduce our defence spending or get more ammo for the same money by buying it from the People's Republic?  😁

 

Circular firing squad?

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

 

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

 

War has changed, it's digital now and remote controlled.

 

We need to change our game, Quickly.

 

 

Not everything's changed.  During WW2 they used to say the yanks were over paid, over sexed and over here.

[burgundy]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Ammunition that doesn't need to be fired at the enemy isn't wasted money if it has saved us fighting a war; it just that we can't demonstrate that there would otherwise have been hostilities.

It is a bit like your household or vehicle insurance policy. It is money for nothing until you really, really need it.

Best wishes 

Eric 

[jjb1970]

6 hours ago, APOLLO said:

 

Who needs tanks, guns, artillery, aircraft carriers etc these days. ?

 

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

 

War has changed, it's digital now and remote controlled.

 

We need to change our game, Quickly.

 

Brit15

 

 

 

Ansar Allah is in an u usual and for them fortuitous position of being perfectly located to choke off one of the world's major trade routes extremely cheaply. They don't even have to sink anything, they just need to make the risk and insurance too high for ships to enter the Red Sea. 

 

So far they've played a bit of a blinder in some ways. They're all but baiting us - bomb us all you want, we won't  stop, if you want to invade then welcome to Afghanistan 2. Our media and politicians are trying to present them as a bunch of sandal wearing primitives rather than as a force which a Saudi led coalition tried to bomb into submission (with our help) for almost a decade, failing. There was also a lot of ground action in that war. Our great leaders are digging us into a steadily deepening hole, there's no way they will admit dropping a few bombs in the hope it'd put things right has not only failed but made things worse. So I expect more escalation.

[jjb1970]

On aircraft carriers, they are great as vanity symbols and as floating runways in asymmetric expeditionary war but of limited value against a peer opponent. 

[ovbulleid]

8 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

On aircraft carriers, they are great as vanity symbols and as floating runways in asymmetric expeditionary war but of limited value against a peer opponent. 

If that’s so why have the Chinese built theee when the US have 11? Because they recognise their value if correctly operated, demonstrated not just by the Americans but in the value they brought in the Falklands. 

[ovbulleid]

6 hours ago, APOLLO said:

The Houthi rebels are causing havoc with home made missiles and drones costing a few thousand dollars. The yanks are downing these with 2 million dollar+ missiles.

They’re not homemade, they’re all built by Iran, shipped through the Indian Ocean and rebuilt by Iranian engineers. There are allied task forces dedicated to hunting them in transit. Houthis are best viewed as a foreign legion of the IRGC, superbly well located and trained in insurgency warfare, with targeting supplied by Iran.

[jjb1970]

2 minutes ago, ovbulleid said:

If that’s so why have the Chinese built theee when the US have 11? Because they recognise their value if correctly operated, demonstrated not just by the Americans but in the value they brought in the Falklands. 

 

My comment was quite specific that they're of limited value against a peer opponent. They are extremely useful against enemies with limited sea denial capability, the Chinese know their vulnerability better than anyone as they've spent decades developing carrier killer weapons and tactics. I suspect they want their own as vanity symbols and maybe they have ambitions of throwing their weight around with weaker countries.