Current Affairs Ukraine

[davids]

SAD? I'm sure you w@nked yourself dry.

No I posted the videos of Russian POWs being tortured for the Call of Duty boys to do that to. Muts will have run out of Kleenex by now.

 

[tsubaki]

I think the figures you quote for a U.K. standing army of between 300-500k is a fantasy figure - only under full mobilisation (conscription) could we hope to achieve those levels.

I’d say 200K is the realistic figure we should be looking at. Even that figure would take years of reform and restructure to achieve.

we had 300k in 1989, it is not at all inconcievable

 

[roydo]

Dont we need 2 carriers so if one needs an MOT we dont have any?

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

we had 300k in 1989, it is not at all inconcievable

I think 300K is unrealistic in this day and age. We no longer deploy actual divisions they are now split into combat battle groups with greater emphasis placed on cyber, drones, light infantry and army air support (Apache). To counter massed enemy armour formations.

I reckon 200K is achievable although @PhilM disagrees.

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

A difficult one to answer as in the future we may need aircraft carriers if China becomes the global thread. Also, we've moved away from boots on the ground.

The main thing is its a projection of power on if we're going to police states or deal with global terrorism, which was deemed the key threat, you need air power.

This is where the carriers come to play, yet as you mention we're way off actually being able to field them properly with the Type 45s still struggling with turbines.

Already, the number of Type 26s and 31s probably won't be enough what they've either promised or desired, so there's questions on how they'll be deployed.

But let's get back the point at hand - the army. We've got ageing and dwindling numbers of tanks; the Warrior IFV need replacing and that looks jeopardised.

How many rounds for the L118 do you think we have? I'll tell you.. not enough.

I get the China thing being the driver for the 2 carriers, but if we’re looking at a credible deployable naval force to counter them (as well as support NATO ops in Europe), then we need to commit fully. Presently we’ve spent a shed load of money on 2 carriers but cannot support dual simultaneous deployments as we don’t have the other vessels or crews to support them properly.

The stink continues across the land forces, not enough of them, old kit and lack of spare ammo needed to sustain a land campaign.

Ajax is a mess and needs binning now and go for off the shelf CV90. We are committed to upgrading Challenger to CR3 level and that should give us one of the top MBT’s in Europe today.

As for the L118 ammo issue - personally I don’t see that as an issue as only 7 Para and 39 Cdo use the L118 now. But yeah we are short of 5.56/7.62 ammo as well as 155mm arty and 120mm Tank rounds. Given Ukraine’s rate of fire we’d be out after a couple of weeks!

I get the China thing being the driver for the 2 carriers, but if we’re looking at a credible deployable naval force to counter them (as well as support NATO ops in Europe), then we need to commit fully. Presently we’ve spent a shed load of money on 2 carriers but cannot support dual simultaneous deployments as we don’t have the other vessels or crews to support them properly.

The stink continues across the land forces, not enough of them, old kit and lack of spare ammo needed to sustain a land campaign.

Ajax is a mess and needs binning now and go for off the shelf CV90. We are committed to upgrading Challenger to CR3 level and that should give us over if the top MBT’s in Europe today.

As for the L118 ammo issue - personally I don’t see that as an issue as only 7 Para and 39 Cdo use the L118 now. But yeah we are short of 5.56/7.62 ammo as well as 155mm arty and 120mm Tank rounds. Given Ukraine’s rate of fire we’d be out after 6 days!

Tells me that we need distributed stockpiles in Estonia, Poland, Romania and possibly Finland. That’s what I expect to hear following the next defence review Along with permanent forward bases in these locations for Heavy combat battle groups (similar to BAOR bases).

 

[tsubaki]

I think 300K is unrealistic in this day and age. We no longer deploy actual divisions they are now split into combat battle groups with greater emphasis placed on cyber, drones, light infantry and army air support (Apache). To counter massed enemy armour formations.

we no longer deploy them true, but we might have to start doing that and pretty quickly

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

we no longer deploy them true, but we might have to start doing that and pretty quickly

They couldn’t if they wanted to. The last time we deployed a heavy armoured division in a combat situation was Op Granby in Iraq 91. Even that nearly broke us. The amount of Eng and logs support needed to deploy and support a division In the field is immense.

These days its Combat battle groups and I agree we need to be able to deploy more of these types of units but it’s going to require a complete mindset reversal and a shed load of cash - moving beyond 3% GDP spend on defence yet on year.

 

[FrenchDarrenBent]

They couldn’t if they wanted to. The last time we deployed a heavy armoured division in a combat situation was Op Granby in Iraq 91. Even that nearly broke us. The amount of Eng and logs support needed to deploy and support a division In the field is immense.

These days its Combat battle groups and I agree we need to be able to deploy more of these types of units but it’s going to require a complete mindset reversal and a shed load of cash - moving beyond 3% GDP spend on defence yet on year.

Isn't a small defense force enough? Who'll want to invade us? China?

A standing army of 300.000... Landlords of pubs near army bases are the only ones pushing for that.

 

[tsubaki]

They couldn’t if they wanted to. The last time we deployed a heavy armoured division in a combat situation was Op Granby in Iraq 91. Even that nearly broke us. The amount of Eng and logs support needed to deploy and support a division In the field is immense.

These days its Combat battle groups and I agree we need to be able to deploy more of these types of units but it’s going to require a complete mindset reversal and a shed load of cash - moving beyond 3% GDP spend on defence yet on year.

if Putin is the threat they are saying he is, we really need to start down that road - as well as sorting out the rampant graft that dominates that budget

that they aren't suggests they are lying (possible), incompetent (also possible), traitors (also possible) or a mix of two or more of those things (possible)

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Isn't a small defense force enough? Who'll want to invade us? China?

A standing army of 300.000... Landlords of pubs near army bases are the only ones pushing for that.

if Putin is the threat they are saying he is, we really need to start down that road - as well as sorting out the rampant graft that dominates that budget

that they aren't suggests they are lying (possible), incompetent (also possible), traitors (also possible) or a mix of two or more of those things (possible)

They’re politicians - so all of the above. Years ago I bumped into the then defence secretary (Tom King). During our brief chat he asked me did I know what his worst fear was? He then told me it was standing in front of the treasury select committee and having his defence budget torn up before his eyes.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

They couldn’t if they wanted to. The last time we deployed a heavy armoured division in a combat situation was Op Granby in Iraq 91. Even that nearly broke us. The amount of Eng and logs support needed to deploy and support a division In the field is immense.

These days its Combat battle groups and I agree we need to be able to deploy more of these types of units but it’s going to require a complete mindset reversal and a shed load of cash - moving beyond 3% GDP spend on defence yet on year.

Any country that has nukes will never be invaded. Why North Korea has never been toppled by the US.

If Ukraine had Nukes this war would never have happened imo.

 

[tsubaki]

They’re politicians - so all of the above. Years ago I bumped into the then defence secretary (Tom King). During our brief chat he asked me did I know what his worst fear was? He then told me it was standing in front of the treasury select committee and having his defence budget torn up before his eyes.

its been said oft on this thread and on this forum but our political / media class are absolutely useless, and will never change

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

Any country that has nukes will never be invaded. Why North Korea has never been toppled by the US.

If Ukraine had Nukes this war would never have happened imo.

I think everyone on here would agree that the U.K. is not in danger of invasion. Our security umbrella however covers a wide portion of the globe and because of that we constantly end up deploying our forces overseas.

We are also faced with a resurgent and agressive Russian state intent on regaining territory in Eastern Europe with no regards for national sovereignty. We have a commitment through NATO to defend these nation states against Putin. All of these military commitments and deployments require manpower, equipment and money. Hiding behind Trident whilst Europe burns is not a good strategy as Putin knows we won’t use our Nuclear deterrent as a first strike option. He on the other hand would do so.

 

[PhilM]

I get the China thing being the driver for the 2 carriers, but if we’re looking at a credible deployable naval force to counter them (as well as support NATO ops in Europe), then we need to commit fully. Presently we’ve spent a shed load of money on 2 carriers but cannot support dual simultaneous deployments as we don’t have the other vessels or crews to support them properly.

The stink continues across the land forces, not enough of them, old kit and lack of spare ammo needed to sustain a land campaign.

Ajax is a mess and needs binning now and go for off the shelf CV90. We are committed to upgrading Challenger to CR3 level and that should give us one of the top MBT’s in Europe today.

As for the L118 ammo issue - personally I don’t see that as an issue as only 7 Para and 39 Cdo use the L118 now. But yeah we are short of 5.56/7.62 ammo as well as 155mm arty and 120mm Tank rounds. Given Ukraine’s rate of fire we’d be out after a couple of weeks!

Tells me that we need distributed stockpiles in Estonia, Poland, Romania and possibly Finland. That’s what I expect to hear following the next defence review Along with permanent forward bases in these locations for Heavy combat battle groups (similar to BAOR bases).

Mate, we used (relied) on them heavily during Herrick to the point some batteries were temporarily re-issued with them to defend places like FOB Inkerman.

In terms of use, I'm sure there's currently seven regiments that have them including my local battery (208th, Liverpool Gunners, 103 RA).

It's shown in Ukraine, like it did with us over in Afghanistan, how vital close artillery support is for infantry on the ground, so depleted stocks is worrying.

We're short on the stuff the current troops need, so it's be frightening if we had to mobilise rapidly.

 

[peteblue]

we had 300k in 1989, it is not at all inconcievable

We didn’t have an army of 300k, that was the whole military, army, navy, airforce…..