Rocket artillery systems from a number of NATO members have practised synchronising their fire during Dynamic Front 2022, a US-hosted artillery live-fire exercise held in Germany.

NATO say here that during the exercise, Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) from Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States were used to perform fire missions under the command of a multinational higher headquarters, played this year by the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC).

“This is made possible by the Artillery Systems Cooperation Activities (ASCA), a software programme that links artillery batteries from different countries to a centralised, multinational command and control centre. Currently, nine NATO Allies participate in this programme, including Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The Slovak and US armies strengthened their cooperation by joining forces in the field: soldiers from the US Army’s 1-41 Field Artillery Battalion acted as a fire control centre for a battery from the Slovak 54th MLRS battalion, receiving and passing on fire missions. The US soldiers were part of the forces deployed to Europe in early 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine.

Additionally, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) from NATO invitee Finland worked alongside JTACS from the Czech Republic and Spain to direct the artillery fire while also calling in simulated air strikes from the US Air Force fighters.”

Dynamic Front 22 featured MLRS systems that several NATO Allies have donated to Ukraine, including the M270 and the RM-70.

Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

196 COMMENTS

  1. Considering the success of these MLRS systems in Ukraine, is it likely the UK will purchase more units and possibly have a renewed emphasis on increasing artillery in general?

        • As I recall it said that expenditure would rise to 2.5% by 2030, which could mean that there is no change to current %age spend until 1 Jan 2030. Also it was a promise by BoJo – so do we believe it? and will his successor feel bound to it?

          • Well Sunak as Chancellor would have to have signed off on 2.5% and Truss has said 3% by 2030. But you have a point. If you think everything from a politicians mouth is a lie then everything they say is worthless.

          • To me it’s the 2030 date that is telling. If there was any serious plan to increase it then it would be now. They also have given no reason to justify 2030, such as aligning with the next sdsr etc. The only thing that I can guess is it’s aligned with the election after next, in other words well after who ever is PM is long gone and for someone else to work out how it would be affordable.

          • It’s equivalent to £20bn p/a extra. That’s not going to happen in 1 year. See my answer above to Graham. If you believe they always lie then anything they say is worthless.

          • Agreed, but there wasn’t any statement about it gradually increasing, it was it will increase from 2030. Why will 20b suddenly free up in 2030 but not now, what is the reasoning.

            Of course policticans always lie /tell half truths, thats the nature of their gravy train with one eye on getting reelected and half an eye on their piers backstabbing, leaving very little focus on job at hand. But that doesn’t mean they never get stuff done, just means you have to objectively question everything they say to see if it is realistic and what the logic is.

          • But that doesn’t mean they never get stuff done, just means you have to objectively question everything they say to see if it is realistic and what the logic is.

            👍

          • This cynicism is half the problem. How can an MP hope to be honest and fully transparent when he or she has to communicate nuanced ideas or uncertainty – they get penalised for being evasive and crushed if they get it wrong.

            And why is it a “gravy train”. Do people come into the role expecting to get rich or hoping to make a difference? I’d argue that for most, there are much better ways at getting rich than becoming an MP and most are motivated by a sense of public service not fraud.

            Yes, the party system whips individuals and forces them to compromise – which is wrong. And media contorts all discourse to push priori philosophical commitments. But that doesn’t mean all or even most MPs are in it for the money.

            In my opinion – if we create a climate of mistrust or punish transparency or uncertainty we are responsible for creating an environment that incentivises deceit and we end up with the MPs we deserve.

          • Exactly no one in 2030 is going to remember what’s said now or indeed be responsible for keeping that ‘promise’ if they do, it will be put down as an ‘aspiration’ no doubt put off as the next ‘once in a hundred year event’ strikes home.

        • Well, let’s see. I hope Liz Truss gets in; at least she has the foresight to take defence seriously by increasing to 3% of GDP.

          • Truss has been saying a lot of stuff about expenditure and taxes that haven’t been budgeted and are clearly not affordable. We will have to hold off until she wins the vote, to see if any of it will actually happen including the 3%.

          • I don’t think there is much left to cut, that is the issue. Pretty much everything has been hollowed out or sold off. Boris and Cummings before were talking about cuts, but could never come up with details of how it could be achieved. Find talking about cuts with vague statements when your in opposition, but in goverment you have to deliver.

          • Why have the highest tax burden since the second world war, so not sure how there isn’t money available for defense spending. To be honest I don’t see any option out of higher taxes if we plan to fully fund the NHS. Private healthcare costs a fortune so we either pay for it in taxes or have a third world health services.
            The civil service almost double in size since Brexit and is the tories number 1 target in 5 figure head counts saves. Across the public sector national and local there are huge amount of jobs for jobs sake that don’t actually provide a front line service that we way our taxes for.

          • We also have the highest national debt since the second world war, and the interest payments on that needs to be paid and with the economy not growing we can’t grow our way out of that issue.

            To be honest, not really sure where the tax money is all going. We have less money flowing into the NHS, we clearly have terrible roads full of pot holes all over the country, national infustructure plans have been slashed, etc etc. Its clear there isn’t spare money, but where it’s going I’m not sure.

            I suspect too many hair brain ideas like saving the sat company that didn’t make the right type of sats and has now been taken over by the French and Chinese.

          • Final Salary pensions, government bloat. While salaries keep rising by small amounts on paper more and more senior titles are created to give people a payrise for doing their existing jobs but the base salary for a teacher or nurse is still quoted in the media despite there being 8 or 9 payscale levels for performing their core job.
            Billions are paid out to private service companies because they can deliver it cheaper on paper mainly because they so not have to pay 30% of their works who are out on long term sick.
            Dept is payments is less than 10% of government spending although that is a high number. The cost of pensions and looking after the elderly is crippling the government and when T May tried to fund it she almost lost the election.

          • I think on the bbc debate it truss said it would be 2.5% by 2026. I didn’t like the answers they gave for supporting Ukraine. Sunak seemed to say we need to step back and take stock and truss kind of said the same.
            Now I was only half watching so I could of picked it up wrong. I really hope that they were not meaning to support less? If anything it has to increase or stay the same. If Russia are successful all bets are off for all our futures.

          • It is interesting that a lot of quite credible economists say that it is actually affordable.

            What makes little sense is Rishi’s linear accounting – things don’t follow straight lines and it makes perfect sense to

            • allow for the economic effects of forward guidance
            • anticipate those effects

            This mainly has a big effect on business investment and things like the super deduction do make a difference but so then to does have a lower corporation tax level.

            The real big elephant in the room is that SME’s can’t actually borrow money at sensible rates and the RLS does nothing to address this.

            Whilst the world is a bit of an uncertain place simply say if X criteria are met then CT drops to Y is very helpful as the mood music is that there won’t be any more increases.

          • I haven’t seen any serious ecomomist say it’s affordable. I have seen vague statements in the head lines of the papers supporting her but never backed up anything.

            She is by and far the party favourite, so we will soon find out if she can deliver.

          • 3% may not sound a lot, but it is a 42.8% increase compared to the current Defence Budget. Interestingly Truss has also said that she will review the defence cuts if elected.

          • The problem is GDP means nothing, you need to look at it as a percentage of tax revenue, where it’s around 5.2%, which is more than we pay in the police.

            Review is polictical spin for do nothing but sound like you will.

      • The way as i see it is after years of political indoctrination from the left of the political spectrum the Conservatives are history and will be consigned to the political wilderness for the rest of most of the peoples here natural. The left who will replace them will in turn set about remaking the world as their wonk mindset sees fit. First thing to go will be the UKs nuclear deterrent. There will make a huge song and dance about how nuclear weapons make the world a much unsafer world and that they will make the first step into making it safer. Next they will cancel all future projects (Like they did during the 60s) this they will explain by saying the money invested will go towards the NHS which saves lives and not kills them Whilst it wont be carried out during the first term, I suspect they will pull the UK out of NATO during their second term (to much rejoicing) claiming that NATO has caused more problems than any other org/country in history bar the UK) They will consign Israel and the US as an enemy of humanity and end all relations with them . Due to opening up the borders to anybody (even more than at the moment) who can get here, they will win the third term due to the influx of new voters living it large.

        My point, the British military as we know it will never be the same again, when (not if) Labour gets in, expect the UK to become the new kid on the block regards pacifism.

        Yes I accept there will be those who will laugh at the above, but we are living in an age where the wonks are brainwashing our children (and have been for years) that black is now white and white is black. I mean we now have MPs who subscribe to the view that a bloke with 2 meat and 1 veg can be a woman..Mary Seacole who ran a Brothel during the Crimea war has completey replaced Florence Nightingale in the teaching of historical fact and nobody teaches the fact the Uk made the biggest impact in trying to end slavery. these and a lot more has resulted in the new generations been taught that 2 plus 2 equals 5 and they swallow anything the left of the political agenda tell them and one of the lies they are been fed is that the British mitlary is a source of evil (looks at the BBC) and so will be a vote winning source of funding (As in cutting) for other projects such as 3rd World Aid

        • That’s a lot to get off your chest considering this is a post about rocket firepower. Labour isn’t run by the far left, Corbyn had his shot twice and failed, his opinions on foreign and defence are quite different to the current Labour leadership’s who want to increase defence spending and back deterrent. Moreover, wanting to treat people with kindness and compassion and acknowledging the contributions of people who have been overlooked in the past is not incompatible with also wanting a strong military to stand up to dictators (who happen to have poor track record on LGBT issues and are the process of glossing over their nation’s past transgressions to further their political agenda).

          I think their is too much heat and emotion in modern political discourse and it’s our duty as citizens in a democracy to try and be as objective and logical as possible while treating others with respect even if their vision of how to make a better country differs from outown.

          • SD:
            “”That’s a lot to get off your chest considering this is a post about rocket firepower.””

            It really would help if you understood I replied to the question posed, which was:

            “”Sadly I see no evidence of increased UK defence funding as a consequence of lessons from this war.””

            And not what you think i did

          • You went into a ramble about the “political indoctrination” and did not confine yourself to “rocket Firepower”. I can understand why “SD” thought that way.

          • Really? I’ll put money on the table, i have earned more medals with my name along the edges that you have, why I bet I’ve earned more Nijmegen tin medals than you’ve earned medals. The point I was making which appears to have gone right over your head, is I can’t see the Uk spending money on defence in the future when the real wonks would rather spend it on the people who hate us, transforming men into woh-men and paying reparation to people who have never been slaves. I fully subscribe to the POV that any governments first remit is the defence of the country and the people who pay their wages.

        • Knock it off with that shite.

          Yes, there are some muppets in the UK who want our nuclear deterrent gone. They are nowhere near power. If, if, Labour win/form a coalition after the next election, even then they won’t touch the nuclear deterrent.

          Jeremy Corbyn and Co. are living rent free in your mind.

          • I was taught at an early age to look at every side of an argument including those you find unpalatable.in which to ensure you never ever underestimate the otherside. There’s a fantastic book written by Gordon R Dickson a sci fi book about a race of soldiers called Tactics of Mistake. Where the founder forces the otherside to always underestimate him. Whist’s it’s a work of fiction, the theory behind the book is outstanding just like how the great Khan outfoxed Shah Muhammad II and took the city of Bukhara by crossing the unpassable Kyzylkum Desert.(now that’s a story)
            It’s the same with those lurking in the shadows waiting to wrest control of the Uk, the very same ones who are on record of wanting to remove starmer in power. As for Corbyn you do realise he was nothing more than a puppet and the real people to beware were those who held his strings.

            Ive always gone out of my way to never underestimate anybody, its why I did so well on the Tatami,(3 arts) the Boxing Ring and the good old rough and tumble on a night out. All I am saying here is that there is a growing movement which has designs on curtailing defence spending, we ignore them at our own peril.

          • Jay wrote:

            You did “so well” at “the good old rough and tumble on a night out”. What an achievement!

            Sorry Jay, I was refering to getting a bloke on his knees and battering him around the ring in a different manner than what you are drooling at

          • Congratulations, you can do martial arts and Western fighting too. So can I. But how is that relevant at all?

            Same for the sci-fi. It’s just stories. Dune has some entertaining insights, but it’s also batshit insane (and quite badly written).

          • Why am I not surprised how the entire message went over your head. Looking at your previous posts I see you bring nothing to the table but vapid digs at people. Maybe you should spend a little more time rereading your tactical aide memoire especially section 5-13 Command responsibility 

        • Farouk, sometimes your answers take my breath away! I mean that in a good way. Given the cyclical nature of British politics it is entirely possible that Labour would win the next general election in 2024 and the Tories could be locked out for at least 2 parliamentary sessions (ie 10 years). However their unilateral nuclear disarmament stance never really took hold. Would it in future? I think many Brits think nuclear deterrent is even more required in the volatile world of crazy Putin etc. I could see big ticket projects biting the dust under Labour but why would Labour pull out of NATO which is a refuge for countries with weakened militaries so that they can gain from collective defence and the US defence umbrella.
          I do see a pacifism creeping in though. Defence cuts are easy to implement and don’t frighten many voters and the NHS and social care seem to need ever expanding budgets.

          • Graham,
            The world has changed these past 30 years and due to the peace dividend resulting from the fall of the USSR, we have people who have never faced war, hunger or even fear. (which doesnt explain all those safe spaces inside universities) Because of this the arts have flourished and with that a growth in political thought that berates the politics of the past (which has resulted in the Uk of today) as oppressive, with a need to reimagine the past into a politically friendly one where historical fact has to be erased.

            We see that with the likes of XR who today decided to blockade a food factory (as it uses Soya to feed chickens)

            We see it with the idiots who glue themselves to oil paintings because the artists used oil paints

            We see it with the politictal actitists who decided to close down the factory where the Watcher UAV is made in Scotland the otherweek, and their action was supported by Unions and MPs.

            Currently there is a huge movement that paints the picture that NATO is the reason for war in the Ukraine. That all Russia is doing is defending its borders and doesn’t want NATO to invade and wreak the country like it did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia and of course Syria and Iraq. Yes the vast majority of people here will laugh at the above, but the simple fact remains its what a large number of the population believe in. The Conservative woman web site (Hardly a leftwing website) knocked out this article today
            The West impales itself on the sanctions sword
            have a butchers at the replies. virtually all subscribe to the view that Moscow is the victim and that NATO is to blame

            Personally I subscribe to the view that a lot of the misinformation is funded by Moscow, but the simple fact remains a lot of the plebs whilst subscribing to the view that Moscow is in the wrong allocate the vast majority of blame on NATO. The left of the political centre already known for hating what they see in the mirror, will have no problem latching onto that blame NATO in which to garner votes and they will make promises for that voter block. 

          • Just to reinforce my point regards how views are changing here is the offical police responce to the protesters who shut down and damaged the THALEs factory in Scotland the other week:

            A Police Scotland spokesperson said: “Around 5.20am on Monday, July 11, 2022 police were called to a report of a demonstration within the grounds of a business premises on Linthouse Road, Govan, Glasgow. Officers remain at the scene.

            “Police Scotland is a rights-based organisation that puts our values of integrity, fairness, respect and a commitment to upholding human rights at the heart of everything we do.

            “We have a duty under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the rights of people who wish to peacefully protest or counter protest balanced against the rights of the wider community.”

          • It seems to me that the rule of law is being eroded piece by piece by social warriors who feel they can act with impunity as they have ‘right on their side’…their perception of right and justice of course and no one else’s.Somehow it seems that just because a group of people shout louder and are more virtuous than anyone else their views take precedence over the law..aided and abetted by the very legal system we are all expected to follow.Criminal damage…no problem,..breaking and entering … nothing to see here… criminal damage shhhhh we can ignore that.It seems the law only exists for some…and not all, once the law decides to listen to a few ,a pious few, and ignore its own rules then where does that end.The police and the justice system need to be very careful.

          • I think the protesters worked the law out to work in there favour. I would of thought that the grounds of the business would be they businesses property and that a being in those grounds would grounds for removal. Maybe it’s public land or whatever.
            Sorry about the different grounds meanings.
            Those protestors are wonks and should be removed to somewhere to protest without disrupting things.
            While I see what you write is a worst case scenario hopefully if things went that way most people would not be happy and vote those people supporting that stance out.
            If any political party in the U.K. strays to far from the centre they normally always lose the next election.
            Meet u here in 30 years to see if your right 😂👍

          • I don’t disagree that there is a massive communication strategy from geopolitical enemies of the west trying to undermine the west and we need to protect ourselves from that. But this has always been the case. In the interwar periods there was a massive campaign run buy the far right around supporting the third Reich and facist states….but a although it been a thing with some of the upper class elites, the fundamental culture of the nation and centralists politics won out and the Second World War and the defeat of fascism was the highest point in British imperial history ( no other empire in history apart from the British empire has declared war against an enemy it knew could destroy it on nothing greater than principles alone), this was supported by both the conservatives and labour.. Then we come to the the great struggle of communism vs liberal democracies and again despite the many useful idiots the soviet communism party recruited both populations conservatives and labour governments stayed true to our central beliefs of liberal politics.

            The Labour Party is in the end a society conservative but liberal middle of the political road Workers party, the conservatives a socially conservative but liberal middle of the political road party of business. Both believe in the core values of liberal democracy, opportunities, fairness, the rule of law and personal freedom…they vary on how to achieve these goals, but the reality is there is actually little difference n core belief, occasionally we see either the far libertarian right or far socialist left try and take control, but our electorate and systems of governance alway bring everyone back on track.

          • I agree with a lot of that Jonathan, it’s easy to exaggerate the differences in our 2 largest parties (they’re quick to do it themselves) but as you say neither like to steer too far from the centre as when they do they get punished for it. While Labour members (some at least) will want rid of nuclear weapons on an ideological level, they will know its a vote loser. Same with the Tories and the NHS so we end up with our broken system that more or less works despite itself. In the meantime, those who enjoys politics for their drama (or career) will continue to bang whatever drum works for them.

          • Hi Jonathan, I just want to issue slightly with your analysis – I don’t think what you’ve presented hold true any more and hasn’t done for the last 10 years. Its a long one, please forgive me.
            The philosophies underpinning the two scourges of the 20thC haven’t gone away but far right fascism has been more or less pushed into a small corner.
            Woke IS the cultural evolution of the Marxist revolution – it is a direct philosophical child of “scientific materialism”.
            The aspirations of the cultural revolution, yes there are direct parallels with the Chinese concept for obvious philosophical reasons, is the absolute deconstruction of societal power structures (not just class strata). But they don’t see sex, gender, sexual orientation, parent-child preference or race as having any biological foundations (they seem to reject even minimal biological determinism) – they see them as human concepts only – to be done away with. Similarly, this is why even mathematics, engineering and timeliness have come under the unrighteous indignation of the progressives – they’re products of people who were direct beneficiaries of the power structures the woke are trying to eradicate.
            In the woke mindset, it isn’t enough to share some common aspirations – one needs to be a revolutionary, that is “critically aware” to truly epitomise the end goal. It is for this reason the woke can dare to claim outrageous things like, a black person is only black if they’re “politically black”. If you’re not “critically aware” then you are part of the societal structure standing in their way.
            Clearly structures of the state, including the police force (hence de-fund the Police); immigration control (hence no-borders movements); defence forces (as noted by Farouk) are targets for these activists.
            These various critical theories are pervasive in humanities departments and have found their ways into the physical sciences, education departments, media, corporations and politics. One needs to realise that this is not about protecting minority rights. These activists are using LGBT+ rights as a wrecking ball against all societal structures and the protections that come with them. These ideas dominate much of the thinking of the left nowadays and some on the right who are effectively neo-liberals. The idea the Conservatives are some bastion of social conservativism is far from reality today. Its why Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, struggles to answer “what is a woman” and why Rishi Sunak refused to answer it. These questions matter because they legitimise or otherwise the philosophies they are grounded in. If Sir Keir Starmer gets to power and affirms that a woman is both an adult female and a man who thinks he is a female then that category of classification becomes entirely subjective and by setting a precedent we have affirmed as a society that all such categories are entirely subjective – it will just take time for the practical realities of this belief to materialise in law and everyday practice but eventually they will. The consequences on society will be paradigm shifting and I think the suffering to vulnerable people will be tremendous.
            Consider 40years down the line and the West has fully embraced the various critical theories and mass “critical awareness” has been achieved in your grandkids – what would it look like if NATO was no-longer a mutual defence pact of liberal democracies but now the military arm of a revolutionary, Marxist block wanting to extend it cultural value system throughout the world? Sound familiar, very 20thC.
            Ideas have consequences and the philosophy of the previous generation becomes the common sense of the next. Marx didn’t go away, he just moved from the halls of the money changes to the institutions of culture.

          • Nathan you are moving a lot of theories of self and critical theories of freedom and society while making links to Marxist theories. A lot of these links are very much the domain of right wing conspiracy theorists. I’m also not sure how you have managed to link in the theories of Neo liberalism ( which is a right wing theory of market led eccomics to critical theories, which in themselves are not a homogenised group of theories but come from many root views trying to understand the functional make up of human societies.

            There are always shifts in society, this is normal, once not so long ago, working class people were considered to uniformed to vote, white people were consider superior in every way and women were subordinate to men, along with other charming views like ownership of people was acceptable and children born outside of wedlock should be removed form their mothers, who should also be locked away. The reality is that your average citizen of this county today would despise a lot of views held to be universal truths in previous generations…and I absolutely guarantee that my grand child will hold very different views to myself, as long as those views don’t include such things as burning catholic’s I’m ok with that.

            The problem we have at the moment is more and more people are seeing those with different views and ideas as other and possibly not worthy, that is the danger we face, not the fact someone can have a sex change and become a woman. As for what happens in 40 years, well we are going to have to deal with far more fundamental problems than sex change, like what is humanity, where does machine intelligence sit within a question of what is human and what is a blended intelligence ( human enhanced with biotech or even modified humans) as well as questions of how do you construct a post scarcity society and potentially a post old age society…or the other end of the spectrum how do you reconstruct a society to manage a post runway climate change world…..I really don’t think a question of being gay or Critical race theories are going to be something that is much consider in 40 years.

            Personally I think there is a lot of over egging to create fear and conflict at present, mainly to support a few individuals who get off on being leaders and having a feeling of power as well as to sellIng media in its various forms.

        • I’m sorry I’m going to call you out on Marry Seacole, there are many contemporary primary sources that made it clear Marry Seacole made a big impact on the wounded in that campaign. Her and Florence Nightingale came from every different world views, But actually even with there very different moral standards they actually both had a deal of respect of each other and Florence clearly wrote and reported that she felt Marry had made a great deal of difference to stage suffering of wounded soldiers. She even when and helped the wounded while under fire.

          As for labour scrapping CASD, even that useful idiot Jeremy Corbin could not get the Labour Party to change its support for CASD and NATO, Starma whatever you think of him is a middle ground consensus politician so you will see no major changes, in stance or defence….infact I suspect you would see in increase in capital investment especially in defence industries such as ship building and aviation..so I think you would likely see increases capitalisation or the armed forces.

          The problem the conservatives party have is that in the end Johnson was found to have no real moral compasses as would go with the easy route…tor power or support his mates and that’s Stained the Conservative brand, there other problem is they are handing of economic catastrophe, it’s inevitable and mainly fuelled by international issues, but that’s irrelevant and it will kill them as the 2010 crash killed labour ( both rightly or wrongly being blamed for an international financial crises they would have little real control over). Monetary issues….Sunak is right, you cannot cut taxes out of dept we’ve had to build during coved, cutting taxes will trash the economy not cutting taxes we harm individuals finances, they are doomed if the do or if they don’t politically. Finally there is the Great Britain belief in the middle of the road, pragmatic politics, the British public tend to get very fed up with ideological driven politics be that right or left and as soon as a party starts to pamper to its ideological wings it losses voter appeal ( unless the other side is even more ideologically drive) labour was never going to win with Corbin as leader as his whole dialogue was ideologically driven, the conservatives have now moved into this field ( Especially with liz truss and her backers) , just as labour have started to move away from the ideological driven politics that crippled them for 8 years.

          So yes I think your right the conservatives are probably going to be out of power for a decade. But that’s good it’s the point of democracy, labours returning to a middle of the road politics and that’s what we need. Hopefully the world will return to an even keel in 2-4 years, Labour will ride that…in 10-12 year there will be another international financial crises and labour will have been in power to long, run out of road and the conservatives will have remade themselves and so the beautiful balancing act that is our democracy continues.

          • Jonathon you are welcome:
            The story of MS has been blown out of all proportation to the actual historical fact, In fact I even read one article where FN was catigated for being a racist , but hey thats the way of revisionist history and how they have made a non britian into one of the greatest Britons going:

          • It’s interesting as there Is no evidence anywhere that Florence was racist, as noted they actually respected each other’s commitment to mitigating suffering, they just had completely different upbringings and moral compasses, Florence was the daughter of a gentleman and social class dictated her behaviours and Marry was as lower class and so they simply had differing standard…I paraphrase Florence she alleviates suffering and does good work but encourages bad behaviour, I don’t want her corrupting the moral standards of my nurses.

          • FN, from a woke perspective was a beneficiary and part of a system of oppression – as was MS. Even if they never said or behaved in a racist fashion they held and perpetuated beliefs that supported a hierarch of values or institutions that did – like marriage; gender differences; family life et cetera. And since woke is a revolutionary dogma (think Marx): silence WAS violence. Non-revolutionary activity was (is) oppression. So MS was also likely a racist bigot as well as FN. But saying so out loud hurts the cause.
            This isn’t a revision of history but a philosophical re-interpretation of it. You and me and most others on this comments board are probably seen as violent oppressors and part of the problem.

          • Jonathon you are most welcome, however there is a lot of misinformation about MS here are a few:
            There are (at least) twelve books available on the life of Mary Seacole geared to children. All of them are wildly wrong on the facts, while not lacking in enthusiasm or praise for their subject. Most have vivid illustrations, but again these typically relay the mythical Mary Seacole, notably as a uniformed hospital nurse. Several have good context in them, but fail on the core material as to what Seacole actually did. Here is a brief overview, in alphabetical order, of what is wrong with the available resources for teaching on Seacole:

            Castor, Harriet. Mary Seacole. New York: Franklin Watts 1999.
            This book has an especially dishonest cover, depicting a young Seacole in a blue and white nurse’s uniform, looking after a wounded soldier at his bedside (not something she ever claimed to have done in her book). The fictions continue with Seacole searching “the battlefields for wounded and dying men, even while the guns were still firing,” again quite beyond her own description of aid offered (on three occasions, to be precise).
            The book credits both Seacole and Nightingale with saving “many soldiers’ lives,” but regrets that Nightingale became more famous, the result of her being white and rich, not the scale of her contribution, according to Castor, who did not acknowledge any significant work that Nightingale did.
            Collicott, Sylvia. Mary Seacole. Aylesbury Bucks: Ginn 1992.
            (See comments on her 2003 book)
            Collicott, Sylvia L. The Story of Mary Seacole. London: Macmillan Education 2003.
            This is one of the most erroneous children’s books, although it claims, on the inside cover, to tell the “true story” of Mary Seacole. Nightingale is not mentioned in it, but her work is attributed to Seacole. It makes Seacole out to be a reformer, travelling to many countries to make things better. There is no mention of her acknowledging “blunders,” but she is constantly referred to as a good nurse. The tale has officers in London turning Seacole down for a nurse’s job (not her story, or one for which there is any evidence).
            The book has Seacole in the Crimea building a kitchen “so that she could cook good for the soldiers,” then a place where they “could eat their food,” although she herself described a hut that served as a restaurant/bar/catering service for officers, not soldiers, who could not have paid her prices. Nor did ordinary soldiers socialize with officers.
            Next Collicott has Seacole (fictionally) building “a hospital near her kitchen so that she could treat the soldiers’ wounds and diseases.” Seacole herself is portrayed as young and slim–just the thing for a hard working nurse, but she was middle-aged and stout in reality, as a restaurant proprietress and cook would often be.
            Cooke, Trish and Axworthy, Anni. Hoorah for Mary Seacole. Franklin Watts 2007.
            The book cover shows Seacole on the battlefield, wearing a white, nurse’s type hat (not her usual bonnet with ribbons), with an apron, giving water to a bandaged soldier, not a scene she ever described in her own memoir.
            Godwin, Sam. Mary Seacole: A Story from the Crimean War. London: Hodder Wayland 2001.
            This book likens Seacole to Nightingale. It shows Seacole as a nurse, wearing a white bonnet looking after a soldier on the battlefield.
            The book is purely fictional, with an invented child, Omar, who is befriended by Seacole, but it has the trappings of being a history book by beginning with a Timeline, which is largely correct, and a Glossary, which is correct, but the story in between is mainly (not all) invented!
            Harrison, Paul. Who Was Mary Seacole? London: Wayland 2007.
            Seacole’s kindness to soldiers is yet again exaggerated into feats of bravery on the battlefield. Her hut, which served food and drink to officers, became “a boarding house, canteen and a general store where troops could buy supplies.” A picture has Seacole at the bedside of a soldier, although she never worked in an army hospital. While, after the war, Nightingale was invited to Balmoral Castle to meet Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, Harrison has Seacole meeting them, indeed becoming friends and meeting often!
            Huntley, Eric L. Two Lives: Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole. London: Bogle-L’Ouverture 1993.
            The book (erroneously) puts Seacole in charge of medical staff in Jamaica when the yellow fever broke out in 1853. The errors continue into the Crimean War and go on to have her being awarded three medals after the war.
            Lynch, Emma. The Life of Mary Seacole. Oxford: Heinemann 2006.
            This book fictionalizes Seacole in many respects, having her run “a shop, a restaurant and a small hospital ”where she “nursed the soldiers from 5 a.m. until midday, ”after which she worked in the store until 8 p.m.” It also has her working with doctors, and names W.H. Russell, the war correspondent, as a doctor. Seacole is said to have given “food and drinks to soldiers on their way into battle,” not a claim she ever made.
            The fictions continue post-Crimea, to Seacole raising the status of nursing, work which Nightingale did. Lynch only gave passing mention to Nightingale as “a famous British nurse who helped in the Crimean War.” It shows a picture of “the first training school for British nurses,” Nightingale’s, but does not say it was hers!
            Malam, John. Mary Seacole. London: Evans Brothers 1999.
            Businesswoman Seacole becomes “one of the first true nurses” in this book. Seacole is said to have been given medals in London for her war work, but was unfortunately left out of the Crimean memorial in Waterloo Place (the statues of Florence Nightingale and Sidney Herbert are there).
            Moorcroft, Christine and Magnusson, Magnus. Mary Seacole 1805-1881. London: Channel Four Learning Ltd 1998.
            This book has some excellent historical background, but mythologizes Seacole from the cover on (which has her in a blue and white nurse’s uniform, at the bedside of a wounded soldier). The fictional story of her going to London to volunteer is told, but she is turned down. What she did in the war is greatly embellished, up to the false claim of medals being awarded to her for her work. There is a picture of two medals, but she won none.
            Nightingale gets a mention as “a well-known nurse who was also in the Crimea.”
            Ridley, Sarah. Mary Seacole: and the Crimean War. London: Franklin Watts 2009.
            The book cover shows a Seacole photograph wearing three medals. It is in the series History Makers.
            Apart from numerous petty errors, the book incorrectly asserts that Seacole “sold food, useful goods and hot meals, and rented rooms to people. She nursed the soldiers’ wounds and treated their illnesses” (15). It does not disparage Nightingale’s role but embellishes Seacole’s: “Mary treated the sick wherever she could. Sometimes she packed up food and medicines and went to the battlefields to care for wounded soldiers.” A picture of nuns on the battlefield (they were not) states that Seacole “like these nuns,” nursed wounded soldiers on the battlefield. It has her serving “Christmas lunch” to soldiers at her business (19), when in fact her meals were for officers, and at a high price.
            Vincent, Denis and De la Mare, Michael. Mary Seacole. London: Macmillan Education 1990.
            Seacole is featured on the cover wearing a blue and white nurse’s uniform. There are such errors of fact as misdating the Crimean War (the British and French declared war in March 1854 and invaded in September; the book starts the war in 1853). Seacole’s hut becomes a place where ordinary soldiers could get free food and medicine and inpatient care (ignoring the obvious constraint that the British Army had over 20,000 men in the Crimea). Seacole even prepares special food for the ill (actually something done in Nightingale’s Extra Diet Kitchens). Seacole is described as “often” being on the battlefield, treating Russians as well as the allies (she gave examples of “several” Russians assisted, on one day only). The book errs in having Seacole allowed “sometimes” to go into the hospitals to nurse, although she herself made it clear that the doctors did not allow her inside (except that anyone could visit). While officers raised money for Seacole’s retirement, the book credits ordinary soldiers. It has her dying in Jamaica, when she died in London (her last years were comfortable, thanks to the money raised by officers).
            Williams, Brian. The Life and World of Mary Seacole. Oxford: Heinemann 2003.
            This author has since published a second edition of the book (next below). The cover of this book has a fine portrait of Seacole proudly wearing three medals, none of which she won.
            Williams, Brian. Mary Seacole. Harlow: Heinemann 2009.
            There is some good background in this book, but a lot that is simply dead wrong. Seacole did not write to the war minister (the author also makes Mr Herbert into Sir Sidney) for a job, and never submitted the required written application. She did not pack and take ship when she heard about the war, but proceeded to Panama on the gold business. The book is off about soldiers having to steal their food as the army did not provide it–the army did, however not nutritious food–a matter Nightingale worked to change. Seacole’s hut was for luxury items for officers, for sale at prices ordinary soldiers could not afford.
            Seacole did not hand out food and drinks to soldiers as they marched off to battle (she missed the three most important ones), but sold food and drinks to spectators (at three later battles).
            The book frequently shows Seacole wearing medals she did not win, and explicitly says, incorrectly, that she won three.

            And then there is this:

            BBC Websites
            The following letter, sent to BBC Complaints in May 2013, outlines some of the misinformation on two online BBC resources:

            We are making a number of complaints about your coverage of Mary Seacole on several of your websites. It is too late to complain about your television programmes on Florence Nightingale and Seacole, but the websites are still available and should, therefore, be corrected.

            This first set of complaints concerns one of your programmes on Horrible Histories, ‘Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole’.

            Not only was the public relations consultant fictional, as your description stated, the whole story was false, insulting to Nightingale and giving achievements and attributes to Seacole which she never had, nor ever claimed in her memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands, 1857. Seacole could not have done much work for ‘wounded’ soldiers as she missed the first three battles of the Crimean War: the Alma, Balaclava and Inkermann.
            Seacole is portrayed as an old-fashioned nurse; she is young and black, although she was never a nurse, in Jamaica or in the Crimean War, and never wore a nurse’s uniform. Her occupation in Jamaica was a boarding house proprietor, and in the Crimean War she ran a restaurant/bar/store/takeaway for officers. She is portrayed as black, when she was, in fact, three quarters white. Moreover, she was proud of her Scottish heritage, but not of her Creole background (she never said she was an African: See her book, Wonderful Adventures, pp.1-2). Instead, she referred to herself as ‘yellow’, to indicate her fair complexion. Like many other people in the nineteenth century, she made rude remarks about ‘niggers’. Many examples can be found on a website: http://www.maryseacole.info/
            Contrary to your statement that Seacole and Nightingale ‘argued about the nursing work each of them did for wounded soldiers’, the two of them only met once, for about five minutes, as described by Seacole in her memoir (Wonderful Adventures, p. 91). On this occasion Seacole asked Nightingale for a bed for the night, which Nightingale found for her. Seacole was en route to the Crimea to open her store/business. They did not discuss nursing at all, according to Seacole’s memoir.
            Contrary to your reference to Seacole being “refused entry” into Nightingale’s nursing corps, Nightingale and her nurses had already left London for the East by the time Seacole decided that she wanted to join them. Seacole’s main reason for being in London was to look after her gold mining stocks, as she explained in her memoir (p. 71).
            Seacole did not sell her home to go to the Criema, as your statement suggests, but used the profits from her last business in Panama to fund this trip and start the business in the Crimea.
            Seacole never established a hospital, nor ever claimed to. Her business, described in detail in her memoir, provided food, alcohol, takeaway meals and catering services for officers’ parties and sporting events. She described giving first aid on the battlefield, post-battle, on three occasions.
            Your statement that ‘Both nurses did pioneering work’ is grossly inaccurate, as Seacole was not a nurse, and did no pioneering work in nursing, nor ever claimed to. She called herself, as her mother had before her, a ‘doctress’, meaning she was a herbalist. Nightingale’s pioneering work was much more extensive than you describe. Seacole’s so-called ‘pioneering work’ in ‘cholera and tropical diseases’ is a mis-statement, in that she claimed few successes, admitted blunders, and is known to have used lethal substances, namely, lead acetate and mercury chloride in her ‘cures’. She was no worse than most doctors of the time, but it would be wildly inaccurate to credit her with ‘pioneering’ work.
            In the BBC film clip Seacole claims that Nightingale turned her down four times; she did not do so even once, as explained above. Seacole did not sell her home in Jamaica to fund her trip, but used profits from her Panama business, as she explained in Wonderful Adventures (p. 74). Nightingale never said, and never believed, that nursing was only for ‘British girls’. This is to accuse Nightingale of racism, and is very offensive. The clip shows Nightingale literally pushing Seacole aside; this is a totally fictional and another offensive misrepresentation. In fact, Nightingale’s grandfather, William Smith who was an MP for Norwich, was a leading member of the movement to abolish slavery and the whole family felt strongly about racial injustices.
            The clip that has Seacole a ‘penniless black’ is wrong because she was not black; and, moreover, her subsequent bankruptcy was the result of poor business decisions, namely, overstocking of goods expecting the war to continue for months longer than it did.
            Calling both women by their first names does them both an injustice. They were adults, not children at the time: Nightingale was 34 and Seacole 50 years old. Do you call adult men in comparable places by their first names?
            This sorry website should be closed down, and an apology issued for its flagrant misrepresentations of both people, New material should be provided that is factually accurate on both. It behoves your researchers to read Mary Seacole’s book, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands, which is now available online: http://www.digital.library.upenn.edu/women/seacole/adventures/adventures.html. For further examples of misrepresentation see the website http://www.maryseacole.info.

            The next set of complaints comes from BBC History. Historic Figures: Mary Seacole (1805-1881):

            Your opening statement is a flagrant misrepresentation by calling Seacole a ‘pioneering nurse and heroine of the Crimean War’. She was not a nurse at all, and never claimed to be. She was not recognised as a heroine at the time, but this claim has only recently been made of her. Your picture shows her with three medals, which, however, she was never awarded.

            Contrary to your statement that Seacole learned her ‘nursing skills’ from her mother, she learned herbal remedies from her, whom she called an ‘admirable doctress’, in her memoir, Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in Many Lands (p. 2). Her mother did not keep a boarding house for ‘invalid soldiers’, as it was meant for army and naval officers, who were not necessarily sick.
            Seacole never claimed to have ‘complemented her knowledge of traditional medicine with European medical ideas’. On her travels to Britain, she sold Jamaican pickles and preserves; in the Bahamas she acquired shells and shell-work for sale in Jamaica (pp. 3-5), which demonstrated instances of business activity, with no reference to medical knowledge.
            It is not clear how and when Seacole was ‘refused’ by the War Office. According to her own memoir, she did not even decide she wanted to go until late November 1854, after Nightingale and her team had already left. She never submitted an application to the War Office (whose archival material may be seen at the National Archives at Kew).
            Seacole announced with a printed card her intention of opening the ‘British Hotel as a mess-table and comfortable quarters for sick and convalescent Officers’, but, in fact, did not open a hotel at all; instead, she opened a hut which served as a restaurant/bar/store/takeway.
            Your statement that her battlefield visits were ‘sometimes under fire’ is an exaggeration. She missed the first three battles entirely, but was present for three of them in 1855. On these occasions, described in her Wonderful Adventures, her main function was the sale of food and drink to officers and spectators. She also provided first aid on the battlefield. She referred to being ‘under fire’ in quotation marks, in the same way that many other people did who were in that vicinity.
            You provide no historical evidence for your statement that her reputation ‘rivalled’ that of Florence Nightingale. Mrs Seacole was well liked and became a celebrity on her return to London. However it was Nightingale who led the nursing and did the hard quantitative work after the war addressing the causes of the terrible death rates. Nightingale’s reputation was based on her solid accomplishments, which were well recognized at the time, by doctors, medical statisticians, architects and engineers. Her work and ideas remain influential today.
            This website should be drastically revised. The picture should state that Seacole did not earn those medals; moreover, in her memoir she never claimed to have won them. She is first known to have worn them back in London in 1856.

            Finally, an e-mail written by an 11 year old girl sent to one of us (Dr Lynn McDonald) exemplifies the way in which poorly conceived BBC programmes (i.e., your Horrible Histories on Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole) can misinform the public of all ages (and affect their views into adulthood). This young girl wrote to ask: ‘Is it true Florence turned down Mary Seacole four times because she was black?’ To which the answer was, as you will have read above, ‘of course not’. Nightingale never turned down Seacole and helped her when she requested help.

            Yours sincerely,

            Dr M. Eileen Magnello
            Chairperson of the History Group of the Royal Statistical Society
            Senior Research Fellow
            Department of Science and Technology Studies
            University College London
            London WC1E 6BT

            Dr Lynn McDonald
            (university professor emerita)
            Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
            University of Guelph
            Guelph ON N1G 2W1
            Canada

          • That’s a long one Farouk and I respect a well evidenced answer. Completely agree there are a lot of fairy tails out there that never really show the context. The reality is nursing as a proffesional did not exist then, the concept of care as a way to treat ill health was simply your family or mates did the best they could and you lived or died, there was no science behind it at all. Both Florence and Marry were sort of making it up and trying to find out what worked. Florence came at from a common sense clear and ordered approach, Marry came at it from a mixed African, holistic and experience of what worked approach. Both I personally think were individuals that made a difference for those solders they helped at the time. Florence made the most difference to the history of nursing and I think anyone who suggest differently is mistaken, but I respect Marry for a woman who pushed the boundaries and made a different to people. Why Florence made the greater impact, well she was part of the established middle classes and had the respect of many movers and shakers, Mary did not, nothing racist just simple reality of influence.

        • almost everything possible apart for the NHS going private, this country is not willing to pay for the cost of private market driven healthcare. Even at the ideological drive hight the conservatives have never actually figured out how to fully develop a private market driven healthcare system.

          Just for clarity I don’t mean state owned, I mean state run, which is not the same… as a good chunk of the nhs is not state owned and the NHS has always been an interlocking set of private, public and third sector organisations that work under a single brand banner and government controlled set of rules which is the NHS.

          • I think you may be wrong, there are several Health Systems and Health Insurance models used in Europe that work very much better than the failed NHS

          • Unfortunately Jonathan, it’s becoming increasingly clear that many aspects of the NHS simply don’t work. ‘Huge’ sums of money are spent every year, with billions in additional cash injected regularly, yet throwing all this money at the problem never actually seems to fix it.

            What is it now, a staggering 12%GDP for the NHS I believe!!

            Yet every single year, as far back as I can remember it’s “the NHS in Crisis” screamed from the roof tops….

            So what is the answer?

            Could it be the break up of the NHS, with all hospitals being private businesses, but treatment paid for by the NHS.

            Allowing large hospitals to run themselves as hospitals do in the private sector… i.e, considerably more efficiently organised, with much higher levels of personal accountability, without the cash draining layers and layers of bloated national and regional over management.

            Many middle management guys in the NHS wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the private sector.

            Typical public sector regular grade promotions and pay raises, no matter how ineffective or incapable the person is a great way to throw away billions in poor decisions and planning.

            I base that on a number of my colleagues who have worked in the NHS management over the years and had to ‘carry’ incompetent co workers who stood zero chance of being sacked because of potential Union backlash.

            They paint a really rather bleak picture….

            Running it like the Chinese Army clearly isn’t and I would suggest, will never work, even if you doubled the budget. It’s simply overblown and too massive an organisation to ever work effectively.

            Just my opinion based on many years of business management, listening to first hand accounts of former NHS staff and following surgery with follow up treatments in an extremely well run private hospital, paid for by the NHS.

            Something clearly has to change. Providing it’s free at the point of access, so still effectively a public health system, with the Government effectively as the client, what’s the problem?

            Love to know your thoughts…

          • Hi john, interestingly since 2011 the GDP percentage to the nhs slipped back, to just below 9%. The 13% gdp was the total to the DOH for all the covid work, not funding to the NHS ( the NHS gets about 66% of the total DOH funding). We are still the second lowest spender on healthcare of the G7 nations, all our meanful peers spend more ( Germany, France ect).

            The simple truth is our health system is failing but not through anything it has any control over:

            1) we are the second most unhealthy nation on Earth ( US) is first, we insist it’s our divine right to destroy our health get loads of long term conditions and then get the best treatment all without having to pay much.
            2) Adult social care, as we are so unhealthy, insist we get the healthcare to keep us alive in some state of utter ill health, we need incredible social care…instead we have shocking social care as we will not pay for it and so no one is their to do it…the NHS then picks up the pieces ( around 33% of all people sitting in hospital, blocking the system are medically fit and should home). This is destroying the ability of the NHS to provide acute care ( we but a system with less acute beds than any other western nation on the assumption we should send everyone home quickly….in theory it works if you have great social care and is the only way to have a budge health system).
            3) we do don’t t bother to train The number of Drs and Nurse we need as it was always cheaper to recruit from poor country’s…trouble is now there is a world wide shortage and all the other western systems pay more so people don’t come to this county ( that’s why the £1400 uplift in wages is the nail in the coffin of our system…as we need to recruit foreign staff and the US pays around £60,000 dollars a year more for registered nurse ( for instance I’m a matron level nurse and the nhs pays me £50,000 which I’m happy with..the problem is the US would pay me $150,000 and so all the international nurses are moving out of the U.K…and we can’t magic a workforce….15 years to make a GP, 10 to make an advance nurse practitioner…it also costs a fortune to make a newly qualified healthcare professional ( around 100,000 per one and then they need Around a decade before they are really to do the high end stuff.
            4) investment, the U.K. has underpaid the NHS for what it has provided by around 150-200 billion over the last 70 years , That has meant the NHS has not been able to invest in infrastructure ( our buildings can be older that some nations) and we have a repair waiting list of around 5 billion pounds.

            These are four generational level problems that will take decades and 100s billions to deal with. Throwing a few billion at it during a pandemic and hopping it will go away is for the fairies.

            Our health system was close to collapse for the four reasons above before the pandemic and the politicsl master new this ( we we probably going to have a catastrophe collapse of our health system with a decade) the pandemic has simpler brought that forward. But be in no doubt our health system is now in the active process of collapsing…this is not about efficiency or better management… we have destroyed Our health system,strategic workforce, strategic infrastructure, destroyed our social care system to the point Collapsing health System is proposing it up. While as a population we have shoved death into our mouths. In the expedition someone else would sort out our hideous health issues.

            i sit in emergency meetings every day, trying to figure how we can use our depleted and ever reducing resources to stem an every growing tide of ill health and demand forthe impossible…with every one in that meeting knowing every day people are dying because we just cannot magic Drs and nurses out of thin air…I look at those faces ( people who have worked with death and suffering all their lves and are dedicated to preventing as much as they can ) and all I see is despair, with the only thing keeping them going is someone had to try ( all the while despairing as we know it cannot be salvaged ).

            Yes the government had throw us more money..but it is aways ring fenced for something….and so what we don’t have any more Drs or Nurses so we can’t generally even spend the money…they need to instead throw every penny at social care…that’s the only way we could get a breathing space, Then we need a radical new public health policy….sugar and highly process foods need to be removed from our shops, they are destroying the NHS and our futures ( we now have kids with type 2 diabetes for fuck sake).

        • I wouldnt right off the conservatives just yet. Labour is already having in fighting and it wouldn’t take much for them to split into factions and for starmer to lose any advantages he got from the Boris mess.

          Most of the papers support the conservatives and they are happy reporting to help it look like the whole world is having equal economic issues, which is objectively not true but when do facts come into polcitics.

      • I see no reason to be so negative.

        HIMARS etc are actually pretty cheap – well until the MOD produce a Gucci version.

        Off the shelf it would not be a big deal to have a decent number.

        Given the damage that less than 10 are doing ATM 75 units would do it? The real key is in the depth reloads which needs to be NLAWS like.

        The other lesson that hasn’t quite sunk in, is that carp tanks with carp tactics are useless but decent tanks with decent tactics would be very useful.

        Unless Sunak gets in there is going to be a phased uplift in defence spending. Quite why Sunak thinks that giving the Chinese a big green lights by not increasing defence spending is the way to go beggars belief. You have to be a bit of a clutz to fail to grasp that bit of geopolitics which suggests to me that he is not really leadership material.

        It would be very hard for anyone to make political capital out of a phased defence increase as even Labour and Lib Dems has said it is needed.

        • Yes I don’t think there is political voice that says anything other than an increase is needed, it’s more a question of scale and pace at present. Most people now seem to accept Many decades of geological, mercantile and physical conflict with China and Russia as well as allies is inevitable .

        • Agree defence spending needs to go up. The West has to have the military capability to face down and if necessary defeat Russia and China combined.
          Most intelligence forecasts point to China launching an invasion of Taiwan in the early 2030s and after Taiwan is captured and throttled to death then who knows what China will next do. Try to settle some old grievances vs Japan and South Korea potentially.

        • Hi SB. Perhaps my cynicism is drawn from 34 years of experiencing defence cuts. HIMARS launchers may be cheap but would weeks and weeks of ammo be? I agree that we need more rocket arty and HIMARS has a great reputation. Yes we should buy some! I agree that Truss is more likely than Sunak to increase defence spending in the short term. Our luck may be in!

      • Graham, as part of the previous uplift there are pending equipment programmes for Land, with billion plus funding streams. CAAM, CAAM ER, SHORAD, more Boxer, and so on.
        As the army benefitted from that uplift more than the other services there will be announcements forthcoming.

        UKAFC blog has outlined these.

        • Hi Daniele, talking of things GBAD, I just read somewhere yesterday, I think it was on Janes, that LM UK are looking at integrating the Israeli mixed interceptor Barak into their UK GBAD system. I was wondering why don’t MBDA do a mixed CAMM/ CAMM- launcher a bit like Iron Dome x15 launcher?
          Even integrating Starstreak/HVM, both ER of course, into the Phalanx/RAM type mount could be a goer for the RN. Seems like lots of opportunities going missing or other countries taking the lead with these things.

          • why don’t MBDA do a mixed CAMM/ CAMM- launcher a bit like Iron Dome x15 launcher?”

            I’ve no idea, that sort of question is beyond me.

          • All good. It was kind of an open question on top of all my previous rants about GBAD. We’ll just have to wait and see what eventuates or not.

        • As Def Sec has already stated simply pouring money in as of tomorrow: it wouldn’t be spent well.

          A planned ramped increase is what is needed with some front load for cost capped capital programs.

          As you rightly say there are funded capital programs in place. Given the success of NATO missiles in Ukraine I am confident that Army are right, see I said that, that CAMM and CAMM-ER will do a great job.

          • Any increase has to be spent wisely. Up front increase for new kit or speeding up existing programs where there is capacity and a plan would be ok.
            I wondered what system shot down the 2 cruise missiles heading to Odessa?

        • Daniele, you are referring to the extra £24bn over 4 years announced in Nov 2020? Fair enough but that was to plug pre-existing equipment capability gaps and was announced 15 months before the Russo-Ukraine war.

          I can’t find that blog – can you assist?

          • Hi Graham. Yes, I am.

            UKAFC is United Kingdom Armed Forces Commentary. Otherwise known as Gabriel’s blog. He knows his onions, I’ve followed his site for years as religiously as this one.

            If you go back a bit on his tweets he lists lots of upcoming goodies in the equipment plan with serious money committed to them. 1000 plus Boxer is likely with varied weapon fits and extra AD.

      • unfortunately not only do we show no sign of expanding but also thiere is no sign of replacing what we have donated.

    • Boxer modules will probably cover many systems, Brimstone , 155mm, 120mm mortar ,Spear 3, or AA guns have been mooted, so it might not be difficult to mount a HIMARS like pod on one.
      It would be far cheaper to buy a truck mounted system like HIMARS rather than wheeled or the possible tracked option of Boxer though.
      I read a pod of 6 missiles costs £800k, Precision strike will be expensive.
      Rather than more systems, more ammo stock might be a more pressing need.
      Germany and MBDA are developing a 500km max range stealthy cruise missile to fire from their MARS version of M270 so down the line the UK might see the need for more systems hopefully

      • I forgot about the Boxer and the modular flexibility it will offer. I’m sure a variant of HIMARS could be mounted? I just think artillery is still a potent and vital part of the battlefield and the UK appears not to hold enough assets? On the subject of MLARS, I’ve seen a few in private hands, which I find a touch odd?

      • Back in the mid 00’s we had two artillery systems based on trucks that were eventually canceled.
        Light Weight Mobile Artillery System (Gun)(Rocket) LIMARS (G) & (R). Both were based on on the HIMARS vehicle but built by Supacat in a 6×6 & 6×4 configuration. The (R) version – 6 rocket pod, was able to be transported by a Chinook, while the (G) version based on the M777 155mm gun required 2 due to the weight. They both got shit canned in the late 00’s and we decided to upgrade 12 M270 MLRS to B1 standard instead.
        Why not be radicle and just dust down the original design, add any updates required, can’t be that expensive!!!!!

        • Why not be radicle and just dust down the original design, add any updates required, can’t be that expensive!!!!!
          The Army and MoD ‘hold my beer’ 😎😎

        • I have read articles that suggested that LIMARS was stripped down to the bare minimum weight limit with limited ground clearance that meant in fact a supacat would lack any decent mobility.
          The issue is that although a Chinook might lift one and a single pod, as ukraine is showing they need lots of ammo , otherwise they are just a waste. Supplying one by air would prove a headache, much more complex than 105mm guns for instance.
          Just buying HIMARS would have been simpler and forget helo mobility.
          HIMARS could be landed by the Royal Marines LCU, or moved by a C-130.
          Radical would have been a British chassis for Himars ,-UK and truck M777, which would have been a thing long before CAESAR

          • I wouldn’t know about the weight issue, but do know that both types were trialled over several years with the aim being mobility for our light forces including 16AMB, hence the Chinooks.
            Agree that development could and should have probably gone further before getting canned.
            I believe there is no need to reinvent the wheel for n this regard, just dust down said plans and update what’s required – surely cheaper and quicker then trying to develop and integrate requirements onto things such as Boxer et al’……

    • We already have 40+ units of M270 MLRS (minus what we sent to UKR). I think a better use of any funding would be to make sure the remaining are kept upgraded, have sufficient modern ammunition stocks and being part of the US Precision Strike Missile program. Would rather focus was directed to the AS90 and sorting out the basics like Ajax and Warrior replacement. Its going to take Russia a long long time to recover from the losses in Ukraine and it’s now very obvious they are overmatched for any NATO land or air encounter.

    • Just before the war the decision was taken to refurbish the UK’s M270 and upgrade them to the latest A2 standard. Before the war the US was considering focusing more on HIMARS and only upgrading a small number of M270 (50 contracted) but in May it placed an additional order for a couple hundred more conversions.

    • Long range precision fires is one of the Armies key weakness at present and Ukraine has shown that fires are still the decider on the battlefield so I would hope that’s one of the key wins the army get from any uplift.

    • Well sadly they are no longer made, I remember a few years ago a debate in the press about our MLRS needing urgent updates, no idea if there is or was a plan at all to do so, or whether HIMARS has ever or is being considered, probably not. Don’t expect any news any time soon, I’m sure we will need yet another defence revue and no doubt ask Putin and Xi to hold off until we restock our pea shooters not to mention ceremonial swords and bearskins. Gotta look good on parade don’t ya know.

      • The vexed issue of guns over health is drawing perilously closer for the UK Government. No matter how dried up Putin’s forces become the mere fact he’s prepared to fight for years, and at the same time threaten neighbours, will require a shift to Cold War defence spending. Many European countries will face a similar question, especially if China flexes its military might? Germany faces recession due to crippling gas supply issues, yet has committed to a huge defence budget. Realistically, there will be more UK money but the MOD/Army has made a complete Horlicks of its procurement programmes, it may not reach an adequate level of battlefield strength for a decade. However, I hope artillery gets a much-needed boost on whatever vehicle or vehicles it’s fitted to. ‘Pull them shoulders back boy.’

    • The dispersal of launchers over a wide frontage would probably negate jamming, I also believe that the jamming of GPS would hinder the Russians as much as it would hinder NATO or Ukrainian Forces.
      I’ve read reports that much Russian equipment has been found with civilian GPS receivers taped into cockpits/Turrets.

      • I’m aware of that, their allocation of GPS receivers in their FVs/Platforms isn’t as widespread as ours. They’ve got around that problem by purchasing Civilian GPS Receivers, those receivers are more than likely to be Western in origin, if you were a GOC of a poorly trained and equipped Division would you opt to jam the very devices that are assisting your poorly trained vehicle Commanders?

    • Probably not much.

      There will be more than simple GPS anyway.

      Let’s put it this way: your phone has got inertial on it…..

      What might happen when the GPS signal in messed with?

      Does the missile give up and go home?

      Or does something else kick in to finish the job off?

      Weapons that easily messed with are pretty useless in a real battlefield. The thought process might be ‘what would I do to mess that up?’ and then making sure that it doesn’t work.

    • Russias GPS jamming capability involves opening the doors of 3 stolen zanussi washing machines and hoping for the best.

      • Dumbest and most ignorant comment in this comment section.

        1. It would be a direct attack on the US and NATO.
        2. It would violate what is a legal (though effectively gentlemen’s) agreement to not persecute war in space.
        3. It would certainly lead to other countries taking out Russia’s GLONASS and perhaps even China’s Beidou for good measure.

        • Glonass is about as good as throwing a pin in a map. If it worked as advertised it would be ok but no where near other systems. As we know Russia’s stuff doesn’t work as advertised.
          Look at the evidence Russian aircraft flying with gps in them. Jamming Civilian gps is one thing. The secure military is quite another. Russians captured with maps made in 1969 in Ukraine. That shows the level of effort Russia puts in to navigation.
          Get a civilian device that does gps, glonass and Beidou. Then ask it to just use glonass. It’s not great.
          Russia is a has been. A wannabe big boy. It’s not the Soviet Union and everyone is now seeing this.

          • Agreed 👍Will they improve, possibly but not in the near future and with economic sanctions which will have a long term effect!

          • No but they build the same shite as Russia! We all have an opinion, like we all have arseholes!

        • Because Russia knows in any direct military confrontation with NATO there are only two outcomes.

          1) NATO wipes the floor with Russia’s military, destroys its industrial military base and inflicts a massive and humiliating defeat. Removing Putin from Power.
          2) it goes nuclear and humanity ends.

          Russia is so overmatching by NATO it’s not a contest, the only time Putin would gamble with this is if NATO had fractured and failed ( political unity is NATOs only possible weakness).

        • Do you even have a functioning brain?

          I spelt it out for you, and you even agreed, but then still go ‘but still…’.

          There is no more ‘but still…’. The reasons I gave are why Russia won’t be shooting down anybody else’s satellites.

      • Because Russian tech is outdated and unable to improve! Their space programme is out of date, out of money and out of interest! Yes they have a certain capability but so do little western private sector companies, with minuscule amounts of money and people compared to Russia, and able to throw dozens of satellites into orbit! Nope, Russian tech, at this time and for the last 20 years is a busted flush!

      • That’s going to trigger a no hold bars massive retaliatory strike on Russia infrastructure. In fact the US could very well consider it a first step in a nuclear strike scenario. Russia would be more likely to invade a Baltic state than start taking out US spaced based assets.

        • GPS is important but nearly all systems can operate without it. Nobody had GPS 30 odd years ago and managed just fine. To take out GPS would involve hitting multiple satellites as just taking out 1 or 2 can be worked around.
          Then there’s the hope there aren’t spares in space and on the ground that can be launched.
          Also if GPS is attacked then everyone is at the same disadvantage. So it’s an even playing field again. In fact it could end up your enemy depended on GPS more than you.
          Once a GPS satellite is hit you could assume all other navigation satellites become fair game.
          That’s my take on it.

  2. The Ukraine war has descended into an artillery war. That lesson needs to be learnt by NATO and it’s member states need to invest more in artillery (and counter artillery) as there is no guarantee that we will enjoy the same freedom in the air in peer conflicts as has been the case in foreign interventions during the last three or four decades.

    • Well judging the stonking success of Ivans air defence system in Ukr where after 100+ days they still dont have air superiority then the only other player is China.
      Ukr doesn’t have the same combined arms capability of NATO so comparing and applying whats happening in Ukr to NATO strategy isnt rational.
      There is no Air superiority, ARMs/SEAD, deep strikes being undertaken by either side in Ukr on the scale that NATO is capable of delivering constantly, 24/7.Using ivans performance with conventional forces they would cease to exist in probably a week against NATO. That includes at sea, in the air and on land.
      Firing 10000 shells into a town or city, 1000 shells at a tank as ivan does, does not equate to NATO firing one missile at a target and killing it.

    • Agree in regard to Arty and OS, but not so in the air dimension! NATO do have and should continue to have superior platforms and networking to control the air from early on in a peer conflict! However we must never rest on our laurels and always seek to develop the next tech, the next capability to ensure we maintain the ability to dominate. However one thing NATO must learn, is that all nations need to be prepared to take losses and carry on despite this! Cheers.

    • The main lesson is that HiMars is working and NATO needs to invest in more systems like this, where the enemy artillery is out-ranged and outclassed in accuracy.

      The other lesson is Russia uses very hamfisted tactics i.e flattening everything in their path with artillery which will surely lead to a shortage of ordinance given the size of Ukraine.

      • We’re already there. A Ukrainian Lieut Col in the east has seen a 90% fall in Russian shelling in his area in the past week.

  3. I thought you all would be interested to learn that all does not appear to be well with the M31 MLRS round. Over the weekend three unexploded rockets were found at the site of the shelling in Krasny Luch presenting Russian experts with the opportunity to fully examine the warheads and hull fragments, which were dated 2019. In total 6 missiles were fired at the city giving a 50% failure rate. This is one of the rounds.
    https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/20/43/69/82/img_2040.jpg

    So, what will the Russians do with them? Based on previous occurrences, Russian military specialists will order a full size replica of the missiles to be made. The replica will then be shipped to Russia’s central military district where Air Defense specialists are based who dial in scans of mock-ups of foreign missiles. Russia has previously aired footage which showed a warehouse where Russia has a collection of US, British and other missiles.

    These missiles are hung onto a specialized crane & suspended mid air in a setting surrounded by lasers & scanning tools. This creates 3D models in various radar frequencies and also optical and IR so that a library of its signatures can be created, allowing in the future a missile or radar to I/D it by reference to the then updated database, comparing its view in IR or the various different radar frequencies to determine what it is. These parameters will then uploaded across Russia’s AD networks into both the detection radars as well as the smart seekers in fire and forget weapons.

    At the same time the missile’s seeker will be analysed for vulnerabilities.

    All in all exactly what the Americans and NATO probably didn’t want to happen.

    • Oh, you’re back? Been on a short holiday?

      Why is it you have nothing but negative things to say about the ‘West’, NATO, etc.? Do you think you are being ‘balanced’?

      Why is it you felt the need to write three whole paragraphs of the obvious? Russia are analysing fragments of missiles fired at them? You don’t say! Do you think this didn’t cross the minds of the ‘Western’ allies of Ukraine sending them?

      And how about a condemation of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine while you’re at it?

      • As you ask yes, kind of, at the VBOA car show over the weekend on Sywell airfield just outside Northampton.

        I relay back items that might be of interest, like this one. Inevitably they are one sided as I leave the positive news on the Ukrainian side to our press and TV. Anyway the conflict is in overall a bit one sided so not sure how ‘balanced’ comes into it.

        There seems to be a view amongst some here that the Russians are, how shall I put it, a bit limited in their technical abilitiy, so I thought I would dot the ‘t’s and ‘i’s this time. Clearly you are not in that group as it is what you would have expected. Did you also expect a 50% failure rate?

        • They are! They may improve over time as they realise we in the west realise how horse shite they are! But at the moment your Russkie mates are still shite, corrupt and not quite understanding that illegal invasions are not acceptable to the sensible and grown up fee world! Anyway about that condemnation?

        • You’ve been on “the Warzone, the drive” since 2015 pushing out the same shit haven’t you, but using more extreme communist Soviet Union propaganda pages, haven’t yiy Johnskie boy!

        • JIMK wrote:

          There seems to be a view amongst some here that the Russians are, how shall I put it, a bit limited in their technical abilitiy, 

          A view? Russia which spends more in one year on its military than what the Ukraine has done these past 22 years entered the ring on the 24th of February 2022 as the second most powerful nation on the planet. Which has spent the past 22 years upgrading its armed forces to the most modern standards going

          On paper Moscow completely outmatched the Ukraine, its SOP is for quick military advances based on the deep operation (The Russian version of Blitzkeig) theory put in place by Vladimir Triandafillov. That can be seen by how the entire Russian land component is based around speed and yet for a military which the west feared could reach the channel in a couple of weeks, we find then dragging their feet over a few miles (and yes I mean a few miles) from their border. Nobody expected the Ukraine to last more than a couple of weeks and yet here we are 5 months down the line and Moscow is struggling. I’m not saying they are losing or that the Ukraine is wining, neither will I say that NATO support has been the reason why. Why? Because it’s not the size of the dog in the fight that counts, but rather the fight in the dog and it is that category the Ukrainians have it in spades. So back to your dig at the rest of the posters here (most Miltary) regards your claim made above. If the Russians have such an overmatch in everything, how come they have not only lost so many regards men and equipment, but taken so little (yes they now control 20% of the Ukraine) of the country over 5 months.  

          P.S.
          Seeing as you are such an expert on Russian tactics, can you please explain to me why very few Russian troops are fitted out with optics. to me that oversight (no pun intended) would have given Russian infantry a finer edge and yet? Would I be correct in assuming that would count as a limition of the technical ability of the Russian miltary?

          Anyway good to see you are back, I was kind of worried how you had dropped off the grid of late.

          • To be fair I don’t think many people really considered Russia to be the second most powerful nation in the planet ( that’s China) it’s a one trick pony and that’s its nuclear arsenal ( which is essentially nothing more than a dead man switch, to keep the other side honest, same as the. west’s). It’s an economic basket case, propped up by oil with a declining population. I would put it behind the U.K, Japan and France in geopolitical power

            In regards to Ukraine it was alway going to have to be a decapitation move or a drawn out bloody war for Years that Russian can not afford. Ukraine is to geopolitically large, with a large population and Easter Europe’s viable campaign season is a few months in late spring and summer. It was a toss up on which way it would go and the coin had fallen Ukraine’s way and Russia is fu%ked as the west is willing to keep Ukraine in the game for as long as it takes and the west has far greater strategic depths of reserves, money and industry than Russia does.

      • He’s been on holiday due to been unable to find anything positive about Russia since the last post.
        I’m interested in all things military but the gloating way of writing about like a Russian fan boy on a uk defence site is pointless.

        • He has been posting on othe sites since 2015, to include the “Warzone” on the drive! Even more communist propaganda in use, Farouk clocked him and he hasn’t mentioned or replied to Farouk or anyone about it! He has been caught out AGAIN!

        • It is like we are meant to be worried that MLRS tech will fall into Russian hands.

          I’ll leave the worrying to the experts in NATO/DoD/MoD who weigh up the pros and cons of these things.

    • Right on que with the latest laughable Russian propaganda. Check all the pro Kremlin bot accounts on twitter and they’re all pushing this story. Even if there was any truth to it, based on what we have seen from the Russian military, I don’t think the US has anything to worry about. Try harder to cope.

      Care to comment on the supposedly world beating S-300 that got wiped away by himars?

        • Not at all. Why are Ukrainian photographs always fake and yours utterly verifiable?

          Do you dispute these plain facts?

          Putin’s invasion has been an abject failure (excepting for the massive strengthening of N.A.T.O., ironically one of the reasons Putin said motivated his attack on a sovereign nation)?

          That tens of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians have died or suffered appalling injuries as a result of his reckless gamble?

          That the economic and social outcomes medium and longer term will be to the detriment of Russians? A new Cold War? Is that what security for the Motherland amounts to?

          Are you deluded or debased?

          • Both mate! But as a controlled troll with Putins nonce leash around his neck he spews the party line!

        • I do not know. What makes you so sure it is and what makes you think anything valuable can be gleaned from the fragments in the pictures you all are pushing?

          Also, you all from the pro kremlin crowd have be claiming the Russian Tornado is superior to himars, so what’s the point of even bothering when you supposedly have something better already?

          next point is Russian tech seems so rubbish that I doubt they could actually do something useful the little bits they found.

          I’m also asking once again, any comment on the S-300?

          • The S-300, also known as whirlpool washing machine of 90s design and tech! Good for washing women and kids blood from Russian rapists cheap uniforms!

          • I don’t think I have mentioned Tornado. You bother if you want to analyse its characteristics so that you can I/D it in the future, as I explained.

            The S-300 is mobile but not quickly and it can’t defend itself against all targets, it needs Pantsir or Tor to protect it and they were not there. So yes, one less S-300. If you are monitoring Kremlin accounts you will be aware that some are claiming it was a dummy system used as a decoy, I don’t agree, I think it was real.

    • Russia can do whatever they like with them. Systems fail. I would not believe a single word Russia says.
      That picture is probably a bit of a grad with a washing machine door, a bit of cast iron drain pipe and some other stuff that they could steal from Ukraine.
      If Russia is so great why would they even bother looking at it. There kit is miles better.
      Russia lost its last ounce of credibility when it hit Odessa less than 1 day after signing a treaty saying they wouldn’t. Then they say someone else launched kalibr missiles, can’t even own up to there own nonsense.
      Murders and pussies.

        • Agreed, but difficult to put into place when there are 50k rounds out there already, including large numbers already in or on the way to Ukraine.

          • Yaaaaaaawn, they will all be used up quite soon killing invading Russian rapists and then the west sends more, and more and guess what, even more while no one sends Russia anything and their tech base is incapable of producing fuck all! Now, about this illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin, any condemnation yet?

      • Sad to say but that answer is disappointing, even stupid. This is another photo
        https://i.servimg.com/u/f11/20/43/69/82/img_2038.jpg

        Of course they examine it, they want to I/D it in flight and check out its guidance, not copy it.

        As I understand it no-one outside the parties involved know whats in the agreements. As the Russians said, and the photos confirm it, they hit a military part of the port, an estimated 1km from the garin terminal. Current estimates are that the first grain ship could leave in the next week.

    • Our own Putin spin doctor. Whatever did we do to deserve you? Exciting though isn’t it? Russia is being pulverised with our western systems. You must find some comfort in that? Because we are from around these parts aren’t you …?

      • Have you seen the Ukrainians? They are not going to weaken. They have 1 million strong forces. Ukraine is still able to produce ammo, weapons and repair and refit loads. Ukrainian su25 are still flying daily missions along with other aircraft etc. I don’t think the west support will weaken.
        Russia has managed to take 10% of Ukraine in all this time and look at how decimated there forces are. The 20% figure is misleading as they already had 10% at the start on 2022. Kearson will fall in the next few weeks. 1500-2000 Russian troops are surrounded and asking for a corridor to get out. Russian troops hit at the big nuclear plant recently. It’s a poop show.
        Corruption has wrecked havoc in the Russian forces. It’s been destroyed from the inside.

      • It all depends on how committed the West is to supporting Ukraine, if the money and weapons keep coming I think Russia will end up the strategic loser in the game. Russian advances have stalled and Ukraine is putting pressure on key areas. Russia is loosing materials it cannot replace as well as suffering massive economic damage. We have less than 3 months until the campaign season ends until late spring, so unless Russia find a way to regenerate its forces and go on the offensive within a month or two, it’s all. Bogged down in mud and winter until next May.

      • Geez, are you JohninMK’s mediocre prodigy is something? Or are you another Russian troll just trying a different, slightly softer, approach?

        I suppose there’s always the chance that you’re just a bit dim.

        • Lol, you think this is Vietnam or Afghanistan?

          There are no Western forces directly involved. As long as the Ukrainians are willing to fight (and it looks like they are), then we can and will supply them.

          It supports a fellow democracy, weakens an adversary, shows other dictatorships we don’t mess around, and is a boon to our arms industries (not just to Ukraine; military spending is massively up all across the board).

          Russia cannot maintain losses like this. Something will give. Maybe they’ll negotiate something that doesn’t obviously look like a withdrawal. Or maybe others with power in Moscow will have enough end depose Putin.

      • Others have corrected your slant but for what it is worth, the ‘end game’ (game? Rape and destruction a game?) is simply Russia withdraws, hands over war criminals to the international court and pays reparations to Ukraine. Or they don’t and collapse militarily and socially.

        Your Finland observation is even more baffling. Do you know anything about Finland? What about Norway? One of the biggest blunders the under powered former spy has made is to galvanise countries that were asleep on watch: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania need no warnings about Russia, but in the south east of Central Europe, Bulgaria and Romania, Moldova and to the west of these countries, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and even Austria and Switzerland must be worried. The Baltic countries are well on board with N.A.T.O. The invasion of Ukraine has been a disaster for Russia if the aim was to neutralise western Europe. It’s a Russian foreign policy catastrophe a schoolchild could comprehend.

      • On the contrary, I think Ukraine is mobilising. There are hundreds of thousands of vets since 2014 yet to be incorporated.
        NATO won’t get directly involved nor will it end its support.

    • Yaaaaaaawn horse shit! What the nonce squad will do to them is try to sell them for scrap value and get a few worthless rubels and spuds! Russkie AD network? Ha ha ha ha haaaaaa wow your head shed keeps you on your toes pushing out your shite! As we’re chatting, easy question, is the invasion of Ukraine an illegal invasion or a special military operation?

    • JIMK wrote:

      I thought you all would be interested to learn that all does not appear to be well with the M31 MLRS round. Over the weekend three unexploded rockets were found at the site of the shelling in Krasny Luch presenting Russian experts with the opportunity to fully examine the warheads and hull fragments, which were dated 2019. In total 6 missiles were fired at the city giving a 50% failure rate. 

      Thats interesting seeing as i read this about Krasny Luch:

    • And with that post you condemn your self of having absolutely no idea how radar systems,command system, IR optical tracking systems or missile systems work.

      By firing more weapons at a target you increase the chance of a kill which is why most weapons are fired in salvos. If a weapon has a 95 % kill rate the second weapon also has a 95% kill chance against that remaining 5%. In effect it comes out at something like 99.9% kill chance.

    • From what I have seen Matt, I don’t think the Ukrainians need much training in biffing Putin’s rape squads with their MLRS and whatever.

  4. One of the motivations behind Putin’s Rape of Ukraine was to prevent this sort of thing. Are you paying attention trolls?

    • Your dreaming. You think Russia can sustain this level? What about the Russian troops nearing 6 months deployment wanting a rotation out? Do they have to stay and fight for ever.

    • Ah yes, Russia always intended to advance towards Kyiv in a few days, get bogged down for a month and then withdraw, totally not in humiliation. They also definitely didn’t intend to dig around Chernobyl and get radiation sickness. Oh no.

      Go join the sin bin with JohninMK.

    • Several other comments have pointed out your error. Why so pessimistic? Remember, Ukraine is intended to be the first domino in Putin’s re-vamped western Russian Empire, (read his speeches), not an end in itself.

    • IMO we should send forces to ensure Ukraine retakes all illegally seized territory & has a secure future. Let Putin & every other dictator know we will not let naked aggression, no matter how well spun, succeed. We could rue the day we failed to act decisively if we let him get away with what he’s trying to do.

  5. Highly effective, game-changing stuff despite what the russian trolls are saying. The UK should order M142 HIMARS to complement the M270 MLRS with some of that increase in the defense budget. Then order a batch of ATACMS for the M270s to stay at standoff range and use the GMLRS for the hi-mobility M142 HIMARS.

      • The K2 tanks and the K9 artillery was a good buy. The big surprise for me was the 48 FA-50 aircraft in the deal.
        Poland is a great ally to have.

        • I think the UK is considering the K9 to replace the SA90. Maybe we should look at the K2 too if we ever need to bolster our tank numbers? Doesn’t it have the same RM 120mm smooth-bore as the Challenger 3?

    • What us slightly embarrassing fir us is that the Pilish will have 200 new K2 MBT by 2024, whereas we will have 149 30yo C3 by 2027ish.. perhaps…

    • Should also note that Turkey do not call us “Britain” so to demand we change our language for them is massively hypocritical. Not that I mind them not. They can call us what they like, literally every country on earth does, but I for one am getting sick and tired of this crap.

        • sheeet ‘ole”

          Having arrived at Gare du Nord to travel across Paris to Gare de Lyon on several occasions this is true. Hold on to your wallet and bags!

  6. While for some targets they do there are situations when rocket artillery is much more useful. It’s best to have a good mix of systems with overlap. For reaction time rockets are great. Cruise missiles take a long time to arrive to target. A M270 gives a 100km circle and any unit that needs help fast within that can radio it and within minutes it’s rockets away.
    Different horses for different courses.

  7. One way of increasing Defence spending, (every little helps), would be to move the capital cost of the new Dreadnought submarines from the Defence budget to central funding, as in pre Cameron days.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here