British Defence secretary Ben Wallace said that donating the M270 multiple-launch rocket system to the country will help Ukraine defend itself against Russia.

Alongside the weapon systems, the UK will also supply M31A1 munitions “at scale”.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“The UK stands with Ukraine in this fight and is taking a leading role in supplying its heroic troops with the vital weapons they need to defend their country from unprovoked invasion. If the international community continues its support, I believe Ukraine can win.

As Russia’s tactics change, so must our support to Ukraine. These highly capable multiple-launch rocket systems will enable our Ukrainian friends to better protect themselves against the brutal use of long-range artillery, which Putin’s forces have used indiscriminately to flatten cities.”

The system can fire 12 missiles within a minute and can strike targets 50 miles away with high accuracy.

It is understood three are being sent to Ukraine.

According to a statement:

“Ukrainian troops will be trained on how to use the launchers in the UK, so that they can maximise the effectiveness of the systems. Britain previously announced that Ukrainian personnel would be trained to use a variety of armoured vehicles which the UK donated, including Mastiff, Husky and Wolfhound. The UK was the first European country to supply lethal aid to Ukraine, and has since provided thousands of anti-tank missiles, anti-air systems and armoured vehicles to Ukrainian forces.

Britain has also taken a leading role in coordinating international donations of military aid, with Ben Wallace hosting two international donor conferences to coordinate support from 35 partner nations, while RAF aircraft have moved thousands of tonnes of military assistance from donors around the world to Ukraine.

The UK will continue to provide aid to ensure Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself against brutal Russian aggression.”

A press release adds:

“The cutting edge M270 weapon system, which can strike targets up to 80km away with pinpoint accuracy, will offer a significant boost in capability for the Ukrainian forces. The UK’s decision has been co-ordinated closely with the US decision to gift the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) variant of MLRS. The decision by Ben Wallace comes in response to requests from Ukrainian forces for longer range precision weapons in order to defend themselves from Russian heavy artillery, which has been used to devastating effect in the eastern Donbas region.”

Britain recently announced upgrades to the system, with upgrades to be made to 44 launchers, which are currently in-service, and will include a new armoured cab and upgraded automotive and launch mechanism components.

“The upgrades will ensure that the Army’s Land Deep Fires capability remains strong for the next three decades and that the British Army has the technological capability to quickly meet the threats of today and tomorrow. Taking advantage of the long-standing MLRS collaboration with the US and key allies, work will start on upgrading the first tranche of launchers in March 2022 with the fleet going through production over a four-year period. The upgrades will keep the equipment in service until 2050.”

What has the UK sent to Ukraine so far?

In addition to the above and the recent delivery of a number of Stormer armoured vehicles fitted with Starstreak anti-air missile launchers, Britain has so far sent more than 6,900 new anti-tank missiles, additional consignments of Javelin anti-tank missiles, air defence systems including Starstreak anti-air missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives.

Britain giving ‘Stormer’ anti-aircraft vehicles to Ukraine

The information was provided by Leo Docherty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (jointly with the Ministry of Defence), you can read the information below.

“The United Kingdom strongly condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. We continue to stand with Ukraine and continue to support its right to be a sovereign, independent and democratic nation. The United Kingdom and our allies and partners are responding decisively to provide military and humanitarian assistance. This includes weapons that help Ukraine’s heroic efforts to defend itself.

We have sent more than 6,900 new anti-tank missiles, known as NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—a further consignment of Javelin anti-tank missiles, eight air defence systems, including Starstreak anti-air missiles, 1,360 anti-structure munitions and 4.5 tonnes of plastic explosives.

As Ukraine steadies itself for the next attack, the UK is stepping up efforts to help its defence. As we announced on 26 April, we will be sending 300 more missiles, anti-tank systems, innovative loitering munitions, armoured fighting vehicles and anti-ship systems to stop shelling from Russian ships.

The United Kingdom has confirmed £1.3 billion of new funding for military operations and aid to Ukraine. This includes the £300 million the Prime Minister announced on 3 May for electronic warfare equipment, a counter-battery radar system, GPS jamming equipment and thousands of night-vision devices.

The Ministry of Defence retains the humanitarian assistance taskforce at readiness; its headquarters are at 48-hours readiness, and the remainder of the force can move with five days’ notice, should its assistance be requested. The UK has pledged £220 million of humanitarian aid for Ukraine, which includes granting in kind to the Ukraine armed forces more than 64,000 items of medical equipment from the MOD’s own supplies. We are ensuring that the UK and our security interests are secured and supporting our many allies and partners, especially Ukraine.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

352 COMMENTS

  1. While we are supplying significant amounts of effective materiel to Ukraine, the French have apparently supplied next to nothing.

    In April Defence Minister Florence Parly promised on Twitter (!!) that France would send “several Caesar artillery cannons and thousands of shells” Unfortunately none of these systems appear to have arrived, though a consignment of shells (which apparently cannot be used on other manufacturer’s systems) have

    What pressure could HMG put on Macron and the French – who have made these promises to Ukraine, but like Scholz/Germany have not delivered?

    Macron’s ill-considered intervention over the weekend that “Putin must not be humiliated” is extremely unhelpful and shows where his sympathies really lie

    • The French are looking at their profits. BP wrote off £4bn when it sold its stake in Rosneft in a hurry whereas Total, the French energy giant, has committed to ‘suspending’ its Russian operations by the end of this year.

      • In fairness to France I am sure they are much more concerned with the 1.4 billion people on their doorstep in Africa and Western Asia who are now facing starvation due to grain export reductions than a few quid for total.

      • The Yamal facility in Russia that Total operates has a contract value of $50bn, and Total have $13.7bn of directly owned company assets in Russia in addition to its company stakes, its on a totally different scale and a lot for one company to just absorb without compensation. They have however written of 10% of the value of the value of their assets ($4.1bn), frozen investment and pledged to stop trading Russian oil and gas by the end of the year.
        Russia makes up 10% of Total’s capital assets and it has 19.4% of shares in Novatek and 20% of Yarnal LNG amongst many others. Russia provides 17% of Totals’s company revenues.

        BP has indeed exited but it wrote off far more than £4bn, its intention to sell its 19.75% share in Rosneft was booked as a £20.4bn loss (£10bn in capital value of the investment and the rest in a write-down of the value of the Ruble’s BP holds in its Russian bank accounts), despite the write down the increase in oil prices still led to large increase in revenues and a quarterly profit of £4bn. However the Russian operations were a much smaller revenue stream for BP than Total, providing 3% of BP’s company revenues (£400m in Rosneft dividends last year).

        • Thanks for the comprehensive reply. It maybe puts Total’s failure to act quickly into context but perhaps they should have been more careful about investing so much into Russia in the first place.

          I think allowing them to avoid the pain (and thereby support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine) is called moral hazard!

          • Unfortunately that is the case for many UK companies too. Look at how many have Chinese investment for instance? Look how reliant our companies are on China. What happens when China invades Taiwan? We will not be able to put the same sanctions on them as we have for Russia as our economy would immediately collapse due to our reliance on them and their money.

          • The US has realised this also. Their DoD is looking to invest in American manufacturing companies as they are concerned that almost all their equipment relies on Chinese parts, which is not very sustainable when they consider China as their main miltiary threat.

          • The military is only on issue. What about all our commercial companies? Our real estate sector, or practically every other part of our economy? We could not sanction China, it would be practically impossible. I am not against foreign investment but that foreign investment should be coming from stable friendly countries, not authoritarian states that are effectively our enemy in all but name…

          • Whilst agreed in theory but reality of the world is the foreign countries with money to spare, tend to be the ones that are questionable. The west has relied on cheap goods no question asked on why cheap for too long, it’s now impossible to break that.

          • In my view it’s impossible. The issue is inflation. The poorest of the country would be hit hardest if prices went up and they can’t afford it. Then there is jobs and the lack of workers to fill them, we already have massive issues in the west on trying to get people to fill roles. Finally there is the cost of doing it would require massive investment by government. Ok you could do it gradualary, but that would require it to be done over multiple generations, and no government in the west is going to invest in something that the rewards are going to happen after their life time. In theory possible in practice I don’t think so

          • Think I’m with Lee1 on this one. We can. We should. We must.

            Inflation – given how much we’ve printed over the last few years (look it up – scary), inflation is happening anyway.

            Foreign Ownership – Just say ‘X companies’ (anything the Gov deem critical to national Security/integrity) cannot operate in the UK under Chinese ownership & Chinese Co must sell. They did it with Tik Tok.

            For real estate – Foreign Billionaires use London real-estate to park cash. No foreign national should be allowed to buy residential or agricultural land here unless they’re resident & pay income tax here. Pass a law stating if you own now, you have 5 years to divest. Then watch all the dirty money leave London & watch the house prices fall.

            Lack of workers? We have 1.3M vacancies & 1.2M unemployed. Besides, worker shortage = increased bargaining power = rise in wages. That’s why truckers can earn so much now.

            Yes we have become addicted to cheap tat but there are plenty of other developing nations that do not pose nearly the same threat as China – Indonesia, Nigeria, Vietnam etc etc. China offers nothing special above cheap power and cheap labour (while they steal all your intellectual property…). The companies that use cheap Chinese labour are already looking for a move for a veriety of reasons including increasing labour costs. We just need to provide an extra nudge.

            Personally, I’d like my Western Imperialistic Pig Dog pounds to go to any other country to make my cheap tat…

        • Not to mention BP and Total are private companies, the governments can ask as much as they like for them to do something, but if it’s not in their shareholders advantage, they won’t do it. I suspect BP had overvalued it’s stake there and that was behind the ease of righting off so much. Most international companies have exited Russia but have attempted to do it in as financial prudent way possible, like selling off local subsidiaries to the local management.

          France government willingness to give miltiary gear is completely seperate topic.

      • Pretty sure I read on a Ukrainian news site of their being used in combat. Doesn’t negate the basic point of how sparse the response has been from France.

        • There was a report on Ukraine Weapons Tracker, on twitter, of a French Artillery gun being used, though can’t remember if that was training or Live firing either, nevertheless they have sent something.

          • Something is always better than next to nothing. The French treat OTAN as they call it, ( Like the Devil writes backwards so they say) as a leper and would have a Euro defense alliance with naturally a French general in charge.
            Today was DDay where we bailed them the last time.

        • It chimes with Macron seeking to be the ‘European’ emisssary to Putin – when I saw him sitting at the long table opposite Putin, it looked like appeasement.

        • The French realise that if these systems are used to attack Russian territory, the very nature of this war will change. Giving Col Putin the justification for using tactical nuclear weapons on those parts of Ukraine NOT occupied by ethnic Russian people.

          Remember, we in the west have the misguided view that the war is only a few months old. When the people of the region know it started in 2014, with specific incidents leading to escalations.

          It is quite difficult to cut through the propaganda from both sides, to at least glimpse the truth. I suggest watching american journalist Patrick Lancaster on YouTube and Rumble. https://www.youtube.com/c/PatrickLancasterNewsToday/videos?view=0&sort=da&flow=grid

          He has covered the fighting for 8 years. YouTube do not openly advertise his reports.

          • Trouble is the American arrived 8 years too late and riding a Horse. and as soon as they have sold Bullets/Bandages/Bombs will runaway again and not finish a single war. unless it means dropping a huge bomb a city.

    • The EU hall of shame….France, Germany, Italy and Spain. But they are stopping buying gas in roubles…cos that would break EU rules……oh wait a minute….😫.

      • Really? Polish, Czechs, Lats, Liths, Sumis, Swedes, Danes and more.

        Europeans are standing by Ukraine, I know, zero dark hour and Poles and Czechs stood on freezing cold platforms putting food into the hands of UKRs. Give your head a wobble and then tell me about RUS money in London.

        • There is conciderably more Russian money washing around the city of London than there is, cumulatively, in many years of the defence budget.

          • N wrote:
            “”There is considerably more Russian money washing around the city of London than there is, cumulatively, in many years of the defence budget.””

            Actually there isn’t, Estimates from across the board when sanctions started to be placed on Moscow revealed that around £4 billion in Russian money was to be found in the Uk. In contrast Cyprus alone in 2013 had over $32 Billion Russian in bank accounts alone. Look up Russian Laundromat where investigators exposed how Russians hid over $1 trillion into Western and Eastern Banks. For example nearly $13 billion more was transferred to Trasta Komercbanka in Latvia. Some of the money disappeared into a maze of same shell company accounts. Trasta Komercbanka’s location in the European Union made the transactions less likely to be questioned by other banks. The money was now considered “clean” European money that could be spent on anything the Russians wanted.

        • The only thing suspect here is your reading ability.

          They didn’t call the EU a shame; they called four members of it shameful.

          • The EU hall of shame, much like quite a few posters on here.

            Never mind, you’ll be spinning in your graves when NI re-unites with Eire, Scotland joins, Wales follows and the English youth get the vote and end the madness.

            Bluffer having a good day, today?

          • Stand by, stand by.

            Today, Con MPs will keep a Labour election winner in place or give Labour a huge bar to jump…

          • Yeah we saw how fantastically well Labour did last time they went up against Boris in a general election… 🤣

          • Please don’t conflate Brexit views with Bumbling Boris. I worked on behalf of the EU for many years; the upshot being a hardening of pro-Brexit sentiments. Harbour increasing convictions that, if it wasn’t for Brussels, ourselves and our European cousins would be getting on more harmoniously. EU as a guarantor of peace? my arse.
            None of this is stated with malice, more amusement.

        • OldSchool didn’t say Europeans, though, David. Said EU, of which the past 7 years have been a reflection.
          Rgs

          • Yes, yes, trying to admit some deferrence to a different point of view is difficult.

        • What about the Russian money in Cyprus, Latvia, Switzerland, Luxemburg and ironically USA? Are they excluded in having it because Boris is not in charge?

          • What are you wibbling about?

            Can’t answer for any of those countries except Latvia which has seen a revolution in approach to the issue.

            Banks shut, multiple fines and police investigations into multiple people. Next.

    • There are several videos doing the rounds of Caesar systems being operated by Ukrainians, so they have definitely delivered them- and therefore responded more quickly to Ukraine’s urgent request than the UK.
      Also, I haven’t read Macron’s actual speech, but he could be pointing out that we can’t ultimately punish Russia/Putin so far that future conflict is inevitable. WW1 and WW2 taught us this, and the the Marshall Plan was a great success (if likely unpalatable to implement at the time) in ensuring that round 3 hasn’t happened so far. If we punish and ostracise Russia too hard, then we lay the foundations for a conflict 10, 15, 20 years down the road if/when the next Putin comes to power. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, but if that is what Macron is saying, he has the weight of history and the success of the postwar allied powers backing up his words.

      • Don’t disagree Joe, as long as no one is putting pressure on Ukraine to give up territory, then someone does need to be in place to support a peaceful solution. I’m happy with the unambiguous U.K. response, but don’t mind and thinks it’s sensible that the french keep the dialogue going. Germany is where I would like to see a more active approach and Hungary needs to have something done about it.

        • You and me both! There’s a place for both the uncompromising military support and the diplomatic dialogue- even Ukraine wants both. But it needs to be solid, and Hungary in particular needs to have a long hard think about their stance. He should perhaps take a look at Belarus- who are now so desparate that they’re willing to split with Putin and allow Ukrainian grain through to the EU because they’re suffering so badly. It doesn’t pay to be in Putin’s pocket for long.
          Germany just need to be willing to suffer a bit of economic pain to maintain the moral high ground with everyone else for a bit.

          • Having a hawkish US and UK a and a more dovish Germany and France is the way to end the war. Russia knows its the anglo countries supplying the bulk of the weapons and the euro countries that can impose the harshest economic punishment. Biden cant phone Putin nor can Johnson so having the largely irrelevant Macron do it is the best solution. I doubt this is planned as Macron is a real as**ole but who else would want to be Neville Chamberlain in this situation.

          • Neville at least got more time for UK to rearm. Macron hasn’t even got that advantage.

          • Given the fact that NATO is so overwhelming armed compared to Russia we don’t need time to rearm however every day that goes by without those grain ships leaving the Black Sea is hundreds or thousands of children starving. War needs to end soon certainly on Ukraine terms but I think we (US UK) are close to achieving our warm aims I.e Ukraine survives and Russia has completed disarmed is taken by impaling its army on NLAWS.

          • What are our war aims? Ukraine has not yet recovered the 20% of her territory lost to the enemy. The Russian army is not disarmed but has suffered major losses.

          • Neville Chamberlain led efforts to rearm from 1935, forseeing the rise of air power and advocating substantial improvements to the RAF. Perhaps we would not have had the Spitfire or Hurricane in 1940 but for Chamberlain.

            He delayed the start of the war until we were better equipped and prepared.

            He backed Poland against a powerful neighbouring aggressor, much as we now back Ukraine – although he put in place a firm written agreement to support Poland to the extent that he was prepared to go to war on her behalf.

            He was the first world leader to declare war on Nazi Germany….before France did.

      • I think you are missing the distinction between helping a defeated adversary recover (eg post-WW2), and pandering to an undefeated adversary (which is where Macron is imo) before the adversary is defeated.

        We can’t look to a totally defeated Russia – we will not start a Europe-wide war – but we must have Russia expelled from Ukraine, which is also in line with Ukr Gov goals, and defeated to that extent.

        Otherwise Ukr will just join the list of countries which Putin has turned into dismembered or failed states, and there will be another one to join the Afghanistan, Chechen, Georgia, Ukraine list.

        That is where imo Macron is calling it wrong. He is selling the pass in a way that will help the opposition.

        But then from his PoV, France (and Germany) bet the farm on trade with Russia 20 years ago, and that has turned out to be a mess of pottage. Imagine being Renault at this point, losing the biggest car factory in Russia.

        Plus it is about a fortnight to the Parliamentary election in France, and they have the catastrophe of the Stade de France to deal with, and the far right got 42% in the Presidential Election.

        Fr may be about to get it’s only 2nd ever (?) Cohabitation in Government.

        The warning for us is that Macron Plan A is usually to blame the Brits, followed by Plan B to have his Ministers lie their heads off.

        In Stade-de-France-gate, he now needs a Plan C, A and B having failed, and Macron – so far – is hiding.

      • Hang on this whole argument is declining into farce. We supplied Ukraine in its urgent requests long before France did for a start let’s not rewrite history, tear it up and rewrite it again. As.for 155mm you know as well as the rest of us that stupidly Britain doesn’t have much if any 155mm hardware we can supply to Ukraine so not surprising we couldn’t supply if before France is it, let’s get real here rather than a game of fantasy war supplies.

        • Sorry, I should have been more specific in my original statement. You are absolutely correct, we were supplying Ukraine with what it was asking for before it was cool, way back as far as 2014. I am well aware.
          I was very specifically talking about the recent urgent request for 155 mm and other long range indirect fires. Yes, those items are thin on the ground for us, and frankly I’m quietly surprised and proud that we’re committing to provide any at all.
          I made a snap reply to an unjustified French-bashing comment, which is something I get a bit tired of. But I shouldn’t have made it without acknowledging credit where it’s due to the British response to the war (which, as a Brit, I’m proud of).

      • Russia never had the free institution s, law, press, police it will always have an autocrat. Combined with a life is cheap reality for the masses and nostalgia for the lost empire.

    • The French and Germans are military irrelevant, not much point in putting pressure on them. Politically they are important to keep EU and NATO sanctions on Russia. Macron is just a show boating as*hole he is as politically irrelevant in his own country as any where else.

    • The Germans getting lots of stick for late delivery but have also gone out of their way to support Ukraine. They have already rewritten the OS of the PZH 2000 artillery to change the interface language to Ukrainian and to replace the integration with NATO’s artillery communication (which allows target position data to be passed from HQ/units in the field direct to the artillery batteries plotters) with compatibility with Ukraines own similar national software.

      • I’m interested in how much of this was at a basic level in there already.

        Ukr have been aligning their armed forces with NATO operating standards in hundreds of ways since 2014 or before at least.

        AFAICS the relationship goes back to 2002, when Ukr worked with NATO in Iraq.

      • Didn’t Germany have issues with Switzerland attempting to block the supply of gear, as it used Swiss parts and their usual stand on the fense and profit mentality.

          • And of course the warheads on NLAWS which are manufactured by the Swedes at a factory in Switzerland and present supplies prevented from being passed on to Ukraine. We should be working to take Switzerland out of our weapons development asap and equally be very wary of using Israel unless it desists from similar restrictions it has been perusing of late.

        • Its a big issue as Switzerland is one of the largest manufacturers of explosives and the UK switched from domestic production to importing them from Switzerland for most weapons during the mid 2010’s when we were upgrading most of our existing weapons designs to become insensitive munitions.

          • Indeed an irony. But one not lost on the Swiss, as in voters, I understand. They’ve apparently been querying they’re elected representatives standpoint on just such neutrality; and suggesting they loosen up somewhat, with regard to the unprovoked attack on Ukraine, i.e. if Swiss equipment is donated by other countries to which it was proitably exported.

    • Pretty ignorant and biased comment. A simple Google search shows that France has delivered CAESAR artillery and MILAN missile systems to Ukraine. Basically, the French don’t shout from the rooftops what kind of military aid they’re providing to Ukraine.

      By the way, one problem affecting blinkered, ignorant minds that prevents them even from doing trivial Google searches, is that they think they might be clever or informed, criticizing France or Germany, but, in reality, they can’t even read and understand a web page written e.g. in French, German, Spanish, Italian etc…

      As to the criticism that the EU continues to import oil and gas from Russia, thus “financing” Russia’s war machine: that criticism is a bit stupid, because importing and paying oil and gas in rubles, as demanded by the Kremlin, basically just creates electronic ledger entries in ruble-denominated accounts at the Russian central bank as the European importers “pay” for the oil and gas.

      European importers, on the other hand, can use the Russian oil and gas to produce /tangible/ goods in European factories, like, say, military equipment that can then be provided, say, to Ukraine.

      The ruble-denominated ledger entries at the Russian central bank can, indeed, be used by the Russian gov’t to pay e.g. the Russian factory workers producing military equipment and the soldiers sent to Ukraine, but they are just ledger entries. Such ledger entries could also have been easily created by the Russian government by issuing government debt. These debt instruments would then be purchased by the Russian central bank and create ruble-denominated ledger entries usable by the Russian gov’t.

      So, what Russia gets, in exchange of oil and gas, are electronic ruble-denominated ledger entries that are of increasingly limited use across the world due to sanctions and reduced willingness of countries across the globe to trade with Russia, while Europe gets tangible goods (oil and gas) that can then be used to manufacture tangible goods like advanced technology military equipment like drones, radars, precision-guided munitions etc. and send them to Ukraine.

    • Sorry but the Ukr Army have been trained & are using them… Maybe you’re thinking of the 2nd batch they promised recently but haven’t delivered yet?

      I’m no fan of Macron nor certain French Companies & their response may have been tepid to say the least… but they have delievered some Caesar.

      https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3491436-ukraine-army-using-frances-caesar-to-destroy-russian-invaders.html

      https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/french_155mm_caesar_spg_in_ukraine_combat_use_on_the_frontline_video-3045.html

    • The French president recently said we should not humiliate Russia! Could his soft line on Russia be linked to France’s high dependance on Russia’s oil and gas? Also the fact that France continued to provide military equipment to Russia post the Crimean annexation by Russia tells us that they want to be nice to Russia to renew their arms exports….

      And folk cannot understand why we trust the US more than the French….

    • Foreign policy is not about good and evil, right or wrong, it is about power.

      Who calls putin the day after Ukraine clears the last russian soldier from its land?

      It needs to be a nuclear armed power otherwise putin can threaten them.

      Who else can mediate?

      • “In all a hundred hours of calls at the request of Zelinsky. We must not humiliate Russia so that the day the fighting stops, we can build a way out through diplomatic channels. I am convinced that it is France’s role to be a mediating power.”

      • France and Germany will not be accepted as mediators of peace by Ukraine. Their will be no Minsk III.

        I think, the US will fill that role quite well.

  2. I would be curious to understand who is paying for the donated equipment. Is it coming out of the MOD budget or is the treasury covering the cost. Silence on the topic would indicate that it hasn’t been decided yet.

    Its been used for its intended purpose of dealing with Russia but at least some of the denoted kit will need to be replaced in stocks, which will be an unbudgetted cost.

    • I believe that a lot of it (at first at least), came out of the Ukraine assistance fund that was already in place for training and other development activities (like the loan for those patrol boats and stuff). I’m not certain, but I think that was part of the foreign aid budget, or at least elements of it were.
      Now that it’s been so broadly expanded, I’ve no idea- same place that all that COVID money came from I’d assume.
      I am a born optimist, so I like to think that we’re using it as a chance to refresh stocks and take some important operational and training lessons from it (while also removing Russia as a conventional land threat). But I have the feeling that army comanders may be looking at a rather long lead time until we’re fully equipped again…

    • Supposedly the MOD is able to charge the Treasury for the notional book value of any equipment it provides and the deployments to Eastern Europe, but no fresh money has been provided to the MOD for replacements and restocking ammunition. And unlike most of the rest of Europe no money has been provided to increase spending with the Treasury arguing the boost to funding it gave last year is sufficient for the new strategic paradigm.

    • It was mentioned in an article a few weeks ago that the Treasury had set aside a £3bn budget for assisting Ukraine. This budget was also to cover the replacement of British military equipment that has been donated.

  3. ““The upgrades will ensure that the Army’s Land Deep Fires capability remains strong for the next three decades and that the British Army has the technological capability to quickly meet the threats of today and tomorrow.”

    Errr, nope! More spin.

    The capability is minimal, the counter battery capability that should sit with it is even tinier, and there is a yawning gap in precision fires with no upgraded extended range shells in the RA like Excalibur, no Swingfire replacement bar a handful of Exactor, and no news like thousands of Brimstone ordered for new armoured vehicles.

    The “expansion” of GMLRS is coming at a cost of one less gun regiment, when in reality the whole of the RA, gun and GMLRS, should be a growth area.

    I’m actually pleased we are only sending 3, we have too few ourselves.

    The “Deep Fires” capability they now trumpet which is in vogue now they have neglected for decade after decade and it is not “strong” as the spin claims.

    Good kit, yes, like GMLRS, but that’s all.

    • Agree, update the whole of the current GLMRs stock and allow for some buffer, safety and attrition…even more donation! More “fresh air” happening! In real terms, are we weakening or are we strengthening the Army?! Hope it’s the later.

    • How few is too few? I haven’t really been following the debate about updating the Artillery, I think it is called deep fires? And I would be interested in whether anyone considers that three systems will make a material difference to the slogging match now going on in Eastern Ukraine.
      Its also interesting that we have 44 systems for the whole of the British Army. How many of these and other systems do the Germans have, because the latest weasel words from them is that they can’t send anything to help Ukraine because it will leave them unable to defend themselves. Which is a new variation on “the cat ate my homework “

      • 3 systems won’t, of course, that is the usual UK following the moves of the US as much as possible, daft really as they have lots to give, we don’t. But that’s politics! How often is US policy instantly reflected in our own foreign policy?

        Too few as in we have a single regiment of 3 batteries that can only support 3 UK Division, and no other wheeled lighter examples ( like HIMARS ) in other regiments that can support other areas of the army and RM. They have to put up with 1970s Light Guns, which though air portable don’t put down the weight or accuracy of fire required.

        • Exactly, in the RM, we have relied on those LG’s for year’s. In Afghanistan, the ability US artillery gave in suppression or removing opposition was something I had only read about from the 60’s and 70’s. The British Army’s reach insofar as Artillery, has never been a real option. If only you had a battery or two dedicated to your area ops, it gives options not normally afforded to light infantry. We had 105 from RA over there, but it’s only when you see the reach the US has, do you see what a game changer it is.

          We have seen that in eastern Ukraine, the Russians have resorted to lobbing as much of their heavy stuff they can from a safer distance. This show we need a lot more artillery in all sizes. Once the latest technology has been expended, it’s back to chucking shells.

          • We have an infantry centric army far more interested in cap badges than long range guided artillery. If the Ukrainians were desperate for fancy dress, regimental standards and sacred cows the British army stores would be the go to spot. Just thank God and DE&S that some bright spark at Thales or Saab made sure they had to order 20,000 NLAW and for some reason they never ended up scrapping starstreak.

          • As an example. We were stationed at a US Airbase north of Bagdad. It was regularly getting hit with mortars, 107mm rockets and the odd 122 field gun. They used C-RAM (ground based Phalanx) to defend the base. But just behind the main gate entrance were a pair of M109s. They were linked to a detection radar network that could pretty much pinpoint the shooters location. If the shooter was outside the city, the Paladins would fire almost as soon as the incoming was detected, inside the city, the Rangers would go in hunting. It was the same at other US bases. C-RAM for protection and Palidins for return fire. Went to Basra a few times and they had a couple of 81mm mortars in a pit. Not knocking the 81, but the US definitely went for the overmatch.

          • In Afghan we never had issues with our supporting 105mm lads, when Apache was out of fuel, rockets, fast air was no longer on station or deployed elsewhere for another TIC, the troop of 3 light guns from the FOB were 24/7 and every fire mission the FOO called responded fast as fuck, accurate and effective. Plus get the 81mm into the mix and we had decent, local (out to 17K) OS! While the light hun may seem a little “light” for a peer war, it has a niche to fill and in the insurgency type op it’s ideal!

          • nice one Mate 😝!I I imagine the FH70 would have been a welcome addition in Afghanistan , had it still been around.

          • I called in both our RA’s 105, plus Canadian 105s in fire missions. The USMC were near-ish, so we made use of both their 120mm mortars, M777 155mm’s and HIMARs. Though 9 times out of 10 there was usually a B52 or B1 overhead, which we had direct access to. So we were pretty much covered for support. If the RA had the FH70s, we would definitely have made use of their longer range and greater target effects.

        • One point haven’t we been asking the US for permission to supply them for a while? It may be spin that we have I don’t know but the American agreement freed up our ability to do so if one believes the reports.

    • Hi Danielle – if we had an effective Defence Minister instead of Wallace, who was capable of fighting our corner and sorting out the complete mess that is the MoD/DE&S the issues that you raise could be dealt with.

      Wallace knows that his (and probably this government’s) time will shortly be up. After presiding over the customary savage cuts to capability in order to pay for the latest MoD cock-ups, he will quietly accept a well paid consultancy job on the gravy train. Leaving behind a legacy of failure and billions of pounds worth of disasters such as Ajax, the T45’s, the new Crowsnest, carriers with no aircraft etc etc which will challenge his successor

        • Yep. How would he “sort out DES” anyway.

          The Ajax debacle goes back further than him, neither is T45 a Wallace issue.

          • Whilst it is true that the Ajax, T45, Watchkeeper etc etc etc disasters did not originate under Wallace’ watch, he has ministerial responsibility for sorting the problems out and pushing the projects on. This he has failed to do. He just kicks the can down the road, throwing yet more billions of taxpayers money at problems that he clearly does not understand in the hope that his successor will miraculously solve them.

            As has been repeatedly demonstrated over decades of incompetence, the MoD is incapable of managing large projects. Nothing will change unless accountability for cock-ups is introduced, but the civil service/senior career military do not work that way.

            My view is that the MoD should be disbanded and the military should only be allowed to buy off-the-shelf kit. This would save the taxpayer billions and give our military equipment that works – in quantity.

          • And how do the numerous non military areas of the MoD that are still part of “defence” operate with no MoD?

            T45 issues have been addressed.
            Watchkeeper? It’s in service and works. It’s the training of enough qualified “pilots ” that’s an issue. Another DS won’t magically solve that.

            I suspect by “disband the MoD” you mean the DE&S?

          • What, you mean like the married quarters complete fiasco that has cost us millions, organised by the MoD?

            Watchkeeper was years late, was a £billion over budget and it can’t fire anything. You know the project management problems with it as well as I do.

            Have you got a better idea than scrapping the MoD and clearing the incompetence out of Whitehall??

          • But David , you’ve not answered my questions. 😀

            Married quarters? We are discissing the MoD, I asked you how would you run defence without the MoD as was your suggestion.

            Those Watchkeeper issues are history, not current, how does he sort them?
            It was not procured to be armed, yes a mistake,the TB2s are showing what can be done.

            To be fair regards WKPR he has other fish to fry and any other DS from Labour or Tory won’t deal with it unless the budget increases or something else goes to pay for the upgrades.

            You have a choice, you are now DS, what do you choose?

            A better idea? Yes, accountability, as you said, agree with you there.
            Retaining civil and military staff in post within the teams at DES rather than schuffling them around every few years to keep continuity could also help.
            And keep the MoD. As you’ve still not explained what replaces it.

            Shall I list the numerous organisations and departments beyond the Army, RN, and RAF that the MoD are responsible for ?
            Maybe we can deal with your idea for each in turn?
            Because they’re currently floating in thin air with no SRO or TLB now MoD has been disbanded.

            No issues with procurement reform and D Cummings had similar ideas but scrapping the MoD is, with respect, nuts! 😆 Its responsibilities and standing tasks don’t suddenly vanish.

          • That’s a good reply. However, we cannot continue doing things the same way with the same incompetent people – and expect a different result.

            Unless there is real change, we will just continue cutting capability to pay for the current cock-ups, plus the ones in the system that we don’t yet know about – let alone the cock-ups to come. Where is the logic in paying £400 million for the Warrior upgrade and then – just before its ready to start – cancelling it? Or going from 157 Typhoons to the 65 today? Or from 6 T45’s to the one today that’s had the PIP?

            Eventually the argument will be come academic because we will have no capability left to cut and then the MoD will wither away anyway.

          • Agreed, you cant blame Wallace for those programs. very difficult to rectfy when they are mid way through (or in service in the case of T45)

          • To be honest, I can’t offhand think of any single useful thing that Wallace has done so far.

            Politically yes he has been sound on supporting Ukraine. But he has not AFAIK had any impact on the equipment programme and of course has gone along with the pretty disastrous defence review with its swathing cuts to personnel and equipment

            Wallace was a lowly subaltern in his army career, didn’t get as far as his.Major’s exam, he is I suspect putty in the hands of the senior staff officers and pretty irrelevant up against the defence chiefs.

            Perhaps I am wrong, is there some big equipment decision he has made that is beneficial?

      • With respect – you need to make up your mind about which side of the fence you’re on. In your opening statement you criticize Macron as being “extremely unhelpful”.
        Next you have a go at Wallace, yet Wallace has been extremely helpful in supplying Ukraine with military hardware.
        Or is indecision your forte?

      • Wallace has been a rather good DS. I know a few people in the dept and they all say he is analytical, asks for options and is quick to make a decision. Far better than when we had Hoon & Co.

          • He only made Captain because he was only in for 7 years. In that time he served in Germany, Cyprus, Belize, and Northern Ireland, so quickly gained some wide experience.
            During his time in NI at the age of 22, he was mentioned in dispatches for (with his patrol) capturing an entire IRA active service unit about to carry out a bomb attack against British troops. Quite impressive.

    • Hi mate, do you know how many M270 we currently have in inventory? It seems to me that, when the military specifies exactly how many units they’re going to upgrade, it’s because that number isn’t the whole fleet. If it were, they’d mention that fact.
      Like you, I really think we should be expanding in this area (more than we need the CH3 upgrade, dare I say?), but if we really can’t keep all of them then I can’t think of a more worthy cause than Ukraine for the non-upgraded models.

      • I’m unsure off my head mate, sorry. I know they want to expand the fleet as I mentioned with a 2nd regiment.

        Agree, I’d spend on the RA and the AAC long before more tanks. We are going down to 2 regiments of those so why buy more unless we rip up the latest plans and start again.

        Sorting Ajax, more CS,CSS, and getting firepower into the Infantry, be that with a revised WCSP or onto Boxers and expanding there are also priorities in my book.

        On WCSP, I saw the prototypes destroyed on Twitter, so unsure if that is even possible now.

          • Ah, who wants the UK back in the Single Market!

            And people say this BJ witch hunt is nothing to do with Brexit! That is what lies behind it all, revenge.

            A Brexiteer PM would be best I feel. Who, not sure.

          • The financial spread betting firms are giving odds on Wallace for pity’s sake….

            Ellwood once went on the beeb demanding that one of the carriers sailed to Afghan to support the evacuation….obviously geography is not his strong suit…..I would vote for Penny Mordaunt. She didnt have the job long, but she impressed everyone as Theresa May’s Defence Minister.

            Johnsonski might win. Don’t hold your breath

          • I can understand people being angry with BJ. Personally I supported the current government at the last election, but, for sure like many other people, i’m angry with Boris. I don’t think it is anything to do with Brexit revenge, that’s just daft.

          • My natural leanings are towards centre right politics. Perhaps a few issues more centre politics. On the whole though, I would prefer a Tory government to stay in power this decade, not sure if they will though. Still things I like about Boris, but he and some of his colleagues did make a dreadful mistake with party gate.

          • Spot on, I’m in the same area on all this.
            And they were not the only ones, but it has been made sure by the mud slingers theirs is the only one that matters even if it was behaviour probably replicated up and down this land in every business and office.

          • I don’t mean ordinary voters John. I’m pissed off with BJ too for treating an office of such responsibility so badly with the drinking culture.

            People forget the 3 years of chaos, stonewalling, and downright sabotage across Parliament from 2016 to 2019 until BJ trashed the lot and those new “change” political parties and numerous MP party hoppers vanished into thin air.
            It was hillarious hearing KS talk of democracy concerning party gate with that history.

            People have short memories. This will not be let go til BJ falls, sling enough mud for so long til it sticks.

            No doubt BJ doesn’t help himself either with the denials and other antics. It’s what awaits on the other side of the house that worries me.

          • I have this interaction with my mother most nights…

            Poor Boris.

            Safe in her dementia, ring fenced by Dad’s military pension she just hates anything not English, not white.

            My wonderful wife is Sri Lankan.

            Johnson has allowed racist thoughts to thrive in this isle, and yet, who of us are truly Britons?

            He’s disgraced the office he holds and yet the did nothing.

            I.d pass him the mess webley but he’d use it for nefarious means; he needs shooting.

            Tobias for PM!

          • It’s to do with BJ being a congenitally incompetent congenital liar.

            Cannot be trusted, and will be Covid’s Party Ghost at the next election, whilst the Queen was mourning alone.

            And it just went over 54 letters.

            Unless Graham Brady MP is a child of Machiavelli, and there are only 53 letters.

        • M270 are around 40-44 systems in service. We purchased 64. On the German front at one point they had nearly 200 systems (if the book I have is correct) however they now have ~40 in service. Dont know if the others are in stores or sold. It seems Spain has over 100 Leopard 2 tanks in stores of which 40 are in a fit state to send to Ukraine

          • Thanks Simon. Considering MLRS also equips 101 RA (R) as well as the regulars I’m curious how many reserves exist and whether the 40-44 are regular army or include those used by the reserve.

          • From what I can see from going back to 1999, we only purchased 62 or 63 and at that point had 54 operational. I wonder if the 40-44 cover both reg & reserve

    • GMLRS will be very beneficial to the Ukrainians. I do wonder if later on after the terrible conflict in the Ukraine – The current UK government or a future one will have a fairly major rethink on artillery and long range missile systems. In other words a increase in numbers, we shall see. I think the key when it comes to the Ukraine, will be how many long range systems can be supplied by the USA.. If enough are supplied, then I do think it could be a game changer for the Ukrainians. Hope so anyway.

    • Agree, long range precision fires needs massive upgrade in the British army, one thing the Russian Ukraine war has shown is that the battlefield is still won or lost on the weight and precision of your fires and all ought precision is very important ( especially for the west) you need a weight of fires as well. The rise of the drone makes these precision fires even more deadly.

    • I have to disagree to a certain extent in that I think MLRS is and will become even more important than 155mm artillery, sure guided rounds and ram jets will improve 155mm however I don’t see it as game changing/ war winning as long range precision fire provided by ballistic missiles and multiple launch rockets as satellite and drone data becomes more and more pervasive on the battlefield the ability to stand off outside an enemies range and hit with precision will become more and more important.

    • All good points Daniele. Astonishing to claim that any upgrade package ‘remains strong for the next three decades’. Delusional.

  5. Better late than never. Although in relative terms the UK is doing a lot to help Ukraine it’s no where close to what I would have liked. We could have / should have taken thousands of Ukrainian volunteers with no military background and a small number of Ukrainian professionals trained them up here in the UK on advanced weaponry and sent them back with their new toys.

    We also need a rearmament programme to replace and ideally exceed the stock donated.

    • We have been training their soldiers for the last 8 years. Why do you think they have lasted this long, it’s not just bravery alone.

      • I’m aware, 20,000 I believe. Great during peacetime. We could have trained that many again in the last 3 months in the UK, get them trained on our equipment. Send back to Ukraine a small army equipped with our weapons. Far more urgency is needed from the UK government.

        • Train 20,000 in 3 months! I’m not sure what the training capacity of the U.K. forces but I doubt it’s anywhere near that number. Could it be expanded rapidly I don’t know. You can fit over 1000 into Redford cavalry barracks that sits mostly empty. Just need 20 more of them sitting idol around the country.
          20000 more than the total number of infantry.
          Then there is the language issue. Also nobody knew 3 months ago what was going to happen. A lot thought Ukraine would fall easily under Russian might and power.
          If ukraine could spare new recruits now maybe they could be trained in the west of Ukraine or Eastern Europe.

          • Under the current system we wouldn’t be able to train that many that quick. It would require wartime haste. We have around 70-80,000 soldiers + several thousand Royal Marines. If all uncommitted personnel were used to help train the Ukrainians, fields commandeered, tent cities built and interpreters brought in then I’m sure a quick turnaround in large numbers could be achieved.

            I don’t understand why the UK government is being so slow on the matter. Yes I know we might be going faster and further than others but it does feel like a race between tortoises at the moment.

          • It would be possible and you could maybe ask older ex army to help out if they could. War is very expensive and I don’t know how committed most countries are. Main things ukraine needs is kit that can over power russian stuff and be used against there weaknesses. Cold weather gear as well will be needed as winter comes in. Combined arms training and kit to do this would help.

  6. So are the 3 being sent to Ukraine part of the 44 earmarked for upgrade? If so, does that mean the RA will only be getting 41 upgraded systems?

  7. vote of no confidence today. Seems unlikely to succeed but perhaps Jeremy Hunt would be a greater ally for UK defence if he replaced Boris. I doubt he’d increase the budget to the levels he mentioned at the start of the invasion though.

    • Hunt is a fruitcake.
      Two biggest arguments for keeping Boris are;
      • he’s supplying more kit to the Ukraine than anyone, Barbour much bigger cousins across the pond
      • the Tories have some real loons on the backbenches

          • Boris screwed ip his first marriage and has made a new start. He had a close covid brush with the grim reaper. He values spontaneity, life and is forgiving of his own flaws and those of others, preferring instead to focus on generosity and positive pragmatism. Sadly these perspectives are not those of at least 1/2 of British people, whose nature and values; order, tradition, consistency, are, as the Jubilee shows, more congruent with our queen. Keir Starmer has skilfully exploited this cultural national divide like a dog with a bone. Africa is starving and the price of a loaf of bread is soaring. Boris’ final act might be to send the RN into the Black Sea to lead a coalition of the willing…..Pray for your country.

      • “the Tories have some real loons on the backbenches”

        Look over on the other side of the house! Coming to a government near you soon the way things are going! I’ll take the Tory ones thanks!

        • Oh Labour are completely and hilariously incompetent.

          But alas the Tories do have some loons on the backbenches. Some are borderline anti-vax/ anti-lockdown/ climate-change-denying nutters.
          The conspiracy theorists* on social media are all hoping Boris gets dumped in favour of one of those.
          (* I follow them on social media so that I can report them and get them banned! 😆)

          • The Tories have a couple of loons on the front bench as well, JRM for example and Patel isn’t a lot better

        • Career politics. I would make a rule you can’t stand in an area unless you lived there for 2-5 years before seeking election or it’s the area you spent multiple years growing up in Attended school etc.
          the Tory’s really are a shower of poop. Millionaires, inherited wealth, think they are better than most.
          Labour are no better really. I can’t actually think of one policy of either party just now apart from arguing against what the other side says in that horrible school debating tone that they have been taught.
          New parties bring fresh talent into the system. If they rise fast they need to fill ranks quickly.

          • UKIP, a party I joined, had 4 million plus votes in 2015 and got 2 seats. More than the total vote for SNP Lib Dems combined I believe with 60 plus.

            The big 2 are set up to remain and the voting system helps, so it’s very very hard if not impossible for a new party to impact and remain.

            I’d like to see a centre ground party challenge the other 2. Though I’m a life long Tory voter I have both left and right views so middle ground would appeal to me. They don’t exist.

          • Interestingly enough mate if we had proportional representation and not first past the post we would have seen big changes in 2015!

          • What, you mean a parliament populated by dozens of moral vacuum anything for the easiest libdems?

          • Not sure what your post means, but politically it would have meant that the 4 million people who voted UKIP, like them or hate them, they would have got a voice! Look at the numbers of SNP MPs, over 50 or so with less than 2 million votes! Politics in this country needs a good dig out and shake up!

          • It does need a shake up; but the issue is the constitution not simply the voting system. My own view ( I am not an expert) is it would be a mistake to change just the voting system.
            UKIP was a one issue party which was really about the resurgence of English nationalism. We need an English parliament and an elected UK ‘senate’.

          • I would think he means a parliament whose composition broadly reflects the share of the vote each party receives. And quite right too, first-past-the-post is designed to keep a 2 party system where each gets their shot in power in succession.

            The European nations all use PR Zexcl France) and seem to get on fine economically and to provide far more effective welfare provision.

      • Yeah Hunt the C…they used to call him (some still do….), He was health minister for operation Phoenix and was party to the out of date ’emergency’ PPE warehouse debacle.
        The hyprocrite then got involved shooting down Matt Hancock at every opportunity – hes a slimy sneaky tw@t( Hunt not Hancock…well Ok both)

  8. Grid square by grid square, I’ll get pop corn and enjoy knowing that Russian arty has been malleted.

    100’s of innocent children killed, bought breakfast for a mum and her two kids, albeit, their Jack Russel tried to maul me, I have no apologies if my desire for Russian dead is offensive to some of the regulars on here.

    Russians need to be deaded more than a dead un.

    • Hi David, we don’t do the “Grid square removal service” anymore. The M27 bomblet round was withdrawn years ago. The M270, as supplied by us will use the M31 Guided Unitary round. This is a single 50kg class HE warhead.
      cheers

    •  “bought breakfast for a mum and her two kids” , good one DB. That’s the kind of act that really matters. I do have some (not much though) empathy for the Russia National service kids press ganged into this disgrace.

      Reminds me of the images of those young Argentine kids surrendering in the Falklands. They looked like they would rather be somewhere else, doing something else.

  9. Empty out the inventory, then you have no choice but to replenish them. MoD can’t rely on “we’ll make do with old worn out equipment” excuse to flog around. Stop with “UK punch above it’s weight class” mentality. That’s good PR, but these people are putting real people in real danger. Wipe the slate clean and start rebuilding.

    • I’m not sure on what basis you make that statement.

      If military, in not supplying enough gear, maybe they have a fear that Russia won’t stop at the border and believe that they need all they have to defend themselves, rather than ship it only for it to be destroyed in Ukraine.

      If economic, that is gas, the EU does not have the luxury we do with LNG terminals capable of handling 40% or so of our demand plus high capacity pipelines from Norway and a bit of NS gas still left. They are staring down the barrel of a catastrophically low gas supply winter with the blunt choice of either industrial or domestic consumers getting the gas. Were the UK in that situation how would our Government be acting?
      Edit: correct spelling

      • Well, we can all see how ‘your’ government is acting. The attempt to invade and subjugate Ukraine, an insane venture, has failed. A ceasefire and the withdrawal of all Russian forces would be a starting point. Then Russia could use the E.U.’s cash to pay reparations to Ukraine. You see it is really quite simple. Peace can be like that.

        • ‘My’ government is doing quite well supplying the Ukrainians as everyone here is very positive about. I can’t see Russia accepting either a ceasefire or withdrawal, they are making too much progress, albeit slowly.

          • Progress at a tremendous cost. How long can they keep going losing so much kit and men? Ukraine basically has an unlimited tab on free resupply and 90% of the population are willing to fight the invaders off. The counter attacks are on. Russias problem will be that Ukraine won’t stop attacking until they are back to 2014 lines at a minimum.

          • He won’t listen he’s currently cracking one off to his Putin calendar with a copy of Mein Kampf on his pillow, while dressed as Kim Jong Un!

          • To much progress? Slowly, with massive losses, and long may those losses continue, but you do realise, this is an illegal invasion! One which you have never, ever condemned but only ever put up positive pro Russian posts and derogatory anti Ukraine ones! Sad to see you are a supporter of Nazi ideology! But, we have seen that with you over the last 3 months haven’t we!

    • Why do you think that this US MLRS is going to do any better than the similar MLRS systems that the UkA already has and in much greater numbers?

      • GPS guidance and accuracy for a start. That combined with the C4 ISTAR capability supplied by NATO will make it lethal to be a Russian Gunner or Commander. They don’t call it sniper in the British army for nothing. We have like 100,000 rounds in reserve. That’s like one for every Russian soldier committed to the special operation.

        • The 100,000 rounds is interesting, the last figure I saw for the US was that they had 50,000. It does seem large at over 2000 rounds per our systems, well over 300 reloads. The main fighting is taking place over 800 miles from airborne intel gatherers over Poland etc, leaving the MLRS reliant on satellites, which may of course be adequate for target identification and GPS, which is probably jammed, for accuracy. Then they have to get through the Buk/Tor AD gauntlet. Overwhelming effectiveness is not a given.
          Edit:spelling

          • They have counter battery radar provided by the UK and several others. In addition RC135 can Geo locate command and control locations from thousands of miles away. There has been trials on TACSAT but neither the US or UK will release any details on it however it’s very possible they have at least an adhoc tactical satellite capability at-least in EO if not SAR. Either way I would not want to be near a Russian artillery battery or command post when GMLRS is around.

          • Ha ha ha hasaaa FFS you just continue with your echo chamber propaganda! Who are you trying to kid, if NATO want the systems to work and kill the Russian ground rapists, it will be done! So don’t be so sad, surely you support the Ukrainians pushing back an illegal invasion, as an impartial Englishman, as you claim?

      • These rocket systems are not some grad launcher. I presuming you saw the Russian reporter with troops and thermobaric launcher Filming it launching a rocket only to be counter hit really quickly. Ukraine has been doing really well at counter strike so far. This will only improve and Russian forces will get worse as there kit gets blown up. Russia didn’t have loads of great newer systems to start with. They have lots of old worn stuff with bits missing.
        When you have corruption it proceeds across all levels when the high up ones do it. Go to get the stored T-72 that are meant to be in working condition. Only to find all the copper wiring is gone and they haven’t been maintained like the paper work says. I’ve spoken with Russians who were/are in these positions maintaining equipment and working in the forces over the years and they have told me how bad corruption is and was. As they stated you do what you do to get by and everyone above them is on the take. Defence ministers with mansions etc. It takes so much time and cost to fix a vehicle that’s say in a field and had no maintenance for 20 years. Even though the paper work says it’s running and been serviced every 6 months.

        • As you say, nothing like a Grad. US MLRS are similar to the 220mm B-27 and BM-27M1 Uragan but with smarter munitions.

  12. A detailed look at the system and munition types written by Think Defence can be found via the attached link.

    Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)GMLRS is a precision guided rocket system currently in service with the Royal Artillery

    https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/guided-multiple-launch-rocket-system-gmlrs/

    I thought I’d seen this article a while back.

    16 FEBRUARY 2022

    Finnish Defence Forces to procure Extended-Range GMLRS munition
    
    “The Finnish Defence Forces (FDF) will procure Lockheed Martin Extended-Range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System Alternative-Warheads (ER GMLRS AW) for employment against area targets and ER GMLRS Unitary munition for use against point targets. Deliveries are expected to begin in 2025.”

    https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/finnish-defence-forces-to-procure-extended-range-gmlrs-munition

  13. A Tomahawk strike would usher in total war in, as a minimum, Europe, hardly what is required. Supplying more artillery is indeed going to prolong the situation and it looks like you are correct on Russia’s possible moves. It is probably the heaviest use or propaganda in a war we have yet seen. From the comments of the leaders of the US, particularly Austin, it seems that their objective is to use Ukraine to bleed Russia, a bit like another Afghanistan. If so they might want a 50:50 split Ukraine putting them in a position to set up a guerilla operation based in Ukraine west of the Dneiper, causing chaos in the east.

    • ‘A Tomahawk strike would usher in total war in, as a minimum, …‘

      A Ceasefire and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from Ukrainian soil. You see, the solution is simple.

    • The US has not defined an end game in Ukraine. It cannot accept any loss of Ukrainian territory to the Russians unless approved by Zelinsky and there is no indication that he is willing to do so. Politically, and there are mid-term elections in November, the administration cannot appear to be ceding anything to the Russians. For now, the US will be content to arm Ukraine and bleed Russia’s military dry hoping that economic sanctions will lead to regime change or collapse. It’s not much of a policy, but the US administration is trapped by a situation in which it doesn’t exercise control.

    • It’s up to Ukraine what they do. They are not some puppet of the USA and Europe.
      Giving land to Russia didn’t work last time. Crimea anyone? So the only option is fight and fight hard. If your average Ukrainian wanted Russia to take over they would not be fighting them. It’s that simple. Ukrainians don’t want a Russian puppet government. They want to decide for there selves.
      Look at the people in power in Russian escapade’s previous. Donbas, Chechnya etc run by thugs and wannabe tough men. Citizens don’t want that. Ruled by fear is not a good life

    • The Russian dross leaving the country they illegally invaded would be a solution yes? Russia has already been bled by its own corruption over the last 20 years plus! And, if NATO want to bleed Russia and the Ukrainians are happy to ensure they are part of it then good! Putin and his nonce squad deserve no less! And for the record any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet?

  14. What with MLRS, M777, Harpoon, Iris-T slm, increased numbers of T72 and MIG-29 in addition to the ATGMs its now a level playing field apart from the Russian cruise missiles and Iskanders.

    • It might be in terms of equipment type but it isn’t in terms of logistics and numbers. The UkA have a 700 mile supply route subject to attack back to the Polish/Romanian borders with much of the ammo for those systems having to come from NATO not their own local stocks. The Russians have supply often only 10s of miles away to the nearest railhead and sometime captured but at worst 100 miles to the border with very little attack on it. A very uneven playing field.

      • Given the failure rate of Russian cruise missiles and the accuracy of Russian attacks, long supply lines aren’t an issue for Ukraine. The Russians are more likely to hit an apartment block or school as they are an actual supply depot.

        I’m sure Russians supply lines, assuming they still have anything to supply, will be a nice target for HIMARS, MLRS, and of course the Ukranian air-force.
        Presumably once the Russians run out if T62’s to send they’ll be raiding their museums for T34s?…

        • Why do you think that Russian missiles are failing? They seem to be hitting the railways accurately like in Kiev last night with a destroyed goods yard and no deaths according to the Mayor.

          Russian supply lines do get hit but not apparently enough to reduce their progress. The Ukrainians already have large numbers of their own MLRS systems, some with longer range than the incoming NATO systems which don’t seem to have much impact, neither does the UkAF.

          The T-62 decision deserves a post on its own.

          • Imagine if the UK was pulling Centurions out of museums to go and fight, most of those centurions would be newer that T62. Tell your boss he is done 😀

          • That might be the wrong generation of tank you are thinking of. Back in the Iraq/Iran war, Iraq’s T-62s seemed to acquit themselves quite well against the M-60A1 and Chieftains of Iran, although the Chieftain had a more powerful gun than either of the others..

          • Centurions were being built in 1962 and T62 was being built in 1959. I don’t think T62 did anything in Iraq except catch bullets but then T72 did much the same.

          • As I recall Russia overhauled numerous T62 to supply to Syria, I bet this is part of this batch as the T72 and t80s in storage require many months to overhaul

          • Oh dear wrong again! We are used to it now tho aren’t we! But as you are posting again, any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine?

          • You answer but knowingly don’t answer! Your support of a Nazi regime headed by a physco nonce, who invades independent nations and then continue to murder, rape and torture and loot their way around those countries is wrong! But, as a troll and a little lapdog you aren’t allowed to say otherwise!

          • Every single post you put up with some sort of knowledge or “facts” Farouk rips them to shreds every time!!!!!! It’s become fun to read your sad chuff waiting for Farouk to put up and dissemble the garbage you claim! It’s becoming a “watch johnskie get his arse hands to him ever time” sort of comments section and we all think it’s hilarious! Farouk shoots and every time johnskie is down, Nazi down Nazi down!

          • Yes, I’m in awe of farouks knowledge. He’s posting a lot more recently, detailed background stuff too, good to see as didn’t think he posted enough before. Respect.

          • He is the site Ninja! But, for info and depth of subject matter knowledge you are also doing some serious ninja action 👍!

          • JIMK,
            Your assessment that the T62 acquitted itself well against the M60 and Chieftain is based on the results of one battle (Operation Nasr) where after Iraq had been brought to a stalemate in its invasion of Iran. The Mullahs decided to go on the offensive placing Abolhassan Banisadr the new president of Iran as commander in chief of the army. The problem was Banisadr was not a military man and never had been, not only that but the well trained Iranian army of around 500k men had been purged of all its senior staff (around 150k) and then there was the poor state of the military after almost 2 years of inactivity which was also compounded by how its access to spares and ammunition from the West had been closed

            So Op Nasr, Banisadr fighting an internal political battle felt that a swift victory over Saddam would propel him over his religious political opponents, so he set up a armoured fist of over 300 tanks to smash into Iraqi lines besieging the city of
            Abadan. The problem here was the city is situated in the middle of a marsh and the only land routes into the city are by raised roads. The Iraqis forewarned by the massing of this armour, set up a three box ambush with their tanks in the hull down position and as the columns of tanks advanced into it, they hit them hard , the inexperienced soldiers seeking to escape the ambush , drove off the road, into the marsh, huge mistake resulting in iran losing over 200 tanks.

            So saying the T62 acquitted itself well against the M60 and Chieftain isn’t really a true assessment, seeing as the entire operation was one cluster , followed by another , followed by another. It also explains why the so called commander in chief did a runner in June 81 seeking asylum in France.

          • The Kuwaiti Chieftains acquitted themselves well during the Battle of the Bridges, against the Iraqi Republican Guard’s T72s. Then doing a tactical withdrawal from Kuwait City to the Saudi border.

          • Studies by various organisations, such as the Institute for the Study of War, report the daily failure rate of Russian cruise missiles of between 20% and 50%. If they’re so accurate why do they also hit housing, churches, hospitals and schools then? I guess they must be deliberately targeting them I suppose.
            It was hilarious Russians attack on Kiev to destroy tanks donated by NATO the other day. Big crater, no tanks, or tank parts anywhere 😆

            The existing rockets they have are rubbish, basically the same as the ones Russia is using. They’re now getting top end NATO equipment, it’s like comparing a musket to a M4.

            If the Ukrainian Air Force is having little impact, why is the vastly larger Russian Air Force not having a bigger impact? Over 100 days in and it’s still not achieved air superiority. It’s bombers cower over the Black or Azov Sea to fire missiles.

            The T62 decision is easy – over 1,000 dead Russian tanks littering the Ukrainian countryside.

          • No-one outside the Russian MOD knows those figures with any degree of accuracy. Western intel can make some good guesses whilst think tanks are way down the info chain. Call me a cynic but many think tanks are very reluctant to publish information that may not be in the interest of their host nation’s military, who may, one way or another, be funding them.

            I would just say that there was, up to the severe clampdown on such videos and photos in Ukraine a few weeks back, very few occasions when obvious failures were recorded or published by Ukraine. Yes, the Russians have hit those targets after the Ukrainian military have occupied them since generally speaking they are often the most heavily built structures in the area. often constructed with an intended secondary use as barracks and strong points.

            If you had read today’s ISW report you would be aware that in the first Kiev attack for a month or so that you describe as “hilarious” they confirmed that 5 cruise missiles hit a tank and armour repair factory, not the NATO tanks. So not surprising “Big crater, no tanks, or tank parts anywhere”

            Both Ukraine’s and Russia’s rockets, they are the same apart from Russia’s Iskander, are very effective when used as designed, on area targets.so your comparison with the guideds US rockets should be a comparison between a shotgun and a rifle.

            The larger RuAF is having a restricted impact due to the still very active Ukrainian mobile AD systems. If in doubt use a missile or rocket or CM.

          • Yaaaaaaaaawn yap yap my little Putins lap dog! Any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet? Every time you post it’s so obvious you are a troll that it’s sad!

          • From the performance so far, it’s highly doubtful that those inside the Russian MOD know how many functional tanks they have. Much of the equipment they’ve previously despatched to the front line has been poorly maintained if at all, resulting in their troops abandoning them. The Russian MOD doesn’t even know what troops it’s deployed, conscripts or supposed career soldiers.

            The Russians hit hospitals, schools and churches indiscriminately. Don’t use the line that ‘they must have been occupied by the Ukrainian military’ because we know as shown by the maternity hospital attack that this is a lie.

            No I don’t call you a cynic…

            I call you an apologist for a warmonger, an apologist for war crimes, an apologist for murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, etc.

            As such, you are little better than those that commit these atrocities.
            You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, I assume you parted ways from any conscience you had, long ago.

          • Are you sad the Ukrainians are losing some territory? Surely you must be as you don’t support this illegal invasion, do you? Are you pleased the Russian missiles on occasion seem to work and hit civvy targets?

        • Sean your wrong about the failure rate, they took that toilet out on the beach with pinpoint accuracy. Soon the people of Ukraine will be forced to surrender or piss in a bush.

        • This is as I understand it. The T-62, of which there are several thousand in Russian storage seems to have been selected over the T-72, also thousands in store, for a reason. The bulk of the T-72s are vanilla T-72 plus a really big number of T-72As, neither of which represents any large operational advantage over the T- 62M, the version seemingly being deployed.

          Whilst nowhere near current standards, the T-62M’s 1980s BDD armour upgrade is almost as good as the early T-72, offering quite decent protection from RPG rounds as shown in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A new generation of 115mm ammo was introduced in the 80s and can fire a version of the ATGM round used by the BMP-3. Whilst the115mm AP round won’t now impress anyone with its penetration (still not bad at +/- 480-500mm) the range of HE rounds it fires are quite effective.

          It was the last Soviet tank created for mass warfare in the hands of mobilized recruits, being extremely easy to handle with crew training scheduled for only 2 weeks. Given that there are photos today of T-62Ms apparently in Kherson this makes sense as, if so, its likely that they will be operated by local volunteers not RuA.

          To sum it up, the Russians identified a role that needed a tank and decided that the T62M is good enough for the task. Maybe they will operate them in a direct fire mode just outside the range of UkA ATGM. It’s a lot better protected than a BMP etc in an infantry support role.

          • So they needed a tank that only needs 2 weeks training to crew? That’s says a lot about how many experienced tank crews they’ve lost that they’re having to throw raw conscripts into the fight with only a couple of weeks training.

            Alternatively, the Ukrainians are demolishing Russia’s T72 stockpile and so the Russians are having to press whatever they can find that works into service. Perhaps we will see some T34s in a few months time…

            Puti won’t be pleased with you for saying the mainstay of the Russian tank forces, the T72, is little better than the antique T64. Off to the gulag for you I think 😉

          • I think Russia’s main concern is what their tank force will look like after the special operation. They will have close to no ability to produce any new tanks. They will be forced to go back to Soviet stores if they are to field any form of armour after this year. Better to keep the T72 and use the T62 now. This is the end of the russian army as anything more than a light infantry force.

          • To be realistic, they probably still have huge stores of T72s sat in warehouses. But they probably haven’t been fired up or driven for years, or had parts removed to service those that are in operation.
            So while in paper they appear to have thousands available, the reality is somewhat different.

            The block of any decent semiconductors being shipped to Russia means that they’ll struggle to manufacture anything more complex than a truck. (Which is ironic because one of their biggest failures was to have enough trucks for their logistics.)

            Both Ukraine and Russia are burning through assets and munitions at an alarming rate. The difference is that Ukraine is being constantly re-supplied by the West while Russia’s reserves are diminishing by the day.
            If this does turn into a war of attrition, and the West continues to support Ukraine, then Ukraine will win.

          • Detailed analysis using high quality aerial photography taken of numerous Russian tank parks shows around half the remaining stocks might be useable. Few are modern variants and all are a long way from Ukraine. Tanks? The way they have been used and expended coffins would be more appropriate.

            JohninMK. Stop this senseless war now. Pass it on.

          • In 2021 the huge Uralvagonzavod tank and armoured vehicle factory produced 240 new and modernized T-72B3M, T-80BVM and T-90M with a similar target for this year.

            I fail to see how the fighting in Ukraine will affect this, apart from perhaps increasing production.

          • The rate of attrition for Russian tanks (and crews) easily exceeds any feasible production rate.

            You wish for this massacre to continue? Why?

          • FFS your like something from a Monty Python sketch! Do you get excited, wet and dribble when you see you Z on the side of a tank? Anyway all of the above will need just a small amount of N-LAWS and more rusting rotting rapists are leaking their toxic blood into Ukrainian soil! All corpses will be removed as Ukraine don’t want to infect their land!

          • Please read what I write before attacking my post. I suggested that the crews would be volunteers, not RuA let alone raw conscripts.

            No-one knows what the tank stocks are so your comments are pure guesswork.

            Finally where did I mention the T-64?

          • What volunteers? The Wagner group little green men masquerading as ethnic Russians living in the Ukraine? Don’t make me laugh.
            Even the Russian speaking Ukrainians hate Putin and Russia now for what they’ve done. The so-called ‘peoples republics of Donetsk and Luhansk’ are just propaganda inventions of the Kremlin, nothing more.

            Yes I suspect you’re right, not even the Kremlin knows how many tanks they have 😆 Everyone is probably way overestimating as lots of them won’t work and a few will also have been secretly sold-off too 😏

          • Very accurate analysis using aerial photography of known major tank depots shows a very different picture. Half or more are in pieces. Then there is the small matter of trained crews and experienced personnel. Russia’s losses have not been confined to material.

          • Russkie volunteers or raw conscripts, no difference at all, both get fuck all training and have no knowledge of combined arms tactics! Both are just cannon fodder for your head nonce Putin to play with!

          • Oh Christ you waffle some shit, reading a Russian pamphlet and no real time subject matter experience!

          • JIMK wrote

            “”A new generation of 115mm ammo was introduced in the 80s and can fire a version of the ATGM round used by the BMP-3.”

            1)     The T62 has a 115mm smooth bore gun
            2)     The BMP has a 100mm semi-automatic rifled gun / missile launcher.
            The round used by the BMP3 is not only a smaller calibre than that used by the T62, but it is a low pressure semi rifled round half the size of the rounds used by the T55. Meaning that neither can use the other.

          • JIMK wrote:
            “To sum it up, the Russians identified a role that needed a tank and decided that the T62M is good enough for the task”

            From what I have seen from initial Armour reinforcements sent from stocks to replenish the Russian BTGs inside Ukraine, is that they are not modified , meaning not fitted for ERA, which at this moment in time is the only additional defence Moscow has on its armour against incoming weapons fire . The T62M was actually brought out of reserve to supply Syria in 2020. So I suspect that these were initially meant for Damascus and instead were diverted to the Ukraine. Now here’s a thing, the T62M only has additional armour on the front in the form of cheek armour , somewhat similar to the British Stillbrew, however if you have a butchers at pictures of the T62M you will see that the protection afforded is only from the front , meaning that the tank is as vulnerable to ATMS as is the T72,

      • Yes but the Ukrainians have the arms industry and economy of a combined 1 billion people with the very best technology the human race can muster supporting them, while the Russians are trying to get the Chinese to find microprocessor in old washing machines to try and build replacement stocks of missiles and other weapons. Russia is completely incapable of domestic production of anything beyond basic bullets and artillery shells. Even it’s vehicles are completely dependent on European machine exports. The Chinese don’t appear keen to replenish any of mad vlads stock piles. Soon they will be limited to potato guns and vodka.

        Russia is out manned and will soon be outgunned in Ukraine, tell your boss it time to get out and maybe we will let him keep Crimea.

        • Disagree entirely…..if Ukraine turn this around & kick em out of the Dondass they shoud go the whole hog & kick them out of The Crimea as well.
          We share some culpabilty for this mess by ignoring the annexation that started this whole mess so lets rectify that wrong.
          Better late than never.

          • Yes it’s just all the starving people in Africa and the dead baby’s that concern me. Are you factoring these in? It will take Ukraine a long time to recapture Crimea. Can the developing world survive for one or two years without Russian and Ukrainian grain?

          • There is no indication that Russia is stopping supply. Putin said at the weekend that they expect 30M tons this year and near 50M next year. They are already the largest exporter of wheat, its non GMO as well. Most of the countries that buy it have very sensibly not signed up to sanctions.

            It is likely to be Europe and us in the UK, with sanctions in place, that are going to suffer most.

            Perhaps as worrying is the supply of Neon, used in laser lithography for semi conductor substrate etching. Ukraine had 30% of the market and Russia 50%. This is causing a major R&D effort to find solutions but they will take time to implement.

          • FFS when you get flustered you don’t half go pro-Russia with a vengeance johnskie boy! Do you really think anyone on here thinks you as an impartial commentator? It’s now becoming an amusing pastime for most on here to read your posts and mark them out of 10 on the supporting Nazi Putin scale! Anyway, we are all waiting for your post in agreeing that Putin needs to pull out of Ukraine to end this illegal war, and maybe even condemn the actual invasion? No? Not surprised and you won’t answer as you cannot, but if you do it will be a random load of chuff ignoring the actual post content and thinking no one has noticed 😂😂😂😆🇺🇦!

          • Ignore my questions again eh Johnskie? The same one liners ignoring the question! Putins poodle continues to yap yap away!

          • He has the black sea fleet blockading Odessa, what is more evidence do you want comrade? There are no sanctions that prohibit the export of food from Russia but as Putin has turned the Black Sea in to a war zone insurance companies won’t cover vessels in those waters. That’s not western sanction that’s putins “special military operation”. Your boss is responsible for the deaths of thousands of children across the world. Your clearly an educated person. How can you work for such evil? He has made you and everyone in Russia look like a complete bunch of ****ing donkeys. Your the first people to put a man in space and now your reduced to this and all because of the delusions of one mid level bureaucrat

          • I think you will find that Ukraine had more of the market than Russia. There have been program in place to recycle Neon , sine 2014, but it cost

          • Once an army breaks it finds it very difficult to defend itself never mind hold onto territory. If Ukraine breaks the Russian army in the Donbas it may be impossible for Russia to hold onto the Crimea since the Ukrainians may be pushing at a collapsing door.

        • Just picking at random I would suggest that Russia’s ability to put some cosmonauts up to the ISS last week, their construction of the Kerch Bridge (on time) and their massive nuclear powered icebreakers gives some indication that they can produce better than “basic bullets and artillery shells”. I suspect that there is no “washing machine” microprocessor in the hypersonic Zircon, a product that the country with possibly the “very best technology the human race can muster” admitting they can’t counter.

          For a military operation as “out manned and soon to be outgunned” as Russia’s they seem to have made good (20% in Zelensky’s words), if sometimes slow, but continuing progress.

          • Oh dear someone doesn’t like to have nasty things said about the Russians! How randomly vague and straw clutching was that sad post! But we are all supposing you will be wanting the Russians to pull out of Ukraine as it’s an illegal invasion yes? As an impartial Englishman as you claim?

          • JIMK wrote:

            Just picking at random I would suggest that Russia’s ability to put some cosmonauts up to the ISS last week, 

            Actually it was in March and 1 week short of 3 months ago. But that is by the by. What really intrigues me is how you cite Moscow using the R7 family of rockets since the 1950s as an example of Russian industrial might, it isn’t the Rocket used has changed very little in over 60 years, yes it works and because it works Russia has simply stuck to the true and tested, the same goes for its Soyuz family of crew vehicles. If anything that is stagnation , The US has moved to reusable rockets, it already has plans for a new space station (gateway) which will be placed in a 7 day orbit around the moon. They already have Dragon, Orion crew modules with others such as Dream chaser (new shuttle) which is set to launch next year. My point, Russia relies heavily on assets it inherited from the Soviet Union, there has been very little in the way of revolutionary new things to have come out of Moscow, you cited 2 new Russian Ice breakers (Arktika and Sibir) they were designed during the 1980s, but get this, their build was set back by a year in 2017 (with a request for the Russian Government to bail the company out) because the two main turbogenerators for each ship was to have come from the Ukraine, but that fell by the roadside after Moscow annexed the Ukraine in 2014, meaning the ships were 3 years late in getting delivered. As for the Kerch Bridge, the ground work was carried out before Moscow annexed the Ukraine and to be fair there are only 2 areas which are bridged, the rest is simply a road/rail built on land that was already there.
            Industrially Russia is a Minnow (name of my first cat) which explains why it makes virtually nothing wanted by the rest of the world other than cheap weapons (when compared to Western ones) Now I’m pretty sure some people like to sport a Vostok (made in Lithuania for the world market) watch or even a Sturmanskie Gagarin, but I’m pretty sure more people would rather wear a Casio , me, I’m wearing a Christopher Ward C60 Trident Divers watch (I actually own 2) British watch company based in Switzerland. It’s the same with cars with very few designed and built in Russia. It explains why Moscow wanted ships from France, built a jet trainer with Italy, builds the Italian Iveco LMV under licence , why it fits it tanks, aircraft with European sensors
            My point while the rest of the world has moved on, Russia hasn’t and with the sanctions placed on it by the West regards its illegal invasion of the Ukraine things are going to get worse, which can be perfectly illustrated by how sanctions from 2014 has resulted on Russia in using plastic water bottle (as in the type you buy in the shop for a quid) to fuel its Orlan 10 UAVs. Its camera system is a Cannon camera. Yes it works , but nowhere near as effective as actual military quality equipment (do you know how lethal petrol is to plastic water bottles?) 

          • All just throwbacks from the Soviet days. Have you seen the latest comical news from your technological powerhouse? Resorting to crowdfunding forklifts for the airforce to load their dumb bombs on to the jets🤣🤣🤣🤣

      • Give yourself a break with your pro Russian shite, as if NATO want it’s logistics to work it will ensure it is done. As I’ve informed you many times before, unlike your Russian friends NATO have professional logistical people and units, who are masters of their trade! Don’t be sad, surely you would want the NATO countries to help Ukraine, yes?

          • There is an online data base, FFS you seem to pul some right random Russian bullshit from out your arse yet cannot do open research on the internet! But we know why don’t we!

        • Why? Your posts are mainly works of fiction direct from Putin’s propaganda factory. So why are you so suddenly interested in facts? 🤷🏻‍♂️

        • So you not watch news or pay attention to the open source intelligence community. Crikey there is even a database of every lost Russian vehicle that is only listed if it has photographic proof.
          It’s been known for a while that Ukraine has more tanks now. Russia brought T-90 and T62 to try help there situation. Now the forces that were ready to defend in the west are moving up for counter attacks. This is far from over, personally I still don’t know who is going to come out the victor.
          The places Russia has fought for are destroyed. Pointless war.
          If ukraine falls to Russia I will happily Admit you were correct johnin all this time. I don’t think it will happen. Seems some Russian supporters think if they can take Donbas they can stop and declare victory. Good luck with that. I’m sure Ukraine will lay down weapons and say ok then.

          • Thanks.

            I know about the lostarmour and other databases from back in the 2014/5 days. The problem is that whilst they count the ‘dead’ machines there is no indication anywhere, data that is pretty classified I’d suggest, of how many of what the two sides have left, either in Ukraine or elsewhere. It is all guesswork. As well as the T-62s, which I and the Austrian Colonel suggest above have a special function, they are also bringing in loads of T-80s. But again OPSEC is getting tighter on both sides, especially Ukraine as so many social media posts from there are now pixelated to try to prevent identification of the source.

            From what I read the forces coming from the west are light infantry, without much armour or heavy gear. All the recent counter attacks, Kherson, Kharkov and Severodonetsk have now come to nothing with the latter now seeming to be just a imaginary boost for Zelensky’s trip last week. The Ukrainians, as per the Austrian Colonel’s video linked above, have been holding the Russians back at the Seversky Donetsk River but at this time of year the flow decreases and it is fordable at several points without pontoons. Now the Russians are operating behind the highly successful Ukrainian front lines they are starting to exploit the far less defended gaps between the defended village/hamlet/towns.

            Whilst I have a stronger view than you as who will come out as ‘victor’ goodness knows what that will entail and when.

            I have been famously wrong in my predictions before but I think the West needs this over with much sooner that the Russians. On the one hand the EU desperately needs some ‘peacetime’ to allow things to settle so they can buy more gas ahead of the winter, whilst Biden needs time before the elections in November. Meanwhile the Russians can just let it grind on for months knowing their military/economic hand gets stronger all the time.

          • Nope! More pro Russian garbage citing a random Austrian Colonel as your back up! Quite hilarious! But, I suppose you are hoping that the Russians pull out of Ukraine and enable this war to stop, yes? As it is an illegal invasion and should be condemned, yes?

          • Increased oil and gas and wheat revenues for a start. Then the EU’s desperate need for gas next winter for seconds.

          • Yeah sure that’ll help mitigate the expected 15% fall in GDP of an already ravaged economy. Good luck!

          • Every post Farouk rips you a new arse! Hope you are reading his replies as he makes you look sad, silly and pathetic every time! We all look on and laugh!

          • Given that a number of ministers from EU countys have been travelling all over the world trying to sort out new supply deals for Gas and oil, would say that they are fully aware of this and looking to diversify suppliers.

          • I wouldn’t quote the Russian T80 as an effective weapon system in the Ukraine. It’s shortcomings were exposed in 1991 in Chetneya , which is why Moscow sidelined them concentrating on improving the T72 and T90. Yes a small number of T80s have been improved , but this has been a small number . The biggest weakness of the T80 isn’t its armour, rather it is its gas turbine engine and it’s extremely high rate of fuel consumption, in contrast, the Ukraine which also uses the T80, updated theirs with a diesel engine.

          • ‘I have been famously wrong in my predictions before …‘

            The only true part of a gabbling post.

            You objectively support this war of aggression.

            You fail to condemn wanton and reckless attacks on cities and large civilian populations.

            You welcome the forced removal of civilians, an offence against the Geneva Convention and a war crime.

            You are a practiced and relentless liar.

          • Oryx is the current photo proof vehicle destruction website. Has info on from both sides.
            I’m still of the view nato should roll up to the dnieper river under humanitarian mission. Try to get a defensive line and air defence bubble over the west.
            Main armour units moving up have been the 5th tank from Odessa and the new additions being given. The captured kit has and is rolling into service and still there are more that are being fixed to reinforce lost units.
            Question will be how many Russians will die before they stop. Ukraine will fight until the last as they have no where to go.

      • I think my kids Cub Scout unit has more tanks left than the Russian army. They were driving around in Yugo’s and Transit vans with Z on them 6 weeks ago, god knows what they have left now.

        It’s embarrassing.

        • If it were true perhaps, with their use of artillery barrages, the Russians have less need of tanks. There certainly, right from the start, don’t seem to have been many old fashioned tank battles, other assets are killing the tanks.

          • Oh dear you have now decided that old fashioned tank battles is what warfare is about! And that’s why your Russians are being killed in droves, and lost so many tanks and armour! War is about using innovative and well trained ways to disrupt, destroy and degrade the enemy! Your half trained rapists fails at every hurdle and have resorted to their age old tactic of dumb, simple and illegal targeting of just about anything in range of its Artillery! But like every right minded Englishman you are hoping the Russians pull out of its illegal invasion of Ukraine yes?

          • I’ll have you know that until recently the Russian army did not issue socks, nope soldiers were issued with a wrap of cloth Portyanki with which they learnt to cover their feet.

          • Maybe they could start a old sock donation program. My holy socks are still good on a Sunday.

    • Yes, we know that the Russians have around 1,000 “precision” guided missiles left and Ukraine only has about 700 public toilets left to take out. 😀

  15. Wow,
    Shall we give them the QE’S and half the air force while we’re at it.
    Seriously the treasury is going to have to dig deep to replace everything we’ve just given away, let alone the gaps we have.

  16. I fully support the help the UK is giving Ukraine. However, I am also starting to get a bit concerned that there’s no announced increase in Military spending. At first, we were told it was old stock, but how much “old” inventory have we got and there must be areas where they are now dipping into current stock?

    I can only speak from my speciality and know that the tools used by my brigade have all been mentioned as gifted. Replenishment of stocks or upgrading costs money.

    • I think the production of NLAW has been ramped up. Don’t know about Javelin. I doubt we have sent huge numbers of Brimstone. The Wolfhounds will be replaced by Boxers, as will the Stormers I reckon.

    • £3bn Treasury contingency being used to fund the donations, including replacements where needed. We haven’t given anything that significantly degrades our abilities yet.

  17. It’s a great start, and better than any other European nation is doing, but we need to supply far more MLRS to the Ukraine. The U.K. bought the MLRS to fight the Russians. Well they’re not doing that while in U.K. service so we may as well give them to the Ukraine who are fighting them.
    Every Russian tank, artillery piece, rocket launcher, the Ukrainians kill is one less for NATO to worry about facing at some point in future.

  18. Will they be replaced? What is our strategy to build up strength because if we ever had to fight a real war against an advanced military our current stockpiles would probably last a couple of weeks.

    • Err since the Falklands War, communism imploded, the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, NATO membership doubled, and the USSR reduced to just Russia. And as for the mighty soviet military… 😆

    • The RA had been talking about the HIMARs version, due to its lower cost and better strategic mobility. Whether they still are after the Strike Brigade concept has been dropped I don’t know.

      • HIMARS would seem to make sense for at least part of the force that’s armed with the long range GMLRS-ER and PrSM, despite MLRS upgrades also supporting them. Would also seem a consistent approach if the MoD commit to wheeled 155mm. The MoD plan to upgrade 44 MLRS suggests there may still be some 20 or so in store somewhere based on historic numbers. It seems we could gift larger numbers to Ukraine and still support the 44 upgraded platforms.

        • I agree, HIMARs is just one piece of the artillery requirement puzzle. If we were looking at making the Strike Brigade concept viable, then I would definitely include HIMARS, as part of the extended range effects. The Brigade would also include both standard tube launched artillery and rocket.

          HIMARs offers the same payload flexibility as the M270, even though it has a reduced magazine count, with both unguided, guided, extended range rockets and capable of firing the MGM-140/164 ATACMs short range ballistic missile. With the added strategic mobility solution, that tracks can’t offer, plus it is air transportable. Bit of a no brainer really!

          To me, I would base the long range (>20km) systems on the MAN HX58, 60 and 77 trucks, but also include Boxer modules for the closer requirements. BAe’s Archer mounted on a HX chassis, would be I feel, the best option for a “cheaper” mobile 155mm system. That has the benefits of very quick shoot and scoot time, along with a reduced manpower need of only three bods to operate. For commonality’s sake, I would look at mounting a HIMARs launcher on a MAN chassis.

          For the closer range requirements I would use Boxer, although depending on what systems were chosen, this could also merge into the longer range requirement. For example fitting a Brimstone magazine to a Boxer module. As a ground launched system, this could engage targets from 1km to 40km. But would make an excellent overwatch system for troops bounding forwards or facing an enemy offensive. As well as giving a needed anti-tank capability.

          A vehicle mounted 81mm mortar is still a very useful tool, but a 120mm mortar would provide greater range and better effects. If the system was automated like BAe’s Mjolner or preferably the NEMO gun-mortar system. The NEMO offers the advantage of being capable of both direct and indirect fire. With an indirect range of 10km on max standard charge, using rocket assistance a bomb can reach nearly 20km (with a reduced warhead). In direct fire mode it can engage targets up to 1500m, which would be useful against hardened targets, such as bunkers. Plus being a 120 system, they can make full use of guided munitions.

          There could also be a Boxer or MAN vehicle that carries loitering munitions and UAVs. Munitions like the Switchblade 300 and 600 are relatively cheap and provide the force with ability to hunt for targets beyond the next hill. For beyond line of sight and more endurance, something like the UK made Lockheed Martin Outrider, which has an endurance of over 2 hours. It carries a small high definition visual and infrared optical turret in the tail. I’m not sure it could be fitted with a laser designator though, due to its lighter weight. But it would provide the force commander with knowledge of possible enemy movements along with targets for the Brigade’s artillery.

          • I agree, MAN for rockets and tubes. I also like the indirect/direct fire flexibility that NEMO brings along with guided munitions. Seems like we’ll only be getting 81mm though in Boxer based on current plans. I’m a firm believer in the more accurate the fire, the fewer rounds required to achieve effect and the easier the logistics train/re-supply.

            Boxer with Brimstone seems the go to, but I wonder if we might get more bang for the buck and operational flexibility with Brimstone mounted on something like the Milrem Themis? Options might include controlling multiple Themis from a single Boxer, or possibly using a smaller, more lightly armoured but more discreet vehicle in the MRV-P class for control? The Themis can be towed at up to 80km/h and then can be dispersed from the command vehicle, so counter fire is less of an issue if launch is detected. We might be limited to towing just one Themis per Boxer/MRV-P for deployment though, which might limit flexibility and utility. Alternatively use a MAN vehicle to transport, rapidly off-load and control multiple Themis platforms, if keeping to artillery ranges. Reloading Themis would be easier vs Boxer too, unless the crew are into shoulder pressing Brimstone.

            The General Purpose MRV-P vehicle would seem to be an appropriate platform for deploying loitering munitions, where it seems a MAN would be larger than required and a Boxer would be overkill for the role. Or just replicate the Themis-Brimstone model for deployment.

            For both Brimstone and loitering munitions the appeal to me of smaller lighter platforms is a more meaningful ability to deploy significant firepower by air, where a single Boxer is up against A400M max loading. I also keep thinking about the light gun replacement and wondering if a combination of Brimstone and loitering munitions in mass, on light platforms like Themis, isn’t part of the answer, along with a light vehicle deployment of 120mm NEMO mortar. With the added advantage of smart weapons significantly reducing the logistics support requirement.

            There seem to be an ever increasing field of UAS and loitering weapons to choose from. It will be interesting to see what we consolidate down to.

          • Mate, I am a firm believer in the Milrem. It has had a pretty good report when it was used in Mali, as a troop donkey. Carrying a platoon’s bergens, water, fuel and ammo. It was also used as a trailer for lightly armoured vehicles. Plus it can be fitted in a Chinook. As a platoon’s general carry vehicle it’s a relatively easy win.

            Using the Milrem for offensive and defensive force protection brings a whole new level of complexity, although Themis have been actively marketing it for this role. If it’s kept simple it should be doable. In that it is working within line of sight of a mobile command station and uses highly directional comm’s for command and control. Otherwise it will be liable to ECM. If it carried a battery of 6 Brimstones or Spike missiles, this would be a great force multiplier. But I would also add a remotely operated machine gun/grenade machine gun for suppression duties.

            At the top end of the scale is the manned/unmanned Ripsaw M5. This can either have a turreted Bushmaster 2 30/40mm auto-cannon along with a coaxial machine gun. Or a remotely operated turret fitted with a 50 cal machine gun with a couple of Javelin missiles.

            I suppose it will depend on how the unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) will be operated within the force structure. They could be used as a “loyal wingman” for individual manned vehicles or operated in small groups. The command vehicle for these grouped UGV’s will need to be operating in fairly close proximity. It will likely be a priority target if its easily identifiable. So I’d say a Boxer would be the best choice for crew protection.

            When I was last in Afghan, we had a pair of Foxhounds. These were awesome vehicles and were pure overkill for four bods, there was so much space. There is a version that comes a with a rear flat bed and a two crew cabin. Due to the design of the cabin, any missile armament it would carry, would have to be fired from the sides or at an angle over the roof. But that shouldn’t present any major problems, so long as direct fire is not required. I suppose a high mounted turret, a bit like the Avenger fitted to the HUMVEE could be used. Much like the Avenger turret, it could mount a mix of Starstreak and Martlet along with a 50 cal for air defence and use against drones. Or have a mix of Spike ATGMS and Martlet etc for overwatch and flank protection. There are a lot of options available.

            In an asymmetric type of conflict the L118 105mm light gun is brilliant. Against a peer, I’m no longer so sure? The standard opponent would be the D30 122mm gun, they are fairly comparable on range, but the D30 fires a slightly heavier HE round. Ukraine has shown how fixed (towed) artillery can be very vulnerable to being hunted by drones. Even mobile artillery can be very vulnerable to drone attacks.

            Unlike the D30, a well trained crew using the L118 can set it up really quickly, bang off 6 rounds then be on the road again within 4 to 5 minutes. Is this enough to save it from counter-battery fire. I’m not sure? Russian counter-battery fire destroyed a Ukrainian D30 battery within the first couple of shots fired by it. Mind you they were actively waiting for the battery to fire, then launched a barrage of unguided rockets at their location. So I guess even self propelled guns (SPGs) would have struggled in that situation. The saving grace for the SPGs is that they have a modicum of armour to protect them from shell splinters.

            The shorter range of the L118 is the problem, as the gun’s shells have a shorter time of flight. It has to be static closer to the front line slightly longer to deliver more shells, thereby making it more vulnerable to counter-battery fire. When compared to the M777, the 155 can be set up further back, so the shell is in the air for longer. meaning that if counter-battery fire is detected, the crew have more time to get away or dive in a hole. A system like Archer can be set up, bang off 9 rounds and on the road again within 2 minutes.

            As one of the systems being looked at to replace the 105mm is a land based version of the 5″ (127mm) naval gun. Which would give a healthy range increase, along with a greater choice of ammunition. But is it really needed? If the Brigade focuses on a mobile 155mm and HIMARs. Boxer mounting NEMO would be sufficient to provide the close range weight of fire requirement. Where it could be complemented by Spike or Brimstone. Plus it is easier to shoot and scoot. Patria also say the NEMO can fire on the move which would be a major bonus, when faced against today’s counter-battery technology. I believe this would be a valid argument against a manually loaded 81mm mortar, fired from an open hatch on a Boxer.

          • Good observations.

            Whatever war fighting systems we put in place over this decade are going to need to be relevant for the 2030’s, 2040’s and perhaps beyond. That is likely to be an environment rich with low-end, low-cost, UAS surveillance and starting in the 2030’s the possibility for our peer adversaries to put in place much more persistent space surveillance.

            I see the use of small footprint, dispersed, indirect fire UGVs, probably still in line of sight of a command vehicle (which is low observable? under cover?), as being one way to mitigate the increased surveillance threat. It seems like you, I’m not yet convinced on the much tougher nut to crack with UGVs used in direct line of sight close engagement with HMG and cannon. Its not clear what host/mothership/transport command vehicle makes sense, given we also need to get the UGVs into theater with something.

            If we decide to use MRV-P as the UGV command vehicle, then the hybrid drive train R&D work being done on Foxhound and Jackal 2 would provide a step up in tactical capabilities, including enhanced low observability on thermal and acoustic signatures, plus a lot of electrical power for comms, sensors and anti-UAS energy weapons. I hope this program goes somewhere, although it might make sense to standardise around a slightly larger and so potentially more useful platform.

            I agree on the L118 points. Towed artillery is becoming too exposed, especially for the comparatively short range 105mm, improved longer range natures notwithstanding. I don’t see 127mm addressing this. For land/sea deployment wheeled 155mm makes more sense along with HIMARS. For Airborne/Marine deployment, a combination of loitering munitions and Brimstone, or even ground launched SPEAR, would make more sense. UGVs could be deployed in numbers on A400M, carried internally in Chinook or underslung, to support this. Either as pack mules for greater numbers of heavier hand launched weapons such as anti-armour/anti-material and loitering munitions, or as dedicated fire platforms.

          • Mate a lot of decent observations there, agreed about the 81mm, needs to now be a 120mm minimum, turret mounted. As for the105mm, my brother is Arty, 7 RHA, well now he is GCC, and moved on, but he swears by the105mm as a flexible, close support weapon. Correct against a peer enemy it will struggle, but it certainly has a place in asymmetric and counter insurgency ops. Even in Iraq 2003, he was saying that they used to do night time “gun raids”, they would move forward closer to the designated targets, come into action, bang off a 10 rd FFE mission, and turn around quickly and bug out. This was simply because the Iraqi D30s had a better range and shell. But in Afghan the lads in the FOBS on the105mm were top notch, 24/7, all weather’s, and worked closely with us and therefore we all knew each other. The lads do take pride in coming into action fast, banging off the rounds asp! Always glad to have the105mm at my back, but also good knowing my brother was charge of them when he was a TSM.

          • You never know I might have called on him for some fire support, any time between 2010 and 2015. I wonder if he was involved with the Chinook gun run?

            Like I said, in asymmetric conflict, the L118 can be awesome. If it had greater range and a greater target effect, I think it would still be suitable against a peer. But I fear, with today’s technology and the speed of counter-battery fire, the L118 would be a liability.

            The one thing I have not considered is the RM role in Norway (possibly Sweden and Finland soon), plus their assault role. Where the L118’s light weight makes it a good mobile platform for fire support in artic conditions, when towed by a BV or airlifted. If only it had better range and greater effects? I suppose giving it a longer barrel would help where its 37 calibre (3.89m length) barrel was extended to 52 calibre (5.25m) would improve its muzzle velocity and therefore its range. But it will still be constrained by its warhead size for greater effects.

            DSTL have proposed using a land based version of the BAe 5″ (127mm) gun. Though it would need to be heavily modified for field use, But if it uses a similar direction that the M777 used with a greater use of titanium (though it is still three times heavier than a L118!). Then its weight could be drastically cut. Plus the barrel’s weight can be cut as it won’t be expected to do sustained firing.

            Having a 54 calibre (6.86m length) barrel is probably just about doable for a towed system that needs to be manhandled. After all the M777 has a 39 calibre (6.05m length) barrel and it is manhandled. This would allow a standard HE shell to reach 24km compared to the L118’s 17.5km range. But perhaps more significantly it will have the use of extended range shells, including rocket assisted and even NAMMO’s 5″ ramjet shell. Which would allow ranges of around 75km or more and have a greater target effect.

            Thinking about it, we could also use the gun in a modern version of the Abbot. Either mounted on a Ajax, Boxer or MAN chassis. It would allow a greater commonality with the Navy’s 5″ ammo, thus dropping cost per shell. Though how that would fit in with a potential new mobile 155 system could be difficult to justify?

      • That was LIMAWS, based on a CAT chassis but the MOD couldn’t make it airportable (weight) and refused to buy the American base vehicle.

  21. What is greatly pi$$ing me off at the moment, is that from what I understand, we aren’t actually sending any AS-90s at all.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/25/uk-military-aid-to-ukraine-could-rise-to-500m-mps-told

    From the article above:

    “Wallace indicated that the UK was looking at supplying Brimstone ground-based missiles that could be used to defend Odesa against any seaborne invasion, but he ruled out giving Kyiv the UK’s dated AS90 artillery.”

    Like seriously? Surely better off fighting in Ukraine then being left to rust, and still relatively modern compared to half the stuff being used by both sides in Ukraine, I can only assume that the MOD have changed their minds because the 90s are in such an embarrassingly appalling state.

    • AS90 is a very complicated piece of weaponry. It may have been decided it was better to give them M777 of which I think they got 100. It’s probably better for their needs with lighter logistics footprint. What they really wanted was MLRS which they are now getting. Also sending really heavy kit like AS90 will take a major logistic effort especially trying to get it to Donbas.

    • Kinda odd ruling it out. Wouldnt it have been better to just say all options are open and being explored.

  22. Not needed. Ukraine is constantly being strengthened with newer and better equipment while Russia is losing equipment at a rate that cannot be replenished: in part due to sanctions.
    Ukraine is now fielding more tanks than it had at the start of the war, and more than the Russians are fielding – including the ancient T62s dragged out of museums.

    Ultimately the Russians are going to run out of artillery, tanks, etc because they’ve all been destroyed. And the Ukrainians can completely free their occupied lands from Russian fascists.

  23. If Ukraine can consistently get these things to the front line, then the ☺SMO😂 will gradually turn their way, I believe. The indicator ought be a successful move on Kherson, but I fail to see how Ukraine will ‘ensure’ that without taking out the Kerch bridge. To facilitate that the West may end up having to bite the commitment bullet again. Quite possible.
    Good to see the MLRS equipment is mobile, a potential Achilles heel of M777.

    • Waste of time and resources trying to take that bridge out for now, even if they could get any where near it, it would take some considerable firepower not to mention the Russians have their land bridge now.

      • There is that, but I do believe that Russia (as a country) has still to face up to the huge loss in man power which hasn’t been made public knowledge. One of the factors which precipitated the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989 was the 15K death toll over a period of 10 years. Currently we are looking at around a low figure of 15K after 3 months and that death toll is for one country (Russia) alone. Say what you want about the Ukrainians they have made the Russians bleed and that casualty rate is affecting Russian moral across the front (looks at the reversals Moscow is suffering) that in turn explains the arbitrary missile strike Moscow carrys out when things don’t go their way. We saw that after they were kicked out of the North, we saw that when they lost the Moskov and we are seeing that now. Its as the person in charge, is simply lashing out in frustration. 

        • They aren’t going to able to keep that covered up for ever, not in this day and age and even with tight control of the media that they currently have in Russia.

        • I honestly can’t see the general population caring as much as they did with Afghanistan, this is next door and for years now have had non stop propaganda pushed in their faces about the Ukrainian government/people so I fear they may take the losses as a necessary evil for the greater good. Crowdfunding etc seems to support this, but hope I’m wrong and the losses when known eventually causes a general revolt.

      • Yep, although a well planned special forces mission could be effective the time to have done it was first month of the war reducing Russian forces ability to resupply from the south and would have been a much easier mission when Ukraine held coastline on the Sea of Azov. If Ukraine did start push Russia back the it could be a target effectively cutting of forces in the south and forcing a naval evacuation which would put some nice Russian Naval assets within strike range.

      • Yes, without more western commitment, James.
        The Kerch bridge has been an obvious target since day one. Of great tactical, not to say strategic, value for Russia’s 😉 SMO 🤕. Not least in the capture of Kherson to start with, and the subsequently anticipated rapid move on Odessa. The land bridge is potentially vulnerable to new MLRS as it is, whereas Kerch…….
        Ignoring for a minute that I don’t care what Putin threatens in any case, the Crimea is legally Ukrainian, and the bridge just infrastructure, so if Ukrainians take it out, so be it. As it happens, greater Ukraine is also legally – Ukrainian, but Russia it screwing the life out of entire, erstwhile inhabited, cities.
        Rgs

  24. Let’s hope Boris is sending more than the paltry 3 Sleepy Joe sent. Not sure where that 40billion in US taxpayer dollars went. Probably in someone’s pocket.

    • Boris is sending just 3 launchers. I had thought we would send at least one battery (8 or 9 launchers?).

    • “Sleepy Joe” . You can’t help yourself can you? How many do you think 45 would have sent. If your answer is either “more” or “it wouldn’t have happened” you are deluded.

      • he is sleepy Joe- he’s old and falls asleep – a poor President.
        Just goes to show how poor Trump was the facr Biden got in.
        If Trump was in power this wouldnt have happened …perhaps for other reasons than he would have armed UKr to the teeth …but it woudnt have happned.
        Biden is weaker than many ex presidents & Putin knows it.

        • You do realise that there is only 2 years of an age gap between Trump and Biden? That Trump has the attention span of a toddler and the mental acuity of a backward child? Most pertinently, he was in absolute thrall to Putin and did whatever he was told by his Russian master. In actual fact, he tried to withhold aid to Ukraine and was fulsome in his praise for Putin at the outbreak of this war.

          Biden may not be the best ever US president, but at least he can point to Ukraine on a map and is immeasurably better than that orange oaf who preceded him.

  25. Giving the Ukraine 3 MLRS fine hope it gives the reds hard time.But knowing we have some in storage and our RA are short in numbers .Would it not make sense to bring some systems out storage for our Troops give us a bit extra punch .There again I guess it’s a manpower problem now oh and money 💰.Just a nice thought guys 🤔

    • It kinda feels like ‘in storage’ is military code for taken apart for spare parts and no longer usable.

      If we remove Russia from the equation, what convential threat do we have on the horizon, that would need (key here is need, rather could be useful) heavy gear in the next day 20 years. Nothing that I can think of. At which point just donate from the active service and help remove the Russian threat.

  26. So what happens after Russia is defeated and forced to withdraw from the Ukraine?
    • Will the Russian Federation dissolve into smaller constituent republics?
    • Will Moscow be so impoverished – especially with foreign assets seized for the rebuilding of Ukraine – that it cannot afford to renew and replace its strategic nuclear forces?
    • Will Putin survive, or like most dictators, meet a grizzly end (?) or be handed over to the West by a new regime seeking to curry favour?

    • What ever happens, Russia as a military threat is over and they won’t ever be able to recover from it. Whether that realisation will push them into further isolation like north Korea or accepting they need to fix issues with the west, who knows. I would guess when Putin goes the transition will be less than peaceful, as so many people will want to ensure their power bases / wealth

      • Yes it could be quite bloody when it loses power as he’s held such an iron grip on things. He’s heavily involved in the Russian mafia from his days in St Petersburg, he still has strong links in the FSB from his days in the KGB, he actively interferes in the military at the operational level, and his United Russia Party is little more than his personal fan club. There’ll be a huge power vacuum if his fall is sudden and unexpected.

        • From what I understand there are two arms of the army also, with a large part reporting directly to him, to avoid military coup risk. That could cause a civil war if power handover goes badly.

      • Unless Ukraine is allowed to strike into Russia and hit the Russia Navy effectively, imo Russia can continue to hit targets within Ukraine from beyond Ukraines boarders thus blocking efforts to rebuild and exports indefinitely.

        We’ll need to provide Ukraine an effective air force, air defence and stand off weapons to secure Ukraine’s future and a peaceful end to this. Otherwise this could just drag on for ever.

        Another dynamic would be if China is trading grain/oil etc for weapons exports to Russia. Why would China do this, well its a very effective proofing ground to there systems against Western weapons in a prequel to Taiwan and they get cheap commodities.

        • What I am curious about is Ukraine losses. We know Russia has suffered badly and its is now struggling to form fully combat ready units, but we don’t really have the similar image to what is going on with Ukraine. They must have also taken heavy losses to both personal and equipment. Equipment can be partially replaced from the west but losses of fully trained soldiers are harder to solve.

          In other words in the war of attrition is Russia losing as badly as reported, or are Ukraine losses being kept quiet to avoid panic /hit to morale.

          • Ukraine will be numbers for sure. Zelensky himself said they were loosing 100-150 fighters per day. So do the maths over 100 days of war. Early days Ukraine faired better even capturing a fair amount of Russian kit. Even with losses Ukraine has surprised many, Russia has learnt lessons from the early days but is still only gaining slowly.

          • If his saying 100-150 a day, then the true story will be way higher. His job is to keep morale up, being honest about losses does the reverse.

            The war will only realistically end when both sides hit a point where their attrition is too high and finding a peace agreement is the only realistic option. I suspect that will be a few years away.

  27. I have no issues with supplying high end military equipment to Ukraine. The more, the quicker, the better. However has anyone asked the follow up question. How are we backfilling the equipment we’ve sent to Ukraine? For every MLRS system we donate we should be ordering a replacement. That replacement should be funded directly from the treasury and not the Defence budget.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here