Two British C-17 transport aircraft carrying weapons to Ukraine went around German airspace.

CORRECTION 18-1-2022: I had originally claimed that Germany had appeared to have denied overflight permission for the C-17 aircraft carrying weapons, I said this before I received official confirmation. I was wrong and I apologise. The reality is that the UK did not ask Germany for permission in the first place. Click here for more.

Tens of thousands of Russian troops are positioned close to the Ukrainian border, according to the UK Defence Secretary, “Their deployment is not routine, and they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, rocket artillery, and short-range ballistic missiles”. This build-up has resulted in Ukraine requesting assistance from allies, with two British transport aircraft heading to Ukraine with anti-armour weaponry.

https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/1483407026407542788

UPDATE: On the 18th of January a Royal Air Force RC-135 ‘Rivet Joint’ signals intelligence aircraft (a type of surveillance aircraft) has crossed Germany en route to Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1483417350577741824

On why C-17s avoided Germany while the RC-135 did not.

What’s happening?

British C-17 transport aircraft are currently moving “light anti-armour” weapons into Ukraine in light of “increasingly threatening” behaviour from Russia.

British military aircraft rapidly supplying weapons to Ukraine

According to a statement given by the Defence Secretary in the House of Commons today, the 17th of January 2022.

“As of today, tens of thousands of Russian troops are positioned close to the Ukrainian border. Their deployment is not routine, and they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, rocket artillery, and short-range ballistic missiles.

I can today confirm to the House that, in light of the increasingly threatening behaviour from Russia, and in addition to our current support, the UK is providing a new security assistance package to increase Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour, defensive weapon systems. A small number of UK personnel will also provide early-stage training for a short period of time, within the framework of Operation ORBITAL, before then returning to the United Kingdom.

FILE PHOTO of a Royal Air Force C-17.

This security assistance package complements the training and capabilities that Ukraine already has, and those that are also being provided by the UK and other Allies in Europe and the United States. Ukraine has every right to defend its borders, and this new package of aid further enhances its ability to do so.

Let me be clear: this support is for short-range, and clearly defensive weapons capabilities; they are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia. They are to use in self-defence and the UK personnel providing the early-stage training will return to the United Kingdom after completing it.”

You can read the full statement here.

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

109 COMMENTS

    • To be clear the German Armed Forces are in hole not of their own making. The reason that Ursula von Leyden was nominated as President of the EU by Germany was to sideline her from German politics because the massice foul up she made as German Defence Minister. She obtained an increase in the defence budget from Angela Merkel & then progressively let massive contracts to private companies while defence capability was massively degraded as reported on this site. The new lot don’t seem to be any better.

    • David, The article did not say that Germany refused overflight permission.

      “MoD on the record about last night’s arms flight path to Ukraine: “Germany have not denied access to its airspace as the UK did not submit a request, there has been no dispute between the UK and Germany on this issue.”

  3. Germany are playing into Putin’s hands. All he needs is division in NATO and Germany are supplying him exactly that. The US & UK need to have serious words with the Germans; there stance is making conflict more likely not less.

    Seems that Putin is just waiting for the ground to freeze before he launches his invasion. The only way to avoid a wider war, as with all dictators and bullies, is to signal that we will stand firm.

    • Well said, Germany don’t need to supply weapons but should stand firm with NATO allies who protected them when they were the front line

      • Why are you buying LNG from Russia, you need to stop that, sure it will hurt to bottom line, but freedom isn’t free.

      • The reality is that NATO is divided. Of the major power, essentially you have the Brits and the Americans on one side – urging firmer action – and the Germans and the French on the other – having no real interest in going to the mat for Ukraine. Disunity is undermining NATO’s credibility; that and the fact that the Russians know that NATO is in no position to assit Ukraine in a decisive way. The real threat is the sanctions threat and what that may or may not do to disuade Russia – assuming Russia is intent on military action rather than just bluffing in order to get concessios. But even in terms of sanctions, how far would the Germans agree to go?

      • Should have stood with us in 1941 and today we wouldn’t have problems with Russia nor Ukraine, but you decided to go against us and ally with Russia…

    • Agreed and with China looking on to see how the west will respond.

      Perhaps now we might see an increase in the defence budget to add some additional capability in defending the UK, we have no land-based anti-ship missiles as an example or current ASM’s for our Navy or airforce.

      NSM/JSM fits the bill for air land and sea, buy some, that way we will have a useful deterrent.

      Typhoon/F-35

      https://www.airrecognition.com/index.php/archive-world-worldwide-news-air-force-aviation-aerospace-air-military-defence-industry/defense-security-exhibitions-news/air-show-2017/lima-2017-bis/lima-2017-news-coverage-report-bis/3367-kongsberg-s-jsm-missile-to-be-added-to-eurofighter-typhoon-weapons-package.html

      Navy

      https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/products/defence-and-security/missile-systems/nsm-naval-strike-missile-nsm/

      Land-Based CDS

      
      https://www.kongsberg.com/kda/products/defence-and-security/integrated-air-and-missile-defence/coastal-defence-system/

      In addition to the above, Tomahawk can also be land based and used against maritime threats.

      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38102/here-is-what-each-of-the-navys-ship-launched-missiles-actually-costs

      • Are anti-ship missiles needed in a situation like this? Any invasion launched by Russia will be land/air.

        Perhaps we need an army twice the size with modern AFVs and artillery.

        • We’re an island nation, so it will be by sea and air unless they can walk on water.

          Typhoon currently carries Meteor, ASRAAM and AMRAAM, replacing the 36 Tranche 1’s or like Spain upgrading them makes far more sense to me short term.

          In a situation like this, we will not require the army with modern AFVs and artillery because they are not being sent to Ukraine.

          My point is quite simple, defend the UK first before looking elsewhere as we currently do not possess the means to do so on our own.

          An interim batch of longer-range NSM/JSM Tomahawk can be used against maritime and land-based targets which would be a cheaper option overall.

          Hoping NATO will come to our aid in a time of crisis would take months of indecision like we’ve seen many times in the past.

          A deterrent is a useful thing to have, China and Russia will be working closely together in the Atlantic so I’m sticking with my opinion.

          “Russia’s growing multi-domain military build-up, more assertive posture, novel military capabilities, and provocative activities, including near NATO borders, as well as its large-scale no-notice and snap exercises, the continued military build-up in Crimea, the deployment of modern dual-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, military integration with Belarus, and repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace, increasingly threaten the security of the Euro-Atlantic area and contribute to instability along NATO borders and beyond.”

          https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

          “They [the Chinese] already have the … second-biggest defence budget, and already the biggest navy, and they are investing heavily in new modern capabilities, including by investing in new disruptive technologies such as autonomous systems, facial recognition and artificial intelligence, and putting them into different weapon systems,” he said.

          “They are really in the process of changing the nature of warfare,” Stoltenberg said.

          He rejected the idea that Nato, whose core task was to defend the North-Atlantic region, was overstepping its treaty boundaries.

          “To respond to the challenges we see that China poses to our security, is not about moving Nato to Asia … because we see that China is coming closer to us,” he said.

          “We see China coming closer to us in cyber, controlling infrastructure in Africa and the Arctic, training together with Russia in North Atlantic waters,” he added.

          https://euobserver.com/world/152142

          • Nigel, when I referred to invasion, I meant of Russia into Ukraine not Russia into UK! Because that was what the article was all about.

            Why do you think Russia is contemplating an invasion of the UK? That was not in their serious planning for the whole duration of the Cold War.

            I think it a bad argument to say that we don’t need a modernised army because it is not deploying to the Ukraine next week. Good military equipment has to be in place all the time as there is no time to modernise if and when ‘the ballon really does go up’. Over the last several decades, the army and Royal Marines seem to have done far more actual warfighting than the RN and the RAF – they should not be bottom of the list for new equipment and upgrades – and the state of the ‘heavy metal’ (AFVs and artillery) part of the army is verging on catastrophic.

            I am interested that you say we cannot defend our homeland alone – I have not seriously thought about that since I did Ex Brave Defender in 1985. Where would you say we are weak? Just that it would be nice to have 36 more Typhoons in the ORBAT and some Tomahawks – or is there a bigger capability gap?

            We have never focussed on Home Defence in recent years – the focus has always been on operations overseas. This is even more pertinent with politicians trumpeting the ‘Global Britain’ brand. We are not an isolationist nation that regards overseas operations as a nice ‘add-on’.

            You also think NATO would prevaricate before calling Article 5 if Britain were invaded. NATO called Article 5 less than 24hrs after the 9/11 attacks.

          • “Nigel, when I referred to invasion, I meant of Russia into Ukraine not Russia into UK! Because that was what the article was all about.”

            Question answered in that case, I misread it.

            Re NATO.

            “But it depends on what he does, to what extent we’ll get total unity on the NATO front.”

            “It’s very important that we keep everyone in NATO on the same page.

            That’s what I’m spending a lot of time doing, and there are differences,” he went on.

            “There are differences in NATO as to what countries are willing to do, depending on what happens.”

            https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-news-conference/index.html

            Russia could launch a new invasion of Ukraine from the sea – a form of attack that Russian forces “constantly practice”, including in Crimea, the deputy head of the Ukrainian navy has said. 

            https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-naval-attack-from-russia-is-real-but-ukraine-will-retaliate-vice-admiral-warns-12514682

            So a possibility from the sea as well? I’m looking at home defence and what we actually have to defend the UK. A lack of investment over twenty years has clearly left us “weak” in many areas, including home defence.

            https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-amphibious-assault-flotilla-to-transit-english-channel/

          • Thanks Nigel, whilst the media concentrates on the possibility of an overland invasion by Russia into Ukraine, you are right that a seaborne invasion may also be attempted, notwithstanding that Russia has less experience of amphibious operations.

            I like that you are looking at MHD (Military Home Defence ) of the UK. There were MHD exercises other than Brave Defender (1985) in the midst of the Cold War, then Home Defence took a backseat – the ROC and UKMWO organisations were disbanded together with their infracstructure together with Regional Seats of Government (RSGs) (underground bunkers in every region of the UK). I thought it was incredibly premature at the time.

            I guess MHD is only really exemplified by the 4 Typhoons on QRA at the 2 bases. The navy I am sure could deploy a layered naval defence with up to 8 River Class OPVs close in to shore and then up to 18 coastal/fast patrol boats (Sandown and P2000/Archer class) somewhat further out and then DD/FF further out again. There would be little to no need for practice or special training.
            The army is a different story of course. I guess that operational plans are not held or are ancient, the army is not uniformly distributed around the country, has not recce’d the ground and not held any MHD exercises. Worrying! In the two counties of West and East Sussex with a lot of potential enemy beach landing sites, there is only one regular army unit, 12 Regt RA equipped with SHORAD.

          • Hopefully, those in power will pay more attention to what we have to say on here!

            “Britain’s armed forces have flown some 2,000 anti-tank weapons to Ukraine this week amid fears of an imminent, new Russian invasion.
            
            George Allison, of the UK Defence Journal, a website focused on defence news, posted on Twitter a time-lapse of the flights, which he said began on Monday.”

            https://news.sky.com/story/russia-invasion-fears-as-britain-sends-2-000-anti-tank-weapons-to-ukraine-12520950

          • Tranche 1 Typhoons are not upgradable, well not quite true, it’s not cost-effective to upgrade them due they have reached the peak of their onboard power systems.

            it’s more cost-effective to buy new. but Tempest is the goal with F35s filling the gap.

        • How long would that take though? Is there even the will and/or capability? Better expending effort on getting Spear 3 in use and buying hefty stocks plus maybe a dozen or two more Typhoons. A flight unloading 12-18 each from up to 100km away isn’t going to be a pleasant time.

      • ‘In addition to the above, Tomahawk can also be land based and used against maritime threats’….
        Quite useful on bridges across the Kerch Strait as well.

    • Putin does not have enough troops in position to successfuly invade and garrison Ukraine – he needs at least twice as many as are near the border. He must be sabre-rattling to pressurise Ukraine not to join NATO.

    • They won’t have to, they are not the front line any mote. Poland & the baltics are doing that now. No wonder Putin is demanding that the Finns don’t apply to join NATO

  5. We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour, defensive weapon systems. 

    PIAT?

    On a more serious note, I read a Warzone article over the festive period, which showed that the Russians have been fitting slat armour over the top of their MBTs. So it appears that they are worried regards top attack missiles., so to that end it would be really interesting to see exactly what we are providing Kiev with.

    • Well if we are sending NLAW they have a direct or overhead attack profile, firing a shaped charge downward into an armoured vehicles weakest armour. That is the same for Javelin too which we know the US have supplied Ukraine. No doubt the Ukrainians also have drones which again have an overhead attack profile. That all explains why the Russians are deploying extra top armour.

      Now the Ukrainians aren’t going to engage in a manoeuvre warfare peer on peer type defence; they are well dug in along Ivan’s key axis of advance. They will take mass casualties from Russian artillery attack and suffer severe supply, command and control difficulties due to Russia’s deep strike capacity. However those surviving dug in forces will need to be winkled out and that is where these weapons become really effective. Such an operation would end in a huge ‘crumbling’ battle which Russia would win but at the cost of thousands of casualties.

      Let’s hope deterrence works.

  6. Unfortunately for NATO, Germany’s stance is the only option they have, as the German public, would not tolerate an aggressive stance, now, or for some years to come.

    It’s a deeply rooted view, with many complexities. One of those issues is in the fact that there is a large section of the population, who believe they are European first, and German second.

    Whether we like it or not, the less aggressive ‘stance’ goes way back to post WWII Europe, which pretty much saw the indoctrination into the German psyche, that German ‘aggression’ would never be tolerated again.

  7. NLAW is supposedly the weapon being supplied. Does anyone know how many you could fit in two C-17s presumable fully loaded?

  9. It isn’t a surprise that Germany won’t provide defensive weapons to Ukraine. The fact that they’ve refused overfly rights for others to provide defensive weapons to Ukraine is. When you add Nordstream 2 into the equation it’s hard not to come to disturbing conclusions.

    • Is it possible that theses huge gas supply lines in themselves could be used as a weapon? Sorry for my ignorance on these things but gas is gas, it’s a fuel line and if they go overland…could be sabotaged?

      • The concomitant leverage is a far bigger weapon.

        I feel rather sorry for the new German government; Merkel left them in a deep hole.

    • DE also blocked other NATO countries supplying defensive weaponry eg anti-sniper systems.

      Partly they are in a hole, eg by failing to have a Plan B such as LNG import terminals to deal with any failure of NS2.

      Partly they are mercantilists, and basically willing to sell anything to anyone. eg Their sale of Frigates to Israel, followed a few years later by the sale of similar Frigates to Egypt. There are other examples.

      Partly as their FM has made clear, appeasing Russia matters to them at this point.

    • The only conclusion you can come to is that Germany is an unreliable ally. Theyhave zero interest in protecting democracy or the welfare of a country of millions of free people.
      Refusing overflight from a NATO ally is frankly just crap and they should be deeply ashamed.
      If Russia do advance through Ukraine and Poland and the Baltic states then Germany will once again be on the frontline. I dont think a single British life should be spent defending them.

        • HMG says that Germany didn’t refuse overflight. It also says that the UK didn’t request it. They chose a detour around Germany that added hundreds of miles to the flight. I wonder why ?

          • Indeed, why? At the least gives the impression that UK did not wish to ‘compromise’ Germany when it came to weapon runs; as compared to NATO monitoring flights which Berlin could hardly have refused.
            Happy to hear alternative explanations &/or evidence of flights where weapons were transmitted to Ukraine over Germany, of course.

        • I think you need to repeat that point another 10 times GM,😆 many people on here not grasping that point (I’m not sure if my highlighted screen grab from Dan Sabbagh’s Twitter comment will attach here to help make your point)!

      • Yeah and alongside France they’re pushing for an EU army because apparently NATO is ‘brain dead’ If this crisis has done little else it’s demonstrated to europe what that would mean for anyone in reach of Putin.

  11. if france decided to send some military eqipment to ukraine,
    it would be interesting if they were allowed through german airspace

    • France ! That’s actually hilarious. Just google ‘France Ukraine help’ or such and you’ll see they’ve been with the Germans on this for years – doing exsctly nothing ( apart from spouting hot air).

    • France ! That’s actually hilarious. Just google ‘France Ukraine help’ or such and you’ll see they’ve been with the Germans on this for years – doing exactly nothing ( apart from spouting hot air).

  12. Amongst other things this illustrates how absurd is the idea of a European Army. Also with Germany’s new government how could there ever be a combined EU foreign policy that makes any sense? Let us hope that Putin doesn’t cross the real and figurative line that is the border with Ukraine. The world we know can collapse very quickly!
    Apart from that hope you are all well.29 degrees here in Durban today

  13. It’s middle of winter and Germany rely heavily on Russian Gas as does most of Europe, so they won’t doing anything that might turn off/restrict the gas flow.
    IMO to many countries keep giving up soreign capactiy to save few £/$/€, UK is just as guilt with thing like manufacturing even after the chaos at the start of the pandemic where they realised not enough PPE but no factiries to amke volume hee where do all our NHS LFT’s come from? (China).

    • Interesting Davey, in what way…

      My take on this is Germany is an untrustworthy NATO partner and total hypocrites….

      They were happy to have 50,000 British troops based in Germany during the cold war, ready to protect the central front and fight for Germany.

      Now the direct threat isn’t to them, they wash their hands of it and look the other way. The simple fact is Putin says jump and the Germans ask, how high sir?

      NATO needs reform and first on my agenda would be to give Germany a big kick up the arse!

      I would give them a deadline to step up, or sod off.

      Poland is effectively now the main European NATO hub and most important mainland partner.

      Germany can go and form a pointless and utterly toothless ‘Euro Zone’ defence alliance…

      • I tend to agree with the sentiment. Germany should be expelled from NATO. Although realistically that is exactly what Putin wants and why he has the Germans over a barrel.
        Germany is utterly dependent upon Russia for its energy supplies for domestic and industrial use. Putin turns off the taps Germany gets cold and industry stops.
        Putin is a master of hybrid warfare and economic/ geopolitical manipulation.
        Im just flabbergasted anally nations military were refused overflight.
        I see Poland were only too happy to support Ukraine by allowing RAF overflight.

          • There is definitely more to it, either the UK is making soft pressure here on Germany by explicitly not flying through, or Germany has asked the UK gently not to do this despite officially not denying the request. Or it is a simple risk aversion decision.

        • Expect the eastern nations of Nato would be land lock from the rest of it and you need to make up over 16% of the core NATO budget as well as other numerous issues.

  15. Germany foolishly gave up nuclear power, so it is now reliant on Putin’s gas. Britain (government & opposition) have made net zero the new state religion, hence my gas bill for December jumping from £250 to £700. Contrast with Taiwan, which plans to build up to 16 LNG carriers (gas transport ships). South Korea mass produces these ships for around $200 million each. For example, 6 Jan 2022, DSME to build two 174,000 cbm LNG carriers for Greece Maran gas for $417.3 million. Samsung, 27 Dec 2021, is building a single LNG carrier for $203.6 million. You can read this on the LNG Prime website.

    • Your gas bill went up as a result of market fluctuations. And many gas wells being closed in Covid.

      Germany’s Plan B issue is not tankers; it’s that they have chosen not to build import terminals so have no alternative. And Netherlands running down their fields. US wells by contrast, are now opening up again.

      UK has three big import terminals, some of our own supply, and pipelines from Norway and the Netherlands. But prices set to spot prices.

      Arguably the UK mistake was deciding in around 2015-16 that we did not need a strategic gas reserve.

      I think we will see UK Gov measures on the wholesale side, as it will also take the steam out of retail inflation, and because BJ has not reputation left and can’t afford -ve politics on top of his moral turpitude.

      It should ease in the summer due to lower demand, and we have a lot of Renewable Electricity supply (like 5-10% extra) coming on stream in the next year, which will reduce the gas we burn to make electricity. And will help your bill.

      Germany’s larger issue is that fixing the supply situation and getting some autonomy from Putin looks like a 12-15 year project.

      Mutti really left them in the sh*t.

      • UK has the ability to take gas tankers at Milford Haven. Trouble is the foreign owners of gas tankers prefer to send them to the Far East for higher prices. The UK needs to own & man a few gas tankers to make sure cheap gas from USA, Africa, Australia comes to Britain. Wholesale prices tend to double when demand gets within 2% of available supply. If we had our own tanker fleet, we could make sure that does not happen.

          • Its not that they would sell LNG cheapily to us just at market rate abd the fact that as US has vast shale gas reserves they have a huge surplus they could sell.
            I think we just need the shipping capacity via LNG tanker fleet to deliver to the UK.

          • The wholesale price of gas in the USA was reported to be 10% of the UK wholesale price. OK that varies day to day, but shows there is a big difference in price.

    • I don’t know why the UK government doesn’t finance these LNG Carriers as economic stimulus for UK yards and then lease them out. They can then always be used to get LNG for UK in the main and give us one more gas security option. Not everything can be left to industry – some matters are strategic concerns especially energy and food supplies.

      Similarly cable laying ships, finance UK build and lease again. If our cables get cut who will repair them. Oneweb may give some resilience but still.

        • Yes but as per usual they will go to cheapest place to build (S. Korea?), and as they are BPs assets they will use them where it makes them most money and not necessarily lines up with UK government needs. I see it as a way of expanding and building up our industry (which then benefits for options on the defense side), easing energy issues, and ultimately it is an asset that the government owns that they can in situations such as this winter use in the best way suited to UK needs.

          Same for manufacture of PPE, testing etc etc. Globalization doesn’t work in some scenarios where you have regimes with a different political outlook to UK and also have different strategic view.

          • Trouble is, I do not know of any British yard with recent expertise in building these huge gas transport ships. South Korea has pretty much got a production line of them for just over $200 m each. The UK would have to spend £100 m + just on building a yard suitable. Cammell Laird had a plan for such a large dry dock in 2016? but I think it never happened. Buy off the shelf from South Korea, you have the first ship in 2-3 years. Buy British & it will take a decade as you have to build the yard first & develop a design.

  17. Churchill once said the Germans are either around your neck or at your feet. In this instance they seem to be around Putin’s feet.

  18. Fine. Don’t supply weapons in order not to offend Putin and his energy supply to your country, but to deny airspace to a NATO partner?? Preposterous. Why Putin has any fear of a ‘United’ NATO is beyond me.

      • Were they asked I wonder – after all the distance between 2 points is a straight line and would save quite a lot of money.

  19. Germany are happy to sell weapons to others so why not Ukraine? It’s obviously political. Let’s not forget that 70% of Germany’s gas comes from Russia. No German government would survive the lights going out. Germany is in an impossible position (of its own making perhaps?). Even so, we should respect other nations’ postures and not criticise. Our foreign policy is not exactly exemplary at all times either. On a different note, we must be supplying one hell of a lot of NLAWs if it takes two C17s! Lol 🤣

    • Just thinking ahead. I hope these weapons can be rapidly replaced. We may well need thousands of top attach anti tank weapons for our armed forces if Putins adventurism turns into a hot war via an attack on a NATO ally.

      • Good question. In tarmac to tarmac operations the RAF tend to favour the C17. But I have doesn’t know the details.

  20. Is Germany happy to become a Putin poodle? Putting the nations head in the noose by relying on Russian gas was always going to end like this. It’s the whole point of the CCPs Belt & road initiative. Spending billions+ around the globe by gangster regimes has one purpose: Leverage & control.

    We too desperately need to divest ourselves of Russian & CCP investments & restore back here in the West the manufacturing & supply we’ve given away to China, so we stop funding their aggression & our own demise.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here