British P-8 Poseidon escorts British vessels in the Baltic

I agree.

The fantasy that we would have years or a decade – remember ‘we can’t see any use for a carrier in the next 10 years?’ To sort things out has been demolished.

I’d it wasn’t for Zelensky I think EU & NATO would be sitting around sucking teeth and wringing hands in the usual ‘what can we do about that’ mode….

Anyway I think the UK did the right thing with NLAWS and shows the way.

‘we can’t see any use for a carrier in the next 10 years?’ 
I’m gonna guess that’s David money can buy you an education but it can’t buy you a brain Cameron. Yeah we’ve shown real leadership over Ukraine.

Trump was the only leader that gave lethal weapons to Ukraine years before Putin invaded them. Everyone else was scared to death of Putin and his threats. Thank goodness the Ukrainians got a few years to train on the Javelins or things would probably be different in the war today. Also America in 2018 trained the Ukrainian AF in NATO tactics, ect that is helping them today. Now if only a Western leader had the guts to give them some more Migs….

With the MiGs I’ve no idea why it wasn’t just done on the QT.

If they had been repainted who would have been any the wiser as Poland and Ukraine collaborated and swapped bits before then?

Spot on that’s my worry about talk about transferring AS90’s and Harpoons. God knows whether we can keep anything secret nowadays but let’s try.

AS90’s are a bit UK unique so it would be pretty obvious from commercial satellite cover?

Harpoon is more likely to come from US than UK as they have more sets and other bits that allow them to be set up for static use. As far as I’m aware we have never had those systems.

Good point on AS90. Harpoons at least we have them in inventory even if not many.

It’s a fair point, you can’t just add harpoon to a ship and expect it to work, you have to do expensive and time consuming integration. For land based you would need some form of launch vehicle and radar system, which the UK doesn’t have. I would guess we could probably create such a platform quickly if the money was put down but I can’t see that happening

Poland made it public as they wanted it to be public that they gave them to the US and not to Ukraine, should Russia ever find out. I also suspect they wanted to use it as a bargaining tool to get cheap upgrades/replacements from the US

Putin won the 2016 election for Trump. Trump screwed the Afghans. And Trumps America first BS gave a green light for Putin to consider this war. So don’t pull that crap here. Trump was a disaster for America, and the world.

Nonsense.

Trump was weakening NATO with his isolationist and transactional actions. Why is what Robert says “Nonsense”??

I’m with @Robert Blay

Putin annexed the Crimea and other parts of Ukraine under Obama’s Presidency. Also Putin winning the election for Trump is rubbish. Evidence please not rumour

US intelligence services provided evidence of Russian tampering of the 2016 election. Trump soundly ignored that evidence.

I think you’ll find that British forces have been training the Ukraine army in tactics and use of NLAW etc since the annex of Crimea in 2014, they were only pulled out just before the war started.

We get that you like Trump…You’ve omitted the bit about the “conditonal” offer for the Javelins…..

Correct you are! 🙂

I think perhaps your learning the wrong lessons! The war so far has shown that “lots” of stuff means FA, what matters is “quality” of stuff. Quality of equipment, quality of training, quality/motivation of personnel.

And sufficient numbers of stuff, such as easy to use gear like NLAWS, to make sure it is all over the battle field?

But it does shine a light on something else I bang on about – keeping superannuated carp in the stores is a total waste of time.

Much better of focusing on having decent amounts of the good stuff.

Out of interest what is superannuated carp?
After Ukraine one of the Britain’s adversaries (Russia) will be a lot weaker conventionally. I can’t see it being able to replace the all the kit lost quickly if ever.
I do wonder what Russia military will learn from the experience and if it will adapt and how

You pre-suppose that the Russian military has a “learning” capability, which a dictatorship does not tend towards, if history is any guide.

Old kit that should have been scrapped years ago……

We used to have plenty of WWII stuff kicking around in the 1980’s…..

They’re capable of learning. See aftermath of Finnish winter war. That’s the worry.

And then forgetting those lessons…?

I’m not sure about that. The Germans certainly felt the Red Army was capable of learning ! When you compare them in 1939 to 1945 they were a different proposition.

The difference in the Soviet Army in 1939 and 1944 was American lend lease. The US sent the Soviets:

• 400,000 jeeps and trucks
• 14,000 airplanes
• 8,000 tractors
• 13,000 tanks

At a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in December 1943, Stalin added: “The United States … is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”

Of course lend lease helped them to fight. But the Russians also learned how to fight. It also cost them millions of lives before they learned.

You need both as numbers count too. It’s having the right kit at the right time. The UK has some quality items but NOT ENOUGH of them to take to the table.

Hardly Ukraine war was coming for over a decade, it was just everyone had their head stuck in the sand trying to pretend it wasn’t. Luckily Ukraine did act and massively increased its milaitry force, although even it reacted late, as crimea again was boiling over for years before it happened. Unfortunately all this war proves is policticans won’t react until they are forced to by having no other option.

It’s like the Falklands, the foreign office / mod know the risk years before but the government didn’t want to increase the defense of it as it would upset trade with Latin American countries. Plus it was considered to be too unimportant, it was only after the public outrage following the capture that things changed.

Yeah but your describing all Democracies. That’s how democratic politics works for good or ill.

Well if the missiles were at end of stores life then giving them away to be expended saves the disposal costs.

Surely the missiles would be funded by UOR anyway.

I agree we need to send about £200M to replace them but some of that might already be budgeted.

You could say we need to replace whats been donated missile wise, but I’d suggest that Bill is going to be a lot less than the Russian Bill to replace their armour. Let’s face it the Ukraine has taken a lot of pressure off NATO and I’d not be surprised if the Russian military will carry some mental scars for a few years once this is all over.

Oh I agree.

It is going to cost the Russian fortunes, that they do not have, to replace the kit that has been destroyed in Ukraine.

TBH I think half the reason that the UK is so keen to supply more NLAWS is that a decent percentage of the Russian kit can be destroyed in Ukraine. Further, that the Russians will never dare to invade anywhere with an armour lead strike as it has been demonstrated how vulnerable their kit is to our last generation weapons.

I think your 100% right on both scores there SB.

A bankrupted Russia could be bought up/indebted to China, a far greater threat.

That is true.

I’ve made that point a few times on here already.

Might as well let the Ukrainians trash as much Russian kit as they can. That way we know 100% we won’t be fighting it.

Kinda depends, the number of vehicles rumoured lost is high, but compared to total number meant to be available / in stores it’s tiny (I read one number of 400 tanks lost, but they are meant to have tens of thousands). Clearly Russia will need to do something to sort the corruption going on around it’s defense equipment, but in theory they could rebuild relatively cheaply.

The human cost is another question and so is the morale one, this appears to be Russia’s Vietnam. It took decades before the US mentaly recovered.

The Russian’s might get re-supplied by China on a energy-food-land resources deal for Chinese military equipment? Don’t they both share technology and similar systems already and also do joint exercises? We could see a further big China-Russia-Stans-Iran-Syria block imerge all mutually supporting each other. Hope the West and its friends and aligned countries can as also stay strong.

Haha tax cuts. That’s what’s not needed. That only has a benefit for the whole economy if they are above a certain level. At the current levels it doesn’t really boost anything apart from wealthy wallet sizes.

Agreed.

My guess a one off payment that will be used to replace the given away gear and be glossed up as a major uplift in capability. Plus a statement that there will be another SDSR the year of the election, i.e. after it or a review that will start immediately but only report after the election.

I agree – a one off payment is far more likely than an actual increase in the yearly budged.
I’m not sure that it will actually happen though, you’d have thought it would have happened already. I think there will be a lot of disappointed people on here when the autumn budget comes out.
The priority for the government rightly or wrongly is going to be the cost of living issue, more people will care about that than defense spending. If the Conservatives want to stay in power come the next election then getting the cost of living issue right is going to be a big thing for them.
Unfortunately defense spending is likely a lot lower down their priority list. Regardless of what I and I’m sure every other person here would like to see, I just don’t think it will be the reality.

I guess depends when the next election is. If it’s next year then they will want a budget early in the year where they cut taxes etc and so this year will likely involve no focus on the cost of living, so they can throw it all at once and having it in the voters minds.

Johnski

Nice to hear from you.

The Ukrainians seem to say they need NLAWS: why would they do that if it didn’t work?

Maybe the Ukrainians will get Haprion. It would be nice if they could get rid of the Russian fleet as well as their tanks. That way we can be sure NATO won’t be dealing with them.

Thank you. Didn’t say it doesn’t work, it clearly does, hence asking for more, its just that the UkA has a lot of artillery and drones which are safer than getting up close and personal and can cover a wider area.

The Russian fleet seems to be cruising round creating a threat to Odessa so the UkA feel the need to keep 5, I think, battalions down there. In the meantime cruise missiles are destroying their fuel stocks to remove that option.

If NATO had to deal with them, I suspect that there would be bigger problems around.

“In the meantime cruise missiles are destroying their fuel stocks to remove that option.”

Unlike the Russian the Ukrainians have localised distributed fuel stocks.

TBH they don’t need a big heavy missile like Harpoon to take out the Russian ships. Mid weight barge launched drone stuff would do the job.

Hi Johniin I agree with what you are saying, my point was that supplying Harpoon is no different to supplying manpads. Dan was implying we wouldn’t supply such weaponary for fear of upsetting Putin. You make an interesting point about calling In artillery on tanks as it goes to show artillery still has a purpose on the battlefield. I’m amazed how ineffective the reactive armour is on Russian tanks, I remember in the 80s when we first saw it how revolutionary it was and so desperate was the need for one of those box’s that BRIXMIS managed to get hold of one. I now read NLAWS attack from the top even so the survivability rate of Russian armour is woeful.

NLAW can be set up prior to firing for either direct or top attack. It literally is just a button press.

I suspect the issue with the explosive reactive armour(ERA) is chemical leaching. This is where the chemicals that make up the plastic explosive used in the ERA starts breaking down and separating. This then either makes it more unstable or more likely less effective.

Judging by the poor state of their equipment, showing a lack of periodic maintenance. It may be the case that the ERA being used is well past its shelf life, thereby making it ineffective.

There have also been a few video clips showing ERA working, but these aren’t as many, due to the fact the tank survived! I suspect a lot of the Russian T72s and T80s that have been used, were in long term storage. Amongst the wrecks of Russian MBTs there are very few of the newer T90s. These use the newer Relikt ERA, which uses a larger content of plastic explosive, so it’s supposed to be able to defeat ATGMs using tandem warheads.

Or maybe the design just isn’t that good?

Proper plastic explosives should be long term stable.

Mark Arty doesn’t destroy tanks, it damages optics, disrupts systems and causes concern for the crew but very rarely is a tank ever destroyed. You may find that after an Arty fire mission is called in on a Russkie formation they generally do a runner and the tanks can then be destroyed at leisure either by A/guided munitions or ground teams with dems. Johnskie doesn’t really know. Arty will always be needed, but with more guided projectiles to ensure that you can fire a single guided projectile, as opposed to a 5 rounds FFE from 3 or more guns. Cheers.

I can remember doing a radar adjustment at Larkhill back in the 80’s in front of some watching VIPs, we put the adjusting round right on top of the target on the smartie line. It looked very impressive but the round just bounced off the armour without seemingly doing too much damage. Guns that were firing for us were 105 light guns.

Yes mate, Arty is essential but as we know no good for destroying armour”

JIMK wrote:

A Harpoon is very different to MANPADs and ATGM, their weights, the former being 15′ and 1500lbs/700kg. Difficult to smuggle them in. You can’t put 3/4 in the back of an estate car/SUV.

My take on what Mark was saying was the Harpoon is a one shot disposable weapon like the rest

Its a similar problem with any weapon that doesn’t take standard WP ammo, the sometimes unique logistics chain after that weapon is safely over the border. 

I thought we were talking about 1 shot disposable weapons. Also a salient point to note, the only factory making ammunition in the Ukraine was captured by Moscow in 2014, this is why former WP nation s have been supplying the Ukraine with ammunition and one of the reasons why until this feb the Ukraine was slowly replacing its former Soviet based infantry weapons with newer home-grown (and under licence) NATO based weapons which use 5.56 x 45 and 7.62x 51 rounds, give it 10 years and if the Ukraine is still a round it will have shed it Soviet based infantry weapons.

Even for their standard weapons the logistics must be getting increasingly difficult as the Russians destroy increasing numbers of supply depots of all kinds.

The EU border with the Ukraine comes in at 850 miles (Poland/Slovakia/Hungary/Romania) who are all NATO countries who all dont have a love for Moscow (ok Maybe Hungary does, so that 84 miles off) I dont think the Russians can have a bloke every 100 metres of that border,.

the effectiveness of the NLAWs etc, for whatever reason, the majority of tanks on both sides seem to be being destroyed by good old artillery.

Where do you come out with such information, the vast majority of tanks killed in the Ukraine has been by the bloody infantry using : MInes, ATGMs and IEDS. Yes there have been a few examplies of both sides using guided artillery Kvitnik for the UKr and Krasnopol for the Russians , but they are few and far between and cost vastly more than your bog standard RPG and require extensive planning in which to get a kill. such as digging in and hiding, knocking out a range card, linking up with a sourse of targeting (Man on a phone/Man with a LG unit. man controling a UAV) after the unit has fired, it has to pack up and go to its next location (scoot and shoot) before counter artillery /Drone strikes takes it out, of which there are also many example .
An interesting tactic being deployed against the T-72 is to hit it in the rear, taking out its power systems, the crew are then allowed to bail out and the tank destroyed by setting off its own ammo stock, sounded like WW2.

The vast majority of ATMs are able to punch through the ERA and armour of all the armour in use by Moscow. In fact there is one video, where the Ukrs fired 3 RPG7 rounds at the same tank in quick succession in which to first defeat its ERA and then punch through its armour. The weak point for all Russian tanks since the T64 is how due to the auto loader they all come with a carousel of shells all just inside the turret. Anything which detonate inside the turrets usually ends up detonating those shells, and why Russian MBTs have a habit of blowing up and throwing their turrets 

Thanks Farouk- a really interesting and well drafted commentary . Keep ’em coming.

Thank you for your comment. I value the replies from yourself and others here who have infinitely more knowledge than me, including Airborne when he is off his high horse.

It seems to me that the UkA are really successfully exploiting their drones, of which they have large numbers, to increase the effectiveness of artillery.

A Russian big weakness seems to be the lack of infantry support in high risk areas thereby presenting the tanks as almost sitting ducks.

The Russians are also increasing using their Iskaders against single high value targets, like Buk-M1 and S-300 when they find them, probably, given they don’t have loitering Su-xx around, due to the speed of response and accuracy.

As to logistics, I agree that there is a long and porous border so that is not the real problem. Big depots are vulnerable, which the Russians hit, so imports I would assume, are now more distributed. The difficulty now is getting them to point of need in the east as the Russians cut railway links and reduce fuel supply, both in terms of tank farms and the single refinery in Ukraine. Both diesel and aviation fuel stocks must be running low.

I cant ride a horse John sorry. The main Russkie weakness isn’t a lack of Infantry support to tanks, its not having the experience, knowledge or training, at every level, in order to know when/how/where to operate as a combined arms BCT (to include Arty, Aviation, Engineers, Recce, Logistics, Comms, LLAD etc etc)….all this doesn’t happen overnight, it takes years of planning, training and resources to achieve, something which hasn’t happened with your comrades. The Russkies have shown themselves to be amateurs at the soldiering profession, and their whole doctrine of command is a shower of shit. Fortunately for the West and for Ukraine. Putins effort at growing his dick has failed, and the West are now awake to the threat, which we should thank Poop Tin for.

Very few tanks are destroyed by Arty Johny boy! A 122m HE shell landed next to a tank will make a mess of the paint, smash a few optics and blow off the amateurs sleeping bags and pots and fucking pans from the outside cages. Tanks are destroyed by AT weapons, hence the term AT weapons. FFS get a grip, I know your not real and never served but try to research the subject to make yourself a bit more real. Oh and here we go again, your mate Kayaker wouldn’t do it, like you have refused to do so, but I will aske again…any condemnation of your head shed Putins illegal and murderous invasion of another sovereign nation, ie Ukraine?