NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How long would it take to reactivate hull production? I dont know, though I submit it seems reasonable to suggest we could do that in 5 or 6 years if we made minimal changes from C2's hull.

Since it's been twenty years since the last tank body was assembled in Britain, does it matter if it's a Challenger or Leopard/Panther hull, won't it work with the new turret just the same?

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Since it's been twenty years since the last tank body was assembled in Britain, does it matter if it's a Challenger or Leopard/Panther hull, won't it work with the new turret just the same?

Because if you slung a Leopard 2 hull under it, then you have to do trials on it for the next 3 years to make sure nothing breaks. If you replicate something that once was, then the paperwork is a lot easier. We found this when we built steam locomotives in the UK again. If you divert, just a tiny bit, from the original design, the bureaucracy trail gets twice at long.

Personally, we could mount the turrets on a war elephant for all I care. What im saying is, its far less important what design we build, than Europe has the ability to build its own product when it needs it.

And if you want to see why, look what happened when the Americans say we cant fire stormshadow into Russia, or the Swiss wont sell 35mm ammunition. We are so in love with the idea of Globalisation,its fairly clear we dont recognise the weaknesses, not least that there is not enough production capacity to build all the weaponry you need in an emergency. Such as right now, for example.

Edited September 30 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

The insistence of Westerners to criticize the lack of "professionalism" of a military that straps toilets and loot directly on top of their vehicles every time they've invaded a European country in the last hundred years is baffling to me...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well... yes, there is that....

[Martineleca]

On 9/29/2024 at 9:24 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

MGCS is too little, too late. Any real program to revitalise European arms production and particularly AFV production would have started with a restart of at least some production of an MBT design that's available right now, with a program to gradually introduce important upgrades while the line is hot. 

Then, and only then, when a new chassis design is available, make it the new standard. After you've got hundreds of new tanks in service.

Well I read somewhere that Nexter was originally supposed to build 1500 Leclercs which would have dropped their unit price closer to other Western models, the decision of France to significantly reduce that order eventually led to the factory shutting down. I'm not even sure if under the MGCS workload sharing agreement they're supposed to produce any complete hulls, or if all of them will come from the existing KMW plant in Germany.

[Martineleca]

Iran said to ship missiles to Russia

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-10/news/iran-said-ship-missiles-russia

He said Russian military personnel were trained in Iran to use that system and suggested that Russia will use the Iranian systems for “closer-range targets.” 

- If this is true then it's a new low for Russia, not just for begging third world despots for arms, but actually sending personnel there to train as if they've completely lost all capacity for that at home.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Still winning.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Martineleca said:

 

- If this is true then it's a new low for Russia, not just for begging third world despots for arms, but actually sending personnel there to train as if they've completely lost all capacity for that at home.

The Russians seem to be having exceptional success with rapid-response tactical ballistic missile strikes.  No doubt they've missed hundreds of firing opportunities simply because their inventory levels did not allow for all targets to be hit.   So getting as many missiles as possible for as many such strikes as possible is a no-brainer.

On the question of training, I don't understand your point.  The Iranians, not the Russians, understand the technical details of their system, so it would be SOP that Russians would learn from Iranian instructors.

Edited October 2 by glenn239

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

On the question of training, I don't understand your point.  The Iranians, not the Russians, understand the technical details of their system, so it would be SOP that Russians would learn from Iranian instructors.

Because it busts their "great power" narrative apart, they could theoretically bring the Iranian instructors to Russia as it would likely be more cost effective, but they don't do it because of the danger of drone attacks, which is an admission that they cannot defend their airspace.

[Martineleca]

Battle tank concepts mushroom at Paris arms show

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2024/06/17/battle-tank-concepts-mushroom-at-paris-arms-show/

The Leclerc Evolution tank is proposed as a new build. And while existing Leclerc platforms could potentially be refitted, “that’s a question of economics,” Groshany told reporters during a walk around KNDS France’s offering Monday. The French tank is meant to complement the Leopard 2 offering rather than compete with it “to address markets for which the Leopard isn’t relevant.”

The company sees realistic possibilities to find buyers, “otherwise we wouldn’t launch it,” Groshany said, adding that there’s a market for hundreds of main battle tanks in the next 10 to 15 years.

[Martineleca]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:59 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Challenger 4 you mean.

I'm just happy that the NATO Europe Big Three + Italy are finally discussing restarting local new MBT manufacturing this decade, rather than their favored 20 year plans for everything. The Leclerc Evolution/2? is said to be practically ready for production, Leopard 3 and Panther IT as well, Challenger 4 would be a bit more "challlenging" due to all the cross-border supply logistics involved, but hopefully RM can help get it done.

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 9/30/2024 at 6:47 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

And if you want to see why, look what happened when the Americans say we cant fire stormshadow into Russia, or the Swiss wont sell 35mm ammunition. We are so in love with the idea of Globalisation

That's not globalisation. That's negligence. Every armed force knows exactly the terms of use of its weapons. Whether it manufactured them with foreign export-regulated parts, or imported them whole.

Nothing came as a surprise to anyone. Not the Swiss ban on 35mm ammo export, nor restrictions on StormShadow. These are artificial scandals over things the relevant governments and gov't bodies knew all about for decades.

 

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Nothing came as a surprise to anyone. Not the Swiss ban on 35mm ammo export, nor restrictions on StormShadow. These are artificial scandals over things the relevant governments and gov't bodies knew all about for decades.

Another issue would be the wider use of the Tomahawk missile, outside the US and UK the navies of Japan, Australia and the Netherlands will also be operating it in the near future, it remains to be seen if the ground launched variant is cleared for export though significant interest in it certainly exists, will any use of these missiles be subject to the same restrictions regardless of situation?

[Mighty_Zuk]

8 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Another issue would be the wider use of the Tomahawk missile, outside the US and UK the navies of Japan, Australia and the Netherlands will also be operating it in the near future, it remains to be seen if the ground launched variant is cleared for export though significant interest in it certainly exists, will any use of these missiles be subject to the same restrictions regardless of situation?

Usage restrictions are negotiated prior to and detailed at the contract phase. Everything is transparent between users and manufacturers. 

However I do not see a reason to disclose such potentially sensitive information to the public.

It is natural for every arms manufacturer to want assurances that its products and their secrecy are kept safe.

It is equally natural for every user of said arms to want maximal freedom of employment. The compromise is usually a major factor when it comes to international tenders. 

[Martineleca]

5 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It is natural for every arms manufacturer to want assurances that its products and their secrecy are kept safe.

But that isn't what's happening at the moment, a very public discourse between governments has been going on for months where any current or future customers of advanced US-made weaponry are left wondering if those arms will be little more than dead weight at a crisis point when there may not be enough time to ask Washington for permission to fire.

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

But that isn't what's happening at the moment, a very public discourse between governments has been going on for months

Either posturing or asking for favors after stupidly agreeing to trade weapons under severe restrictions and not preparing for an actual conflict.

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

where any current or future customers of advanced US-made weaponry are left wondering if those arms will be little more than dead weight at a crisis point when there may not be enough time to ask Washington for permission to fire.

Look at Israel. It's fighting wars. It has no such luxury as asking for American permission to use its weapons. It uses wherever it pleases. It even has an F-35 test variant and entirely localized maintenance capabilities, something even JSF partners aren't eligible to get. 

Do you know how? Because it emphasizes these things at the negotiations table and certainly doesn't sign a contract without full assurances about freedom of usage.

[Martineleca]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Look at Israel. It's fighting wars. It has no such luxury as asking for American permission to use its weapons. 

Do you know how? Because it emphasizes these things at the negotiations table and certainly doesn't sign a contract without full assurances about freedom of usage.

I think it's deeper than that, regardless of political tensions flaring up at times Israel remains Americas most trusted ally. Even after a decade of close cooperation and commitments of support Ukraine has still not reached the trust level of even Poland, let alone the Five Eyes countries, the fact this country is in a war with a geopolitical rival of the US doesn't seem to move that needle much. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

9 hours ago, Martineleca said:

I think it's deeper than that, regardless of political tensions flaring up at times Israel remains Americas most trusted ally. Even after a decade of close cooperation and commitments of support Ukraine has still not reached the trust level of even Poland, let alone the Five Eyes countries, the fact this country is in a war with a geopolitical rival of the US doesn't seem to move that needle much. 

For a fact all these details are set at the contract phase. Who can restrict what, where, when, and under what conditions, and when the user has freedom to use. Israel for example blocked KMW out of its howitzer tender a few years ago because it feared an arms embargo.

Trust is built over a very long time and being on the same side is just one aspect of this. For example one needs to be sure the user has sufficient anti corruption mechanisms in place and that these worked for a sufficient time.

You don't want your sensitive $2M missile to somehow wind up in the hands of some desert dweller. Ukraine under Russian occupation did trade military stuff with Iran and these connections likely existed for a while. After gaining independence in 2014, it was then up to Ukraine to show the world it could consistently thwart such attempts. I know on one occasion they intercepted an attempted transfer. Did they miss any though? 

Israel went through its toughest wars - 1948, 1956, 1967, 1967-1970, and most of 1973 under arms embargoes. Trust had to be built for decades. Same is happening to Ukraine. 

Of course there are other factors here. Being European is a massive accelerant for Ukraine, but then right now is a period of unprecedented corruption in the west. 

Biden and Kamala feel absolutely deterred the axis. Caving in at every turn. Trudeau, Starmer, Macron - all playing to the tune of the axis. Scholz - haven't figured him out yet but the man's a coward. He folds at the slightest bit of pressure. Meanwhile on European soil there are those who are outright outposts for the axis - Ireland, Hungary, Spain, Turkey, etc. 

Meanwhile each and every one of these is actively fighting a war on several fronts. 

Israel's fighting on 8 fronts but these aren't far off. Germany and UK on 5 at least. But they certainly act like they're not - allowing the axis to progress unhindered.

[Martineleca]

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Israel's fighting on 8 fronts but these aren't far off. Germany and UK on 5 at least. But they certainly act like they're not - allowing the axis to progress unhindered.

I've previously heard of 7 fronts, which actually seems to refer to engagements and still don't know how they come up with that figure, the British military is operating on several continents though I haven't read of them being involved in heavy combat recently, what active theatre is the Bundeswehr involved in?

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

I've previously heard of 7 fronts, which actually seems to refer to engagements and still don't know how they come up with that figure, the British military is operating on several continents though I haven't read of them being involved in heavy combat recently, what active theatre is the Bundeswehr involved in?

Israel's 8 fronts are:

Gaza, J&S, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, and the final is diaspora, companies, diplomats abroad threatened by local axis operations.

Germany's 5 fronts are:

Russia-Ukraine, eastern Europe, Iran, Yemen, internal.

I separate Russia-Ukraine and eastern Europe despite both having Russia as the enemy, because these are essentially different efforts - one depends on deterrence, another on industry. Iran is a natural enemy to Germany - threatening its trade routes, supplying arms to its other fronts, arming to confront it, and directs axis operatives inside Germany. Yemen because of its attempts at a red sea blockade. And internal because Germany is deeply infiltrated, owing to unchecked immigration including and particularly from axis territory, and growth of culture nurtured by the axis and unchallenged at home.

[Martineleca]

On 10/8/2024 at 12:26 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Israel's 8 fronts are:

Gaza, J&S, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, and the final is diaspora, companies, diplomats abroad threatened by local axis operations.

Germany's 5 fronts are:

Russia-Ukraine, eastern Europe, Iran, Yemen, internal.

Just not sure if "front" is the correct word here, people usually associate it with direct combat, not intelligence or cyber operations. 

And what are the five UK ones you previously mentioned?

[seahawk]

Germany has no fronts, does not need them and should not be involved in any of those conflicts.

Want to list 5 major problems in Germany.

1. self inflicted high prices for energy, that are driving away industries
2. a next to totally incompetent government
3. climate adaption
4. spending on social affairs that are spiralling out of control
5. immigration

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:08 PM by seahawk

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Just not sure if "front" is the correct word here, people usually associate it with direct combat, not intelligence or cyber operations. 

And what are the five UK ones you previously mentioned?

UK has the same ones.

No, I'm not talking about cyber ops. I'm talking about areas where a nation is either committed in armed conflict, or is unilaterally engaged by an enemy.

Such is the nature of warfare. It need not necessarily be entirely kinetic. It can be found in many means.

[Mighty_Zuk]

@Martineleca Just to demonstrate to you what it means to be at war without being in a hot war. This is Israel's 8th front - Anything not in Israel that can be targeted by the axis. An Israeli defense company abroad that acts as part of Israel's MIC being targeted by the IRGC. This has the same effect as doing it in Israel.

This however also hurts Sweden, because these products also go to Sweden, they constitute its MIC in both materiel and expertise and thus comprise a part of its wartime resilience. So this Iranian attack effectively undermines Swedish security. 

This also demonstrates what I mean when I say that Iran poses a much greater threat to Europe and the US than meets the eye.