NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Roman Alymov]

34 minutes ago, James1978 said:

So other than operating Antonov Airlines, just what does Antonov do these days, or indeed since 2014?

See the story of An-178 ( Antonov An-178 - Wikipedia ) - they were capitalising on Soviet-time name while maintaining de-facto sceleton staff of engeneers and workers. Plus letting their huge land properties in Kiev for rent etc.

[Martineleca]

11 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

See the story of An-178 ( Antonov An-178 - Wikipedia ) - they were capitalising on Soviet-time name while maintaining de-facto sceleton staff of engeneers and workers. Plus letting their huge land properties in Kiev for rent etc.

It's just a further development of the proven An-148 of which around fifty were produced this century, so it's not fair to say Antonov hasn't been doing anything. As far as renting out "properties" it's the same in every former communist country where normal people weren't permitted to purchase land and the government was at a loss what to do with much of it being vacant, so they handed it off to state companies that barely had any use for it back then, let alone after subsidies ended. I'm sure the Romanian government would love to rent out three quarters of the comically overbuilt Parliament building, but it would damage the image of the state so it's a no go, at the same time as the construction of that behemoth was sucking up government revenue people were literally starving in the streets of Bucharest... 

Edited April 23 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

It is another affair: Antonov design bureau was the "holder" of official documentattion for Antonov planes (under old Soviet system that was transferred to post-Soviet one) and any production, upgrade or even maintanance of this planes was officially illegel without their supervision.  Even despite of most of actual production of Antonov planes was done on the plants that were left in Russia (no need to say Russia also inhereted full set of documentation). 

    With this outdated requirement dropped, there is no need for Antonov to take part in restarting production in Russia.

So its 10 years now. How many An124's has Russia built?

Edited April 23 by Stuart Galbraith

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So its 10 years now. How many An-124's has Russia built?

For a time there were indications that Ilyushin was going to build a heavy lifter named Slon-Elefant, combining aspects of its own Il-76 and the An-124 that would be wholly domestically sourced to replace the latter. There doesn't seem to have been any progress with this program so far, probably waiting for the Chinese to bankroll it like everything else lately.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yep, thats what I thought. Just as there was no progress on the nuclear powered supercarrier, or the new Strategic bomber, or the 2300 Armata hulls.

Cynical, moi?

[Martineleca]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Just as there was no progress on the nuclear powered supercarrier, or the new Strategic bomber, or the 2300 Armata hulls.

Cynical, moi?

Historic amnesia is a feature of their corrupt ideology, according to them basically any positive achievement of the Soviet Union, especially technical was all the Russian's doing because they owned the power structure. But when it comes to the unprecedented Holodomor genocide perpetrated by those same Russians against Ukrainians, Belarusians, Cossacks and enslavement of half a continent well then those are crimes of the Soviet Union that in no way can be traced back to them, they have it both ways in their sick minds, if they even try to make the "innocence" argument that has mostly fallen out of fashion. Specifically on the military angle Russia somehow forgot that all those aircraft carriers, strategic bombers and advanced tanks were made with extensive support from the huge tech institutes and industrial facilities based in Ukraine that they lost access to of their own accord a decade ago.

[Martineleca]

On 4/22/2024 at 6:29 AM, R011 said:

And Suffield or any number of places around the world even further away.  Dnipro is certainly closer and more congenial than Kandahar.

The biggest problem with that region are the extreme temperature differences between the seasons and even during day and night in winter, something that created near-unbearable conditions for the British and French armies at the siege of Sevastopol. Sunshine would melt the ice during the day turning the trenches into a bog, then when night came it would freeze up again trapping boots, equipment and sometimes soldiers too, the process would repeat every day for months on end...

[R011]

2 hours ago, Martineleca said:

The biggest problem with that region are the extreme temperature differences between the seasons and even during day and night in winter, something that created near-unbearable conditions for the British and French armies at the siege of Sevastopol. Sunshine would melt the ice during the day turning the trenches into a bog, then when night came it would freeze up again trapping boots, equipment and sometimes soldiers too, the process would repeat every day for months on end...

I'm pretty sure a garrison in Ukraine wouldn't be living in trenches for months at at time anymore than they did in Germany.  Nor do i share your opinion that Ukraine's climate is so extreme that British soldiers couldn't adapt.  As I've noted already, it's nearly identical to Suffield where the British Army has been training for decades.

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, R011 said:

Nor do i share your opinion that Ukraine's climate is so extreme that British soldiers couldn't adapt.

I didn't mean that they couldn't adapt, just that extra steps need to be taken specifically to deal with the dreaded Rasputitsa. Combat on the Korean peninsula also presented some very challenging off-road conditions, with their wide tracks the Pershing and Centurion tanks proved to be far superior to earlier models over substantially muddy terrain, some of their successful features can be found on MBTs to this day. 

Edited April 24 by Martineleca

[seahawk]

14 hours ago, Martineleca said:

The biggest problem with that region are the extreme temperature differences between the seasons and even during day and night in winter, something that created near-unbearable conditions for the British and French armies at the siege of Sevastopol. Sunshine would melt the ice during the day turning the trenches into a bog, then when night came it would freeze up again trapping boots, equipment and sometimes soldiers too, the process would repeat every day for months on end...

So maybe it would be best for weak western armies to stay out of Russia?

[Martineleca]

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

So maybe it would be best for weak western armies to stay out of Russia?

In historical context of the Crimean War those same weak Western armies conquered the most heavily defended fortress in the world and made the tsar shit his pants, agreeing to halt his attempts to dominate the Black Sea, a situation that despite everything still holds two centuries later, I'd call that a success. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well, that was mainly the French. I dont think we British really did so well, no matter how much we flattered ourselves over the 'Thin Red Line' and all that kind of thing.

That said though, im not seeing Ukraine as an extreme climate. Not in comparison with Afghanistan and Iraq anyway.

[Martineleca]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, that was mainly the French. I dont think we British really did so well, no matter how much we flattered ourselves over the 'Thin Red Line' and all that kind of thing.

Well France probably wouldn't have bothered had they been forced to go it alone, the Sardinians were also there after all, but the excellent siege guns and mortars of the Royal Artillery were most useful in reducing the fortifications. The British assault on the Great Redan though ultimately unsuccessful was crucial in drawing away Russian reinforcements from the direction of Malakoff tower, that the French were able to capture and attain fire control over the entire area. 

[Martineleca]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:24 PM, R011 said:

I'm pretty sure a garrison in Ukraine wouldn't be living in trenches for months at at time anymore than they did in Germany.

Perhaps not, but it'd be appropriate to train for the kind of war scenarios that are most likely, just like BAOR troops constantly prepared for possible chemical and nuclear strikes that would precede lightning mechanised attacks by the enemy. Any future Ukrainian DMZ is likely to feature extensive trench systems and fortifications on both sides of the kind that exist in Korea, therefore much of the strategy of Western militaries present there will have to revolve around defending and overcoming them. 

[R011]

48 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

Perhaps not, but it'd be appropriate to train for the kind of war scenarios that are most likely, just like BAOR troops constantly prepared for possible chemical and nuclear strikes that would precede lightning mechanised attacks by the enemy. Any future Ukrainian DMZ is likely to feature extensive trench systems and fortifications on both sides of the kind that exist in Korea, therefore much of the strategy of Western militaries present there will have to revolve around defending and overcoming them. 

Of course its appropriate to train for whatever local conditions exist both tactically and environmentally.  The British Army or, indeed any major Nato army, aren't complete morons and should have little problem in adapting.

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, R011 said:

Of course its appropriate to train for whatever local conditions exist both tactically and environmentally.  The British Army or, indeed any major Nato army, aren't complete morons and should have little problem in adapting.

On that point the units constituting such a force would also have to be altered, just like US Army Korea is basically unique in their entire military with a huge ammount of land-based firepower, US Army Europe is also moving in that direction. At the end of the Cold War to match enemy forces each British division had 72 field howitzers in addition to the corps artillery formation with another 48 heavy guns/rocket systems, restoring the Royal Artillery's ability to provide sustained mass fire support over a wide area must be a prerequisite of sending troops to Ukraine, just as important as layered air defense.

[Martineleca]

French President Macron urges stronger defences, economic reforms

https://au.news.yahoo.com/news/macron-aims-cement-french-influence-051225284.html

- A sobering speech that seems to have reached more of the right people in power than previously, it's interesting if increased pressure for a sustained military buildup in Europe while challenging the spread of Chinese and Russian influence globally will one day come to be known as the Macron Doctrine. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Martineleca]

25 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Awesome that at least aerospace companies have been proactive in starting work on bringing production facilities online without government funding in advance, LM is building a huge new factory to make more ballistic missiles for which there's growing demand and not waiting for a deadlocked Congress to underwrite it. 

[R011]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Stupid Finns.  Don't they know they're supposed to be intimidated by this move?

[Martineleca]

8 hours ago, R011 said:

Stupid Finns.  Don't they know they're supposed to be intimidated by this move?

While appreciating the General's tough words I think this is actually a positive development, any units and equipment that Russia is forced to relocate to cover the border with NATO takes pressure off Ukraine, could even indicate they've given up on any large offensive action there for the time being.  

[Martineleca]

On 4/27/2024 at 8:58 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

That close they can be ambushed from several directions before they can move away if things turn hot, quite unwise. What do you think about the UK selecting the Boxer RCH 155 wheeled self-propelled gun over the more conventional K9 howitzer, there will be significant local industrial participation which weighed heavily in its favor, but is this just a temporary solution to quickly acquire a replacement for the AS-90 that will be followed by procurement of a more robust tracked model later on?

Edited April 29 by Martineleca

[Stuart Galbraith]

I think, personally, the Army will eventually come back to a tracked solution to its problems. The only reason its going wheels is its still dealing with the aftermatch of the abortive Strike Doctrine, where they expected the Army was going to fight out the back of a Hercules 2000 miles from home. Not that a Boxer is a bad platform, but its unarmed (as the APC variant) and untracked, which is clearly somewhat of a handicap looking at Ukrainian mud.

RCH155 is not a bad solution. The only bad thing is that its only going to arrive towards the end of the decade, when arguably we need something right the hell now.

[Josh]

5 hours ago, Martineleca said:

That close they can be ambushed from several directions before they can move away if things turn hot, quite unwise. What do you think about the UK selecting the Boxer RCH 155 wheeled self-propelled gun over the more conventional K9 howitzer, there will be significant local industrial participation which weighed heavily in its favor, but is this just a temporary solution to quickly acquire a replacement for the AS-90 that will be followed by procurement of a more robust tracked model later on?

I think people are rethinking the utility of tracks. Fun artillery ranges have increased and the need for fast displacement and operation all mobility might be mire desirable than cross country capability. With a long enough reach, how many places you can get to might be less important than how quickly you can get there and how many platforms are mechanically still mobile.