Subscribe
Notify of
guest
91 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
HandsOffUkraine

Thoughts on longer term implications for defence spending? If Ukraine falls do Ramsey and Blyth get recommissioned as a gesture of reinforcing the RN or do they go to Estonia/Lithuania (maybe instead of Quorn)?

Sunmack

I doubt there’ll be any implications for defence spending as there are no votes in it compared to “schools and hospitals”.

In fairness I don’t think we’d need to spend much more if we spent the existing budget sensibly.

In the last couple of decades we wasted or plan to waste:

1) £3.4bn on MR4. It was acknowledged at the outset that MR4 was higher cost and risk than the alternatives but we did it anyway for the purposes of job creation and BAe shareholder enrichment. We got no aircraft for that money which would come to £4.75bn in 2022 prices.

2) £250m on a national ship

3) £630m on Batch 2 River class OPV’s

4) £1.75bn on T31 OPV’s (I refuse to call these ships frigates)

That’s about £7.5bn in today’s prices. For that we could have;

1) Started the T26 build earlier and ordered a further 5 T26’s (£3bn)

2) Given the T45 a TBMD capability (£2bn)

3) Given the F35 a stand off heavyweight ASM and land attack missile (£2bn)

4) Ordered additional Merlin helicopters for the extra T26’s (£0.5bn)

Still, far better to spend the money on zero maritime patrol aircraft, 10 OPV’s and a national ship.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunmack
Andy a

Oh here we go t31 again. Well it’s tough the RN seem to think a high low mix is way to go. Now while I agree the high low mix should not include river class the RN see the t31 as a good thing, especially with strike length missles fitted in future. Think public realise we cut too far

Sunmack

I don’t believe that most of the RN think that at all. I think that MOD press releases and career orientated senior officers in Whitehall say that to please their political masters and post rationalise a decision driven entirely by cost and not operational requirements.

We’re spending £1.75bn to have ships that are less capable than the ones they replace in every single aspect of warfare except shooting at speedboats.

Folks keep saying all will be well as we’ll fit the capabilities in future but that hasn’t happened with the T45. A decade after they entered service they still lack TBMD capability, land attack missiles, anti-ship missiles, ASW torpedoes or the Co-operative Engagement Capability. I don’t know why folks think that the T31 will be any different.

Rob N

Land attach capability is not required for an air defence destroyer. Ship launched torpedoes are not cost effective as if a hostile sub is that close you are already too close.

The T45 is getting what it needs extra missiles, a C2 upgrade, a radar upgrade and a ABM capability down the line with ASTER 30 block 2 when tgat comes out.

It would be nice to have an extra 5 T26 would be fab but we did not have tge funds. Getting a lower-end frigate to do less front line duties frees up the more capable T26. It is a good solution. The T31 is a frigate, other countries use it as an anti-air platform. The UK ship has plenty of room fir growth.

Andrew Wilde

Not too sure which will happen first, the public realise we do not have a modern numerous well armed Royal Navy anymore or effective surface to surface missiles are fitted to the Type 31 Patrol Boats. Any time in the next ten years chaps, no rush is there, we have to double the NHS budget first and, by coincidence, fight a General Election too. You will just have to soldier on with what you have got. Oops, we don’t have any soldiers either.

Jon

The Type 26s were never £600m ships; nevertheless, the position is worse than you paint it.

Going slow means the cost of the T26s is far higher than it would have been, inflating a average £900m ship to £1.24bn. So had we planned properly and signed a contact for a fast build of 13 Type 26s, it would have cost around £11.7bn. (Even in 2015 the estimated outturn cost was about £11.5bn according to the MoD.) The slow build of eight Type 26 will cost us around £10bn, so the actual difference in cost is £1.5bn to £1.7bn, not £3bn.

In other words for the cost of 8 T26s and 5 T31s, we could have had all 13 T26s. And if the contract had been signed in 2014 when it was originally expected, we’d have the frigate factory in Scotstoun and at least two of the frigates already in service with one being delivered every year to about 2032. We also wouldn’t be facing an unknown bill to increase the lethality of the Type 31 to turn it into a warship.

The 8 T6s & 5 T31s total is a fait accompli, but the slow build of the second batch of T26s is not nailed down by contract yet. Lobby your MP for a fast-build contract. Get the navy their ships sooner and save us £1.75bn in the bargain.

In my opinion the OPVs have been a happy accident, and even if the navy didn’t want them, they are a great peacetime asset.

Sunmack

That’s a really informative post. Thanks

Nigel Collins

A very good explanation Jon, hopefully, we can change this going forward in light of the current situation?

Would you happen to know if these can be fitted to the Type 45s and a timeline to do so if we could?

It might just save us some time going forward.

“The folks over at BAE Systems have come up with a fairly novel way to give any ship with some deck space Mark 41 vertical launch system (VLS)-like capability without having to make huge alterations to the guts of the ship, which in many cases wouldn’t even be possible.

Dubbed aptly the Adaptive Deck Launcher (ADL), the system provides four cells positioned at an angle that can accommodate the same all-up missile canisters used by standard Mark 41 vertical launch systems like those found on the U.S. Navy’s cruisers and destroyers, as well as many allied surface combatants.”
 
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29335/this-bolt-on-launcher-can-give-nearly-any-ship-the-same-weaponry-as-u-s-navy-destroyer

images.jpeg
Last edited 2 months ago by Nigel Collins
Tim Hirst

It’s a total wast of time to talk about adding weapons systems and considering which are best UNTIL MONEY HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE BUDGET. Money is the be all and end all of this. Until/unless the budget is changed nothing can be done. These pictures are just warship porn with out funding.

Sunmack

Let’s use some of the £5bn allocated to Ajax. A properly equipped navy is a far higher priority for a maritime nation geographically surrounded by its allies

Tim Hirst

In your opinion.
That wasn’t the opinion HMG came to in the recent defence review, so my guess is that idea won’t fly.

Sunmack

Fortunately in a democracy I’m freeto disagree with HMG on a public forum

Nigel Collins

It just might!

VICKIE FLORES/EPA
Larisa Brown
Monday February 28 2022, 12.01am, The Times

“Britain should spend more on defence, says Liz Truss
“Liz Truss urged Europe to boost defence spending referring to decades of western complacency over the threat posed by Vladimir Putin”

Meirion x

The Army will still need a reccon
vehicle especially with the situation in Eastern Europe, maybe a off a shelf buy, transportable by air,
maybe South Korea?

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion x
Cammy

Isn’t Ajax far too big for recon?

DJE

The warrior is still more capable in terms of troop capacity, speed, armour and survivability that most APC’s out there. I seem to remember a warrior upgrade programme being restarted recently. The Armoured Infantry and REME units I know still love it.

Cammy

How about half foreign Aid, that would free up 7 billion. And all the woke types would obviously Royaly moan about it like 7 billion every single year isn’t enough in foreign Aid, 14 billion is a dam bad joke!

Jon

Money has been added to the budget.

The difference between last year’s 10-year equipment plan and this year’s is £47.9bn. The increase is being placed everywhere that has no measurable positive effect this decade. Mostly it’s just uncommitted. Even though the government mood music is all about naval primacy, that’s not where the procurement money is going. £10bn extra to the army (but not on tanks), £2.7bn more to the navy (but not on ships or attack subs) and £3.5 billion LESS to the airforce (who needs planes anyway?).

Unless this kind of thing is discussed, the MoD will continue to prioritise anything rather than the short term delivery of systems that can kill an enemy: Type 31 less lethal than Type 26, Boxer less lethal than Warrior, etc.

Cammy

It’s scary how small the RAF has become…Most if not all large economy nations have bigger air forces. And it’s crazy how South Korea has a much more powerful Millitary and more warships with capability. I do like the look of their K9 guns, maybe we should replace AS90s with them, it’s not like we could even build our own these days anyways.,when and why did we stop designing and building tracked millitary vehicles..

Last edited 2 months ago by Cammy
Rob N

It is possible that now we have a ew cold war with Russia HMG will build up our forces again. Of course if Labour get in we will be Screwed…

Cammy

No way, I can still see cuts cuts cuts, and even if we didn’t cut the Army by 10,000 again it’s still far too small for what we expect of it, and we could put the entire army into Wembley and still have 20,000 seats left…

Nigel Collins

I think Jon has answered your question but you have failed to answer mine!

Last edited 2 months ago by Nigel Collins
Cammy

It’s kind of embarrassing how underarmed the entire RN is! Especially when the RN is looked Up to and copied so much by so many nations.

Jon

Sorry Nigel I don’t know if ADL can fit on T45s. I’d expect so. They’ve been around a while but they haven’t been taken up that I’ve noticed. They feel like a solution in search of a problem.

Nigel Collins

Many thanks!

Meirion x

The RN has never had more than 8 anti-submarine warfare equipped Type 23 frigates, since the Cold War has ended. The other 5 T23’s are used for general purpose duties only.
Yes with the start of Cold War2 a few more ASW vessels may be needed, as Type 32 frigates.

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion x
Jon

The £900m ship, even when the Towed Array Sonar isn’t fitted, is significantly better than the £250m ship.

Even if we only really needed eight ASW as you imply (and I disagree), we won’t have close to that with the slow build plan. We’ll drop to five ASW in 2034 and gradually build back up to eight. The last Type 23 will be gone in 2035. Not having the last Type 26 operational until 2041 is plain crazy.

It’s worth remembering that the Type 26s need to function as part of the carrier strike groups as well as anti-submarine patrol vessels. We haven’t had carrier strike groups since the end of the Cold War, which is why we now need more than eight, and five is a joke.

We hope the GP Type 32 frigates will materialise in the 2030s, and perhaps the war in Ukraine may make planners change them to ASW, but without a fast build of Type 26, that will be too little too late.

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
Cammy

With that rate of build we will be retiring ships before they have all been delivered.,.or not far of it, just like the astute too…

4thwatch

Amazing the Government didnt kick BAE’s butt over their neglecting to build a frigate factory and launch 1 T26 per year. Defence from top to bottom, the complacency is truely breathtaking!

Rnsc8397

Same with Type 45. Brown kept on cutting order, Costs grew. And when economies of scale finally kicked in, and unit costs fell, he cancalled the last 2.

As we now rerun the Cold War and face the possibilty of having to deter or actually fight a wider war, you would hope government would see sense and any PM would over rule the treasury. If not it will be the job of everyone who knows whats really needed , to make it a big election issue- by pointing out the stupidities. Labour seems ready to play this card , and remove the memory of the last leader. Labour can point to the contrast with what they determined necessary in 1998, or even what Brown left.

And theres a whole set of gaps in defence that are so ridiculous that even an uninformed public will recognise them as nonsensical and irresponsible Theres the gapping ofvthe AEW and Sentinel surveillance force force months before WW3 loomed. An army with fewer tanks than Finland, infantry moving to vehicles armed like a 1939 Bren Gun carrier, and a recce vehicle thats more dangerous to the crew , and intended to screen for a force that doesnt exist, And a Navy with 2 carriers with fighters for less than one, ships with no anti ship missiles, fightrrs with no realistic anti ship capability till the late 2020s, and force levels dictated by cost ceilings , not required capability.

Camm

We really needed 8 type 45s minimum and we need 9 type 26s minimum. 10 attack subs minimum And 16 p8 Poseidon’s, and 250 tanks min, 150 typhoons min, 100 f35s min, Jesus the list of what we actually need and what we are getting or have is too dam huge.. 2% on defence needs to be 3% minimum. And the German military’s now bigger than the UKs..that says it all really, and they have double the transport fleet…double tanks etc etc

Cammy

It’s still confusing and frankly annoying how we are getting the least amount of type 26 frigates compared with OZ & Canada.. We are much more of a Global Navy and we have more Global commitments so we will need more not less and we are a 3 trillion economy so it’s not like we couldn’t afford them…

Cammy

We should be permanently building warships, and even start building corvettes, once built I bet there would be loads of nations who would want British built and equipped corvettes.. I still think the RN should have a dozen corvettes to replace the mine hunters. The OPVs shouldn’t be globally deployed with such weak protection.

Sunmack

If we’re sending a T45 I hope it’s going to be escorted by an ASW ship or it is a sitting duck if things kicked off. It looks like Diamond is keeping herself safe by continually breaking down

Russian aggression and willingness to take military action completely justifies the decisions of UK governments over the last two decades with regard to the Royal Navy.

The decision to have nigh on a decade without ship or air launched anti-ship missiles is fine as no Russian ships have them.

It’s a great idea to have AAW destroyers with no TBMD capability as Russia hasn’t just used TBMD’s in the last couple of days.

Moving to nearly 60% of our escort fleet having no sonar or ship launched ASW torpedoes to establish a sterile zone around the ship, is very wise as the Russian’s don’t have any submarines. This also demonstrates why it would have been pointless to fit any ASW detection equipment to the Wildcat.

Having no stand off land attack and anti-ship missiles on the F35 is sensible as Russia has no ship or land based area defence SAM systems.

And further delaying the fitting of Meteor to the F35 is totally justified as the Russian’s have no active guidance air to air missiles.

Our only weakness is that we haven’t yet managed to spend £250m on a new national yacht. Hopefully we’ll be able to get it constructed and into service before the Russian’s exploit that weakness.

Our politicians have certainly made sure we’re ready for a confrontation with Russia.

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunmack
Steven Alfred Rake

Now that the Russian money will be drying up may-be we might get some real kit put back into the forces

Andrew Wilde

And just where are you going to get the skilled manpower from to operate all this real kit?

Steven Alfred Rake

All the “skilled manpower” starts off as unskilled recruits so we start to “recruit” old boy!!!

Deep32

Steven, it takes roughly a year or so to get someone at junior level into their first ship/ unit. Some trades take even longer, which might be doable, but, where do you get the middle management experience from? It’s not coming out of a box, or from the local job centre. It takes time, lots of it to get what’s needed, can’t be done overnight I’m afraid.

Steven Alfred Rake

So we need to start recruiting now! also giving incentives for the older members to stop in the forces

Tim Hirst

The problem is that for a lot of the older more experienced services members the incentive they want is time at home/control ver there lives. That’s a very difficult thing to give if your trying to rapidly ramp up the navy.

Deep32

Hi Steven, Navy recruitment has been/is fairly buoyant over the last few years, not seeing the same issues as the army seem to have.
As @TH has posted the issue will be with the mid level management, or NCO / Senior NCO level for the very reasons he has posted. I suspect that the same can probably be applied to the officers, WRT those at senior LT level, maybe not enough to go round. Not sure how the RAF or army are fairing, but the same issues may well be applicable here too.

Verità

.

tshuirt1.jpg
Deep32

I’ve already ordered one cheers.

Cammy

Russia got the last laugh there! Blowing Mr “Go Fuc£ Yourself” into the atmosphere… But to be fair fighting warships with ak47s was never really going to be a close fight.. Ukraine should have had some kind of heavier weapons on that island.

Camm

Recruitment…where do you think we used to get it. And the Army could easily add 30,000 Gurkhas 2moro if they wanted to. Do we recruit Nepalese people into the navy or RAF? If not why not, there’s a constant reliable stream of them.

D J

A little look at a map may give you a few clues as regards the RN & RAF.

Camm

Yep sitting duck, but hey they raised a rainbow flag in Portsmouth and sent Navy personal on inclusive transgender Willy chopping off FFBNW courses, so that makes up for it.

And a Navy that has bugger all ships that can take out other ships with ASM is kind of embarrassing, and the RN used to be envied and copied globally.. wtf has happened to the British millitary…

DJE

I’m going to have to remember that FFBNM description, that’s great!

Otterman

If Diamond’s “struggle to leave has had a minimal strategic impact” then you have to wonder what, if any impact the entire RN and UK armed forces have had.

At a time of significant tension, with Russia actively invading a neighboring country and NATO carrier groups in the Mediterranean shadowed by Russian SAG’s, not one of six Type 45’s was deployed, with Diamond taking a 6-day delay and three ships in PIP stages.

While the US has 10 Aegis-equipped ships in the Med according to this article and is presumably picking up the slack, you have to ask what our contribution in kind has been.

Sunmack

We have a Batch 2 River there. £130m of ship just bristling with capability that will have Vlad quaking in his boots.
I’m actually delighted we can’t send a T45. As they have zero ASW capability then unless they are escorted by other ships, they’re £1.2bn pounds worth of sitting ducks if a shooting war started.

Tim Hirst

Or
Working with an quality ASW focused vessel the pair would make a formidable force.

Sunmack

Yes. If our £1.2bn destroyer is escorted by a ship with ASW capability, anti-ship missiles, a helicopter with ASW detection gear and a data link, TBMD capability plus a tug in case she breaks down, then she might be well protected enough to be of some use.

With the exception of TBMD, Spanish, Dutch, French, Italian, Japanese, South Korean and Australian AAW vessels all have those capabilities and working engines despite costing less in some cases than the T45.

Supportive Bloke

You could in part fix that by putting a Merlin and a Wildcat onto the T45.

I think the hangar is big enough?

Sunmack

Not sure. It’s definitely big enough for two Wildcat’s

Last edited 2 months ago by Sunmack
Geoff

Being one who for decades has been saying that the UK Defence Capability has been going in the wrong direction, it gives me no pleasure in saying, “I Bloody told you so”, but now maybe enough minds are being focussed to deliver real change and actually equip our armed forces with proper deterant equipment. Having two 70,000 Ton Carriers with capacity for 42 F35 B’s each as designed some 15 years back, is just one example of the shockingly bad state of the UK’s foresight and Mindset given we can only seem to embark 8. “If we’ve learned anything from history, It’s that we have learned nothing from History”, anyone with even a basic knowledge of WW2 will see the same mistakes being repeated Today. Oh and “X”, what was that you were saying on here a week ago about Putin ? and your 7 years in IR ?

Cammy

We just got more f35s delivered, slow but steady

X

 killing the brave defenders that refused to surrender.

They did surrender. Probably an article such as this is a bit premature? Especially given your site’s MSM bias.

Andrew Wilde

So they were killed after they surrendered?

Geoff

He did, I remember that too….. and many other Pro Putin comments here for quite some time, the last big one was ” Why would Putin want to invade Ukraine ? ” and then went on to explain that he had a degree in IR……. which he was basically saying made him much more of an expert than anyone else on here…… lol.

AlexS

It is extraordinary no wants to be allied with Putin’s Russia voluntarily.

But somehow Kremlin apologists do not make any thinking about that…

Duker

Belarus, Armenia, Kazakstan. China even

Meirion x

I am now glad you seen his true colours, Sebastian!
I saw though him about a year ago, and challenged him about being pro Kremlin, he gave me a lot of hassle for it, and tried to get me bared from this site.

Sebastian

Yes! And it’s more important than ever for the majority to stand against them.

Duker

Which side were you on for this one ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasion_of_Iceland

Jon

The parallels are spooky

Before the invasion –
. Putin’s Russia: annexes Crimea and engineers a civil war killing thousands. Surrounds Ukraine with 150,000 troops
. Churchill’s Britain: loads 750 troops on ships, 1 new recruit commits suicide on route, the only casualty of the entire invasion.

Invasion is signalled by –
. Putin’s Russia: missiles drop on cities
. Churchill’s Britain: a lone reconnaissance plane circling over Reykjavík wakes people up.

Invasion starts as –
. Putin’s Russia: thousands of troops pour over the borders and bloody fighting ensues.
. Churchill’s Britain: The British Consul asks those Icelanders who had gathered at the jetty if they wouldn’t mind stepping back a bit to allow the troops to disembark.

De-nazification –
. Putin’s Russia: Putin vows to kill President Zelenskyy (a Jew) and his entire family.
. Churchill’s Britain: Officer knocks on the door of the German Consulate and arrests the Consul, SS Hauptsturmfuhrer Werner Gerlach (a long-term “fanatical Nazi” and member of Himmler’s personal staff). Captured memos that Gerlach tries to burn describe Icelanders as “117.000 souls, one third of them degenerate weaklings”. Gerlach and his family are repatriated in 1941.

Infrastructure –
. Putin’s Russia: bombs buildings, roads and oil depots.
. Churchill’s Britain: builds a network of roads, hospitals, harbours, airfields and bridges across the country.

Government reaction –
. Putin’s Russia: President Zelenskyy vows to fight: “you will only see our faces never our backs”.
. Churchill’s Britain: Icelandic government issues a stern protest and asks for compensation.

Outcome –
. Churchill’s Britain: Britain agrees to pay compensation. At the end of the war British facilities are given to the Icelandic government.
. Putin’s Russia: yet to be seen

See what I mean? Spooky!

Last edited 2 months ago by Jon
Sebastian

You made my day! 😀

Mike Jones

We need play Putin at his own game, and blockade (quarantine) Kaliningrad. First by land, then sea, and eventually air. The effective loss of his Baltic Navel base is in direct response to him taking (back?) Sevastopol, the Black Sea Navel base that precipitated all this. Any attempt to stop this, would be a direct attack on NATO territory. He is daring us, we need to dare him…

Duker

That may be how you play office politics but not going to happen in Baltic. Doesnt affect the Ukraine invasion one bit, anyway the main Russian Baltic naval bases are at St Petersburg and surrounds.

The Russians hold the trump cards with ‘blockades’ as they can turn the gas off and they are major players in world supplies for oil & gas, wheat/corn, potash( for fertiliser) and titanium supplies. Hoarding and speculation will drive up prices of most major commodities more or less immediately

Duker

The story doesnt mention that Aegis( SPY-1F) frigate HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen (F310) currently is part of the Truman carrier strike group now in Ionian Sea part of the Med

It seems that its just not a matter of turning up , as they went to Norfolk first for the required training and certification to operate as integral part of CSG-8

Rob

And the French carrier strike group seems to be forgotten too.. even if less powerful than the Truman, it remains a very strong asset on the eastern part of the med

4thwatch

Its a joke having no FAA F35 air squadron by now. I realise they will be there for show only. Seems like the FAA is in a worse position than 1939.

Binocs

The allocation of loan resources needs to be called out for what it always was: utterly useless. Mobile shore based anti-ship missiles would have been a better export (I know, we don’t do them) and while we are at it, we could and should have produced our own portable Stinger type system or teamed up with the French by now, ready for any breach of NATO borders.
On a more optimistic note beyond the unfolding utter tragedy, Putin may well be done. Combo of army morale and when the actual narrative gets back to the Russian people. Give it a couple of months.
History has shown things never ended well for his type.
I can only applaud the bravery of the Ukrainian people. It actually makes me choke on their sense of duty in these modern times. Utter, permanent respect.

Last edited 2 months ago by Binocs
Sunmack

Great post.

Totally agree with you that shore based mobile SSM’s would have been better than fast attack craft. Taiwan are sensibly buying them.

And the lack of land based medium to high altitude SAM’S is a huge gap in UK defences

Bloke down the pub

Finland and Sweden have seen how being aligned to NATO but not full members can leave a country exposed, like Ukraine. Despite his rhetoric, Putin’s actions have driven the neutral Nordic countries towards NATO membership. I would think the powers that be will want to continue with PWLS deployment north to show all concerned that while we may not be willing to have boots on the ground in Ukraine, that Finland and Sweden would be a different matter.

Sunmack

Today Uncle Vlad is threatening them with “military consequences” if they join. I hope that they ignore him.

More countries joining NATO will fundamentally undermine the strategic aim of his invasion of Ukraine.

Supportive Bloke

Given the lack of success of Vlad’s visit to Ukraine : how do you think they would fare against the motivated determined Nordic’s with proper kit?

Cammy

I do envy the size of Russia’s millitary, ok they might not have the quality in all areas but they sure do have numbers and enough reserves to equip the British army 3x over.
And the UK economy is far bigger than Russians! We need to grow some balls and equip and rearm the UK millitary properly, and that includes having enough reserves as we currently have nothing! The thousands of mastifs and ridgebacks armoured vehicles should be kept for reserves for starters instead of selling, even keeping our old apaches as reserves too, if we weren’t cannibalising them for the new ones..

Geoff

Being CENSORED here for speaking freely is very worrying in a Democratic country. Just saying.

stephen ball

Writing. You are writing not speaking.

Geoff

Well It’s good to see you value being a Pedant rather than supporting freedom of Typing Stephen Ball.

stephen ball

Freedom of typing, you mean freedom of expression.

Geoff

Give yourself a pat on the back, your defence of freedom knows no bounds.

Commonwealth Loyalist

Great article as always. Also great that Germany has decided to rearm. But what is Britain doing? It needs to at least double its defense expenses, which it can easily afford, especially if 0.7% of the 2% it claims now is just depreciation, plus a lot more on things like pensions — if that is true it is really only spending 1%. If the UK is anxious to take its place in the world it needs to step up. Russia won’t be impressed by depreciation expense, basically a book-keeping entry that is rather fictitious since a lot of assets appreciate over time and the maintenance for them is also claimed as an expense, a double entry. .

Cheers

John

Armchair Admiral

John. I think if Germany simply funded its existing armed forces properly that would be a good start.
Tales of only having 2 Typhoons flying due to lack of spares and so on..these are things that need sorting first. With a full set of gear working and spared up, that would provide most of what’s wanted?
A bit like our own forces. A willingness to have spent a bit of money on maintaining our 227 Challenger tanks and Warriors, properly, along with a few minor upgrades would be quite a big tick in the book of good available and current equipment.
As the T31s seem to be being built at a reasonable pace, one can only hope the gov/mod will get some extra kit on them thus providing something more useful (in the light of what’s going on) rather than waiting for the all singing/dancing T26.
To my mind, it’s not how much you spend….Wallace….but what you DELIVER.
AA

Sebastian

You hit the point. German generals and newspapers talk about a demand for 20 to 30 billion € alone for a stock of ammunition.

Sunmack

Great Post. On paper Germany military has excellent kit (with the exception of the Baden-Wurrtemberg frigates). They need more spares and stores so that what they have is fully operational rather than new platforms. The only exception would be procurement of further TBMD capable SAM’s

darwin

You can have all the defense spending you like, but if Europe is still too economically dependent on Russian oil and gas they’ll be afraid to use it. Massive Europe-wide investment in decarbonising the energy sector is just as important as defense spending. Insulating homes, and building nuclear and renewable generating capacity isn’t as sexy as defense spending but will have just as big an effect on Putin’s ability to wage war.

Sean

I wonder how long Turkey can keep all those Russian warships effectively bottled up in the Black Sea by denying them use if the Dardanelles under the Montreaux Convention.

Duker

The Convention allows Black sea nations warships to return to their bases which was designed for Russia as its the only one it applies to.
Also keeps Nato ships from entering