The quote from the UAF spokesman was that this is the beginning, not the culmination. Prres along the line looking for weaknesses, Recce, recce, & recce again! Pick a point, then GO!!!
You really need air superiority for a mass airborne assault (or surprise but that’s unlikely given the prep required). Crimea is also covered by a sophisticated Russian SAM network (including from within Russian territory). You also need to be able to resupply by land fairly quickly in order for air assault troops to be able to hold ground. Whilst it would be a likely attack scenario for a NATO force (+ seaborne assault) it’s unlikely Ukraine could carry it out, they don’t really need to take the risk either when starving and grinding Russian forces out of Crimea should work in their favour short-medium term
Hence why I added the very relevant caveat:
If I had all the toys at my disposal
and:
That’s a very loose plan which would be ridiculous in it’s complexity and glosses over a lot of detail, I’ve pulled out of my arse with no real idea of the terrain, RU troops numbers, capability, morale and dispersion. The int gap is huge therefore my idea is just stupid musings on the internet to be taken with a pinch of salt and a swig of vinegar.
I try not be like all the other armchair QB's, I have no real idea what the ground truth is so everything on the internet is supposition, therefore inherently inaccurate and mostly bollocks.
"I have no real idea what the ground truth is so everything on the internet is supposition, therefore inherently inaccurate and mostly bollocks."
It's actually a bit of a relief knowing that any information is as likely misinformation as it is bollocks!
Leaves you with two things you can rely on really, googling the body counts of previous invasions, successful or otherwise.
And maps.
One thing to remember with all this is there has never been an independent ukraine with anything like the current borders until the break up of the Soviet union and that Crimea only became a part of Ukraine in 1954 when it was given as a gift. Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority
that is not to defend the invasion at all in any way but it gives a clue to how Crimea is seen in Russia. If Putin had been happy just to take Crimea he could have got away with it I am sure for those reasons.
There are a lot of borders in Europe that got moved around post WW2 - that is one of them.
Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority.
Partly because of the purging and relocation of the Crimean Tatars, by Tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union. The Tatars were the majority population of Crimea prior to this ethnic cleansing. More recently, since the RF annexation, there has been a clear policy and incentives to settle Russians from elsewhere in the RF to Crimea whilst many of those who consider themselves Ukrainian have left, further distorting the demographics.
Also - most Ukrainians speak (or spoke) Russian, even those for whom it is their first language are not necessarily pro-Russian or in favour of the Russian annexation of Crimea.
Crimea also has a russian speaking / descended majority
Largely because the Turkic-speaking Tatar/Tartar population were deported by Stalin after WW2.
100,000 died en route to various areas including Siberia.
Crimea was confirmed as Ukrainian land in 1991
X with blokeUTR
An interesting article on the Russian held referendum after the annexation in 2014.
The result of 96.7% of Crimean people voting to join Russia always looked suspect.
.
There are plenty of signs that those who were involved in the March 16 referendum knew the whole thing was a farce. Igor Girkin, a former Russian army and security services officer involved in the Crimean annexation – and subsequent war in Donbas – said that the referendum was a sham.
.
Previous polls may give some indications of Crimean feelings. From 2008 to 2011 the number of Crimean residents who saw Ukraine as their motherland rose from 32% to 71.3%, according to one report. An International Republican Institute poll in 2013 found that 53% of Crimeans wanted autonomy within Ukraine and 23% wanted to join Russia.
Video of Girkin/Strelkov (key amongst Putin's 'little green men' who carried out the annexation), admitting the referendum was a farce:
Nice map tj!
Visualizes some of the historical and political complexity of the situation.
Over the decade I've watched a few documentaries, BBC, C4 and Vice (all still on YouTube) covering the situation in both Dombass and Crimea and I'm glad I did, they tell a more complex story than the current narrative.
In particular, there was a series of Vice documentaries that caught up with the same individuals every couple of years. One was a Zoo owner who was very pro Russian, a couple of years after the annexation he was still pro Russian. A couple of years after that he wondered where all the tourists (and the water) had gone. On the last visit he said that Crimea had been turned into a police state and an arms dump and that "we didn't know a good thing when we had it".
Buyers remorse for sure but I wonder where his allegiances would lie should the war come to him? His business was particularly affected so he is perhaps a bit more reflective but other Russian supporters not running their own business?
Crimea was one of Ukraine's poorest regions and the Russians offered a lot of investment as a sweetener in the annexation. My fears would be there might be other ethnic Russians who feel a similar buyers remorse bit might be beholden to 'investment fallacy". In for a penny in for a pound so to speak.
Either way, expulsion, relocation and migratory patterns aside, I'm not sure liberation would be received in quite the same way as we've seen in imagess thus far.
Partly because of the purging and relocation of the Crimean Tatars, by Tsarist Russia and then the Soviet Union. The Tatars were the majority population of Crimea prior to this ethnic cleansing
Yup - layers and layers of complexity
I seem to be getting lots of "Russia is Winning, NATO and the West will lose!" through my social media. Anybody else getting this? I'm careful of links I click on these days because of the clever algorithms, but is this the next stage of TechnoWar??
Sounds like the Russian troll farms have bene kicked into gear to try and play down Ukraine's chances ahead of the offensive.
If they can convince the Western public that Ukraine is doomed it will be a huge hindrance for continued Western support.
I seem to be getting lots of “Russia is Winning, NATO and the West will lose!” through my social media.
can’t you block it?
My social media is limited to this forum and YouTube, I’m not seeing any of that crap on YouTube.
Prior to 1917 all of Ireland qas in the UK and EVERYONE there speaks English, so, you know.....
Maybe, but assuming that, could they not send a smaller drone sub slightly ahead to blow a hole in the net to allow a bigger one through?
IANASubmarineComander
But fences are difficult to blow up, that's the thinking that lead to the Somme. I imagine that underwater where any shockwave is attenuated it's significantly harder still.
That and it would be fairly easy to track any such attack, cutting would be noisy, a low budget submarine would be noisy, and I'd assume the Russians have thought of this and have their own subs/boats in the area?
Narco-subs work because it's a relatively low priority target for the authorities and a huge coastline to look for them along.
It does seem the info-war has stepped up, a big increase in pro-Russian stories on twitter and an increase in pro-Ukranian 'here is our shiny kit and burly soldiers arriving' posts...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65344370
Ukraine war: Russian warplane accidentally bombs own city
Official line from Russian MOD in The Moscow Times:
"During the flight of the Su-34 aircraft of the aerospace forces over the city of Belgorod, an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred," the ministry said.
Right you are.🤣
johnnystorm
Full MemberOfficial line from Russian MOD in The Moscow Times:
“During the flight of the Su-34 aircraft of the aerospace forces over the city of Belgorod, an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred,” the ministry said.
Right you are.🤣
Somebody at SpaceX could have written that
Starship experienced a rapid unscheduled disassembly before stage separation."
Or NASA in 1973...
Or the US Navy in 1970...
an abnormal descent of aviation ammunition has occurred
That's up there with the Moskova bravely mining the Black Sea seabed...
Interesting thread on the forces Ukraine has available for an offensive.
https://twitter.com/noclador/status/1649552442961321990
There seem to be credible reports from Russian bloggers (credible enough to be picked up by the telegraph anyway) that the UA have established positions on the left (East) bank of the Dnipro in Kherson. UA aren’t commenting, the occupier administration are denying it with their usual bombast.
Impossible to know at this stage if it’s true (though the Russian bloggers tend to be right, particularly regarding news that could be perceived as being negative to Russian interests), and even if so, whether it’s the start of something more significant or just a feint. Regardless there is more and more noise to be heard about the counter offensive, and with credible reports of 90,000 or so (see post above) highly armed, highly trained and highly motivated UA forces to be thrown in, the RA will rightly be very worried..
EDIT - Institute for the Study of War (ISW) are also confirming this. They’ve been there for a couple of weeks apparently and have properly established and supported positions.
When the real offensive kicks off, we probably won't know for several days whether it's the big one or not.
https://twitter.com/J_JHelin/status/1648455021259022340
I can't help but feel that Ukraine will get one shot at this. I expect them to do well but come the Autumn, support from Western countries will be re-evaliated.
Time flies and the next US election is around the corner and assuming Ukraine makes significant gains, I'm not sure there will be the appetite for hunkering down over winter in preparation for another push to reclaim more lost territory.
Not only would a protracted war in Ukraine be difficult for Biden on the campaign trail, the Republicans, bereft of anything else would likely pivot to a more neutral (thus pro Russian) position, it's probably the only thing they'll have left to attack Biden with.
I saw an interesting Times radio podcast with a US military analyst, he saw the West saying; "We will give Ukraine what it needs" as an unfinished sentence.
He asked the question: "Give Ukraine what it needs to do what exactly?"
Would it be fair to say that the West has only supported Ukraine with enough munitions and training to achieve a partial recapture? The anylist observed that we have seen the evidence that highly equiped and well trained ukranian forces can achieve spectacular results, so why isn't the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?
One conclusion could be that from a political perspective the West doesn't actually want 'total' victory in Ukraine. I'm sure the Ukranians are are conscious of this, ergo my previous post about this offensive being the big one, Ukraine going all in to recapture as much as they can, realising that there will be pressure to negotiate come wintertime.
why isn’t the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?
Logistics? Shipping Ukraine soldiers to the UK (or wherever) for training and back to Ukraine isn't quick and requires capacity in the host nation to provide digs, equipment and instructors etc. whilst also having minimal impact on the host countries normal defence/training programmes.
Also there's a politcal balance to strike... if the UK starts spending r a lot its millitary budget on training/arming Ukrainiens questions would correctly asked about whether we risk our own security by diverting resourses by doing so.
I'm just guessing, mind. I don't think theres any lack of resolve to see Ukraine win, but it's not a simple or fast task.
Wjen i said; 'why isn’t the West providing more aid to get the job over and done with more quickly?" I was asking that question rhetorically.
I'd argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment.
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries. Russia is depleting its own stock of munitions faster than they can replenish. So whilst providing equipment depletes the sum of western resources it doesn't effect things proportionally.
A crude analysis could be that the West have decided to give Ukraine enough support to claim back half of what has been lost, leaving it up to Ukraine to decide which bits.
@inkster I don't think it's as cynical and machiavellian as that. There are multiple legit reasons why there have to be some limits on what is provided. Just a few:
To prevent depletion of national inventories and weakening of defensive capabilities. Defence kit is horrifically expensive, stocks are finite and lead times to replace are long. Many NATO countries are already dangerously low on things like 155mm artillery ammo and others because of what they have given to Ukraine.
Fear of escalation if particular weapon types are provided. Things like ATACAMS, Western fighter aircraft etc. Although personally, I think this is a little overstated - we have crossed a few of Putin's 'red lines' (e.g. MBTs) with no consequence.
Logistical complexity. The huge engineering and logistical support needed for some complex equipment types (Western fast jests etc.) would be difficult to establish in theatre.
Fear of exposing our high end technology to Russian capture and technical exploitation. It's likely some kit has been removed from the Leopards, Bradleys, Challengers etc. for this reason.
I'm not saying I agree with all of those, I think we could do more. I just don't think it's credible that we are deliberately providing just enough to allow Ukraine to achieve very limited objectives and prevent them regaining all captured territory because it suits us
I partialy agree, I'd like to see more resource/aid to Ukraine.
But there's also the wider global political landscape to consider...
Say for example if one NATO member acted unilaterally and stuck a bunch of long range arty/missile batteries (plus all the additional suport such things need to keep them from being destroyed or captured) on the Ukraine border with Belarus or Russia...
Well that could provoke russia to act even more irrationally than they are now, if you know what I mean.
Better to attrit russia slowly and by proxy whilst giving them no excuse to up the anti, outside of Ukraine.
It's just how things are... I would have probably nuked Moscow by now, so it's a good job I'm not in charge!!
If Ukraine really have managed to quietly cross the Dnipro and establish themselves on the left bank in a fashion that will allow them to start moving large quantities of armour across it will be incredibly impressive.
They have some pretty serious bridging equipment from their western partners but that won't be of much import if Russian artillery annihilates it the moment it sets up.
Time will tell whether or not this is a major development I guess.
As mattyfez says, "Better to attrit russia slowly and by proxy whilst giving them no excuse to up the anti, outside of Ukraine".
It's a half and half situation I know but that's kind of my point. I wouldn't necessarily call it cynical or machiavellian, just cautious and perhaps a little fearful, bit never the less deliberate.
We will know should Ukraine retake half of the stolen land, at that point, will there be the enthusiasm and support for another campaign in 2024? Im not so sure there will be. In the short term this probably means that Ukraine will give thos next opperation absolutely everything they've got.
I’d argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment
There are various reasons for problems, such as the EU being unable to its act together. The EU has a plan to provide ammunition to Ukraine and the first tranche is flowing, however, they're being held up by France insisting that it's produced within the EU...
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-ministers-braced-ukrainian-frustration-over-ammunition-plan-2023-04-24/
Sevastopol has come under surface drone attack again
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/black-sea-fleet-repels-drone-attack-sevastopol-russian-backed-governor-2023-04-24/
I’d argue that the provision has been piecemeal and hesitant. Whilst acknowledging logistical factors and the like, the support offered has been limited and calculated, short of full commitment
We're looking at you. Switzerland...
https://www.ft.com/content/c6401565-f3d3-489a-b373-e7d5fee11488
“Swiss weapons must not be used in wars,” president Alain Berset
However, as Germany changed the constitution to move from passive to more aggressive support...
https://kyivindependent.com/switzerland-may-allow-re-export-of-its-weapons-to-ukraine/
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries. Russia is depleting its own stock of munitions faster than they can replenish. So whilst providing equipment depletes the sum of western resources it doesn’t effect things proportionally
I'm not sure how true that is. Western stockpiles are sized for the wars think we might fight (possibly with the exception of the US who's gigantic military budget + need to supply customers/partners allows them to keep bigger stockpiles). Sure nuclear arsenals are broadly aligned with Russia & China but that's different. Stockpiling military kit is expensive, especially for missiles. Shells and bullets are probably decently stocked and have a good turn over (training) so you don't have to worry about £millions of kit expiring before it's used but everything else, not so much.
The other issue is Western weapons manufacturing is largely privatised and that supply chain is sized mostly for peacetime. Companies like BAE don't have the capability to ramp up supply quickly, there's very little excess unused capacity. They rely on providing a steady but relatively low volume of things like missiles and battlefield systems, there's probably little incentive for them to start ramping up now when the end user isn't your customer and it's unclear what the requirements are over the next 12-36 months.
So we risk reaching the point (and probably already have for some munitions & weapons systems) where we need to keep our minimum reserves so can only supply to Ukraine once replacement items are manufactured. I think that accounts for a lot of the piecemeal supply we're seeing now.
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction. Giving the Russians something to worry about, whilst a major push occurs elsewhere? Or maybe the Russian line has been considerably thinned in that region and there’s an opportunity to be exploited - who knows 🤷♂️
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction
I think there is lots of that going on now and over the next couple of weeks. They did this before, targeting important military infrastructure and trying to keep the Russian's guessing where and when things will kick off...
I think there is lots of that going on now and over the next couple of weeks.
As Mike Martin says:
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1650402296004501504
I can’t see the Dnipro crossing as much more than a distraction
Suspect you're right, but if the Russian ignore it or don't reinforce the area there's the risk that Ukraine looks at all the lovely CIA satellite footage the Pentagon are flowing to them, see the lack of Russian reinforcements, go 'alright then' and turn what was a probing attacking into something much more serious now they already have assets across the river.
Either way, all these shaping operations and probing attacks hopefully keep the Russians running around like crazy, burning fuel they can't really afford and knackering out troops they'd much rather be resting up ahead of the big push.
Western stockpiles of munitions are calculated against the stockpiles of known adversaries.
They're honestly not. There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks, and certainly cannot at current staffing levels deploy a division (30-35000 troops and associated support) and wouldn't be back to strength to be able to do that for over a decade. He surmised that under those conditions, UK's armed forces could not be considered a "top level" fighting force any longer. This was echoed by a serving ( I think) senior British Army officer who had said that if the UK was asked to fight at the same level as the Ukrainians they "would run out of ammo in about 6 days" This is all becasue austerity that has hit the NHS, the cops, schools, has also pretty much decimated the UK's armed forces as well.
There are also procurement rules that the Army has to follow which means it currently cannot buy arms "at war speed" and there's doubts that the factories that manufacture ammunition could supply it in the quantity needed without a considerable lead in time.
Given that the prime duty of any government is the ability to protect it's own citizens, explains I think, the hesitancy and reluctance to supply Ukraine with the arms it needs, the UK simply can't. Unless it's piecemeal and from redundant or mothballed stocks
I don't doubt that the UK hasn't got the munitions to keep up with Russia in an artillery exchange but seeing as were an island, we invest what little we do in things like aircraft carriers, of which we have significantly more than Russia.
So on a nation by nation basis I can see the problem but were supposed to be in NATO aren't we? so we can combine resources in the face of existential threats, stockpiles are surely calculated not on a UK versus Russia basis but a NATO versus Russia basis.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of the training offered by the UK though.
So when a US General suggests that the UK could only protect itself for a few weeks I'd respond there were many Generals who said Ukraine couldn't last 3 weeks. I'd also ask him does he understand what NATO if for?
If we don't calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
Post cold war 'peace dividend', endless defence reviews and cutbacks, political short sightedness, inefficient and wasteful procurement processes, budgetary constraints and austerity.
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
Enough to do a few training exercises on Sailsbury Plain?
If we don’t calculate arms stocks against known potential adversaries then what do we calculate them against?
I think the UK armed forces would give you a different answer to that than the MOD would to be honest.
so we can combine resources in the face of existential threats, stockpiles are surely calculated not on a UK versus Russia basis but a NATO versus Russia basis.
While I'm no Trump supporter, his question of "why is it that most NATO nations don't fund it like they're supposed to?" is not entirely without merit. The answer is of course. "The USA does that for us, and multiple times over" the European NATO strategy was entirely based on "Hold out for as long as it takes the US to get here in numbers, and hope that the missiles don't start flying before that happens" No mainland European nation has funded it's military to match or even hold up for more than a few days; the obvious threat. Combined NATO or otherwise. NATO without the US is broadly meaningless
seeing as were an island, we invest what little we do in things like aircraft carriers, of which we have significantly more than Russia.
They have one, we have two. So yes - double the amount but it's hardly 'significantly more'.
sevastopol underwater drone attack vid is not a small explosion
not sure if much was damaged
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1650387690796249088
nickc,
I had actually typed that a certain cosplay general with foot spurs had said a thing or two about European contributions to NATO but deleted it before posting, so you"'ll get no argument with me on that one!
They have one, we have two
hmmm, we have one, and another that seems to break down quite a lot, and might be mothballed or sold on anyway, as currently the Navy can't really afford it
so you”‘ll get no argument with me on that one!
Aye, he was on the money - for largely the wrong reasons as all he was doing was trying to wind up Merkel, but he was otherwise spot on.
"They have one, we have two. So yes – double the amount but it’s hardly ‘significantly more’."
I'd say double the amount (plus a third one on the way) is significant, plus the Russian vessel is clapped out whereas the UK's are among the most modern there are anywhere.
Also, if you consider the fact that the aircraft on board are both far more modern and numerous the I'd say that's significantly more in terms of capability.
We will soon have as many carriers as Russia has deepwater ports... More if they loose Sebastopol!
In the light of what others are saying, I'll concede that it could be that the UK has put nearly all of its' eggs in one basket though.
A bit of a digression but do we think that Cameron's decision to invest in 2 (or 3) carriers a decade ago was wise? Or should the budget, limited as it is have gone elsewhere within the armed forces?
Cameron’s decision to invest in 2 (or 3) carriers
The Queen Elizabeth class carriers came about as a result of Blair's 1997 Strategic Defence Review Not anything that Cameron did. There are only ever going to be two, there was never a requirement or commitment to build a third, and it's not planned. After the collapse of the CCCP, all nations looked at what they spent on their militaries, that SDR that I've linked to sets out broadly the position we were aiming for before Osbourne's austerity project ripped giant chunks out of it. I think the UK is currently in a position where it can mostly keep us safe from terrorism, after that, all bets are off frankly
The UK may have two carriers, but only one is seaworthy and the UK do not have the aircraft to fit out that one. And they can't stay at sea for as long as the US ones because, well, not nuclear powered and need refuelling.
I went to Norfolk, Virginia a few years ago and the US Navy had more aircraft carriers in dry dock than the UK has now. Shit, they had more in harbour _just at that port_ than we have frigates. All of those have a fixed and rotary wing capability that almost the same as the whole to the RAF. And AWACS. Each carrier. And they have a Pacific Fleet with the same number. That does not even include the other vessels in a carrier group. The anti-aircraft frigates that the UK paid for have trouble working in warm water and the missiles were never tested against super-sonic threats, compared to the Ticonderoga class that the US use that have that capability and more.
The purpose of a carrier is to project power on a strategic level. So it's not just the carrier, it's the aircraft on it and what they can do and the supporting ships and what _they_ can do. The UK carrier simply cannot do that at the same level. To suggest it is unfair.
There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks
I'm struggling to find the citation online, but I'm pretty sure that I recall reading about a Labour government in the 60s/70s finding out that in event of a hot war with the Warsaw Pact kicking off, RAF Phantoms would only have had about two or three days supply of air to air missiles available.
Back to Ukraine - some interesting thoughts on the target of the Ukrainian sea drone attack. https://twitter.com/Dmojavensis/status/1650435203243065349
in event of a hot war with the Warsaw Pact kicking off, RAF Phantoms would only have had about two or three days supply of air to air missiles available.
Yes, but how many days supply of aircraft did the Warsaw Pact have? Point is that WW3 would not have been like WW2. NATO just had to make it obvious that a Warsaw Pact attack would suffer huge losses and would probably escalate to a nuclear conflict. A conventional war that dragged on for years wasn't what they were planning for.
There was a article not long ago that suggested a US general had expressed the opinion that the UK armed forces could not protect the UK for more than a few weeks
From whom?
Yes, but how many days supply of aircraft did the Warsaw Pact have? Point is that WW3 would not have been like WW2. NATO just had to make it obvious that a Warsaw Pact attack would suffer huge losses and would probably escalate to a nuclear conflict. A conventional war that dragged on for years wasn’t what they were planning for.
Absolutely - my post wasn't a dig at anyone in this thread or the government of the day for that matter.
From whom?
Any nation with the ability to mount a serious threat. I mean that is job item no. 1 on the PM's do-to list. I should think (hope) that there are analysts and members of the armed forces doing those calculations daily.
If you're going to say, there really isn't anyone who can do that, and why would they. This the same thing that Ukraine and members of the former soviet socialist republics were saying last year. It's the reason that Finland has just become the latest NATO member, and Sweden is going to be next, and it's the same things they said after Princip did his work, and when Chamberlain came back from Munich.
It's a sad truth that we remain safe becasue we remain armed to the teeth.
"Ben Wallace, the UK’s defence minister, has said western countries would struggle to wage a protracted war comparable to Russia’s assault on Ukraine as their ammunition stocks “are inadequate for the threats we face”. During a simulated war game last year, the UK’s ammunition ran out after eight days." www.ft.com July 2022
The UK isn't either NATO or Russia, but it isn't a positive thought.
The UK's defence budget tends to be swallowed in bottomless acquisition, "Within the context of a constrained overall budget, the cost estimates used by the Department in the preparatory stages of programmes are often understated, causing budget pressures once more mature estimates show programmes will exceed their allocated budgets"
The need for aircraft carriers has been debated and the original Blair-government proposal in 1998 was “two 40,000 ton aircraft carriers, with a complement of up to 50 aircraft and helicopters each. The first will have an in-service date of 2012”.
Various changes were made, catapults were proposed and cancelled and the Queen Elizabeth-class ended up at 65000 tonnes. The full story is here... https://www.navylookout.com/development-of-the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-a-design-history/
Britain has traditionally been a country that likes to stick its oar into a whole variety of international situations and often that means sending the armed forces into some tense situation. Aircraft carriers are quite a useful asset for armed forces with an expeditionary role to have.
This does not necessarily mean I support Britain so often having the attitude that it should get involved militarily as much as it does. I am however more of the opinion that we've tried to be an expeditionary power on the cheap for far too long and some day we should really have a proper national conversation about whether we want to accept a scaled back role on the world stage or fund our military more appropriately for the tasks we expect it to perform.
As for the comments about 2 or 3 aircraft carriers and how our two stack up against the Admiral Kuznetsov, especially given that one is currently not able to sail, I'll once again trot out the thing I recall reading a long time ago...
Navies operate in a very hostile environment. The sea is not a great place for technology to be and aircraft carriers are full of technology. The traditional wisdom is that in order to have 1 aircraft carrier deployed or ready for deployment at any given time you actually need 3 of them. That allows 1 to be in use while another is getting refit/repaired with the 3rd being devoted to training pilots to carry out the very difficult task of flying from aircraft carriers.
The UK discovered with its Illustrious class that operating STOVL aircraft from carriers is much easier for the pilots than operating traditional cat and trap aircraft from them. Getting a Harrier pilot ready for operating from a carrier only required a fairly short conversion course and importantly didn't require that much practice flying from a real aircraft carrier. Therefore the UK could buy two Queen Elizabeth carriers and still meet its goal of having one ready at any time. This is also (one of the reasons) why David Cameron's prevarications about fitting catapults to the Queen Elizabeth was a bit of a strange thing, as we'd then effectively be one carrier short.
Therefore it's not surprising that currently only one of the two Queen Elizabeth carriers is ready for action. But it's also (one of the reasons) why the Admiral Kusnetzov has spent quite a lot of its life not being very seaworthy and is currently undergoing a refit that started in 2017 and is not scheduled to complete until 2024.
But that's not particularly relevant to the war in Ukraine.
“Ben Wallace, the UK’s defence minister, has said western countries would struggle to wage a protracted war comparable to Russia’s assault on Ukraine as their ammunition stocks “are inadequate for the threats we face”. During a simulated war game last year, the UK’s ammunition ran out after eight days.” http://www.ft.com July 2022
The UK isn’t either NATO or Russia, but it isn’t a positive thought.The UK’s defence budget tends to be swallowed in bottomless acquisition, “Within the context of a constrained overall budget, the cost estimates used by the Department in the preparatory stages of programmes are often understated, causing budget pressures once more mature estimates show programmes will exceed their allocated budgets”
/blockquote>
Ammunition has a life, if we buy enough to support potential conflicts then we'd be throwing away hundreds of millions every year, and it would be on the front page of the daily mail.
What is needed is the ability to produce, or rapidly procure ammunition to support potential conflicts, again that's expensive, you're paying companies to have the facilities in place, but not to utilise them unless needed.
Or you will be buying it on the open market from places in potentially disreputable places and could get hit by punitive prices increases.
A long time ago, in a previous life, I used to visit DSEI. The place had a lot of people advertising small arms ammunition for sale and a fair few were in places that you might not want to consider buying from if you wanted quality, or ethical production. They were also at the end of a long logistical chain, so you would be at the whim of a shipping company, or any border official that fancied being a dick.
Ammunition is heavy. Flying it from source to point of use is expensive.... Remember what used to happen to transport from ****stan to AFG when there was a war on?
Ammunition has a life?
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Do you care if it works 100% of the time? Does it matter if there is a minimum limit for how may misfires you have?
I know someone who used to design de manufacturing machinery for naval shells.
So yes, ammunition definitely has a use by date.
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Apart from being fitted with corrosive mercuric primers which will damage your bore if you don't clean it straight away? And using berdan primers which make the cases near impossible to reuse? Cordite or other obsolete propellant which is much more prone to chemical breakdown than modern propellants? An increased likelihood of misfires - not an issue on a gallery range, but can be if the targets are shooting back! It may well still fire, but velocities will be down from original spec and subject to much wider variations. The metallurgy of cartridge case brass of that vintage can be dodgy too - cases become brittle and more prone to neck splits and even case head separation.
I shoot a Lee Enfield too. I want to look after it and keep all my fingers, so I handload my ammo or buy modern manufactured stuff such as Privi. Surplus vintage ammo goes bang, most of the time which IME is about all you can say about it.
I used to test and proof UK military ammunition for a living (not just small arms ammo, bigger stuff too). It does degrade in storage, particularly if it's travelled around a lot and been subject to temperature cycling. However well it's made, propellants contain tiny residual amounts of acid from the manufacturing process. It may well be fine for years, decades even, but eventually it will break down chemically. Not usually to the point where it becomes unsafe (though that is possible), but to the point where performance and reliability suffer. In the UK military, samples of ammo approved for operational use are routinely selected at random from stock for proof testing. If this goes well, shelf life can be extended, If not it is either downgraded for training use only or marked for disposal.
I understood one of the reasons we gave Ukraine 4,000 NLAW anti-tank missiles was because they had reached end of operational shelf life so had to used or disposed of?
I used to test and proof UK military ammunition for a living (not just small arms ammo, bigger stuff too)
Which is why ladies and gentlemen, we love this place so much!
I understood one of the reasons we gave Ukraine 4,000 NLAW anti-tank missiles was because they had reached end of operational shelf life so had to used or disposed of?
Dunno as I am no longer current (by a couple of decades), but it seems feasible.
Ammunition has a life?
Then why can I use ammunition from 1957 in my Lee Enfield with no problems?
Well, yes, there are several youtube videos of old rounds (mostly american, quel suprise) failing to fire at best, and at worst, the gun explodes in your face and you end up with a fractured face and a hudge dentistry bill.
I think in the USA they call them 'hot rounds' as in powerfull but not reliable.
I'm way out of my sphere of knowledge and/or experience with this matter, I'm very grateful for the lesson - thanks all.
What is needed is the ability to produce, or rapidly procure ammunition to support potential conflicts, again that’s expensive, you’re paying companies to have the facilities in place, but not to utilise them unless needed.
+1
This war and the resourcefulness of Ukrainians will cause many to focus on the problem
There are reports of NATO missiles being adapted for Soviet launching systems, drones to direct ammunition effectively, the SAAB-Boeing GLSDB to mate existing large stocks of bombs and rocket motors into a different usable munition.
These sorts of ideas can easily be developed so that existing munitions companies have work while core production is at idle
My favourite adaptation is the drone carrying an RPG round. Genius!
The use of drones in this war is causing an awful lot of angst for military planners around the world. They are a cheap and effective force multiplier accessible to smaller militaries or insurgents, that can carry out tasks previously only done by extremely costly smart munitions and other technology. It's going to turn a lot of military doctrine on its head.
Not completely new, they've been used by ISIS and others, but Ukrainian ingenuity and resourcefulness have taken it to a new level. Even things like artillery locating radar can be mimicked to a degree by a cheap drones and observers. Mullti million dollar stuff like air defence systems, satellite comms vehicles, parked aircraft can now be taken out by a few hundred dollars worth of kit. This isn't even high tech swarming drones etc. that many armies are developing, it's cheap COTS kit that anyone can buy.
A lot of head scratching over countermeasures and revised doctrine going on. I'm just glad it was the Russians who had to learn those hard lesson first.
marked for disposal.
I seem to recall there was a big bullet-proof oven at Camp Bastion where they used to cook-off small arms rounds that were 'out-of-date'.
Having said that I once fired a WW1 Lewis gun and I'm pretty sure the ammo was of a similar vintage...........
I seem to recall there was a big bullet-proof oven at Camp Bastion where they used to cook-off small arms rounds that were ‘out-of-date
Yep. Gas fired incinerator. Small arms ammo is actually very difficult to get rid of. High explosive filled ammo like grenades, mortar bombs artillery ammo is easy to destroy in explosive demolitions. Dig a pit, layer the U/S ammo correctly, place donor charges of PE4, PE6, C4 or your angry putty of choice. Cover with sandbags to catch the frag and whack. If you do that with small arms ammo you just end up scattering it all over the place. When I first joined, we used to deep sea dump a lot of U/S ammo. Thankfully, that is no longer allowed.
I don't know this first-hand, but I understood from someone in the supply chain that older munitions were either fire for practice, or test-fired to see if the bang-percentage met the spec and the batch could have it dates extended. Is this not always the case?
We carried IR flares for defensive counter measures on my herc in the gulf. Their shelf life out there in the heat wasn’t long. When time-expired, the armorers would request we fired them all off as disposal was a nightmare! A c130 emptying its flare bins is quite a sight! We always tried to have a wingman nearby for photos..