Things Noticeable this week

[judy84]

Originally Posted by haroldeye

General Sir Nick Carter, current Chief of the General Staff and he's not trying to ramp up anti Russian hysteria but pointing out the bleeding obvious that the defence cuts have gone too deep.

It's his job to say that to the politicians, but in this instance his boss (SoS Defence) gave him permission to say it direct to the press.

And he's right. The Russ have brought some amazing bits of kit on line whilst we haven't. Ask Palo.

Was that what he was saying? Even though the British defence budget is greater than that of Russia?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...-buck-britain/

In any case, wouldn't it be better to compare British defence with, say, France?

https://www.forces.net/news/france-v...ary-top-trumps
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7459316.stm

[seany65]

But harold, even before the cuts Britain couldn't have put up much of a fight against the evil Russkie hordes, so stating it publically now, when so much whinging by western govts. and press is about the evil Russkies is no more than just adding to the 'fuel' of the Govt. wanted hsyteria.

I'm prett sure that very few Brits have ever thought we stood much of a chance against Russia.

[Puhbear69]

Originally Posted by seany65

[...]
....have trouble dealing with an attack by russia.

Germany, with it's army of 4 or 5 million men, hundreds or thousands of tanks and hundreds orf aircraft couldn't beat the Russkies in the 40's.

[...]

I think you meant Russia. (else that would be 9...11 % of the working population in Germany )

Germany is having about ~188 thousand man.

[Mal Hombre]

Originally Posted by seany65

But harold, even before the cuts Britain couldn't have put up much of a fight against the evil Russkie hordes, so stating it publically now, when so much whinging by western govts. and press is about the evil Russkies is no more than just adding to the 'fuel' of the Govt. wanted hsyteria.

I'm prett sure that very few Brits have ever thought we stood much of a chance against Russia.

That's why We have Trident,We can't match Them militarily but so long as we can turn Moscow into radioactive slag,They'll not risk it..

[Brecht]

So, Nick Carter of the Backstreet Boys got a promotion to Chief of the General Staff? Amazing times we live in.

[CARLTON BROWN]

Originally Posted by seany65

But harold, even before the cuts Britain couldn't have put up much of a fight against the evil Russkie hordes, so stating it publically now, when so much whinging by western govts. and press is about the evil Russkies is no more than just adding to the 'fuel' of the Govt. wanted hsyteria.

I'm prett sure that very few Brits have ever thought we stood much of a chance against Russia.

Sadly, I have to agree with you. European forces alone could not stand up to an all-out push by Russian forces into our territory. The Russian military are better equipped and trained than at any time in the past and even with whatever help America could provide to Europe, the conflict would be bloody and the level of destruction immense. Yes, there are British, French and American nuclear weapons available, but their use would swiftly push the boundaries of a regional conflict into a full scale thermonuclear world war and that means the end of everything.

That said, I can't realistically see Russia taking on NATO in a major conflict as there would be very little to gain and the Russians are anything but stupid.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by judy84

Was that what he was saying? Even though the British defence budget is greater than that of Russia?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...-buck-britain/

In any case, wouldn't it be better to compare British defence with, say, France?

https://www.forces.net/news/france-v...ary-top-trumps
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7459316.stm

I doubt if official information from the Russian Federation about their defence budget is entirely complete and accurate. For that matter, does the Pentagon in Washington really spend that much just on stationery?

The problem faced by the British military is complex, and has a lot to do with legacy issues from extremely bad procurement decisions in the past. For example, we have a number of modern Type 45 destroyers [six instead of the twelve we originally wanted], one of which was employed to escort the Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov down the English Channel. As the Russian ship pootled along under a cloud of thick black smoke and permanently attended by a breakdown tug, we British grinned with amusement. But a month later the almost brand new HMS Duncan, fresh from protecting us all from the Admiral Kuznetsov, experienced total engine failure and had to be towed into Plymouth. There have been three other total engine failures, making it four out of six ships crippled by unreliable engines since this class was commissioned. Hard to say what the financial cost of this was/is but realistically it must be a lot. Even worse is the loss of deployment: what happens when a squadron of minesweepers and a Fleet Auxilliary suddenly loses the command ship which was supposed to be protecting them?

Bad procurement. You cannot have unproven engine systems in a warship.

[haroldeye]

Remember Saif Sareea in Oman in 2001. The new Challenger2 Tanks were breaking down all over the place because they didn't have sand filters fitted to the engine air intakes. BAe (or whatever name they had) were blamed by the press until they produced documentation they had advising the MOD that without filters they were not suitable for use in desert conditions and the reply from some MOD official that they would not be used in desert conditions so the filters were un necessary.

[rupertramjet]

The procurement 'professionals' at the MOD are notoriously pathetic, earning huge six figure incomes, they are perceived as a joke by most vendors. Britain paid substantially more for all aspects of the Apache attack helicopter than Holland did. The British buyers made it clear that the Apache was the only aircraft they were interested in, so the price went up, they then negotiated separately for spares, technical training, and the big farce of pilot training. They told the supplier theiir price was to high, signed a contract via competitive training, then realised they needed the software for the simulators, for which the vendors, firstly said they were not prepared to allow classified US military documents into foreign civilian hands, and then that they would charge much the same price as they would for the entire training scheme!

On board HMS Ocean, one of our more important and larger war canoes, I was chatting with the Chief Engineering Officer, who told me the engines were the same as those used in a cross channel ferry! HMS Queen Elizabeth, our nice shiny new Aircraft Carrier is back in Portsmouth, because it leaks! She along with her sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales, are a bit daft really, we have no aircraft to fly off them, and the Navy do not want them anyway, they want more destroyers, but the decision made under Blair, was to safeguard the Labour vote in Scotland, as we now know, that did not really work too well! They were also negotiated on such good terms, that failure to complete the deal, would have cost more than building the white elephants!

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by CARLTON BROWN

Sadly, I have to agree with you. European forces alone could not stand up to an all-out push by Russian forces into our territory. The Russian military are better equipped and trained than at any time in the past and even with whatever help America could provide to Europe, the conflict would be bloody and the level of destruction immense. Yes, there are British, French and American nuclear weapons available, but their use would swiftly push the boundaries of a regional conflict into a full scale thermonuclear world war and that means the end of everything.

That said, I can't realistically see Russia taking on NATO in a major conflict as there would be very little to gain and the Russians are anything but stupid.

I don't know if some French journalists working for the State are pro-Putin.
But I remember that in a documentary made about Putin, explaining that when he became the Russian president, he wanted to get very good connections with EU and the Occidental part of the world and EU (and USA) treated him unfairly.

So... why are we not good friends with Russians? They are European too.
Isn't it a way from USA and their slaves to justify their incredible military expenses?

Look at the stats, I've found on internet about the 2006 military expenses.





Rumpertramjet probably could say if they are correct or wrong.
But if they are correct... they describe a certain philosophy.
Who wants to dominate the world and why?

By the way, I still think that Trump is probably an imbecile in several ways, but he was in his speeches, a candidate who was not an enemy of Russia, when Clinton was.