Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

George said:
Alaska https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...sedgntp&cvid=4fc2708cae65496c9998eb452ce81d54
Click to expand...

They have a strange sense of humour or to quote Boney M, "Oh those crazy Russians".
But let's entertain the thought a little, if we discount the use of nuclear weapons on the grounds that even your most vodka soaked Russian general knows that in a nuclear exchange "what goes out, comes back" so despite all the sabre rattling it will never happen.
Russia would have to supply an army large enough to invade a stonking great chunk of ice via one rail line from west of the Urals (9000km from Moscow to Vladivostok) and currently it can't supply the army it has in Ukraine properly (198km from Belgorod to Izyum).

I really don't think one should take the insane muppet consortium that is the Russian political establishment too seriously at this point, they are just trying to sound tough for the locals so that they don't sober up and form a lynch mob.
 
MontyB said:
I really don't think one should take the insane muppet consortium that is the Russian political establishment too seriously at this point, they are just trying to sound tough for the locals so that they don't sober up and form a lynch mob.
Click to expand...
same comment probably covers post no. 260 also.
 
George said:
same comment probably covers post no. 260 also.
Click to expand...

Possibly, my suspicion is that Putin and his sycophants believe that by continuously making threats of global annihilation the civilian populations of the west will pressure their governments into backing off Ukrainian support (essentially he sees democracies as weak) the problem he has is:
A. Many see his regime as a modern equivalent of Hitler's Germany and that is one thing we will fight, basically the more Russians that die in Ukraine the less we will have to deal with later.

B. It costs the west nothing to train and equip Ukraine to fight him (no western troops filling body bags) as they have the will to do the job.

C. No one expected Ukraine to last more than a couple of days to a week tops, this has weakened Russia significantly in the eyes of many and it is a testament to the fighting capacity of Ukraine and one thing most people will support is an underdog.

The greatest fear in the west for a long time was the threat of some cast Russian armoured juggernaut rolling over western Europe and now we know this is never going to happen simply because the juggernaut turned out to be more Keystone Cops than Red Dawn.
 
MontyB said:
To be honest I get the impression that these are two dictators doubling down on the rhetoric for the local market, they rattle the sabre, puff out their chests but at the end of the day the only weapon Russia has to stop NATO parking tanks in red square are nuclear ones and that is effectively a death sentence for everyone themselves included.

Let's be perfectly honest NATO is undergoing a major reinvigoration, if Russia thinks that the ragtag bunch of morons and thugs it calls an army is going to drive to London when they lost 35% of the countries armour trying to drive 150km to Kyiv and failed.
I guess the concern for the west is the surprisingly poor state of the German military in terms of equipment and procurement.

German issues
Click to expand...

After watching it. I would say the Swedish military is quite similar as the German. A rather well trained military, but lacking the numbers of servicemen and lacking equipment after Sweden believed in the eternal peace for the third time.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
After watching it. I would say the Swedish military is quite similar as the German. A rather well trained military, but lacking the numbers of servicemen and lacking equipment after Sweden believed in the eternal peace for the third time.
Click to expand...

Don't you have reserves service personnel?

In the UK TA we had a minimum of 12 training weekends a year and two weeks camp.

What surprises me about your statement, a lot of Swedish designed and built weapons are used by the UK and other forces around the world such as the 40mm Bofors and Carl Gustav 84mm and of course the Gripen E Multirole Fighter Aircraft,

The defense industry in Sweden has a long history, dating back to the time when Sweden was a more active military power. Karlskronavarvet, specializing in naval surface vessels and submarines, and Bofors, a producer of artillery systems once owned by Alfred Nobel, have been in business for more than 300 years.
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
Don't you have reserves service personnel?

In the UK TA we had a minimum of 12 training weekends a year and two weeks camp.

What surprises me about your statement, a lot of Swedish designed and built weapons are used by the UK and other forces around the world such as the 40mm Bofors and Carl Gustav 84mm and of course the Gripen E Multirole Fighter Aircraft,

The defense industry in Sweden has a long history, dating back to the time when Sweden was a more active military power. Karlskronavarvet, specializing in naval surface vessels and submarines, and Bofors, a producer of artillery systems once owned by Alfred Nobel, have been in business for more than 300 years.
Click to expand...

Yes, we have a home guard. It was reduced after the cold war as well, but now during the Ukrainian war we get more volunteers into it. Sweden deactivated a lot in the 1990s. It is easy to deactivate forces. To build them up again takes a long time.

Sweden produce a lot of different system, but we can't actually afford it. The development and production of different systems cost a lot money. These cost reduce the Sweden's defense budget. Instead of using the money for exercises and setting up new units, the money goes to all these systems. The systems are really good, but we get very few of each system. We have a new submarine in the pipeline. The cost to make them doubled and we get only two of these subs instead of six.

If we compare with Finland. The Finnish defense budget is the half of ours. Despite that. The Finns have more operational units than Sweden and more soldiers than Sweden. The difference is; the Finns don't have a huge military industrial complex, they are buying things they need and don't need to spend a huge amount of money on development and production of different systems.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, we have a home guard. It was reduced after the cold war as well, but now during the Ukrainian war we get more volunteers into it. Sweden deactivated a lot in the 1990s. It is easy to deactivate forces. To build them up again takes a long time.

Sweden produce a lot of different system, but we can't actually afford it. The development and production of different systems cost a lot money. These cost reduce the Sweden's defense budget. Instead of using the money for exercises and setting up new units, the money goes to all these systems. The systems are really good, but we get very few of each system. We have a new submarine in the pipeline. The cost to make them doubled and we get only two of these subs instead of six.

If we compare with Finland. The Finnish defense budget is the half of ours. Despite that. The Finns have more operational units than Sweden and more soldiers than Sweden. The difference is; the Finns don't have a huge military industrial complex, they are buying things they need and don't need to spend a huge amount of money on development and production of different systems.
Click to expand...
Politicians love "Peace Dividends" than can be directed to vote buying (hand outs).
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
If we compare with Finland. The Finnish defense budget is the half of ours. Despite that. The Finns have more operational units than Sweden and more soldiers than Sweden. The difference is; the Finns don't have a huge military industrial complex, they are buying things they need and don't need to spend a huge amount of money on development and production of different systems.
Click to expand...

The negative side of that is that Finland is reliant on other countries to keep it supplied in the event of a war and things get worse if they end up at war with one of their major weapons suppliers as is the case with Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine now effectively has to completely retrain and re-equip its military in order stay in the field.

Personally, I think the biggest problem is that everything Europe does is a bureaucratic nightmare.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Yes, we have a home guard. It was reduced after the cold war as well, but now during the Ukrainian war we get more volunteers into it. Sweden deactivated a lot in the 1990s. It is easy to deactivate forces. To build them up again takes a long time. .
Click to expand...

Exactly the same as the UK, after WW1 Britain reduced it defence spending, dropping like a lead balloon, when the crap hits the fan prior to WW2 the government were running around like a bunch of headless chickens to try and catch up, then the same after WW2. When will politicians learn sensible defence spending is vital

I3BrigPvSk said:
Sweden produce a lot of different system, but we can't actually afford it. The development and production of different systems cost a lot money. These cost reduce the Sweden's defense budget. Instead of using the money for exercises and setting up new units, the money goes to all these systems. The systems are really good, but we get very few of each system. We have a new submarine in the pipeline. The cost to make them doubled and we get only two of these subs instead of six. .
Click to expand...

Duncan Sands wrote a white paper stating the days of piloted aircraft was over, the effect was a multitude of aircraft on the drawing board was scrapped. The TSR2 was scrapped, a very good aircraft, it ticked all the boxes except for the political one. Duncan Sands was an artillery officer, he knew as much about aircraft as my German Shepherd. Those in power rarely ask those who need and use the equipment what they need

I3BrigPvSk said:
If we compare with Finland. The Finnish defense budget is the half of ours. Despite that. The Finns have more operational units than Sweden and more soldiers than Sweden. The difference is; the Finns don't have a huge military industrial complex, they are buying things they need and don't need to spend a huge amount of money on development and production of different systems.
Click to expand...

As quoted by Monty, dependence on foreign equipment can lead to supply problems

In my opinion for what its worth, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has woken up NATO out of their complacent snoozing. Members of the British government have been demanding an increase in defence spending..
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
Exactly the same as the UK, after WW1 Britain reduced it defence spending, dropping like a lead balloon, when the crap hits the fan prior to WW2 the government were running around like a bunch of headless chickens to try and catch up, then the same after WW2. When will politicians learn sensible defence spending is vital



Duncan Sands wrote a white paper stating the days of piloted aircraft was over, the effect was a multitude of aircraft on the drawing board was scrapped. The TSR2 was scrapped, a very good aircraft, it ticked all the boxes except for the political one. Duncan Sands was an artillery officer, he knew as much about aircraft as my German Shepherd. Those in power rarely ask those who need and use the equipment what they need



As quoted by Monty, dependence on foreign equipment can lead to supply problems

In my opinion for what its worth, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has woken up NATO out of their complacent snoozing. Members of the British government have been demanding an increase in defence spending..
Click to expand...


I kind of agree with what Duncan Sands is saying. Drones have showed how significant they are during the Ukrainian war and earlier armed conflicts, such as the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict. I don't think Sweden will develop a new fighter plane in the future to replace Gripen. I can't say how many years from now, but I doubt the Americans wants to take the cost for developing a replacement for the F-22.

Sweden does something strange when we want a new weapon. If we are buying one we test different systems to find which one suits our needs best. We did that when we wanted a new MBT. The Swedish army tested the Leopard, the Abrams, and the Leclerc. Not the Challenger and I don't know why. To produce a system cost a lot and quite often the systems get more expensive than anticipated. The cost also reduce the amount of systems we get due to the increased cost. Our industries don't take this cost, our defense budget does.

Yes, Monty is correct about the supply problems. Ukraine is hampered by getting new systems from the West when they need to be trained to use them as well. But small countries cannot develop and produce their own stuff. It is too expensive. There is a balance between having military units and having those well trained and getting new weapons for them. If the weapons are too expensive to develop and produce. We will get much lesser of these weapons and lesser well trained military units to use these weapons.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
I kind of agree with what Duncan Sands is saying. Drones have showed how significant they are during the Ukrainian war and earlier armed conflicts, such as the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict. I don't think Sweden will develop a new fighter plane in the future to replace Gripen. I can't say how many years from now, but I doubt the Americans wants to take the cost for developing a replacement for the F-22.
Click to expand...

Duncan Sands might be correct to today regarding pilotless aircraft, but the white paper he produced was written in 1957.

However, crewed aircraft in my opinion is as important today as it was in 1957 for certain operations and aircraft types.

The Gri[en in South Africa have been grounded because of lack of spares (due to corruption) and lack of pilots to fly them (due to affirmative action).Wouldn't it be prudent for Sweden to adopt the Typhoon? By all that I read its a very good aircraft.
 
I got sent this article today and I am not sure what to make of it but the more I read it the more it annoys me.

https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/three-illuminating-quotes-about-the-war-in-ukraine-ee4c43f5fd68

BritinBritain said:
Duncan Sands might be correct to today regarding pilotless aircraft, but the white paper he produced was written in 1957.

However, crewed aircraft in my opinion is as important today as it was in 1957 for certain operations and aircraft types.

The Gri[en in South Africa have been grounded because of lack of spares (due to corruption) and lack of pilots to fly them (due to affirmative action).Wouldn't it be prudent for Sweden to adopt the Typhoon? By all that I read its a very good aircraft.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the Typhoon, it looks phenomenal but the Germans seem to be having issues with them...

https://www.businessinsider.com/german-military-fighters-jets-not-ready-for-combat-2018-5

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...rofighter-deliveries-due-to-quality-problems/
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I am not sure about the Typhoon, it looks phenomenal but the Germans seem to be having issues with them...

https://www.businessinsider.com/german-military-fighters-jets-not-ready-for-combat-2018-5

https://www.defensenews.com/air/201...rofighter-deliveries-due-to-quality-problems/
Click to expand...

As reported in your post:-
The vast majority of German Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets are reportedly not combat ready.
It's the latest report of deficiencies knocking German military equipment out of commission.
Germany's military has been plagued with such problems, and the government is debating whether to increase the defense budget to address them.

Poor maintenance or supply of AOG spares or inept government departments?

As for quality control problems with the airframe. I wouldn't think for a moment, substandard airframes or whatever the problem would be released for issue to various airforces. A spokesman for the German MoD stressed that while flight safety is not affected in the short run, long-time effects were possible.

However:-
On Wednesday, December 22nd, UK and Japan announced plans to develop a future fighter jet engine demonstrator, moving further with the British-led Tempest and Japanese-led F-X program.

Earlier this year, UK inked a £250 million (circa $333 million) contract with defense contractor BAE Systems to move forward with the concept and assessment phase of its sixth-generation fighter jet program, which is dubbed Tempest.

The upcoming aircraft, which is set to join the Royal Air Force fleet in 2035, will replace the Typhoon jet and is expected to explore game-changing capabilities such as uncrewed operation, more advanced sensors, weapons, and data systems.
 
Last edited:
BritinBritain said:
Duncan Sands might be correct to today regarding pilotless aircraft, but the white paper he produced was written in 1957.

However, crewed aircraft in my opinion is as important today as it was in 1957 for certain operations and aircraft types.
Click to expand...
It's all in the timing. During WWII the author of "God is my co-pilot" decided to go & see Mt. Everest in his P-43. Later the press found out he just flew up there & had a fit about the money spent in the 1920s to build an airplane that could do that, according to his book, not appreciating the advancement of technology over 20 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top