John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Maybe NK but they are likely hard pressed to come up with much.
Russia - General Discussion.
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
That Russia must improve relations with Iran is a given, but it does not absolve it from responsibility in the context of Russia-Israel dynamics, so a worsening of ties with Israel, and in turn increase in Israel's share of the effort to aid Ukraine, is equally a given.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #1,663
I believe you are correct. Israel isn't able/willing to do what Iran is under pretty much any circumstances. They won't sell Russia body armor or long-range strike weapons with which to wage the war. And a friendly neutrality from Israel doesn't outweigh this level of military aid. And Israel has something to be mad about. Iran is getting Su-35S, and likely Ka-52s, if the yellow ones recently spotted are any indication.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
EU countries dont need to spend more, they need to spend Better.
And together.
Then, you can start spending more.
A large part of the new military spending in Europe will be absolutely inefficient and wasted due to the EU countries military fragmentation.
Thats why Europe cant really do anything o a geopolitical side.
However, speaking of tanks, I have serious doubts that Leopard 2 or Abrams would have any impact in these numbers.
They are going to be a problem for logistic but wont be a game in changer ( at least, as I said, in these numbers and without air support ).
I think that light tanks and/or wheeled tank destroyers such as Amx-10 and Centauros, available in decent numbers in Europe, can be very useful.
They are easy to maintain ( compared to an MBT ), drink less fuel, are more agile and less heavy.
Leopard 1 can be a good tank to spend too.
In Europe there are currently several hundreds Leo1s in stock, all in good conditions.
For example, Italy alone has 80/100 Leo 1a5s that were recently stockpiled and are in perfect conditions.
Saw them with my own eyes.
The problem, as Always, Is that you cant expect a country where 30% of the public opinion Is pro russian to send tanks...
Picture from goriziane spa
And together.
Then, you can start spending more.
A large part of the new military spending in Europe will be absolutely inefficient and wasted due to the EU countries military fragmentation.
Thats why Europe cant really do anything o a geopolitical side.
However, speaking of tanks, I have serious doubts that Leopard 2 or Abrams would have any impact in these numbers.
They are going to be a problem for logistic but wont be a game in changer ( at least, as I said, in these numbers and without air support ).
I think that light tanks and/or wheeled tank destroyers such as Amx-10 and Centauros, available in decent numbers in Europe, can be very useful.
They are easy to maintain ( compared to an MBT ), drink less fuel, are more agile and less heavy.
Leopard 1 can be a good tank to spend too.
In Europe there are currently several hundreds Leo1s in stock, all in good conditions.
For example, Italy alone has 80/100 Leo 1a5s that were recently stockpiled and are in perfect conditions.
Saw them with my own eyes.
The problem, as Always, Is that you cant expect a country where 30% of the public opinion Is pro russian to send tanks...
Picture from goriziane spa
In regard to the Matsimus post on the effects of drilling in armour effecting or adding to metal fatigue , he does not cite information to back this assertion , I would agree that there can be metal fatigue from various stressors including vibration and impact ,certainly the types of steel used and their construction of armoured vehicles are not the same and have changed over the decades to make a call on all vehicles
Automotive Research Center (umich.edu)
What is Metal Fatigue? Types, Identification, Determination of Metal Fatigue (With PDF) – What Is Piping
Im not an engineer but this article suggests that drilling does not cause cracks but can be used to address some fatigue
New crack stop hole shape using structural optimizing technique - ScienceDirect
Automotive Research Center (umich.edu)
What is Metal Fatigue? Types, Identification, Determination of Metal Fatigue (With PDF) – What Is Piping
Im not an engineer but this article suggests that drilling does not cause cracks but can be used to address some fatigue
New crack stop hole shape using structural optimizing technique - ScienceDirect
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
More commonality might not be a bad idea, but whilst the EU remains a grouping of sovereign states, the current state of affairs is largely going to continue. Not least because high value defence manufacturing in Europe is concentrated in a few countries.
When various people talk about Europe relying on itself for defence, it inevitably means buying more things from within Europe. That's not fair for small and medium-sized EU states, because it would mean they'd be boosting profits in a small number of bigger nations.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
US Pushing Central, South American Countries to Give Ukraine Quick Military Boost
US military officials are trying to persuade six countries with Russian-made equipment, including air defense and armored vehicles, to send it to Kyiv for American-made replacements
www.voanews.com
I read first on pro Russian telegrams and RT. So I search others to find this is true or part of Russian propaganda. Turn out what Russian sources wrote basically confirm by VOA.
This means in my book two things:
1. Ex Warsaw Pact inventories already gone,
2. US still reluctant to give more from their own weapons stockpile.
#2 can be argumentative on weather US reluctant or US assessment that it is too much work to train Ukranian for more US made weapons. However it is going to be interesting how US can 'coax' those Latin American to give up their USSR/Rusian made weapons.
For one thing it will not be as easy like US effort with ex Warsaw Pact NATO members. However in the sense now US want to tell Peru to give their MIG 29 for F-16. Thus it can be argue US still prefer to give surplus F-16 to Latin American rather than Ukrainian. Will they going to offer that also for Venezuelan Flankers ? To Venezuelan "regime" (Maduro) that US try to set asside before ? How about Brazilian that now rules by new left wing administration ?
Wondering after this if US also try to bargain similar thing in Asia to the like of India and Vietnam. I know enough noises that US already approaching Indonesian for the Flankers, MI-17 and MI-35. Again many Asians just like in Latin America take Russian Weapons because:
- Not want to Geopolitically dictate by US too much,
- Russian sometimes give capabilities that US weapons packages reluctant to give or put restrictions on that.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
So?
They should buy from US boosting US profits?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
They should buy from the seller that offers the best deal - it's called competition. Poland has ordered a large number of tanks and artillery from South Korea. It's not free, but they're getting a local production line and a quality product.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
This is because military procurement is still only national.
OCCAR, EDA and EDF are trying to create a common procurement, but as long as there's no political will, its useless.
Poland bought tanks and howitzers from South Korea.
That means they wont buy any european common equipment. How can you count somenthing in the world if you have 27 different defence ministers buying 27 different equipments.
Thats why Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe is absolutely unable to defend itself due to terrible spending.
And thats why european big 4 ( Spa, Ita, Ger and Fra ) are absolutely mad at Poland.
Buying equipment that no one uses in Europe is just another stupid nationalistic action no one needed.
By doing so, you are literally weakening EU.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Well then, in that case perhaps the major EU defence companies could offer discounts to buyers from EU states. A slight profit but not much, maybe paid for by a tax rebate from the governments of the manufacturers. Then everyone wins.
Terran
Well-Known Member
The EU will never establish a unified defense as the EU is a herd of cats. especially where Western Europe is concerned Let’s hit the way back machine to before the invasion.
Eastern European nations were worried about Russian adventurism in the region.
Western Europe was worried about an influx of immigrants.
France has more investment in its MOD for its former colonies. Germany was trying to get more Russian pipelines and happy to trade Ukrainian sovereignty to get them.
The EU’s Weakness is that the EU isn’t a sovereign state. It’s a conglomeration of States a Confederation not a federation, whom have a history of fighting against each other and viewing each other as rivals especially in Western Europe. These haven’t been unified since Charles the Hammer.
Eastern European countries have a more centralized Defense mindset as they have a common history with an Agressive Soviet and Russian Empire. You are more likely to see more consolidation around defense procurement in the east than the west. It also helps that the eastern states have similar needs in defense procurement that differ from the western states.
The eastern states of the EU and NATO view the US involvement as the one thing that stops Russia. A few years back we can all remember “Fort Trump” when poland was pushing to try and get a permanent American military presence in Poland. The huge buys of the Polish military are a similar deal. A move to establish a large military force that makes Poland a wall against Russia. Building that wall isn’t going to work at the glacial pace of the EU defense or the work at the high cost point of a weaker economy asking for sales from a stronger one.
If the EU was the basis of European defense it would be centralized in France and Germany. Increasingly more so France. Whom is happy to place its defense priorities well ahead of any partners.
Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Latvia, Estonia and more they would be buffer states at the periphery traded at the first sign of trouble. Gee that sounds a lot like the late 1930s. Because the EU is a Confederation not a Federation each of the independent countries HAS to organize itself for its own defense. See Greece and Turkey.
Poland made its investments in South Korean and American buys primarily as they don’t feel Germany was supporting them. They farther are making large investments in South Korean systems as the Western industry is getting stretched just keeping up with the new demand. The Poles asked the US for hundreds of HIMARS systems that the US couldn’t supply and Europe doesn’t even offer an equivalent. ( Something you missed in your rant. The US and the decentralized Eurozone MICs often have options that the big European MICs lack). South Korea said “okay” laid a timeline and asked if Poland wanted them on Doosans or their own trucks.
As a Bonus a lot of Eastern European geography and infrastructure is closer to the Korean Peninsula than Western European. Particularly in regards to bridges. K2 was designed for Korea mountains and wetlands lighter bridges vs Leopard 2 or Abrams which were designed for Western European plains. This is why Poland maintained two distinct types of MBT Leopard 2 for its more solid regions around Warsaw and Soviet types for more wetter regions.
Finally as the ROK firms are happy to license and tech exchange. This allows Poland to get what it wants and even push itself as a future leader in European defense industry by allowing it to serve as a supplier and support hub of potential exports of Such products which have been getting interest in European states that view the German cats as to fat for their needs. Potential customers like Norway who has been shopping it or Romania who has been looking for a new MBT but has lots of mountain terrain (kinda like South Korea).
Next Russia invaded Ukraine because Ukraine isn’t part of NATO. Because First and foremost Ukraine has large portions of essential military bases and support systems of the Russian MOD still routed through it. IE Sevastopol. The Naval base has been an issue between the two for centuries. The fact they are also not part of the EU doesn’t matter really.
Russia invaded as they felt the German government at the center of the EU as well as other “useful idiots” either pro Russian nationalists or pacifists governments or states in Western Europe that have been in bed with the Russians (Fra, Ger, Spa and It) and the US would has happened with Moldova and Georgia turn a blind eye maybe even side with them. As a Confederation the EU has no actual obligation for mutual defense. That’s NATO. NATO doesn’t have a mutual defense pact with Ukraine or Moldova. Yet the choice has been made to aid Ukraine in a number of States.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
The fact that different state have different views isnt necessarily negative.
It helps balancing the situation.
You dont have to look at the big western countries as " countries that have been in bed with the russians", but as countries that were simply pragmatic. They needed cheap energy for their industries to be competitive on the market. Thats it.
The fact that russian companies then started a massive campaign of infiltration and corruption inside many states ( mainly Germany and Italy ) is something that happened later.
Going on with my " rant", as you called it, I'd like to point out that the process of turning the EU from a confederation to a federation isnt really working also because of the US.
The US have huge interests in maintaing their overseas empire, controlling the european countries and putting always focused pressure on their politics.
Many times we saw both russian and US criticizing the EU and doing everything they could to prevent integration between european countries.
Kissinger, Hungtinton, Cheney, many other americans and russians ( Putin, Medvedev, Lavrov...) spoked badly about EU.
USA keeps something like 100 000 troops in the EU, and have dozens of military bases and installations all across Europe.
Why would they want European countries to cooperate more?
They put pressure on weak governments and small countries to buy US made equipments instead of european ones. Thats a fact, not a rant.
Thats one of the reasons why the 4 ( Spa,Fra,Ita,Ger ) started OCCAR and EDA. Autonomy from the US.
We are likely to see less and less US made equipment being sold to Europe.
All those 4 countries stopped buying US-made land and naval products in the last 10/20 years.
And apart from the F35, which is necessary to deliver US-nukes B61s, the only american made planes they operate are tankers and cargos.
"The EU will never establish a unified defense"... I dont agree.
Not anytime soon, thats for sure, but europeans are well aware of the need of strategic autonomy.
In next 10 to 15 years, EU countries will be able to produce every piece of equipment they need, from SSBNs to Fighter jets to MBTs, in Europe.
Only in the last year:
- 21st March, 2022: European Strategic Compass and the first 5000 troops joint task force
- 25 May 2022: EDF boosting
- 5 December 2022: EU Foreign subsidies regulation, to stop foreign subsidies from non EU countries ( including those from the US ).
- 6 Jan 2023: EU chips act.
- 10 Jan 2023: First EU joint enegy procurement task force started working
To be defined this year, already undergoing discussion in Parliament:
- EU common debt
- EU industrial plan deal
So is the EU going to be federation anytime soon? absolutely NO.
Are they going to have a common defense anytime soon? absolutely NO.
Will the US leave their leading role in Europe anytime soon? absolutely NO.
But in 10 years? 20? 30?
Ex Warsaw Pact inventories haven't gone.US Pushing Central, South American Countries to Give Ukraine Quick Military Boost
US military officials are trying to persuade six countries with Russian-made equipment, including air defense and armored vehicles, to send it to Kyiv for American-made replacements
I read first on pro Russian telegrams and RT. So I search others to find this is true or part of Russian propaganda. Turn out what Russian sources wrote basically confirm by VOA.
This means in my book two things:
1. Ex Warsaw Pact inventories already gone,
2. US still reluctant to give more from their own weapons stockpile.
...
Poland, Czechia & Slovakia have given or are giving their old T-72s. Romania & Bulgaria have several hundred Warsaw Pact vintage tanks, many of them upgraded, & so far haven't donated them. Poland has a few hundred PT-91 tanks, a Polish-designed upgrade of the T-72, & has kept them. Some of the PT-91s were newly built, but others were modernised T-72s. Hungary still has T-72 in service, until replaced by Leopard 2A7, which are on order.
Much the same is true of other AFVs, artillery, & missiles, & there are still some MiG-29s in the hands of NATO countries.
Terran
Well-Known Member
I am going to disagree with your argument here for a number of reasons.
First the US has been pushing European states to the 2% goal for decades. It’s been the large European governments that have chosen not to. Especially Germany. If the EU was to establish a strong joint European military force with a uniform 2% of GDP investment that wouldn’t be contrary to US interests but in line with them. The US maintains those troops as its NATO Commitment. Many of the resources and equipment used in that could be shifted elsewhere or drawn down.
to Quote Lord Ismay “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”
With Tensions in Asia the U.S. has been trying to divest the 100,000 troops in Europe to a smaller force since the Clinton administration.
As to political pressure that’s a two way street. The European leaders apply their own pressure on American leadership all the time.
As to Buying American, Military weapons are as a rule Expensive. But priced on a production curve. The more built the cheaper per unit. The US DOD happens to buy a lot of hardware and when it gets offered for export much of That hardware has been debugged. ::cough:: NH90, Tiger::cough::
So it’s cheaper vs it’s european equivalent, often with less teething issues vs it’s European equivalent and happens to have a Huge support system built around it already in place vs it’s European equivalents.
That’s not to say that the US isn’t above licensing or buying European systems if they meet American requirements, it’s just very rare for them to do so. Constellation class for example
Farther again Often European makers don’t offer a comparable product. IE HIMARS and MLRS, E7 Wedgetail. Or if they do it just might not meet criteria.
The EU states have made much of your SSBN to fighter planes to MBT for decade’s already. However it’s still now as in the future a question of the doctrinal needs of European states as they see it. And your going to have a hard time convincing Berlin it needs a French CVN, Germany to buy a French Howitzer, Spain it needs an SSBN, Italy that it should buy anything made in Spain. Farther even when they do they often have American components like the French Carriers will launch and recover Using American components and deploy American made E2D Hawkeye neither of which as a European equivalent.
The US and European Union are partners.
As to EU federalizing. That’s a whole other can of worms not likely to happen as some states try and leave the Confederation as it stands. To move that way would require a substantial reorganization and it’s not likely to happen under the current administrations of the EU governance. Again the EU is highly centralized to France and Germany.
Now as to in bed with European government. I can expand that to the US in degrees as well. The fact is French optics aim at Ukrainians on Russian Tanks. German AIP drive Russian Subs, American engines power Russian 4x4 vehicles. The funds that funds that paid for the Russian MOD came from the heating bills.
The “Pragmatic” “real politik”has come back to bite Europe and the west in the Arse.
The Germans traded pipelines for political positions. They chose Russian fuel sources even when warned of the risks because of expediency. They should have diversified but felt that no nation would burn it’s no.1 trade partner for political reasons and start a war. Forgetting that Germany and Great Britain did that twice.
For two decades the warnings signals were ignored. Even after the 2015 war when it should have been clear Russian investment was a poor security strategy we saw NS2 being built. Either the Germans were in “bed with Russia” or they were dunces.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
If it is still considerable Warsaw Pact inventory that still has not been given to Ukraine yet, then means ex Warsaw Pact NATO members still holding out. Thus I just don't see how US will have much luck to "persuade" Latin Americans (or later on other Nations) on giving up their USSR/Russian armaments inventories for Ukraine cause.
They might get some positive answer on something from few or couple Latin Americans. Perhaps from Mexico and Columbia. However how much US can empty Warsaw Pact inventories, is still the best hope that US can get on USSR/Russian made armaments to Ukraine.
If US and Collective West want to continue arming Ukraine, the only viable option forward is to open their own made armaments inventories, much in bigger way then now. This effort on getting more USSR/Russian made armaments from outside ex Warsaw Pact NATO members will only get some minimal trinkets at best.
A very large proportion of the US armed forces in Europe are here to support the USA's ability to intervene in Africa & western Asia. Air bases, naval bases, military hospitals, logistics . . .
Terran
Well-Known Member
You are correct, I should have phrased that as Divest portions of the 100,000. Moving combat units out and retaining support units.
My main point is that if the European forces were unified and structured to defend Europe on their own, the U.S. would step down its combat and garrison forces in favor of a logistical aspect as a partner state.
My main point is that if the European forces were unified and structured to defend Europe on their own, the U.S. would step down its combat and garrison forces in favor of a logistical aspect as a partner state.
Armour is different to your stock standard steel plates that you can buy from the local steel supplier in town. Matsimus is an ex British Army vehicle fitter serving in the REME. He worked with armoured vehicles and knows what he is talking about.
Not aimed at anyone in particular, but this isn't the thread to discuss EU / NATO procurement and defence issues. If you want to do so, start a new thread.