|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:19:08 GMT
If Eu NATO members not selling us weapons if they fight the Ruskies is an issue then maybe the UK should concentrate on defending UK territory at the expense of joining in the European mainland theatre. Which it ought to be doing anyway. The UK has no quarrel with Russia, what they do in their own sphere of influence is no concern of ours.
Vinny's madcap scheme of reopening the coalmines to build more tanks so we can take part in another continental war is completely absurd.
Btw, I don't believe other European countries have any particular quarrel with Russia either. If the Poles, Estonians etc want to mouth off thinking that Uncle Sam and his Nato cavalry are going to charge in and rescue them if the Russkies take umbrage then that's a risk they're going to have to take and they're going to have to live with the consequences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:25:44 GMT
EU tendering laws and military imports from the US? What's the connection Vinny? You know, companies bidding for contracts? Marketisation of defence. That's the connection Dan.
Yes I'm quite aware what tendering means Vinny. What I was asking was how EU tendering laws result in the UK sourcing so much of its military hardware from the US.
You said earlier, with specific reference to the Ajax programme - run by US defence contractor General Dynamics - that 'it's what happens when you have to abide by EU tendering laws which thankfully we no longer have to.'
So again, what's connection between the UK buying armoured vehicles from General Dynamics et al and EU tendering laws?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 6, 2024 13:27:48 GMT
If this is what it looks like the then it reinforces the idea that the EU as a group are spiteful back stabbers.
Instead of welcoming the UK into the plans to defend Europe , they make it clear that we are firmly placed into the second class when military assets are divided .
That’s even in the light of the fact that the UK is probably the most effective and powerful military force in Europe alongside France and possibly Ukraine ( in the next few years ).
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 6, 2024 13:37:58 GMT
Because the USA often offer the best value contracts.
Consider 2010.
Government had a choice between struggling on with the failing Nimrod MRA4 project, or moving on and getting the P8 Poseidon, which would you have gone for?
The MRA4 was hampered by the decision to reuse 1960's fuselages which were not all the same size, and had undergone thousands of pressurisations / depressurisations exacerbating differences in size. One flew, and even that had such serious faults the RAF grounded it.
There is something to be said for the tendering process.
There is also something to be said for having an independent supply chain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:38:03 GMT
Bentley : I wouldn't necessarily place too much weight on how the Daily Express spins news from 'Brussels'. They're hardly renowned for even-handed and factual reporting in that regard. Nor the Telegraph for that matter. Reuters, on the other hand, reports on the EU's proposals without any mention of nor any speculation about how or if the UK would be affected by its proposed policy for creating a 'war economy mode arms industry' within the EU. www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-aims-shift-european-arms-industry-war-economy-mode-2024-03-04/
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:40:20 GMT
Because the USA often offer the best value contracts. Consider 2010. Government had a choice between struggling on with the failing Nimrod MRA4 project, or moving on and getting the P8 Poseidon, which would you have gone for? The MRA4 was hampered by the decision to reuse 1960's fuselages which were not all the same size, and had undergone thousands of pressurisations / depressurisations exacerbating differences in size. One flew, and even that had such serious faults the RAF grounded it. There is something to be said for the tendering process. There is also something to be said for having an independent supply chain. So nothing to do with the EU then? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 6, 2024 13:41:47 GMT
Indeed. It just doesn’t make sense to leave the UK out of the loop for arms procurement in a European war .
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:46:06 GMT
Indeed. It just doesn’t make sense to leave the UK out of the loop for arms procurement in a European war . I agree of course, and there's no reason to suppose they would.
On the other hand there will probably have to be a recognition that the UK is no longer in the front rank as an arms supplier, especially of sophisticated weapons systems. Even the army's boots are of German design made in Croatia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 6, 2024 13:53:19 GMT
The tendering rules by which the Poseidon and the Rivet Joint were procured, were EU tendering rules.
The application of those rules was by British politicians.
But, consider this, we got rid of our tank factories and our small arms factories.
We got rid of the Royal Ordnance factory in Enfield.
We are now dependent on foreign suppliers for our rifles even though we designed them.
If something as basic as the sear spring for an SA80 breaks, we don't actually make the parts now, Heckler and Koch do.
The rockets for our nuclear deterrent are provided by the USA.
We're the only country which had an independent space programme and now does not.
In 1971 we launched a satellite (prospero), Black Arrow was a viable rocket system.
We could have had independent ICBMs just as the USA and France do.
We have Trident and there have been two launch failures in testing (Putin must be laughing his socks off at us).
|
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on Mar 6, 2024 13:55:17 GMT
The Russian arms industry is still very large, they have vast amounts of coal and iron ore, they could rebuild their military machine in five to ten years.It's not that long. And with aid from China on the electronics side, they could have an equivalent to HIMARS within that timescale. Complacency is the path to being attacked. We cannot take a chance that a NATO country could be invaded, we have to be ready even if it means building up debts, because a show of strength can deter an attempt at invasion. Putin attacked Ukraine because he saw weakness, he saw the opportunity to regain what had once been occupied territory. He would not have done so if he'd seen inevitable defeat. okay...but even with a fully functional economy with the likes of Gazprom feeding the GDP.... money rolling in from western gas exports...a stable Ruble...free international import/export of hi-tech equipment and spares....full access to international capital and financial markets...full support from western OEM technicians....etc etc....it took them 30 years to accumulate all the 3rd rate equipment they lost in 18 months against a 3rd rate makeshift army.....I mean, sure you may be right 5 years..10 years to obtain all the wunderwaffen back...but I cannot fathom how they could re-design, test, trial and field at scale equipment that would gain them an advantage over what NATO countries can field in less that 30/40 years based on the absurdly corrupt and insanely inefficient state of their military industrial base and the opportunity costs involved to the Russian people....all managed by one of the most brutal cleptocracies in the world... |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Mar 6, 2024 13:58:55 GMT
It's 1950s style Reds Under The Bed phobia all over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 6, 2024 14:10:51 GMT
I don't blame them. You see our government have been acting like utter dicks, giving it the big mouth to Russia, like a kid who does not know who he is talking to and is trying to prove himself. Why should they trust us? What's not to say dodgy Blighty locks them out of the use of their own arms. It's all digital these days. Whose to say the missiles will actually fire if you pressed the fire button.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the less arms this country manufactures the better. Less arms = less trouble and less conflict. Also the other problem is when you blow all these people up in the Middle East they claim asylum here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 6, 2024 14:14:11 GMT
Fat chance of that. The UK can't even supply its army with locally-made trucks, they're all imported now from Germany or the US. It's what happens when you give the bean-counters the last word on procurement. They are not even bean counters these days. They are young prissy women with a middle class Oxford accent and a PPE. Things might have revolved around finance in the past, but now the most important thing you need to give out is the right image. See post office for details. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Mar 6, 2024 14:44:23 GMT
The Russian arms industry is still very large, they have vast amounts of coal and iron ore, they could rebuild their military machine in five to ten years.It's not that long. And with aid from China on the electronics side, they could have an equivalent to HIMARS within that timescale. Complacency is the path to being attacked. We cannot take a chance that a NATO country could be invaded, we have to be ready even if it means building up debts, because a show of strength can deter an attempt at invasion. Putin attacked Ukraine because he saw weakness, he saw the opportunity to regain what had once been occupied territory. He would not have done so if he'd seen inevitable defeat. okay...but even with a fully functional economy with the likes of Gazprom feeding the GDP.... money rolling in from western gas exports...a stable Ruble...free international import/export of hi-tech equipment and spares....full access to international capital and financial markets...full support from western OEM technicians....etc etc....it took them 30 years to accumulate all the 3rd rate equipment they lost in 18 months against a 3rd rate makeshift army.....I mean, sure you may be right 5 years..10 years to obtain all the wunderwaffen back...but I cannot fathom how they could re-design, test, trial and field at scale equipment that would gain them an advantage over what NATO countries can field in less that 30/40 years based on the absurdly corrupt and insanely inefficient state of their military industrial base and the opportunity costs involved to the Russian people....all managed by one of the most brutal cleptocracies in the world... You're right that a huge amount of corruption has been prevalent in Putin's Russia but underestimating your opponent is not a good strategy. It's better to overestimate Putin and have a force in place so powerful that he dare not try anything than underestimate him and find a NATO country is attacked. |
|
|
|
Post by buccaneer on Mar 6, 2024 20:41:39 GMT
I don't blame them. You see our government have been acting like utter dicks, giving it the big mouth to Russia, like a kid who does not know who he is talking to and is trying to prove himself. Why should they trust us? What's not to say dodgy Blighty locks them out of the use of their own arms. It's all digital these days. Whose to say the missiles will actually fire if you pressed the fire button.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the less arms this country manufactures the better. Less arms = less trouble and less conflict. Also the other problem is when you blow all these people up in the Middle East they claim asylum here.
Love to see you preach that about your love - China. Sorry, but while there are nations like Russia and China in the world arms are a necessity and part of defence mechanisms. |
|
