Nato Chief Tells Britain: Spend More On Defence To Deter Russia

[interestrateripoff]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10748432/Nato-chief-tells-Britain-spend-more-on-defence-to-deter-Russia.html

Britain and its Nato allies must respond to Russia’s “illegal aggression” against Ukraine by spending more on defence, the alliance’s secretary general has said.

Writing in The Telegraph, Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeals for Nato members to modernise their armed forces as Russia tries to “carve up” Europe.

“Every ally needs to invest the necessary resources in the right capabilities,” writes Mr Rasmussen. “That means modern equipment, intensive training for our forces, and closer cooperation among Nato allies and with our partners. I know how challenging this is in today’s economic climate, but the security climate makes it vital.”

Mr Rasmussen adds: “In the long run, a lack of security would be more costly than investing now and we owe it to our forces, and to broader society.”

Well this should be a nice GDP boost, especially as our military are using antiquated kit.

[200p]

The new QE Aircraft carriers will use the F-35 - these are the latest kit, and the most expensive fighter programs in the world. Canada and Australia are already committed to these vertical take off stealth fighters. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class

Edited April 6, 2014 by 200p

[interestrateripoff]

The new QE Aircraft carriers will use the F-35 - these are the latest kit, and the most expensive fighter programs in the world. Canada and Australia are already committed to these vertical take off stealth fighters. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class

The HPC opinion on the F35 is that it's a piece of crap and a huge waste of money.

Also the Aircraft carriers are a piece of crap as well as no angle flight deck meaning simultaneous take-off and landings will be rather difficult plus as these carriers have no eyes in the sky, which is essential for modern carrier warfare.

Edited April 6, 2014 by interestrateripoff

[200p]

It won't be much good in a dogfight, and the money could be better spent, before spending any new money on defence.

Edited April 6, 2014 by 200p

[interestrateripoff]

It won't be much good in a dogfight, and the money could be better spent, before spending any new money on defence.

Gordon the moron signed all the contracts before he left office and screwed over the taxpayer.

[Stay Beautiful]

The HPC opinion on the F35 is that it's a piece of crap and a huge waste of money.

This on the other hand,

[zugzwang]

Someone needs to remind the Fogh of War that the UK is bankrupt and sustained only by foreign charity, a great deal of which emanates from the former Soviet Union. Enjoy your bowl of herrings, Mr Rasmussen. We know which side our bread is buttered.

[happy_renting]

This on the other hand,

That's not even a fighter.

[billybong]

With upto date equipment, tanks, planes and carriers etc needed and lots of them to make a difference plus all the money to prop up housing they'll have to get printing some more. Maybe the money diverted into the house price economy will have to be redirected into defence. They don't seem to know whether they're coming or going at the best of times so it should be a real challenge.

Edited April 6, 2014 by billybong

[Stay Beautiful]

That's not even a fighter.

If we were to ever go to war against Russia no fighter plane would save my a$$.

[wonderpup]

Russia’s “illegal aggression”

A nicety of language this- I guess to make the distinction between the 'legal aggression' involved in sending drones into Pakistan's airspace to kill it's citizens on the basis that they are-or might be - terrorists.Or invading just about anyone who tries to sell anything outside the petrodollar matrix.

[oracle]

The new QE Aircraft carriers will use the F-35 - these are the latest kit, and the most expensive fighter programs in the world. Canada and Australia are already committed to these vertical take off stealth fighters. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Future-Ships/Queen-Elizabeth-Class

might be the most expensive, but is it the most efficient?

i would much rather have a dozen "corvette/catamaran" style drone carriers capable of 50-60 knots and get plenty of "coverage" than a 50000 tonne hulk that does 20 knots and is basically just a floating coffin for 8000 sailors.

alas, the new carriers were ordered by new labour who believe the big "unsinkable" titanic supertanker is the way to go(they did it with big supertanker government too..and it's been found to be slow, lack of manouvreability and still cracks under pressure when going full pelt at the iceberg)

...smaller and more nimble could have sailed around it.

(as mentioned before..keep an eye on irans midget sub programme, this is dangerous)

theoretically the f-35 should be quite a piece of kit, if' its got the agility of the harrier with twice the speed and 3 times the range, not to mention panoramic radar..which the harrier was a bit lacking.

..that's not to say that harrier was useless....it would still be completely at home in air support roles for the likes of afghanistan(and even places like bosnia it was very capable)

...just not as a first strike option.

Edited April 7, 2014 by oracle

[oracle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10748432/Nato-chief-tells-Britain-spend-more-on-defence-to-deter-Russia.html

Well this should be a nice GDP boost, especially as our military are using antiquated kit.

...i beg to differ.

we'll have to comprimise on ukraine to get enough leverage out of russia to stop the mad mullahs.

..russia also has a problem with them(see moscow subway and volgograd)

..but yes, we do need to bolster our defences, primarily because the likes of barroso live in cloud cuckoo land, and simply cannot be trusted( and also because of the arab backlash if the US or isreal use nukes to settle some scores down in the ME).

watch turkey..

there is realpolitik in play down there...and there is most certainly going to be a skirmish between the absolute royalists(saudi) and the absolute clerics(iran)

...turkey's aim is probably to mediate between the two and pick up the pieces after....building ottoman empire 2.0( much like the vatican is trying to do claiming it speaks for all christendom)

did see a vid on youtube a couple of days ago(I think the pastor was tony palmer)..basically suggesting the reformation was finished

.......lots of spin...so you can see the popes angle on this if you watch closely.

....actually the same "smooth talk" techniques being used.

be in no doubt, if this sales patter succeeds,you are going to be sold the biggest con-job in history, they have no intention of being nice and pliable once they have established dominion...it's a nice shiny new party frock, but the jackboots are still visible underneath if you care to take a peek

Edited April 7, 2014 by oracle

[davidg]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10748432/Nato-chief-tells-Britain-spend-more-on-defence-to-deter-Russia.html

Well this should be a nice GDP boost, especially as our military are using antiquated kit.

Even if we'd outfitted a million strong army with plasma rifles we still wouldn't be doing anything about Crimea. Russia knows that.

[fluffy666]

Even if we'd outfitted a million strong army with plasma rifles we still wouldn't be doing anything about Crimea. Russia knows that.

In a conventional war, it has to be mentioned that the EU would obliterate Russia in pretty short order, in anything short of nuclear war (which would be a draw..)

[thecrashingisles]

In a conventional war, it has to be mentioned that the EU would obliterate Russia in pretty short order, in anything short of nuclear war (which would be a draw..)

Do you think Russia would sit back and get bombarded 'shock and awe' style?

[fluffy666]

Do you think Russia would sit back and get bombarded 'shock and awe' style?

Do you think it would have much choice?

The EU has more and better kit, more and better trained personnel and a vastly stronger economic base.

[thecrashingisles]

Do you think it would have much choice?

I hope our military planners aren't so complacent. Russia would have massive retaliatory capacity.

[macbeth79]

In a conventional war, it has to be mentioned that the EU would obliterate Russia in pretty short order, in anything short of nuclear war (which would be a draw..)

You are a student of history and have learned so much from Napoleon and Hitler,

[fluffy666]

You are a student of history and have learned so much from Napoleon and Hitler,

In both cases, a single European power, fighting a 2-front war, was able to defeat Russian forces in the field?

In 1812, the French were also fighting Wellington in Spain, but still managed to take Moscow in an age before motorized transport.

In 1941, the Germans pretty much obliterated the Russian Army. Has Britain and the USA been neutral it's very hard to see how the Russians could have won.

In between which in 1914-1917 the Germans managed to defeat Russia pretty comprehensively. Whilst fighting Britain and France in the west.

As did the Japanese in 1906.

And we did actually win the Crimean was in 1856.

Apart from that, Russia has been taking on all comers since the Mongols...

[EUBanana]

You are a student of history and have learned so much from Napoleon and Hitler,

I think the EU militaries are largely defensive in nature. I'm sure if Russia attacked Estonia or something (a NATO member) and the EU manned up, then the Russians would be cleared out in very short order.

Invading and more importantly occupying such a huge space as Russia, I can't see the manpower low technology rich militaries of the West doing that very well.

Who cares, they got nuclear weapons, that's not on the table anyway!

[EUBanana]

In both cases, a single European power, fighting a 2-front war, was able to defeat Russian forces in the field?

In 1812, the French were also fighting Wellington in Spain, but still managed to take Moscow in an age before motorized transport.

In 1941, the Germans pretty much obliterated the Russian Army. Has Britain and the USA been neutral it's very hard to see how the Russians could have won.

In between which in 1914-1917 the Germans managed to defeat Russia pretty comprehensively. Whilst fighting Britain and France in the west.

As did the Japanese in 1906.

And we did actually win the Crimean was in 1856.

Apart from that, Russia has been taking on all comers since the Mongols...

Russia proved pretty poor at making inroads into a much smaller Prussia in the 7 Years War as well, despite Austrian help. /nerd

I agree they are far from invincible.

[fluffy666]

Russia proved pretty poor at making inroads into a much smaller Prussia in the 7 Years War as well, despite Austrian help. /nerd

I agree they are far from invincible.

Yes, a defensive war by EU vs Russia would probably end with Russia losing most of their air and land hardware. Probably with significant EU losses as well, though. A crash EU program to replace Russian energy imports would turn Russia into a complete backwater within a decade of such a war.

They would certainly fight harder against an EU invasion but that's not remotely likely..

[Damik]

Yes, a defensive war by EU vs Russia would probably end with Russia losing most of their air and land hardware. Probably with significant EU losses as well, though. A crash EU program to replace Russian energy imports would turn Russia into a complete backwater within a decade of such a war.

They would certainly fight harder against an EU invasion but that's not remotely likely..

I do not see any remote possibility of the NATO/Russia hot conflict, because of the nuclear weapons. Even just the tactical nukes would be able to reduce any military hardware/numbers to about 10% in a few days, IMO ...

Any idea of the NATO and Russian rules of engagement for the tactical nukes? AFAIK after the Cuban crises even the tactical nuke deployment should require always the presidential authorisation ..

[Errol]

In a conventional war, it has to be mentioned that the EU would obliterate Russia in pretty short order, in anything short of nuclear war (which would be a draw..)

I have to say, this is just nonsense.

Russia is the world leader in missile technology. I'm not sure the EU want to test out Russian capabilities (and I'm not talking nuclear).

Edited April 7, 2014 by Errol