"Finland’s Selection Of F-35 Confirms Its Status As The Free World’s Fighter" https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...ms-its-status-as-the-free-worlds-fighter/amp/
Possible expansion of NATO
- Thread starter Danllan
- Start date
- Location
- Limousin
Your remark was, that they were falling to pieces. Not how much they were costing.Wrong, the opposite is the case. Take a squint at how much they've had to ask HMG for, and look at the opinions of Scotland's own education and health watchdogs.
linga
Member
- Location
- Ceredigion
Where’s that then. Falmouth?
Yes
Any more of this and we'll send the RAF to bomb the runway!!!!
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
And that was both metaphorically and literally correct.
- Location
- Limousin
When it gets as bad as England then I would worry.And that was both metaphorically and literally correct.
ollie989898
Member
ollie989898
Member
Hypersonic missiles now travel at around 3,800 mph, so not very much more time!
Hypersonics don't mean much- existing and even 70's era ICBMs could hit 10,000-20,000 Km/h at maximum speed and then approach 5-6 kilometers/second on their terminal (descending) phase.
But ICBMS are considered AOK because you have a flight time of 20-30 minutes (less if the launch platform is close to the target) from say, a silo in North America to hit a target in mainland Russia, but more importantly they fly in a ballistic and predictable arc way up into orbit- meaning they radar can detect them within seconds of them being launched. Thus, there is no chance of a surprise attack where the attacker can hit their victim with no chance of receiving the same back- an effective deterrent then.
Hypersonics change the game because now you have cruise missiles (which fly very very low level) that fly very fast and are hard(er) to detect. Making a surprise attack much more possible.
Older members may remember the original arms reduction agreements the west signed with the USSR. One of these agreements eliminated short range and tactical type weapons, in which nuclear armed cruise missiles were included. This was due to the reasons above. Both sides kept their other weapons but recognised that these were enough to form a deterrent.
Both China and the Russians are actively pursuing hypersonic weapons which is a destabilising move in reality but it is pretty much their only useful hand they can play against the reach and might of the US carrier groups- the sheer speed of hypersonic missiles makes it much harder to defend against them.
Danllan
Member
- Location
- Sir Gar / Carms
Wrong again. Read both inspectors' reports and comparisons and then come back to us...
Which was why I asked the question. Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately unless corroborated I can’t believe it.
- Location
- Beragh, Co Tyrone, Northern Ireland
I see the UK has delivered weaponry to the Ukraine via transport planes, on a Flightplan avoiding German airspace.
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
Hopefully this is the fear some Liz Truss. One look at her will scare those Ruskies back to Moscow!
Show some respect man. Liz was most probably on that plane to Ukraine, poised to charge down the loading ramp
ollie989898
Member
NATO was dreamt up to deter Soviet aggression and expansion. A lot of countries joined it because they feared the USSR would invade or attack them, possibly with nuclear or similar weapons. NATO stated that their response to an attack on any member would result in the others coming to their defence, including a possible nuclear response where WMDs were employed. This was important as not all NATO members had nuclear weapons. Some allowed the basing of American nuclear weapons on their soil. (West) Germany was one example, with some American strategic assets being placed there- mere minutes flight time from Russian soil.
The important thing is though that NATO was an alliance, and each member had the responsibility to fund, maintain and exercise it's own armed forces independently of the others. Some members also chose to buy into certain things like common ammunition supplies, fighter aircraft, radar and radio sets- to ensure that in time of war there would be a good deal of interoperability between the forces of one country amongst the others. They also planned and conducted big exercises to rehearse all the moves they might make in a for-real battle.
The idea of a European army is much less clear. Are we talking about a central pool of military forces and if so, who commands them? The EU government? That is an alarming prospect and exactly the system they had in the USSR- where Russian or other troops might suddenly descend on a 'member' country to defend it's government- as happened in the Hungarian uprising which saw Russian troops turn up and shoot civilians to restore order.
So, we have established the role and nature of NATO, pray tell what real need we have of a 'European army'?
Exfarmer
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
I think the European army was dreamed up by generals who had this ambition of being in charge of real fighting men
- Location
- Limousin
The UK is up to its neck in the Ukraine, but other NATO counties are as well. Currently in the process of supplying warships (mine hunters and missile carries) and assistance in navel base construction for them. As well as anti-tank weapons and a large amount of training personnel. The US is supplying various missile systems and small arms, France has offed Dassault Rafael fighters and a finance package for them. Italy is involved in military training. Canada has special forces units in Ukraine.
Thanks for that. I was pretty clear on NATO and I had assumed that any European army would be along the same lines,if you pick on one EU country you pick on all of them. If so I don’t have a problem with that. If however ,as you seem to suggest, the proposed EU army is for the internal policing of the EU then that is clearly wrong.
ollie989898
Member
But NATO exists for precisely the reason I mentioned and is backed by states who have nuclear weapons.
If NATO already exists and has done so, ensuring the peace for 50 odd years, what then does the EU want with an army?
Much criticism has been directed at NATO but it has clearly worked and has cooperated closely on a few missions which were not within the Soviet/Russian sphere- i.e. Kosovo/Bosnia, USA (9/11 attack counter terror effort), Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.
I don't see the need for an EU army and I think the very existence of one would be inflammatory toward the Russians. NATO does not really serve any political master, and a member state might not take part in every operation (some of them can't as they have limited assets). I'm very dubious about what an EU army would be for and who would command it.
ollie989898
Member
Been going on since last year apparently.
We will know when Ukraine goes real because NATO will enforce a no-fly zone over the place. Once that happens you can be sure ground forces are moving and shooting might well have started. The kind of weapons the West has been sending to Ukraine will make it a cast iron wench of a place for the Russians to invade (they have had months to dig trenches and prepare positions as well), but they would have a lot of air power to help them. A no-fly zone would take that away quickly.
UK has sent shed loads of handheld or man portable anti tank missiles apparently.