Red Sea / Houthi rebels situation

Rroff said:
We'd struggle to put 20K ground forces into theatre... never mind 80+K. Which is why something needs to be done but we'll likely only learn that the hard way if it comes to it and possibly too late. (Hopefully it never comes to it but it isn't something we should bank on).
Click to expand...
At a tail to tooth ratio of 10:1 (US DoD use this ratio), 20K boots on ground is 2K combat troops.
 
Nasher said:
The UK is still potent even without nukes. But we don't have a military big enough to fight a world war anymore.

Tactics also became very special forces and air force focused.

When it comes to nuclear powers, the days of large armies squaring off are gone. They'll just threaten to fling nukes if they get overwhelmed.
Click to expand...
We're only potent when in a supporting role with the U.S, or other more capable militray forces. I think you only have to look towards Ukraine to see large armies squaring up to each other, and even with that in mind - China, U.S & Russia to name a few have huge armies of troops on the ground.
There is still very much a viable need for a standing army. We couldn't even defend our own shores if we needed to.

Rroff said:
We'd struggle to put 20K ground forces into theatre... never mind 80+K. Which is why something needs to be done but we'll likely only learn that the hard way if it comes to it and possibly too late. (Hopefully it never comes to it but it isn't something we should bank on).
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The % of GDP on defence has been declining since the mid 80's, from a peak of 5.5% to 2.3% (current). Even if we were to start increasing our defence budget to a suitable level, it'd take a few years to achieve anything significant across the board.

redeye said:
And we're not alone. Look at Germany, Italy etc. Germany's defense is a complete disaster despite having many leading arms manufacturers. Underfunded for decades. This is part of the reason some countries were pushing for a unifed EU forces (i.e something to sit next to or replace NATO if needs be), where each country could put in it's specilisations. E.g Germany with Tanks, special forces, ammo production, Spain aircraft, France seaborne forces, UK Navy, Airforce. With the US faffing around with Trump in charge and an unknown future for NATO it made sense but of course not for the headbangers who saw it as an EU thing and ... well yes there we go. It's incredibly hard for one country to spend the amount needed by itself unless you're the US or have massive numbers of troops (Turkey) etc.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Europe is incredibly rich by comparison, and should collectivley be able to play a much bigger role in NATO. How some aren't even reaching the required 2% GDP mark beggars belief. I've been of the belief that Russia only fears NATO with the U.S active within it. If the U.S decides to focus it's military efforts elsewhere, like China for example (they've pretty much said that would be their primary focus anyway), then Europe is pretty much undefended. Russia is on a war footing, is battle hardened and are churning out military hardware much faster than any of Europe is currently capable of doing. It's not hard to imagine Russia winning against Ukraine, replenishing stocks and going straight for one of the NATO baltics, if they know the U.S are being distracted and idle where NATO are concerned. I also don't envisage Turkey wishing to get in to direct conflict with Russia as a NATO directive, if the U.S takes a backseat in this either.
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
Both the Russians and Ukrainians are getting a pasting by cheap drones.
Click to expand...
I don't mean to be rude but if you read the second part of the post you quoted it addresses your concerns.

While the threat of cheap commercial drones laden with explosives is indeed a very real one it is currently being over amplified due to the fact they haven't been used against a military who has put more than zero effort (or in the case of Russia a less than zero effort) into combatting drones. I.E the cheap drones used in the war by Ukraine would have been significantly less effective if they were being invaded by the Soviet army of the 80s than by the Russian army of the 20s (which in of itself is quite comical).

Obviously if the IRA wanted to fly one into Big Ben right now there would be a near zero chance of intercepting it, but in any future war involving first world militaries their usefulness will be much much lower than they are in current conflicts.

No doubt many nations will be seeing this and be deciding to cancel or reverse plans to get rid of non missile based visual range AA as it is now relevant again.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
I don't mean to be rude but if you read the second part of the post you quoted it addresses your concerns.

While the threat of cheap commercial drones laden with explosives is indeed a very real one it is currently being over amplified due to the fact they haven't been used against a military who has put more than zero effort (or in the case of Russia a less than zero effort) into combatting drones. I.E the cheap drones used in the war by Ukraine would have been significantly less effective if they were being invaded by the Soviet army of the 80s than by the Russian army of the 20s (which in of itself is quite comical).

Obviously if the IRA wanted to fly one into Big Ben right now there would be a near zero chance of intercepting it, but in any future war involving first world militaries their usefulness will be much much lower than they are in current conflicts.

No doubt many nations will be seeing this and be deciding to cancel or reverse plans to get rid of non missile based visual range AA as it is now relevant again.
Click to expand...

You're not bring rude, and your points are fair. The terrorism point, in particular, is worrying.

The issue I'm seeing is that no-one is doing well at handling this at the moment. It's possible that someone will find a good solution and that could be traditional aa guns, but it's an arms race, and we don't know yet. Drones are new and will likely see huge improvements and significant changes in the short term.

Maybe I'm just a natural worrier...
 
Nasher said:
The UK is still potent even without nukes. But we don't have a military big enough to fight a world war anymore.
Click to expand...
yea how many countries are capable of carrying out airstrikes nearly anywhere in the world, and how many have a modern navy?

only about 10 countries have aircraft carriers? and half of those are probably junk

we can't project much force but we can project it to anywhere on the globe.
 
Last edited:
Sankari said:
Allahu akbar.



We don't need it. The world wars were 1aberrations. We won't see war on that scale again. It's all regional conflict now.
Click to expand...

I'd Russia attacks a NATO country, 32 countries will be involved. Then Putin will bring in all his tinpot dictator mates.
 
Rroff said:
HMS Richmond (Type 23) out to replace Diamond - bit embarrassing really.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure, if its embarrassing. they might have had to replace it so they can replenish its ammunition stockpiles and other supplies. don't think they can do an ammo restock at sea and the task force seems to be burning through a lot shooting down all those drones and missiles.
 
If Biden is trying exploit this situation to get Egypt to absorb Gazan refugees I think perhaps he's miscalculated that it might be easier for Cairo to deal with Tehran directly for a deal that bypasses the US.
 
Last edited:
steve45 said:
Richmond been out here for a bit. Might not be a 45, still very capable asset. Reckon it will likely be backed up by Lancaster soon.
Click to expand...
???

Image-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom