War in Ukraine

#52,802
#52,802
MontyPython said:
Link?
Click to expand...


We doing this link thing again..I already fed you one yesterday..


s-l500.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY, InVOLuntary and VolStrom
#52,803
#52,803
The UK and its NATO allies in Europe would lose a war against Russia because they are hopelessly 'outgunned,' a defense think tank warned

Soldiers from 4th Battalion Royal Regiment Scotland arrive at Swineshaw reservoir in Stalybridge in Stalybridge, England. Anthony Devlin/Getty
  • The UK and its NATO allies would lose to Russia if they went to war as they are woefully outgunned, a leading defense think tank says.
  • The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said on Wednesday the UK is "comprehensively outgunned and outranged" by Russia.
  • The London-based think tank notes all-out-war with Russia is "unlikely," but says the "UK's ground forces need to increase their deployable firepower if they are to maintain a credible warfighting capability."
  • Russia has six times more military personnel than the UK. The UK has 215 nuclear weapons, compared with Russia's 6,800.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

UK and NATO forces will be decimated in a war with Russia because they can't compete in terms of firepower, a leading defense think tank has said.

A Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) report said the UK will be "comprehensively outgunned and outranged" in a military conflict with Russia, "leaving enemy artillery free to prosecute fire missions with impunity."

This will "lead to the defeat of UK units in detail," the report, shared with media ahead of publication on Thursday, said.

"Whatever platforms are developed and procured, it is clear that the UK's ground forces need to increase their deployable firepower if they are to maintain a credible warfighting capability."

# # #

Thought ya'll would enjoy this.

And, oh BTW...

Published: Nov 27, 2019

Epic-Fail-Very-Funny-Photos (3) (1).jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, AM64 and tvolsfan
#52,807
#52,807
I heard a retired general talking head on the "television set" comment the other day that the $850+ billion that congress has proposed to appropriate to the Pentagon for next year was totally insufficient. These guys are out of control with their multimillion dollar weapons that they want. Junk most of them and get back to basics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol, LouderVol, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#52,808
#52,808
VolStrom said:
I heard a retired general talking head on the "television set" comment the other day that the $850+ billion that congress has proposed to appropriate to the Pentagon for next year was totally insufficient. These guys are out of control with their multimillion dollar weapons that they want. Junk most of them and get back to basics.
Click to expand...

They spend..just guessing $30B on LCS, which are now being scrapped. $14B on a new Carrier which is very problematic. and a Nimitz cost $5B. How many hundreds of billions on F-22 and B-2..and we get 183 and 21.
They cant account for $2.1T....and on and on..

But hey lets focus on Woke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, SlipKidVol, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#52,809
#52,809
Orangeburst said:
They spend..just guessing $30B on LCS, which are now being scrapped. $14B on a new Carrier which is very problematic. and a Nimitz cost $5B. How many hundreds of billions on F-22 and B-2..and we get 183 and 21.
They cant account for $2.1T....and on and on..

But hey lets focus on Woke.
Click to expand...
What you’re highlighting is directly related to Eisenhower’s charge to the government in
His farewell speech. There isn’t enough competent oversight on the government side of these high cost programs of questionable viability and need. That is a direct failing of government. It isn’t industry’s fault that they want contracts to make new lethal toys. The responsibility is on the government to determine the need. And we have DARPA to feed seed money to these high risk low success chance ideas. But DARPA has reigns on its budget.

The way it’s supposed to work is a formal need statement is issued as part of the DoD’s yearly capability assessments. Deficiencies result in research or production contracts. In the LCS when it was announced I thought it was a really stupid idea. A combat ship that really can’t defend it self very well. FFS why?! That’s a failing of oversight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, AM64 and 1 other person
#52,810
#52,810
NorthDallas40 said:
What you’re highlighting is directly related to Eisenhower’s charge to the government in
His farewell speech. There isn’t enough competent oversight on the government side of these high cost programs of questionable viability and need. That is a direct failing of government. It isn’t industry’s fault that they want contracts to make new lethal toys. The responsibility is on the government to determine the need.

The way it’s supposed to work is a formal need statement is issued as part of the DoD’s yearly capability assessments. Deficiencies result in research or production contracts. In the LCS when it was announced I thought it was a really stupid idea. A combat ship that really can’t defend it self very well. FFS why?! That’s a failing of oversight.
Click to expand...

I agree. but didnt say it was industry fault, just so we are clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary and AM64
#52,811
#52,811
NorthDallas40 said:
What you’re highlighting is directly related to Eisenhower’s charge to the government in
His farewell speech. There isn’t enough competent oversight on the government side of these high cost programs of questionable viability and need. That is a direct failing of government. It isn’t industry’s fault that they want contracts to make new lethal toys. The responsibility is on the government to determine the need. And we have DARPA to feed seed money to these high risk low success chance ideas. But DARPA has reigns on its budget.

The way it’s supposed to work is a formal need statement is issued as part of the DoD’s yearly capability assessments. Deficiencies result in research or production contracts. In the LCS when it was announced I thought it was a really stupid idea. A combat ship that really can’t defend it self very well. FFS why?! That’s a failing of oversight.
Click to expand...
We have had aircraft carriers that used steam to launch aircraft for what, 75 years? All of a sudden, some brainiac decided that we needed a new way and a decade later they are still struggling to make it work. I used to get ridiculed at times for insisting on "old school" ways of doing controls like pushbuttons and switches instead of a computer screen. In. the long run they accomplish the same thing, hard-wiring stuff will work for 50 years and a touchscreen may be good for 5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, distrovol, AM64 and 2 others
#52,812
#52,812
VolStrom said:
We have had aircraft carriers that used steam to launch aircraft for what, 75 years? All of a sudden, some brainiac decided that we needed a new way and a decade later they are still struggling to make it work. I used to get ridiculed at times for insisting on "old school" ways of doing controls like pushbuttons and switches instead of a computer screen. In. the long run they accomplish the same thing, hard-wiring stuff will work for 50 years and a touchscreen may be good for 5.
Click to expand...

I want the baddest military on the planet..but my goodness. They cannot account for $2.1T with such a bloated bureaucracy. They suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#52,813
#52,813
Orangeburst said:
I agree. but didnt say it was industry fault, just so we are clear.
Click to expand...
Nope that was my amplification. As I’ve says before I don’t fault companies lobbying for program funds. After all the government is their only real customer and in fact demands a monopoly of their products in most cases. So it’s only natural for contractors to press for opportunities. The burden is on government oversight to insure the need exists and the solutions are fiscally responsible
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and AM64
#52,814
#52,814
VolStrom said:
We have had aircraft carriers that used steam to launch aircraft for what, 75 years? All of a sudden, some brainiac decided that we needed a new way and a decade later they are still struggling to make it work. I used to get ridiculed at times for insisting on "old school" ways of doing controls like pushbuttons and switches instead of a computer screen. In. the long run they accomplish the same thing, hard-wiring stuff will work for 50 years and a touchscreen may be good for 5.
Click to expand...
The rail launchers I think are largely worked thru now but sure they came with growing pains. And I’m not familiar enough with the two solutions or the pros/cons comparison.
 
#52,816
#52,816
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope that was my amplification. As I’ve says before I don’t fault companies lobbying for program funds. After all the government is their only real customer and in fact demands a monopoly of their products in mushy cases. So it’s only natural for contractors to press for opportunities. The burden is on government oversight to insure the need exists and the solutions are fiscally responsible
Click to expand...

Well I guess you have to account for every possible worldwide contingency..jungle, littoral, desert, terrorism, plains of Europe, fighting a Pac Rim war, nuclear war, ME war..one finds themselves in a budget crunch..sans gold plating
 
#52,817
#52,817
Orangeburst said:
Well I guess you have to account for every possible worldwide contingency..jungle, littoral, desert, terrorism, plains of Europe, fighting a Pac Rim war, nuclear war, ME war..one finds themselves in a budget crunch..sans gold plating
Click to expand...
You have no idea trust me. It was always a struggle to manage setting design requirements on an environmental corner case that might never occur operationally. And I know we would try to point that out on our stuff when it came up my conscience is clear on at least how we conducted ourselves there. But sometimes the answer was “we don’t care include the corner case”. Ok! It’s their (our) money after all 🤷‍♂️
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Orangeburst
#52,818
#52,818
Orangeburst said:
Well I guess you have to account for every possible worldwide contingency..jungle, littoral, desert, terrorism, plains of Europe, fighting a Pac Rim war, nuclear war, ME war..one finds themselves in a budget crunch..sans gold plating
Click to expand...
Oh and gold plating absolutely has valid use cases in conductivity and heat management situations and is indeed used fairly often in certain components 😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, USF grad in TN, AM64 and 1 other person
#52,820
#52,820
VolStrom said:
If I gave you a thumb drive when you go back to work in exchange for a trout fishing trip, you'd be cool with that, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
Lol. I intend to never ever have access to that kind of info again if I can manage it. I don’t want them to even reactivate my clearance if I get a say but I’m guessing that won’t fly. 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64 and VolStrom
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top