Maybe we shouldn’t have sold so many in proxy wars prior to this.
This is the problem with only maintaining your military equipment and stock to a bare minimum operational level without continuous procurement contracts.
A recent study showed that using our armoured and mechanised forces in a limited theatre engagement (think, one of the fronts in Ukraine like Kharkiv) would exhaust our forces in 6 months and take 15 years to rebuild. Why?
Nowhere builds replacement Challenger 2’s, Warriors etc, we have limited parts and ammo. even their eventual replacements are only to be procured on a limited run that won’t include active replacement. It’s the same for all aspects and arms of our Armed forces.
I am left wing. I’m told by many on the left that I am somehow right wing for supporting more funding for our military. But given the future, with climate change, resource wars, supply chain issues and just Russia etc. I think you are bafflingly naive to think we don’t need a strong, reactive and well supported military.
And it is soon that putin attacks UK! Now, just a defenseless country. Aarrgh! Lmao
Maybe they should try getting in agency weapons. Be cheaper.
It was reported in a recent NATO wargame exercise simulating a war in Europe that the U.K. ran out of ammunition after just 8 days of warfare.
Damnit why can’t we have a head of the forces that says “nevermind lads, it’s all tickety boo, we have everything we need, no no no, spend it on something else, we have plenty of money”
You know, like literally nowhere on the entire planet.
“we can’t use our water supplies to put out the fire in your house because it would take us years to replenish it” said the fire chief.
Those launchers were intended to be used against Russian tanks in the European theatre of operations. So they are being used for the purpose they were stockpiled for. That was the whole point of those stockpiles.
If those shells weren’t to be used against Russians, who are we saving them for? The Dutch flotilla?
7 comments
Maybe we shouldn’t have sold so many in proxy wars prior to this.
This is the problem with only maintaining your military equipment and stock to a bare minimum operational level without continuous procurement contracts.
A recent study showed that using our armoured and mechanised forces in a limited theatre engagement (think, one of the fronts in Ukraine like Kharkiv) would exhaust our forces in 6 months and take 15 years to rebuild. Why?
Nowhere builds replacement Challenger 2’s, Warriors etc, we have limited parts and ammo. even their eventual replacements are only to be procured on a limited run that won’t include active replacement. It’s the same for all aspects and arms of our Armed forces.
I am left wing. I’m told by many on the left that I am somehow right wing for supporting more funding for our military. But given the future, with climate change, resource wars, supply chain issues and just Russia etc. I think you are bafflingly naive to think we don’t need a strong, reactive and well supported military.
And it is soon that putin attacks UK! Now, just a defenseless country. Aarrgh! Lmao
Maybe they should try getting in agency weapons. Be cheaper.
It was reported in a recent NATO wargame exercise simulating a war in Europe that the U.K. ran out of ammunition after just 8 days of warfare.
Damnit why can’t we have a head of the forces that says “nevermind lads, it’s all tickety boo, we have everything we need, no no no, spend it on something else, we have plenty of money”
You know, like literally nowhere on the entire planet.
“we can’t use our water supplies to put out the fire in your house because it would take us years to replenish it” said the fire chief.
Those launchers were intended to be used against Russian tanks in the European theatre of operations. So they are being used for the purpose they were stockpiled for. That was the whole point of those stockpiles.
If those shells weren’t to be used against Russians, who are we saving them for? The Dutch flotilla?