2nd gin of the evening and its musing time. Much is being made in the media here in Blightly about Zelensky's visit and his request from the UK government for combat aicraft. My first thought was 'What F****** aircraft have we oing spare?! We can barely muster a mere 6 frontline squadrons at the moment. Hat tip to Admiral Beez for the folliwng taken from the Vlad thread
"I recall reading that Stalin was shocked at the tiny size of the British army. I wonder if Zelenskyy feels the same, asking how can a country with the 6th largest economy in the world, with over 67 million people, have only 227 operational MBTs and 130 fighter aircraft (Typhoon+Lightning). That's of course a superficial observation of a hugely complex arm forces, but Zelenskyy must have shown some surprise when he learned that the entire British Army has less than 80k active personnel, and that more than twice the size of the RN."
This issue got me thinking viz a viz the situation in Ukraine and my long growing sense of disquiet that modern NATO military equipment may be amongst the best money can buy - but it is ridiculously expensive, difficult to produce - and produced slowly when it is. Its also the case that much front line equipment *isn't even in current production*. For the British, new Challenger hulls haven't been made for decades, neither have new SA80s or probably even a majority of their front line weapons. Surely Typhoons are already far too few, too expensive and too irreplacable to the RAF to be handed out in any meaningful numbers?
130 modern combat aircraft is a ludicrously small amount of airframes when is comes to the risk of attrition in anything beyond a skirmish and when nothing is in production to even contemplate replacements. It also exposes the near impossibility of being able to offer any friendly ally any practical supply, short of a signed trade deal with a decades worth of notice (even presuming that the production lines could be re-started if tools and jigs have been disposed of).
Has Ukraine has shown that there's an urgent need for combat capable aircraft that needn't be on the bleeding edge of technology, but to be capable of of rapid, affordable manufacture and supply in emergency scenarios like the one we're witnessing? In the cold war, the F5 was supposedly in that kind of frame. The Mirage would also be a good example. Could a modern equivalent be developed by through NATO - an airframe that could be competitive with majority of the Russian aircraft it would most likely encounter across the globe but still be affordable, simple and rugged enough to be operated in low tech or front line scenarios...? (which to my mind are sadly likely to become more common.)
[I sip my gin and retire to my armchair airmarshals desk]
"I recall reading that Stalin was shocked at the tiny size of the British army. I wonder if Zelenskyy feels the same, asking how can a country with the 6th largest economy in the world, with over 67 million people, have only 227 operational MBTs and 130 fighter aircraft (Typhoon+Lightning). That's of course a superficial observation of a hugely complex arm forces, but Zelenskyy must have shown some surprise when he learned that the entire British Army has less than 80k active personnel, and that more than twice the size of the RN."
This issue got me thinking viz a viz the situation in Ukraine and my long growing sense of disquiet that modern NATO military equipment may be amongst the best money can buy - but it is ridiculously expensive, difficult to produce - and produced slowly when it is. Its also the case that much front line equipment *isn't even in current production*. For the British, new Challenger hulls haven't been made for decades, neither have new SA80s or probably even a majority of their front line weapons. Surely Typhoons are already far too few, too expensive and too irreplacable to the RAF to be handed out in any meaningful numbers?
130 modern combat aircraft is a ludicrously small amount of airframes when is comes to the risk of attrition in anything beyond a skirmish and when nothing is in production to even contemplate replacements. It also exposes the near impossibility of being able to offer any friendly ally any practical supply, short of a signed trade deal with a decades worth of notice (even presuming that the production lines could be re-started if tools and jigs have been disposed of).
Has Ukraine has shown that there's an urgent need for combat capable aircraft that needn't be on the bleeding edge of technology, but to be capable of of rapid, affordable manufacture and supply in emergency scenarios like the one we're witnessing? In the cold war, the F5 was supposedly in that kind of frame. The Mirage would also be a good example. Could a modern equivalent be developed by through NATO - an airframe that could be competitive with majority of the Russian aircraft it would most likely encounter across the globe but still be affordable, simple and rugged enough to be operated in low tech or front line scenarios...? (which to my mind are sadly likely to become more common.)
[I sip my gin and retire to my armchair airmarshals desk]
Last edited:
. Yeah, F16s are clearly available in profusion and would be a good choice - (though they are hardly the lightweight fighter and F5 replacement they were originally conceived to be?)
