It's no different to the T2 engine issue, the Tutor issues, the Atlas engine issues, the Typhoon seat issues. It's a bit more difficult to fix, what with the 'oggin and everything and a bit more visible, what with the ship being one of two rather large assets.

Thank you for articulating some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind vis a vis roles and missions in NATO. I wonder if the Poles feel, sincerely, that the rest of NATO actually has their back.

I don't suppose it helps that we have an ACM who's not exactly banging the table either.......there seemed to be so many missed opportunities when he was in front of the Defence Select Committee.

The amount of rearming they are doing I doubt it, the rest of NATO could learn from them as opposed sitting on their hands and twiddling their thumbs. They know the score re Russia’s ambitions if Ukraine falls, have lived under a Soviet regime and damned well will fight to stop that ever happening again.

IIRC in both 1914 and 1939 the French weren't very impressed that the British could only field a couple of divisions in support of their forces. It's all very well saying you have a significant Navy and Air Force (which we did then) but fighting in Europe means infantry on the ground in large numbers.

"Bof!"

We have a commitment to NATO, which could be air or sea. However, when it comes to feeding human lives into a grinder on the ground in Europe, I'd like to see the EU members who have spent sweet FA on defence for decades, feed their youth into the grinder instead. NATO is the best solution, but the EU is no friend, and UK Defence should be postured to the UK, its interests and it's minimum obligation to NATO.

Rishi has said “He will do everything needed to defend Britain”

Very reassuring.
….and so it begins.

Apparently, according to Defence Secretary Wallace, we are conduction an urgent review of our posture in the light of recent U.S experiences.

As a first step, an export embargo on Map pins, sewing kits and knitting needles (in fact, anything sharp and pointy) has been applied and will be rigidly enforced, once the enforcers come back to work after their ongoing strike action.

However, the effect of this draconian governmental ban on the U.Ks industrial power base has been assessed as minimal, as everything is imported from China anyway.

Keep calm and carry on, I guess….

That's a proper SoS!

Interesting the Challenger 3 design has been signed off, one would have thought they would review parts of it in light of what they are learning from Ukraine re top armour etc

There's no amount of armour you can put on a tank to defeat a top-attack weapon without turning the tank into an immobile pillbox. You use active defences to counter that sort of weapon.

Iv'e also learnt they have added bodge tape, plastic sheeting and broom handles to the list.

True, but then were these part of the Chally 3 update or already fitted to the Chally 2 and if, not would it not be prudent to look at what is shown to work and modify if needed before they cut steel to allow for it, they may well have jamming for missiles, but for a grenade dropped from above?
The Germans incidentally late war added steel plates on legs over vunerable areas on the engine decks such as intakes or cooling grills to protect them from aerial attacks, so its nothing new..


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....378b697ede.png

NATO is a military alliance. The EU isn't.

Not from choice. Give them time.....

There's a significant difference between resisting splinters / small arms and shaped charge or self-forging projectiles. That difference tends to result in multiple inches of additional material and consequent additional weight.

Unless there is a major withdrawal of commitment to NATO the US and Canada, I don't see it as likely. There would be too much duplication of effort and dual commitment of forces to both. While the EU has NATO to defend it, where is the benefit?

A common sense argument made many times over the last four decades, not least by Maggie. However, that hasn't stopped the EU from trying to advance a parallel organisation to succeed the old WEU.

You may wish to acquaint yourself with this....

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-s...is-response_en

or this - which doesn't even mention NATO...
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-r...nt-capacity_en

Oh they may have aspirations, but I just don't see then going anywhere without involving NATO within a European context. The UK and I suspect most other countries do not have the forces to commit to two organisations and control of the military still rests with the sovereign states, not Brussels, does it not?

Nooo, never.

I was just showing nothing is new, and that they were worrying about overhead weapons for a long time..