NATO Air Forces are Doomed
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 кві 2023
- European Air Forces have been losing capabilities for decades. They are too small.
Let's see what happened and what can be done.
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the UA-cam Partner Program, Community guidelines & UA-cam terms of service.
German and ex-soldier here: This is nothing new.
The military leadership warned politics almost 20 years ago of dissolving certain military capabilities and the possible consequences. To no avail.
Politicians only care about their own pockets not logic
The problem is not dissolving militar capabilities. The decisions was rationale and understandable. The problem is dissolving capabilities, and after making decisions agains Russia as all capabilities and resistances are up. Morons.
@@deadshot4245 do not worry, we now have bio-engineered mosquitoes to attack😂
@@gigikontra7023 fun
@@deadshot4245 what I don't understand with you guys is why you don't wanna live under foreign occupation. It's cool! We Romanians did it for half a century under USSR and It WaS nOt ThAt bAd. You should give it a try.
I look forward to these brutally honest examinations of defence issues and I hope I don’t miss any. - Touch Wood -
Yeah. Very timely reminder that we baldy need to reevaluate what we really have and are able to do. We must rethink reservists. We should build up more dispersed capacity. Count on a country like Russia (or China, etc) might feel tempted to take out our air fields with drones or long range weapons, especially with China getting their own stealth bombing capacity up and going in the next few years.
NATO with USA will wipe out crappy Russian airforce . Remember United States been using its Air Force in two wars for years
Eh, theres a lot of criticism to be made for western air-forces, but this seems pretty biased.
With the SU-57, this channel just cites russian propanda, despite there existing almost no solid facts? Like, almost everything about that aircraft is according to Russian state and manufacturer, who have been proven to lie more than once. Its still not proven to be introduced in full capacity.
But then hes ready to make the claim that russian air forces could overwhelm western air defences, which seems kinda absurd after what happened in Ukraine. Even if you ignore the reality that the west is a lot bigger than Russia, all of its air defence is networked, with superior weapons systems and advanced fighter aircraft to intercept and cover air defence jobs. Theres a lot more to western air defence than the number of launchers.
Like, the only reason the Soviet Union built insane numbers of SAM-launchers like S-300 is because they knew they'd struggle to compete with western airpower, even in the cold war. Russian fighters A2A missiles look like they maybe reached the level of the 1990s Aim-120 TODAY? Even then, the lack of fleet-wide datalink will make it more limited, and its produced in small numbers. Probably needs western consumer tech...
As for western AA launchers, though. Just mind that Germany alone should have >100 patriot launchers across their 14 batteries. Ukraine had something like 300x S-300 launchers or so, which is much older tech. And thats Germany, where everyone loves to pretend like it doesnt even got a military force anymore.
You think Russia or Cina are intent to invade Alaska Hawaii or another American land?
or Russia want retake the old Poland land?
I don’t think so
(Cina want Taiwan?
Yes it’s her island,
who can object?
Well USA objected again)
I think it’s only economic. against UE the cause
America intentionally use the invasion of Ukraine and before that the Kossovo Bosnia to reduce the economics power and lacked dependence of Europe from USA and preventing a Russia inclusion in its union
(What nightmare that could ever be)
Now for reducing the economic power of the Cina what’s better if Taiwan declares independence and Cina invaded?
Particularly in Britain!
Again, this is the best tech-nerd-plane-war channel on UA-cam. No political bs, no propaganda etc. Love it.
Keep it up!
No bs? He's biased in the worst kind of way; he's Pro-Pasta!
@@42ronty That, I confess! I am biased toward pasta, guilty as charged. 🤣
@@Millennium7HistoryTech lol🤣
@@42ronty You antipasto you!
Amen
"Fun fact". An American airbase in Germany was really put to the test during and extra thorough exercise in the eighties.
Not only was the repair units shown to be indispensible. But the local agricultural tractor from the neighbourhood, with a simple plow/shuffle, became the Air Base Commander's highest valued asset after some days. -- Planes he had several of. But he had only ONE tractor with a plow/shuffle.
I think Germany should evict them.
@@PrimericanIdol either you call them back, or....well - i am a microscopic minority even talking about this...and most of those people are nuts thinking they "legally" live in pre-Weimar-Germany. all the sane minds are gone....to the US, for example.
@@PrimericanIdol
I think the United States should pull out of Germany...
Unfortunately France also is lacking adequate air-power. This has several main reasons:
1. France has in recent years heavily bet on export support at the cost of its own air-force. Modern Dassault Rafale aircraft have been exported to allied nations from the air-force inventory instead of the main production line (which therefore runs on a low production pace). This transfer of aircraft has led to deterioration of crew and pilot training to an extend where decreasing the air-forces inventory is no longer feasible without serious loss in pilot/crew quality. Export customers were Croatia and Greece (which are trusted allies, so no grief on that front don't get me wrong.)
2. France is ordering too little / to late. Transition to an all Rafale fleet is being postponed to 2035+, with upgraded Dassault Mirage 2000D staying in service, the new military budgeting proposal (LPM; loi de programmation militaire) seeing the number of newly purchased Dassault Rafale drop.
3. Fewer than expected Dassault Rafale are going to get the RBE2-AA AESA radar and upgrading legacy partforms to newer standards (F4 and beyond) is slow. Also a 2 seater bespoke EW variant of the Dassault Rafale is missing (similar to the US F/A-18 Growler)
4. France has limited SEAD/DEAD capacities as France has no real stand-off air-to-ground anti-radiation missiles since the AS.37 Martel (which has not been succeeded by newer missiles since). France also does not field the US made AGM-88 HARM missiles, which many NATO allies field. Sure Dassault Rafale has a sophisticated sensor and EW capability, but would rely on stand-off cuise missiles or guided bombs to combat for SEAD/DEAD lacking the range of an AGM-88 HARM...
France still has a relatively strong air-force don't get me wrong, but for high intensity (near peer) conflicts, what we field now is insufficient. Still France has a robust industrial base for combat/military aircraft manufacturing and high availability / readiness numbers.
Also Ukraine has the capacity to produce legacy soviet systems since parts of missile development were in Ukraine and most notably Dnipro and Kyiw.
@@stephanvelines7006 Ukraine cannot sustain a domestic weapon industry at this point, too vulnerable to Russian bombing. They could have set up shop in countries like Poland or Bulgaria. At this point though, it is too late.
France should have transitioned to all Rafale fighters long ago. They still use significant numbers of Mirage 2000, which while capable and with certain strengths, are still less capable than Rafale overall.
Perhaps updating the Rafale design to reduce observability would be practical, as France has considered doing. These could then be used to finally replace all the Mirage 2000 as well as some of the earlier Rafales with higher flight hours. Selling off used Rafales seems to be easy right now.
Add an angled nose with chines on the sides and more total area available for the radar antenna array. Add a retractable fuel probe. Switch to DSI intakes with angled shape. Add jigsaw edges along panels and supports. Perhaps switch to a twin canted tail. Use an updated engine. Add more optical sensors for improved situational awareness. Update the avionics and electronic warfare systems.
France does DEAD alright with SCALP standoff cruise missiles (560km range) or AASM/HAMMER 60 to 70km range at high altitude, 15 to 20km low altitude. Rafale has the best automatic terrain following low flight mode, we are talking supersonic 750 knots bomb runs just 20m above ground and below radar, good luck detecting a Rafale with 6 AASM 20km from the AA station. When it comes to SEAD yeah, indeed France never launched a new anti radar missile program to replace the Martel, still why temporally suppress air defense when you can just blow them up?!France is the only NATO country with it's own military observation satellites to do independent targeting necessary for preparing DEAD missions. What we lack is enough volume for a high intensity war against a peer opponent but the skillset and kit is there and is 100% made in france. Ask the turks in Libya or Qadaffi if we can't do DEAD lol. However Growler like jamming pods for the Rafale would be welcome for more potent SEAD, rather than radar homing missiles though, allowing jamming and scrambling of entire battle sectors to allow for high altitude and mid altitude DEAD. Edit I also wonder if under pressure, we could use ASMP-AR missiles with conventional warheads to do supersonic DEAD on very high value targets, 500km range and Mach 3, very hard to intercept compared to subsonic mach 0.9 SCALP.
Do you know whether France has much excess capacity for power production. I understand they have a lot of nuclear which I was wondering are they shutting that down for the climate change and hence making industrial production dependent on renewable power sources?
I think the US has an excellent reserve system. All member of the reserve train for 2 days a month and 1 two week training a year. The 2 days a month is mostly spent on book learning while the 2 week is spent actually operating. As we have seen over the last 30 years, the US has been able to reactivate and deploy reserve outfits effectively. Reservists are paid for their time and their training time counts towards a retirement at 65.
@Toask who's warmongering in Europe again? Seems like the war would be over if Vladie pulled his troops out of Ukraine. You can tell me up is down all you want, but reality always wins in the end.
@@JimmyRussle soon you will have to face reality, my bet is 2025 will be the time.
@@alispeed5095 At the rate to movement, 2025 will find Russia fighting to keep Crimea, with the LNR and DNR a memory as the Ukrainians have long since pushed past them
@@alispeed5095 Okay. But if Russia fails to defeat Ukraine and continues to lose territory. Along with more instability caused by Wagner like forces. Then you make sure to deny you ever said this and insist the Russa didn't lose. That only the US loses and will lose forever and ever. Though if I were pro-Russian I would be more fearful of China. Xi is not Russia's friend or really anyone's friend. If Russia loses the war in the Ukraine, Xi could see this sign of weakness and make a play for Siberia. Xi already ordered all maps in China to use the ancient Chinese names for Siberia and no more Russian ones.
The recent NATO air exercises in Eastern Europe the largest ever. Are examples for how NATO nations are working out the kinks and seeing where they can improve. That and it was show of force, to show Putin what would happen if he used nukes or blew up the ZP nuclear power plant.
Another good vid, and an interesting analysis. There's another impact of small force structures: it's the loss of breadth in manufacturing industries that support the force. The loss is partly in floorspace and machine tools, but mainly in expertise. Expertise takes time to rebuild, and rate of expenditure might make a war so short there's no time to rebuild the capability.
Exactly right. I would rather have seen a reduction of high end technologies, than a reduction in numbers of people and airframe. Particularly home grown designs. The soviets were probably correct to have strategic weapons manufacturing under state control.
@@gusgone4527 personally this is what I see as a main benefit of a EU-army (or at least much closer integration). If you take the entirety of Europes high-tech weapons manufacturing, you suddenly can produce and maintain almost everything yourself.
@@PhilfreezeCH Same applies but still within NATO. Tighter cooperation and equipment/munitions standardisation. Even better now that Sweden and Finland are with us.
@@PhilfreezeCH but who needs high-tech? ukraine shows that broad high-tech will not decide the wars against the bigger foes. sheer volume of metal and explosives will decide that, with high tech jamming/communication/recon equipment and some high-techi long range rockets sprinkled in.
Im glad Sweden train and use a road base system for its fighters and the maintenance is made so very few people and few highly trained people is needed. Some people where doing a lot of good thinking back in the days.
There was the recent announcement about combining Nordic air forces. It also allows specialization in national forces. For example Sweden has AEWC and refueling capabilities which are missing from Finland.
Would be even better if Försvarsmakten HQ stopped being absolute idiots on the verge of losing a full third of the pilots for no valid reason other than the HQ being pigheaded.
@@suokkos Sweden are the only Nordic country that have air-refueling, but all the others are getting a plane that can't be air-refueled by Sweden.
@Johan Metreus Yes, the current Swedish government are doing the opposite what it should be doing. It's not just pilots either as officers in general are leaving as they politicians want to copy the US/British two tier model with officers and enlisted by forcing some current officers to become "enlisted". Many chose to leave instead of taking a salary cut.
@@znail4675 Well if countries want to be 100% dependant on US that is ok, but there is a risk that US dont want to be tied up in supporting Europe. Especially since the Pacific isn’t a sea without tension, and future US presidents might have the MAGA agenda again meaning Europe must protect itself.
Since a few years Switzerland begin also again to do 1-2 exercises per year, where some aircraft are operating for a few days from former military airfields and from civilian airfields. Tere are also still some highway parts in Switzerland which can be used as airfield for the air force (this was often practices in the Cold War in Switzerland)
Thank you for acknowledging the role of Geopolitics and the ultimate fate of military alliances. These are interesting times indeed. Good concluding suggestions by the way.
Another great analysis. This channel is the template for unbiased information about air power and fighter aircraft. No one does it better.
Excellent analysis, with a good dose of humor. Thank you Sir, your work is highly appreciated.
EM-10 Bielik aircraft was developed in Poland, implementing the unique concept of a "flying simulator." It was to fully simulate not only the operation of all on-board systems, but also the use of weapons thanks to augmented reality. This is the best way to reduce the cost of pilot training.
Hats off to the great job you have done. A sad and bitter truth, but you have pinpointed the problem in outstanding detail. I'm sure the politicians would not like this to hear, but the clock is ticking, and all the virtues and experience would be wasted if the current trend continued. As a former military professional, I can confirm what you said - without proper and intensive training, any air force in the world would be just a bunch of enthusiasts rather than a capable fighting force. One thing to add, though. The citizens of the European Union must understand and become one with the need to spend more taxpayer money for the military, plain and simple. The first order of business for any armed forces is to deter a potential aggressor, and if there is no war, then it paid off.
I regret I can give you just one Like! Please keep up the excellent work, and stay healthy! 👍
The awkward truth is that the first US president to make a fuss about European countries failing to meet their obligations to NATO was Donald Trump. I hope that the message has not been lost even if there is a great and understandable desire to shoot the messenger.
Cool video and your 100% right .
This was a brave episode. Kudos to you, Mr. Millennium. Not many would say it. and yes, I noticed those too.
Excellent production, research and presentation.
Thank you for putting into the public domain something that has been known and understood in defence circles for a long time. Some thoughts.
1) Politicians have agendas. In almost all countries, politics is adversarial and politicians focus on short term private agendas (mostly re-election). Long-term ideas such as military doctrines don't really exist, and it is common to see newly elected political parties replace really good policies with rubbish rather than let their opponents take credit for a good idea. How would it be possible for a long-term military doctrine to survive in such an environment ?
2) IMO, the common defence promised by NATO is a good thing, but NATO is a philosophical organisation and not really an operational one. For decades, European political leaders have relied on the USA to provide most of the military material and have exercised control over NATO without either funding it properly or ensuring that it works operationally. I can confirm this from personal experience of JW exercises where the weaknesses in NATO's command and control structures and systems have been very obvious. Only after a year of war in Ukraine have the politicians chosen to listen to that message, and now we see proposals for military co-operation among the Scandinavian countries and between Germany and the Netherlands. The *really* important topic which you raise of how to balance national interests against the interests of NATO/Europe is *never* discussed amongst political leaders. At present, the painful reality is that if EU took over European defence from NATO, the whole of Western Europe would be extremely vulnerable to hostile actors because of the unwillingness of EU countries to fund the military; one of the results of the UK's departure from EU is that it has become very clear that there is no political will outside Brussels for greater political and economic integration. If Europe is to defend itself, its political leaders must think about ceding some control to its military leaders. How do you propose that that might occur ?
3) You suggest that Western European countries might move to small fixed armed forces with a large cadre of trained reservists. In order to do this you must either tell professional military people that their careers will be short or you must conscript ordinary people in order to train them for the reserve. There are massive problem with both of these options. I don't think that there exists the political will to solve these problems - what about you ?
Stagnation is a fundamental flaw in the very nature of popular democracies. These types of adversarial systems are inherent self-toxic. It is the reason nations are painfully slow to change, adapt & reform. It is also one of the reasons why many poor 3rd world nations fail to develop despite embracing the "Western/European" model.
Something like the Aeralis Advanced Jet Trainer is a good fit here imo. A light multi role, low cost, low maintenance aircraft with a focuses on open architecture and modularity can help bridge the gap in airframes cost effectively and more sustainability. I mean the whole thing could just end up as nothing more than a 3D render but I think it could help. It's by no means a fix for the personnel problem but I do think it could help.
Scorpion.
@@dwwolf4636 The Textron Scorpion? I mean it seems like a good trainer/LCA but no one is buying it right? Either way new trainers with high availability combined LCA role is something that more air forces should look into imo.
It might be a meme but the Gripen is honestly better suited but it's a hard sell to anyone with other 4.5 or 5th gens. But if you are already looking for a new trainer then you might as well kill 2 birds with one stone.
If aerialis can work as intended it could be useful. I don’t think I will be convinced the idea can work until I see them flying.
@@Statueshop297 It'll be interesting to see. I can see the trainer being a fine aircraft with some potential as a LCA but I doubt if some of the concepts will ever see much if any use.
It's also British so it possible it never files out of budget limitations.
Advanced Hawk
Not being able to repair runways under fire and not having more than a fraction of the old military runways in any case is a huge problem. The optimism in 1991 was downright idiotic.
Love these vids Great work Great Topics Very Interesting and Yes i keep coming back for more !
I would say I agree with most of what you said. But RRR ( Rapid Runway Repair) hasn't been completely disbanded. I served in the US Army from 2008-2013 as an Airborne Combat Engineer, and we absolutely performed RRR. In fact, I still have close friends, and it is absolutely a primary focus. Maybe it is something other Nato countries have disbanded, but the US has not.
I ws talking about Europe, in fact.
Yup, Europe tried to combine all of the armed forces within Europe, but this kinda backfired right now.
@@WarBirdGhost What?
@@andresmartinezramos7513 EU army idea
@@hphp31416 If anybody ever allows the EU to control the defence of Europe, then we are without hope.
I like the idea of decentralizing airstrips so that a large force cannot be taken out at once and existing road strips and crews will be viable.
Not gonna happen with F-35.
"A volley of long range missiles"
Patriot: Oh no, did someone just threaten me with a good time?
Yes, I understand, but there are not that many Patriots, or other GBADs around in Europe. Way less dense than in Ukraine.
Fantastic profound and honest analysis. Congratulations. Thanks by your share.
I think you’re doing a whole lot of benefit by being brutally honest. I feel like not enough people say how much the capabilities are lacking and that can really hinder combat effectiveness. A lesson can be learned from the current Ukraine conflict and that is that it is very easy to overestimate your capabilities if you don’t ask yourself the tough questions.
NATO airforces out number the enemy 5 to 1 (at least 2 to 1 in Europe), they also have far better aircraft and training that does not consist of seeing how much vodka you can skull!
Facts
@@jaypaige7550 based
Very good analysis, particularly at the end!
Very well said and excellent video, as always! 👏
Still waiting on you to cover IAF and it's tactics/training more and other topics. I hope the hiatus from southasian keyboard worriors has been a bliss.
In anycase, another great video. I feel like this is more of an another transition phase for the airforces around the world. And militaries in general. It's almost like being on the edge of a tech leap and just about to cross and so govts and militaries are having a rough time figuring out what priorities to set.
Cheers 🍻
For europe to have independence in their defense capabilities, they would need to get rid of US control. Because that control is based in europe depending of them. And US will work and is working hard to keep that control, for their geopolitical porpouses. NATO is mainly US.
The US has actually been doing the opposite. Efforts to shift responsibility for defense to Europe largely went ignored or actively opposed by European countries until recently. The US isn’t trying to hold on, they have been trying to hand off to Europe for decades.
@@stupidburp no no, they just want it to be cheaper. They perfectly know some small increase in budget will not give european nations any edge.
wow I was actually able to catch this when it drops
Great video, thank you
that elephant scared the living s*it out of me
Don't you mean it scared the useful organics out of you!!!!!
@@josephkugel5099 the non deceased fecal matter
What is there to stop them from developing simulators that integrate more units? It can't be too hard to make a mock-up jet, combined with other logistic stations that is hooked up to the same computer sim game that the pilots use. If they can create advance fighter jets with all the tech they have now, I can't see how they would struggle creating a huge interactive combined arms simulator.
They are going down that road. But, it was and is still a VERY good observation. Trained ground crews are what creates force projection with ANY air force. If you don't have that ground crews mix and ability, then you don't really have a air force.
In fact, the new flight simulator (and all the press reporting on) in regards to the new F35 simulator ? It not the actual F35 flight simulator that has any issues , it is a war game version that networks all the assets such as AWACS and other assets into that simulator that has issues.
Need some ground maintenance simulators
@@stupidburp
Perhaps so. The simple matter is keeping such manpower "available" and on tap is VERY important. This video pointing out this issue I suspect goes beyond most people hearing that statement.
Having people trained is beyond important, and also having people with abilities is required. People have no clue as to how important the ground crews and their ability to load weapons etc. is.
In fact, how important is such trainings? Well, I forget which commander in Desert Storm when talking about the battle of Eastings? (the largest tank battle we seen since WWII).
In that battle, in talking about how the Iraq tanks were sliced up to bits? The command stated this:
*_Our tank and gun crews were trained to the point that if we switched sides, and gave the enemy our M1A1 tanks, and we took their T72's? We would have still easily won!_*
And in fact, ground crews to load weapons now for fighter jets? Well, first up, they have to know what they are doing.
I consider this no different then assuming you can just go down the street, grab a bunch of people, and out of the blue create a good soccer team. You can't do that - and you can't do the same overnight with support crews to keep a fighter jet flying and loading weapons. you just can't!!!
There was a news article a few years ago that stated out of 138 Typhoons in Germany, only 4 were really ready with crews and ready for combat. Now, the news article probably was some leftists rag attempting to point out how bad things are, and how poor the German air force is right now. But, even if we take that report with a grain of salt? It just shows the VERY sad state of affairs for most western militaries and their state of readiness right now.
I recall in 2020, the UK had announced they are reducing their operational tank crews and tanks to 148. Now, is that a cruel joke, or what? You mean they can field 148 tanks? That's not going to last 5 days in a real conflict, yet that's the state of affairs right now. And we see the sorry state of production of things like shells and artillery - not even the WHOLE combined EU right now can come up or even match 1/10th of what Russia is producing. France just announced they are going to double the number of shells per month they provide to Ukraine from 1000 shells a month to 2000.
Want to guess how many shells Ukraine fires in one day? About 6000-8000.
Want to guess how many Russia is using per day? Try 50,000.
Even the USA 155mm shell production per year is at about 40,000 shells per year. The USA has raided their stock piles and already has supplied Ukraine with 1 million shells. (yet they need more, and are now out of shells).
So current monthly USA production of those shells would last ONE morning at current use rates by Ukraine.
Unlike the west, Russia has maintained their industry. That includes that they are a major exporter of metals from steel to titanium. And they still have and use boatloads of coal - again used for their steel industry. They not outsourced their industrial production to everywhere else. the difference now from the 1980's in Russia? Back then they were a major importer of food, now they are one of the largest exporters of wheat, and also at the top in terms of oil production.
So, yearly USA shell production for those guns is ONE DAY of at the rates Russia is using.
People have NO idea the sad and sorry state of the industry in the west - we just don't make anything.
Britain could not even come close to attempting even the Falklands war right now, let alone any hot conflict like Ukraine.
But, hey, they can field 148 tanks - about 5 days worth of battle in Ukraine right now. yes, we in the west have given up our industrial base, and now we trying to fight a war in Ukraine that based on industry - and we so out matched and gunned - it not even funny.
Modern simulators cost almost as much as the aircraft they simulate.
@@Albertkallal The west is not as bad as it says on paper; they tend to exaggerate to get more funding, or politicians on the "opposing" side want to win voters by doing what they do best (only second to putting tax money in their own pocket) the blame game. The reason Russia and Ukraine rely so much on artillery is because they do not have combined arms at the same level, and now the war has come to a standstill, so when you got no real force and coordination behind your attacks, artillery it is. If the west got involved (assuming no nukes) we would most likely make quick work of Russia. Also the artillery in the west is going towards quality over quantity with more precision strikes, so producing thousand of shells is probably a waste looking at the most likely battlefields in the near future.
China is more uncertain and is a greater threat, but it's a completely different war since there is a lot of ocean involved, and they are probably a lot weaker than what they themselves and most analysts prop them up to be.
While it's not that good to have an unprepared military, we have to look at it from the most current situation, and that is where Russia has been proven to be a paper tiger, the concern is much more with the civilian side with as you said the exports. But there as well, Russia do not have the competence to compete; sure the prices has increased in the west because of exports like oil, gas, wheat, and fertilizers from Russia and Ukraine being much lower or have stopped, but that's pretty much it. Most of the issues we see in the west is due to a corrupt economy, nonsense leadership, together with the lockdowns etc.
For the tanks just as artillery, yes they can be important, but in today's modern battlefield IFV's, airpower etc, are more important for most situations. And as I said, a war with China will mostly be a naval war.
The libertarian in me though could be without a government military altogether. We waste so many resources on these corrupt wars and incompetent politician decisions when we could do so much better and indirectly prevent wars with others.
Always an excellent program. 😊
Excellent post!
If possible better to invest and have reasonable capabilities and never need them than to find that you do and can't get them. If not specialize as RUSI suggests or change the overall warfighting doctrine and the force structure accordingly. In the face of limitations and harsh realities, such choices must be made.
A very well considered and balanced video good sir.
Hahaha! These videos are not only super informative but also funny! I like how the presenter has a deep knowledge yet isn't arrogant or preachy. Excellent channel! Thanks!
Insightful.
Great work, love your stile
Headline is a bit clickbaitish. The EU partners of NATO woke up and smelled the coffee barely a year ago. Constructive criticism for sure, and entertaining, well maybe not the cheesy elephant)
Have you seen the other videos? all their titles are just clickbait.
gus, your instincts and views on geopolitics are well founded and precient. love your channel, keep up the good work.
So brutal. So honest and so pointed.
It’s not just that large-scale conflicts *may* happen again, neglecting defense increases the likelihood that they will.
Edit: It’s incredibly distressing to hear the rapid-runway repair units have been disbanded. I hope our NATO European partners can be counted on to maintain a strong conventional deterrent into the future.
Very relevant and valid point!
The question is, who are you deterring from doing what? The current conflict between NATO and Russia exists because NATO has been encroaching on Russia with an eye to dismantling it, since 1991. What we are seeing today is the failure of NATO to 'deter' the Russians from defending their vital interests. On what basis would you suggest that Russia is a threat to Europe if Europe stops trying to break Russia into pieces? Or is it Serbia you're afraid of? Transnistria must certainly be deterred from invading Poland, but who is threatening France? If you can't name the threat, how can you create an effective deterrent?
@@honzo1078 It’s actually not the question at all. While it’s helpful to be able to name who you’re deterring and what you’re deterring them from, it’s not strictly necessary. You just need to demonstrate the ability to muster the effective force to make the cost of upsetting the status quo untenable.
As far as Russia’s alleged “vital interests”, they’re totally irrelevant to the discussion. NATO, who cares about primacy of territorial sovereignty, has a common self- and collective interest to create a force of arms to prevent forceful annexation and it’s to them this video is addressed.
European partners can be counted on to cut military spending the moment a perceived crisis passes.
@@neilmouneimne5451 if you don't know who they are, you don't know what they want to do, or what they are capable of doing. This leads to a paranoid spiral of army against every conceivable threat, something that has largely bankrupted the US. If we only armed ourselves to deter those who actually meant us harm, we'd have a very different kind of military. And, with a different kind of foreign policy, the set of entities that want to do us harm would shrink. There's something about overthrowing other people's governments, invading them, and supporting fascist and tyrannical regimes in them that pisses people off. Go figure. The US is the leader in this endeavor since WWII, but France still enforces the collection of colonial 'debts' all over west Africa, and lends its support to US policy from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya, Yugoslavia and now, Ukraine. This why people hate France, it's not because some crazy man hates soft cheese and wants to conquer France.
I'm afraid that Otis has removed the possibility to put subtitles, hopefully this bug will be fixed with an update, perhaps in synergy with the skunk works😉
If I had seen any other face on this video with this title I would have thought 'meh this is bull...'. But since it was this guy, now I am intrigued!
Great video
I remember a certain POTUS in recent history lamenting the same issues. He was villified for it.
Yet he is no friend of a strong Europe, and when he made those comments, he also sought to undermine that strength with other statements. Recently, however, we have him on record once again heaping praise on autocrats, while his allies directly ally with Russia against Ukraine. Let's not be disingenuous.
Bush, no wait Obama. Both of them called multiple times for an increase in NATO defence spending over their two terms.
Oh please. Your little autocrat-admiring fool was not vilified for this specifically. I could give chapter and verse of his mis-deeds but I doubt you would be interested.
Just William... Just perfect in response! X
Every POTUS in recent history has suggested the same to Europe, with varying degrees of politeness but little success by any of them.
A great video, informative and....funny. I very much appreciate your geopolitical vision.
I joined the army in 1989, I know what the "peace divident" meant for our combat units.
Looking forward to the next video.
Yep. We got a "peace" dividend here in the US, too.
How else could we afford the Iraq War and the Afghanistan debacle?
And -- the F-22, F-35, Ford class carriers, Colombia class SSBNs, Virginia class SSN's,
and missiles, missiles, missiles.
How could we have afforded all that without our "peace" dividend?
The one thing the "peace" dividend did NOT buy --- was PEACE ! ! !
Love it, thanks
The Spanish army, being a professional army, has a problem, the troops and sailors over 45 years old have to leave the FAS. In the case of creating a "national guard", these experienced personnel could be kept in service to manage and maintain "operational" the material decommissioned in the army so that in the case of having to use it, it is in the best possible condition and there are personnel who can train in its use or help train new units in the case of a general mobilisation. How is the situation in your country, what can you tell me ? Thank you .
Always enjoy the content but definitely feel like you should provide some more sources for certain claims. One example: claiming no EU country has actual SEAD capabilities. I mean, i think of Italy (sono italiano) and we have SEAD-dedicated Tornadoes, now being retired, and Typhoons. In addition to obviously having HARMs and being active participants with the US in AARGM.
Now, unless you have a source that says our HARM numbers are very low (which wouldn't surprise me btw so if you can provide it, i'd love to see it) i don't really get how you could say the capability only exists on paper.
Edit: welp just saw the comment where you say you were too radical and mention the exact same point i just did lol, i guess we agree then
Well, he didn't say no SEAD abilities, I believe the term used was CSD. (it is hard to tell if he said CSD, or stated SEAD. (time stamp: 10:53). And he used the term has "relevant" SEAD abilities. and in that light, he is 100% correct. So, he did not say "none", he stated they don't have enough of that ability to be relevant, and again I 100% agree with that assessment. what is worse, even on the first day that Ukraine attempted to use HARM missiles, they fired 8 of them, and all 8 were intercepted and shot down. This means that taking out ground SAM systems is going to be FAR MORE difficult then what the west has assumed in war games.
@@Albertkallal no, he was talking about SEAD (he says "SEAD and DEAD"). And even then, it's not true that they aren't relevant. He clarified this himself in the reply to another comment.
Unless you have a source for that HARM claim, I'll have to chalk it up as russian propaganda since that's exactly whete the rumor came from back then. I remember it.
@@sirdo946
Sorry, the ability of the Russian investments into air defense systems has produced better air defenses systems then what we have in the west. And yes, I do accept the claims of Russian shooting down 8 HARM missiles released in one day. Had the case been otherwise, then the reports of even software updates that are now intercepting HIMARS on a regular bases would not be worth anything except hollow claims. But, Russia's use of air defense systems - especially the shorter close range systems that travel with their troops? Yes, they been effective, and by all accounts more effective then what we have available for our troops in the west. And worse yet, they have greater numbers of such systems.
But, we been told Russia will and has run out of smart tactical weapons and missiles since the start of this campaign. Yet again and again, we see and find on a regular basis even recent in which 100+ smart tactical weapons are being used in a day.
Yes, which propaganda are you suggesting we accept here? Certainly not what we getting from the west, right???
Yup, 6 people on a boat, with a skipper and crew blew up the pipeline. Was the Professor and Mary Ann on that boat too?
@@Albertkallal And yet again more claims with not a single source in sight. Yet, HIMARS continues striking targets since august (there's videos of these strikes, at distances that basically only HIMARS can reach. I can provide you links if you really want). Funny how that works eh?
@@Albertkallal I'm afraid you are the one being naive if you believe all these Russian claims. Sure they say they intercepted 8 harms the first day...But they wouldn't say it if they did, because it would serve them better if Ukraine kept wasting her assets. No, the most reasonable explanation is that they intercepted none, and desperately want Ukrainians to stop shooting HARMs at their SAM systems...
Since you speaked about geopolitic, I'm gonna speak a very little bit about politic : the next time you have to vote in your own countries, whether it is about hospitals, firefighters, police, military... Check very carefully which candidate spends what on what. There is a misconception, for example, that "the left" is anti-military and naive. However, when you look at history (since the 20th century at least), it is "the right" that is cutting funds on public spendings (and the military is no exception). Don't be fooled or you'll be disappointed and very angry when you'll hear, like myself, that your fellow countrymen and women are fighting without the proper and required equipment (like it happened to French soldiers back in Afghanistan for example).
Generally the left prepares to wage wars, while the right ensures that they can only start wars. But this is one example of why the left-right dichotomy is such a useless way of explaining Western politics (and politics in general). First of all, it's not binary, but instead a spectrum. Second, spectrums are one-dimensional, and politics is multidimensional, meaning that left-right discussions are incapable of adequately evaluating any other type of discussion, even if they are also one-dimensional. Third, left and right are not words with any concrete meaning, and their context and associations change over time, making them useless as metrics.
Greetings! Does anyone know the exact name of that MiG-31 book at the left of our man?
In recent years international war exercises have become more common in my country.
The information that trickles down to the public from them doesn't exactly flatter our guests...
In fact it seems to me that our conscription based military is teaching professional foreign military troops how to fight a war...
In the words of Bane:
"Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you"
And what country are you from?
@@DCrypt1 Finland
You are quite right my Finnish friend especially regarding the use of the quote from Bane. As well you can essentially instantly remove 65-80% of the eligible military-age population of Canada and the US from any possible future conflict calculations. Since it's about that percentage of the population that due to obesity, drug use, mental illness, and/or having a criminal record are disqualified from military service of any kind.
Throw in the fact that from a psychological and sociological perspective there is no way in Hell North Americans are remotely ready for a large-scale conflict. One wherein hundreds to thousands(even tens of thousands)of their friends and family members are dying daily. We may talk big, people may be putting up with inflation, and the sagging economy at the moment. But that is due in no small part to the near complete control over the various primary propaganda outlets our governments possess. As well as at least in the case of my country's(Canada) case the extensive handing out of various additional tax credits or 'relief packages'(Bribes in other words)to 'help' with rising costs.All of which has pumped people full of false narratives and painted a nice lil fantasy-esque picture of the present(and future) conflict.
But I assure you that once cold hard REALITY is introduced into the equation here. Perhaps in the form of. . . .say a volley of DF-21, Zircon, or other similar Hypersonic Anti-Ship Missiles wiping out an entire CSG or ARG(Amphibious Ready Group) or two. Which would instantly be 7.500 and 5000 casualties respectively or 12, 500 combined and 25,000 dead if two of each were taken out. As there are currently 3 CSG's and 3 ARG's presently on deployment with 2 CSG's and 2 ARG's in the SCS A.o.O.(South China Sea Area of Operation, Ronald Reagan. Nimitz, America, Makin Island) with the George H.W. Bush CSG presently in the Mediterranean A.o.O. The Carl Vinson CSG is presently off the West Coast of CONUS(Continental US) so it might be safe but those other groups sure as shit aren't. The total combined personnel for those groups amounts to approximately 32, 500 sailors and Marines by the way.
But at least we wouldn't have to worry about the optics of having THAT many coffins coming home or the cost of it as they'd all be receiving a burial at sea.
According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, China now has between 750 and 1,500 short-range ASBMs with 250 launchers, 150 to 450 medium-range ballistic missiles with 150 launchers, and between 80 and 160 long-range missiles with 80 launchers. Further despite the media's primary focus on the Ukraine specific details of the recent Pentagon leaks. Perhaps the more concerning leaks involve China and it's recent test of the DF-27 ICBM which according to the leaks is capable of completely bypassing the CONUS BMD systems . Which would allow China to completely eliminate USN assets as they sit docked at home ports or in drydock undergoing repair or refit.
Given all these factors and recent revelations I'd say it's safe to say that we here in The Old West are in for one helluva nasty wake-up call.
eurasiantimes.com/china-tested-new-df-27-hypersonic-icbm-that-can-penetrate/
All "professional" means is that someone is paid to be a soldier as a job. It doesn't make someone all that competent. One can easily be less skilled than a conscript.
@@Max_Da_G That is a more than fair point actually and from much of what I've seen of this conflict and others. There really should be more of a debate regarding the use of so-called "professional" all volunteer military forces. Versus the employment of a "mixed-force" of conscripts as well as "professional" contract volunteers. Personally I believe a model more along the basis of the traditional Swiss model is the ideal.
Wherein EVERYONE is required by law to serve, or at least every male anyways. For at least 2 years with exemptions given only to those with medical or psychological conditions that would affect their ability to do their duties. For when such a system is employed and EVERY citizen is made to "have a deeply personal stake in the wellbeing of their nation." While such a system naturally as with every other system is far from perfect and has its tradeoffs. I believe that the tradeoffs of a purely volunteer force are far more negative and ultimately far more destructive in the long term.
As a all volunteer force, based largely on monetary or social incentives and secondarily on a very nebulous form of"patriotism." Will inevitably attract some of the absolute worst aspects of a nations society. From primary psychopaths to gangs grooming children to becone members that then join the military for training and access(Military equipment and arms fetch a handsome price on the black market I know I've seen US military weapons on it) for illicit ends.
All while the general populace becomes further distanced from the realities that are inherent with enjoying the rights, freedoms, and other benefits of their nation. As those rights, freedoms, and other various benefits of our nations come with RESPONSIBILITIES attached. When people forget that well.....🤷🏻♂️ don't be surprised when your society devolves into a collection of whiny, entitled, decadent, degenerate, and violent competing tribes as has happened throughout every Nation here in The Old West.
My turboprop powered FW 190 operated from Fields idea keeps on looking better and better
Life gives me lemons, Millennium 7* gives me good content. Cheers fella, Take good care of yourself.
The thing people don't understand is that you don't have to destroy the aircrafts on the air base to cripple the enemies air power, you just have to inflict enough damage on the runways. Without surface to air defenses to counter incoming missiles, especially hypersonic ones, the aircrafts on the airbase will not be able to take to the air or much worse come back to base if the runways are all destroyed
As for deffering certain capabilities to certain national airforces. This will not work at a NATO level, but it might work within the EU.
There is even a precedent for this, the netherlands tank force are integrated into the german ones.
I cut that part from the video, but I have similar ideas about the EU. A European Army is a non sequitur, IMHO.
Correct. It's gone even further; all 3 main brigades of the Dutch Army have integrated completely into the Bundes Heer and are now under German military command. It's the result of a long standing, very close cooperation that started in the 1990ies. The cooperation was (and is) born out of necessity, yet has developed into mutual appreciation (both politically and among the generals and troops).The issue of sovereignty however remains. Under current conditions however it's not very likely that either country will engage in operations without the other and other allies. I would love to see the formula repeated with other smaller countries like Belgium for example.
@@Pincer88 Sounds like an easy decision for Germany to send the Dutch into the meat grinder if the time comes.
@@Pincer88 So... how likely is Germany to send forces in Dutch Guyana if tension rises? Just an example.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech "Dutch Guyana" has been the independent country of Suriname since 1975 now ... The only parts of the colonial times left as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are 2 groups of islands. Martinique is Dutch/French, so probably can be covered. And the Netherlands maintains marine capacity in the region (in part with money from US war against drugs, if I am not mistaken). Also, the Dutch parliament still has a last call on actually deploying Dutch personell abroad. But overall, this is the way to go IMO. Get especially the smaller EU countries to focus on some things they do well (Czech with the Gripens - no, do not buy a small handfull of F35s instead please and their chemical segment for example and maybe an electronics division or something like that. Things like that)
A really brutal and honest assessement. It is funny that even while we in Sweden today complain on how much our defence was cut down we still have some things NATO does not. Well, now Finland were allowed in so I guess they will take a look at the situation. Then they will draw breath, whisper "Perkele..." and start telling the rest of NATO in their brutally honest fashion exactly how bad things are and what that everyone just better start working while they hold the fort.
Good luck telling the truth to Macron ! At least Scholz has understood that Merkel's attempts to pacify the Russians by economic means was a disastrous strategy.
Glad to see some people can think..
Fascinating 👏👍
10:35 well, previous clashes and combats in three continents (Ukriane and Karabakh in Europe, Syria in Asia, Libya in Africa) showed that, combat drones can conduct SEAD missions succesfully, free of risk and pretty cost effective.
So yes, there are problems, but there comes new solutions everyday as well.
With respect to SEAD or DEAD missions. Germany has decided to develope and aquire typhooons that are dedicated to this mission, I think 30 typhoons. So its coming back.
While checking the video i actually thought that I have been too radical about this point. Italy has some capability, Germany is working on it so, it is still bad, but not that bad.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Germany still has the old tornadoes with this capability, but.... it's bad. SEAD could make a huge difference in Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine do not have the capability.
@@kilianklaiber6367 Russia actually can pinpoint whatever target with surgical precision, it's not a matter of lack of capability but degree of commitment. Ukraine on the other side do lack capabilities.
I doubt that Russia chose not to achieve air superiority by not suppressing or destroying the Ukraine ground air defence....
@@kilianklaiber6367 they could probably do it the problem is at what cost it seems Russia really do not like losing personnel/high value equipment in this war so have gone through it using very passive grinding strategies and the NATO doc leaks say that Ukraine may be out of s300 batteries/missiles by may this assessment was made in February of this year so it’s possible they’re just going about it in a different route
Thanks!
Thank you to you!
Deftly danced through those geopolitical topics - got your point across without doing much finger pointing 😂
We all know which countries you are talking about though, especially the ones who are going against their own interests.
Would that be the one who had its major energy lifeline pipeline blown up by its buddy and who's now on the cusp of having its industrial base hollowed out as its heavy industries struggle to remain competitive given the lack of low cost energy?
Not to mention another country (one which Millennium7 is very familiar with) that 12 years ago was "kindly" invited to bomb a historical non-NATO ally, then left alone to deal with the instability created close to its shores.
How dare you? You are spewing Putin's propaganda. It is in the core national interests of that country to see it's people go poor over time due to expensive energy and migration of it's industrial base to the country that shot up it's cheap energy supplies, because you know, values are much more important.
@@dgiulio2677 lol dude I think you've been shadowbanned. The youtube overlords have stricken you 😂
Happens to me all the time. Comments just get ghosted and only me and maybe the content creator on that specific youtube video can see it, but no one else.
Censorship is the bane of enlightened society. For all their "free market is the greatest" harping, they rollback on that idea very quick when it comes to the free market of ideas and public discussion lol
No, I think he was meaning how NATO blew up Libia and Italy was forced to join despite it's better judgement.
German industry alone is stronger than the entirety industry-base of Russia, and its actually hit a lot less hard. Dependance on energy import is a lot less problematic than dependance on export, ironically enough. The russian energy is already replaced for the most part. And no, american didnt blow that pipeline up lmao.
And if its temporarily uncomfortable, then thats a small price to not support a Russia thats degrading into a backwards, fascist regime, while slaughtering Ukrainians for reasons the demented leadership cant even explain. If you consider that a weakness, then you are so lost that you cant even imagine having principles...
Either way, youre literally citing russian propaganda, and that gets liked by this channel? Pretty disappointing.
Bravo, more food for thought, especially after having heard another youtubers session with an SEAD specialist and his assessment of current USAF and past European SEAD aircrew capabilities, degraded and zero...😮. You and I are from countries that would find it hard to subsume mission capabilities to other commands. In each interwar period UK maintained a small professional military of volunteers, and we lost a great number at the start of each world war. Having training offshore in WW2 to Canada, Australia, India and the US (and access to her weapon production) was crucial to rebuild and exceed the numbers of UK troops left available at the end of 1940. Also storage and stockpiling has a cost of its own as even tick over maintenance needs a level of disposable components to be replaced (coolants, lubricants and powercells). It'll always be a dilemma as to whether what you choose to store will come out relevant for the conflict you face. Kind of expected that your proposal would be difficult to achieve anyway but great food for thought i.e. what would the structure doctrine and components of a reserve force have to be from tooth to tail.
🇺🇸 Patriot and Aegis, 🇩🇪 IRIS-T, 🇫🇷/🇮🇹 SAMP/T, 🇮🇱 has plenty of good systems. It’s just that they haven’t been purchased in any meaningful amount, but every one of these systems is really impressive especially from the quality of the radar systems and computational performance.
@@stephanvelines7006 The Patriot and Iron Dome have not performed very well.
@@stephanvelines7006 in essence these are all fixed point defence weapons unless tied to platforms like our Type 26 Frigates and it that case it would be Sea Ceptor and Land Ceptor short and medium range missiles that could be the stockpiled item with some degree of commonality between the Army and Navy, unfortunately this isn't applicable to the RAF and none of the above could provide a dynamic response to broad ranging air attacks. Also that only covers defensive systems, some element of offensive capability needs to be available. In which case you need to balance how much of each capability can be acquired and stored. It won't be like going to the armoury and breaking out the tins of .303 and unwrapping the wax paper. Whatever we store and in what numbers has to be weighed against priorities of not just the RAF but also every other defense arm of the UK.
@Citadin
Patriot and Iron Dome both have over 90% interception rates in their current configurations.
@@vickydroid No matter what military people might like to think, those priorities are set by politicians, who change their minds every few days. The prospects of managing a mothball operation well are very small.
Considering the announcement of Scandinavian airforces any update in your thinking around this topic?
I like the smack and elephant in the room. Good one. Educational and humor.
Yeah! Don't candy coat shit, keep tellin us what you really think. This is what we most crave from informed commentators like yourself. Even if I discover that I can't agree with your analyses of war readiness economics (which I fully expect I won't) I strongly desire to hear a real point of view baldly stated. Be honest with us. Your best viewers will thank you even if you are abandoned by partisans and others with a more basic ability to manage nuance and uncertainty. Keep up the good work.
And just from a brief inventory of the opinions of your viewers I'd hafta guess that most agree with me. It's what draws viewers to Justin Bronk when he appears on Ward Carrol's channel; rigorous analysis joined to a point of view.
Grown up people can manage differences of opinion and use them to inform and educate themselves. Let anyone else fend for themselves.
What I like most about this channel is the total absence of bullshit and the acceptance of truths that the ignorant and deluded may find deeply unpalatable.
With the manufacturing in European countries this is already done with the Eurofighter as well as the helecopters that are build in Europe, and 25% of the f35's manufacturing is in the UK, and the two european 6th gen fighters that are in development. And we do need more of this including the smaller nations.
The Marshal of the RAF stated not long ago that he looked forward to the day when RAF pilots spent most of their time flying simulators. It looks like the bean counters have taken over - perdition cannot be far away.
That's the direction that the USAF is going. Sim time instead of actual air time, Aggressor squadrons being disbanded
Another great way to reduce military spending is to increase defence spending .Have good relations with neighbouring countries and better communication channels with enemy
So they become friends.
From what I can see Russia and China have all defensive capabilities where Nato have all the offence platforms
Carriers and jet's for attack.
Russia has air defence and 1 aircraft Carrier .China only have a few .
If nato become a defensive Alliance then the world would be a safer place .
LOl, the world would only be safer if NATO were abolished.
Thank you for the video. It is mostly very informative.
However your remarks on “malfunctioning democracies“ are far too general! Of course many European governments struggle, but generalising doesn’t help. Furthermore many people confuse ”malfunction“ and “that’s different from what I want”. (look at Germany for example)
Please keep up the good videos, maybe just leave such remarks aside, or go into detail. Your Videos would then be even greater!
The majority of european governments dont even struggle. Open argument and criticism is a core element of democracy.
Its always funny when people eg look at France and think thats the downfall of the republic. No, thats just them taking things a bit too far, which is business as usual.
Its mostly authoritarian propaganda that loves to pretend to be united, trying to create a narrative of weak and disshelved democracies.
But thats just a fantasy of totalitarians.
Frankly, the vids on this channel become more and more biased. Pretty disappointing.
German government is dysfunctional for military procurement and sustainment by their own evaluation.
I am reminded of Norman Augustine (then-CEO of Lockheed-Martin) quipping in 1985, "Simple systems are considered infeasible because they require infinite testing." His observation was that the more complex and expensive a system, the less operational testing it undergoes. I assume this is due to cost, just like use of real weapons in training.
Who remembers playing at sword fighting as a child. Who remembers that moment when you notice the objective is not to clash swords in a dramatic way as in the movies, the objective is to mortally wound you opponent. Militaries are a weapon wielded with political will, the intention is to mortally wound and not forcefully clash to little effect.
It's official, millennium 7 has joined the dark side of the force 😅
A very thoughtful video, but I am less optimistic than you. I think that once NATO breaks apart it will be quickly followed by the EU. When that happens, peoples of the various countries will be, in my opinion, less likely to want to become entangled in larger groupings and that will only change when a widely perceived direct threat appears. So, less entangling confederations may appear but confederations are even more susceptible to organized structures of power.
In my opinion, the European countries would do well to become a part of the Belt and Road Initiative and join the SCO. When increased prosperity is experienced and this prosperity is NOT coming at the expense of weaker nations as manifest in the NATO, IMF, and World bank models, there is less propensity for enough friction to be generated to initiate conflict.
how would european country join SCO if EU collapse? EU won't collapse unless there is an internal division, and if there is an internal division, joining SCO won't remove that division. China has express that it wishes EU remain together, that would make integration easier... the tricky part is restoring EU autonomy from the US. the mistake EU made was to expand too fast, the new member do not share the vision of old europe. but this does not mean EU is at a dead end. if Iran and Saudi can find a way to cooperate, it rather difficult to imagine Poland cannot be convince to side with Germany...
The UK has shown what a bad idea leaving the EU really is. Since they left the talk of leaving in other countries has really calmed down.
The big mistake was combining economically powerful countries with smaller countries into the one Euro zone but that's different than the EU. Ideally there should have been two zones set up, one for the economically powerful countries such as France and Germany and another for smaller economies like Greece. One monetary policy from a single central bank is difficult to get right for such different countries. It has caused problems in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
@@lagrangeweiThe internal divisions do exist in the EU and Europeans are really beginning to view just how corrupted the EU truly is. This corruption is no surprise as the CIA was intimately involved in the creation of the EU and 100% of any governance the CIA has had a hand in has been rotten through with corruption. We can easily understand why the EU has been expanding so rapidly because the EU has a centralized money arrangement and new members add to the resource bases from which finances can be drawn. The CIA's purpose in helping to create the EU was to create a single governmental structure which the US could more easily exert control on than the old European Economic Community which essentially was a form of confederation and each state retained its sovereignty. So, separating from US control without destroying the EU is but a pipe dream. The EU does not allow states to retain their sovereignty as we can see by the situations facing Poland and Hungary. Further, I remember all too well Ursula Von der Leyen's threats to the people of Italy if they did not vote the way she wanted them to vote.
As far as joining the SCO, or at least the BRI, thee action would allow them chances of improved trade relations once the EU begins to break. Currently, China has NO interest in working with any state through the EU and trade with China is Europe's future IF Europeans want to continue their current level of living standards.
As for Iran and Saudi cooperation, look at how the arrangement was mediated.
@@capitalinventor4823 Germany WAS the economic powerhouse of the EU but the German economy is being rapidly eviscerated by German cooperation with the US and the EU. If Germany does not take immediate action, its economy will transition from an industrial based economy to a tourism based economy and this will affect ALL of the countries of the EU since Germany was the EU's banker.
SCO is more of a conversational platform, original designed to solve terrorist problems
Gradually evolved into a platform more for economic and geopolitics
It might work great in peace time and has enough money to grease the rough and gap
but when any direct conflict happens (both military or interests), there will be very little thing it can do
so you better be sure you have enough card to talk you way of everything (or you strong enough within the region), or else you'll still need other kind of military cooperation/ alliance as a backup
The best solution is probably to ask Finland with some input from Sweden, how to fix it. But mostly Finland, since they really have kept up the game since 1991.
Finland only loses by joining NATO. They won't get any assistance from America, but do get a potential adversary.
🤣🤣 Elephant in the room! You are sooo funny!
Logistic and infrastructure buildup is a thing in Poland for some years, same with multi layer air defence system. And this is a thing also in "eastern flank" countries.
You also forget Russia has the same or even bigger problems with their logistics, not to mention pilots...
Russia demonstrated they can't hit a runway from long range 😅
Not true my friend... that was western propaganda at the opening of the war. They had targeting problems, but Kalibr and Kh-101 are indeed very precise. Everyone realised that just after the fact.
@@Millennium7HistoryTechThanks for confirming you are a vatnik!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech I saw the difference between Tomahawk and Scalp/ Storm Shadow accuracy in operation and what Russia demonstrated during this war.
On top of that, they can't plan and execute a real air campaign. They can't handle a COMAO to achieve best effectiveness.
Excellent upload my friend. The armed forces of most nations within the Western alliance are in a state of disarray and the growing disparity between China and her adversaries is reaching a point where its not even going to be a contest once the CCP start flexing her muscle. The notion of European assets conducting air combat operations in the Western Pacific or, heaven forbid, the Timor Sea, is absolutely farcical.
Perhaps the answer would be for Western Europe to look after its own affairs, no matter how unlikely that might seem, and allow the US to concentrate on the Pacific and China.
So, SO good Gus!! Perhaps your best video ever.
(and yes, I def. see nations forced to act against their own interests)
Side note: The graphic of NATO fighters? Lumped F-35 (5G) w Typhoons & Rafales (4.5G). Omitted F-22s!!, & put Gripens in 4G.
In addition to the weird distinction between a Gripen and a Rafale (perhaps opposite IMO) ... it also omitted ALL F-15s. Bizarre indeed
It was only European AFs
Ottimo video, buone proposte
As you know, currently the SU57 and the Flanker SU35's are running the Saturn 41 which gives them good but not leading edge flight and ordinance carrying performance. Not as good as the F22 but still OK. When the Izdeliye 30 becomes available in 18 months or so then it will be a whole new ball game.
Less weight, less cost, longer life span and 20% more performance. Which in terms of the benchmark thrust to weight ratio of the F22, will put the SU57 way ahead, any retrofitted Flankers slightly ahead and the SU75 on par with the F22.
Would you consider a video on this prospect. Especially now that we have Western compiled economic stats coming out which show the Russian economy is not nosediving and they are indeed likely to be able to afford to do large volumes of the Izdeliye 30
I don't think they will produce Su-57s in large numbers.
@@michalandrejmolnar3715 I think you don't think enough. If it's necessary they will produce enough of them.
@@foshizzlfizzl They only have so much money, they don't have unlimited budget reserves and avionics are more important and the Su-57 is the only Russian plane with AESA.
@@foshizzlfizzl They only have so much money, they don't have unlimited budget reserves and avionics are more important and the Su-57 is the only Russian plane with AESA.
@@foshizzlfizzl you do realize the su57 relies on western imports they can’t build them right now and I don’t think the west is gonna supply them parts for the su57
The biggest problem the NATO forces have regarding aircraft, when confronting a real adversary like the Russian forces is. They've grossly underestimated the Russian air defences. Which are without a doubt the world's best air defences with proven outstanding platforms. While Russia has fully integrated air platforms with all their maintenance in place. NATO has different aircraft that are armed with different arms scattered all over the place. They can't compete with Russia on this level. Which proves the planning has been shocking. It's hard for many especially Americans to accept these facts. As they're constantly told from birth of how no one can compete with them & that the Russians are backward. Which is absolutely staggering when you consider the ISS platform would collapse without Russian participation. Many in America sti don't know they but most of their rockets from the Russians. Who have by far & away the most reliable best performing rocket tech on the planet. Which has lead to them having the best missile tech on the planet. Hence the only nation on the planet with hypersonic missiles in service. Which have already proven their fantastic accuracy & reliability. I'm British it gives me no pleasure in telling the truth of these matters before any butt hurt troll with their heads buried in the sand tries to say I'm a Putin propagandist. Facts are facts no matter how you dress them up. All of this BS propaganda about the Russian military performing badly & blah blah blah could not be farther from the truth. We are talking a highly professional, highly trained & very well equipped fighting machine. That has inflicted losses on a ratio between 1 to 7 or 1 to 10.
Despite fighting against the whole of NATO & the best equipped military in Europe. Ukraine could have defeated any European army quite easily a year ago. They're now starting to use their aircraft more regularly after decimating Ukrainian air defences. Very patient, very methodical but most of all very very effective.
>Best performing rocket tech
>Missile hits mall parking lot
Really? Add up ALL NATO Air Forces and the Distribution of those Forces throughout Europe and what you have is plenty of intercept and strike punch...more than enough to STOP any Russian airborne advance (even before their degradation over Ukraine)....and in depth. Yes, the only near-peer anywhere on the European Continent, North Africa, the Mediterranean or the Middle East is Russia (and its nominal "allies")....and they can't even establish Air Superiority over eastern Ukraine let alone any further west. Turkey to the south and Poland to the immediate west could likely finish off most Russian Air offensives on their own. Additionally, the Finnish Air Force now fully "protects" the far northern border. Compared to Russia, NATO is flush with advanced Air Superiority weapons systems, highly accurate and in current use...backed by more extensive training. Since the invasion of Ukraine, these war planes (and the associated Air Defense systems) are now on a high-alert status. The Russian Air Force will not be able to operate out of their own Airspace let alone strike deep into Western Europe. Where are the Forward Operating Air Bases in occupied Ukraine ?? When Ukraine advances closer to Crimea, no Russian Aircraft bases there will be safe from St. HIMARS.
"That has inflicted losses on a ratio between 1 to 7 or 1 to 10"
🤡
@@_undefined_nit's now 2 months later after a month of this much hyped offensive & the loss of 26 thousand men dead & 25% of the hardware lost in just 4 weeks. Who's the clown now? Before you reply & do your research properly & get your info from both sides. Then take a look how much weaponry the Russians have taken out since the very beginning. You'll soon realise Russia has decimated 2 armies already & on the way in destroying the 3rd version. You might realise men were operating that weaponry. Also take a look at the Ukrainian cemeteries. You might just learn something. I'll not waste my time with an emoji.
NATO was formed as counter-balance to soviet agression. As Russia refuses to let go of soviet burden and grow up, it's still needed to contain Russian agression. For that, NATO has enough planes and is not even close to be doomed.
I thought the latest RBS 15 model "Gungnir" could do SEAD and DEAD operations?
Confused by the title. Only real adversary worth even considering is China. Russia's air force is pathetic right now, and NATO has far more aircraft than China does.
This is great news! Our heroic Russian liberators will be able to easily clear the skies and de-nazify former Russian Empire territories of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Then, with their Hungarian and Bulgarian allies, retake Czechoslovakia and then on to Germany.
Can't tell if this is a joke or not
For what reason? Women? They are all contaminated with Woke and Überfemenin mindsets.
For one, it seems that European leaders are similarly considered about long range strikes on airfields when you look at the recent announcement of Sky Shield. Currently being a common weapons acquisition plan with a later goal of very close integration. The ultimate goal being that long range scanners can pick up a threat and the best suited system in any country can be used to engage it.
Second, I think your framing of the ‚specialization‘ idea is quite odd. I am not aware of anyone wanting to do this on a NATO level but France has always wanted to create a more unified European army. I think this would work far better as the goals inside the EU are way closer aligned with each other and even one of the big countries actively pushing for it.
The main opponent of this idea seems to be Germany, personally I think this is because it would significantly weakenUS influence in the alliance and it is no secret that Germany is way closer aligned to the US than most other European countries. This can even be seen in Sky Shield, Germany wants people to buy exclusively Patriot and some Israeli system. France is against that as it makes us too dependent on the US again, they would much prefer to use their own weapons as well, which I totally understand.
Personally I am far more sympathetic to Frances approach here, we must pay attention that we do not go further into a US dependency. Good and close relations are great, depending on the US is not.
Modern fighter planes are complex and expensive to build whereas training competent pilots who can operate and command these war machines proficiently has become even more so.
That's always been an issue.
Click bait! The tool of wannabe UA-camrs and the worst thing to do to your viewers. It's really off putting.
I really don't like to know what a video is about until I watched it.
Dear Gus, please use graphics to attract viewers instead of click baiting.
well, unfortunately YT doesn't reward title accuracy. I am not very proud of using these titles but they are necessary evil. This said...this one is one of the less Click-Baity in months!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Then I should give this honest review, because I valued this channel. I watched almost all of your videos, some of them multiple times. I did not watch this one after a minute because I did not want to invest my focus on something that I don't know what it is about. I didn't watch most of your recent videos to the end.
I am not here for the excitement but information that is not available anywhere else. I am sure that there are many others like me. You have a great credibility but click baiting kills your reputation slowly.
If you want me to delete this comment, just say so. Thanks again.
Nonsense
This is a telltale sign of when an alliance has grown too large. The divergent strategic interests of the various member states become more noticeable than the shared perceived threat.
NATO died when the USSR fell. Problem is it's soul stuck around. Since then it's going house to house, cramming itself into corpses and shells to try and hang on to it's existence. In doing so, it has become the boogeyman that makes others hostile to it. That, in turn, gives it a reason to exist.
Russia is doing a good job fixing that.
Time to bring back the ALR Piranha concept :D
Despite all the hype about NATO and its capabilities the situation is actually quite dire.
Well, not that bad considering Russia is not really impressing in Ukraine.
@@sluxi their Air force is barely active after the first few months . They are slowly increasing presence
@@sluxi it depends on how you measure it... Based on western media the Ukraine won the war already 25 times and Russia is running out of ammo for 200 years... Based on facts, Ukrainian Army has almost no jets, no tanks, no human resources (reservists and mobilization not included) and are totally depending on western weapons and resources...
@@doomslayer4276 Their air force is active there all the time. In fact, so much that they are wearing out their airframes by running constant CAP. I don't know what you're talking about.
For all the doom and gloom here, it's almost like the opposition somehow has a superior capability to strike and that NATO could not effect a similar attack on Russian assets if need be. Considering the numerical discrepancy, NATO even has the ability absorb losses that would cripple the Russian air force.
@@foshizzlfizzllol yeah, according to CNN and the MSM, Ukraine would be marching on Moscow any day now 😂
The reality is, Russia controls 30% of Ukraine and the part that is 90% of its economy, all while not really fully committing its Airforce.
Debunking the quantity-over-quality argument: Israel. Also factor in pilots of the likely opponent to European Air Forces (Russia) get barely enough flight-hours to be competent, as opposed to proficient.
I dont quite believe Russian pilots are under trained , They are however under experienced just like china.
Russian aerospace skills are quite good