Tag Archives: Ukraine

Britain, Defence, Europe, Government, NATO, Society, Ukraine, United States

Britain could do much more in Ukraine

UKRAINIAN CONFLICT

THE UK has been at the forefront in providing military aid to Ukraine, coming second only to the US in the total support it has given.

In some areas, however, Germany is supplying more military hardware than Britain, even though it has been accused of reluctance in supporting Ukraine.

Britain is Europe’s biggest military donor to Kyiv, with some £2.3bn spent in 2022, and as much again is to come in 2023.

The Berlin government says it has so far issued licences for the export of military goods to Ukraine worth a total of nearly £2.1bn.

President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Britain this week came with a shopping list and appealed for more assistance for his embattled troops.

Fighter jets were at the top of his list – and he made a pointed rebuttal to Rishi Sunak’s suggestion that it would take Ukrainian pilots three years to learn to fly the RAF’s Typhoons, saying he would send air crew who have “already trained for two and a half years”.

Here, it is assessed what Britain could do to enhance its military support for Ukraine:

Typhoon Fighter Jets

The UK has 137 Typhoons, of which around 100 are “on the flight line”, in other words operational. These are based at RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland and RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire. Only a few days ago No 10 shot down Boris Johnson’s demands for the UK to provide fighter jets, insisting “it was not practical” – in part due to the training requirements for Typhoons and the F-35 and complications involving their integration with other aircraft and technological systems in the war zone.

But within hours of Mr Zelensky’s plea for British jets to protect Ukraine, the rhetoric from Downing Street had changed saying the UK was “actively looking at just that”.

Sunak’s change of stance also followed Mr Johnson reiterating there was “no conceivable reason” why the UK should not send aircraft.

But, frustratingly for Ukraine, Sunak stopped short of an unequivocal commitment.

The Prime Minister described the announcement that the RAF would train Ukrainian fighter pilots as a “first step” towards sending jets. He also insisted it takes three years to train a Typhoon pilot – hence why the UK is not sending any combat aircraft yet.

But Mr Zelensky dismissed the Prime Minister’s excuse for inaction, insisting Ukraine would be sending pilots to the UK with two and a half years’ experience.

Many military analysts claim the UK’s fast-jet fleet is not suited to the conflict, and Ukraine would gain more from the F-16s operated by NATO partners such as Denmark, the Netherlands and Poland. These are simpler to use than the UK’s jets.

The US would need to sign off any transfer to Ukraine, as it controls the export licences.

Recent indications from the White House suggest this would not be problematic – although President Biden does not want to send the US’s own F-16s into aerial battle against Russia.

F-16 donations could happen within weeks, and President Zelensky’s visits to Paris and Brussels should provide added impetus.

The Netherlands has 40 F-16s and is transitioning to the more advanced F-35, made by the same manufacturer, Lockheed Martin. So it has jets to spare that are easier to operate than UK aircraft.

That so many NATO allies operate F-16s also gives advantages for training and supply chains.

Even relatively primitive fighter jets are unlikely to be available in the short term, so will not play any part in the anticipated spring offensive being planned in Kyiv.

France also hasn’t ruled out sending fighter jets, albeit with strict non-escalation clauses, including a ban on any French jet attacking inside Russia’s internationally recognised border.

Germany has ruled out sending fighter jets to Ukraine.

Challenger Tanks

The UK has 227 Challenger 2 tanks, of which 14 have already been committed to Ukraine. As Mr Sunak has pledged, they will reach the battlefield next month.

The conventional wisdom is that Britain could do more to help Ukraine. A further 14 Challenger 2s are being brought to “high readiness”, and could be transferred to the war zone.

Mr Johnson highlighted the absurdity of British tanks patrolling rural Wiltshire when they could be sent to the Donbass.

Arguably, the UK’s provision of Challenger 2s was primarily a political gesture intended to convince Germany to release and deploy its Leopard 1 and 2 tanks – which were always Kyiv’s preferred options. Being lighter and more mobile these tanks are considered better suited to the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Germany has agreed to supply 14 Leopard 2s – and said earlier this week it would join the Netherlands and Denmark to provide up to 178 older Leopard 1s. Leopards are used across NATO so it will be easier to resupply the German-made tanks than the Challenger 2s, which are used only by the UK.

The Challenger 2 is also due to be withdrawn from service. Of the 227, 148 will have their engines tuned, their turrets replaced and their main guns replaced. The same hulls will be used for what will be called Challenger 3.

These upgraded tanks will start entering service from 2027.

How many Challenger 3s are built is subject to a review by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace. The review will consider lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine, which has changed the debate about the role of armour in modern warfare.

The Ministry of Defence says the Challenger 3 will reach 60mph and have more range. It will also be the UK’s fully digitised tank, able to share live data with other vehicles and attack helicopters.

Ukraine said it needed 300 Western tanks to make a significant difference on the battlefield. Ukraine has reached that target, mostly Leopard 1s and 2s, so it does not desperately need a tank with logistical issues such as Challenger 2 – and it does not have the time to wait for its successor Challenger 3.

Long-Range Artillery

Britain has committed to sending 30 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers to Ukraine when its combat troops have completed training on the weapon in the UK.

According to reports the British Army ordered 179 AS-90s from its manufacturer, BAE Systems – so there should be significant scope for further donations to Ukraine.

The weapon weighs around 44 tons, has a range of 15 miles and can fire three shots every ten seconds. It is operated by a five-man crew.

The UK has also given six Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) firing M31A1 missiles up to 50 miles, letting Ukraine hit targets behind Russian lines.

Germany has provided five of an equivalent system, the Mars II rocket launcher, complete with ammunition. The UK is understood to have critical shortfalls of ammunition used by the AS-90 and GMLRS as a result of the conflict. Shortages of the anti-tank Stinger, Javelin and N-LAW weapons have also been reported.

The UK must increase production and procurement of munitions and guided-weapons systems, not only to support Ukraine but to ensure the UK can defend itself and meet NATO obligations.

A former senior military commander, Major General Jonathan Shaw, said: “Russia has mobilised its society and industry for war – we must respond. Wars are fought by nations, not armies. The West must mobilise its society and industries to win.”

But the UK is competing with NATO allies such as Poland and the US for many of the same requirements, such as additional GMLRS stocks.

DEFENCE analysts refute that RAF Typhoons should be offered to Ukraine. Their arguments should be considered before any deployment is made.

Our Typhoon fleet is routinely described as “overstretched” due to its operational commitments. Some missions are arguably by choice and not necessity.

Given the acute threat to British and regional security posed by a possible Russian victory in Ukraine, some might say that these responsibilities need be reconsidered so that Typhoons could be released to Kyiv.

The Typhoons flying over Iraq and Syria are based at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. Regional partners could be petitioned and encouraged to fly more sorties, freeing up the eight jets based at Akrotiri.

It is almost two months since any RAF assets hit an Islamic State target – when an unmanned Reaper drone fired a pair of Hellfire missiles to destroy a building. It is possible that drones could take the place of the Typhoons. That would be a strategic decision.

Four more Typhoons are in the Falklands and have flown “deterrence patrols” there since 2009.

The overall Typhoon force – 100 aircraft – is spread thinly and worn out. Numbers are compromised by spare part problems, engineer shortages and pilots lacking training hours. The first Typhoons, introduced in 2002, have flown longer than was originally planned and suffer from wear and tear.

To defeat Russian fighter jets in dogfights, Ukrainian-flown aircraft need advanced air-to-air missiles. The options are limited and the European Meteor missile – the weapon of choice for aerial engagement – is not compatible with early Typhoons.

To avoid Russian air defence systems, the Typhoons would need to fly at low altitude, and they were not designed for this.

However, the Typhoon has some advantages over rivals – it is faster than the MIG-29 and has a much bigger payload.

The claim that logistical support and maintenance is difficult is highly valid. The Typhoon is complex to maintain and significant numbers of UK contractors would be needed as well as arrays of support equipment. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has likened the Typhoon to a Formula One racing car, with good reason. The Typhoon is a highly complex aircraft.

The RAF Typhoon jets are especially susceptible to engine damage from objects being sucked into its air intakes, meaning smooth and constantly maintained runways are a must. Such runways would become a Russian target.

Standard
Defence, Government, National Security, NATO, Politics, Society

Enlarging NATO will be problematic. But Poland wants new members…

NATO

At a conference in the Polish city of Wroclaw on 12 June, the Polish defence minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, said that Macedonia and Montenegro should be invited to join NATO at next year’s summit in Warsaw. The two former Yugoslav nations want to join the 28-country military alliance, but any move to do so could increase already high-tensions between the Western alliance and Russia.

Any invitation, however, is likely to draw scorn from Moscow. Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has opposed any expansion of NATO that includes the former communist nations in eastern and southeast Europe, claiming that it is a purposefully provocative move. Russia’s foreign minister has repeatedly warned against NATO approaching Bosnia, Macedonia and Montenegro, saying that NATO allowing those countries to join would be solely aimed at undermining Russia.

This type of disagreement – asking countries to choose allegiance to either the West or East – was the ideological barrier that fuelled the Cold War for more than 40 years and lies at the heart of the current conflict in eastern Ukraine. Some believe that the war in the contested region of Donbas, Ukraine, is deliberately designed to stop the country from being eligible for NATO selection, as the alliance does not typically allow nations to join while a conflict remains unresolved. Experts say this tactic, known as a ‘frozen conflict’, was used in the 2008 war in Georgia.

In 1999, former communist countries began joining NATO en masse, including the former Soviet states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who all joined in 2004. In the Balkan region, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Slovenia and Romania are members of the alliance.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Europe, European Union, Government, Islamic State, Military, National Security, NATO, Politics, Russia, Society, United States

NATO requires direction and purpose…

NATO

The two-day NATO summit in Newport, Wales, represents a key and defining moment in the organisation’s 65-year history. More recently it has become apt to question whether the post-war transatlantic alliance even has a future, particularly when NATO ends combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of the year. Defence budgets among the leading European powers have been severely cut and, coupled with the crippling lack of political will to reach consensus on vital security issues, critics of this Western alliance have been able to make a convincing case that the organisation is in real danger of becoming obsolete.

NATO’s future continuity and preservation as a global entity for good will now depend to a large extent on how leaders of the 28-nation alliance respond to the alarming array of new challenges that threaten not only the security of Europe, but the wider world.

The horrific and gruesome murders of two American journalists by Islamic State terrorists in Iraq, and the imminent possibility that a British hostage could soon suffer a similar fate, has highlighted in graphic and disturbing detail the very serious threat to Western security posed by radical militants associated with the self-proclaimed Islamic State – one that has taken root in lawless areas of northern Syria and Iraq. Then there is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blatant and ruthless military intervention in Ukraine, actions which have led to Russia brazenly supporting rebel and pro-militia groups loyal to the Kremlin in maintaining the tempo over the challenge to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and encroachment of a sovereign state. The true extent of the rebel support was realised earlier this week when a Russian tank column was identified as being in support of capturing Luhansk airport. As if to confirm his disregard for Western attempts to rein in Mr Putin’s new-found spirit of adventurism, Moscow even boasted that it could take Kiev in just two weeks if it wanted to.

When considering too the continuing threats posed by al-Qaeda, the uncertain fate that awaits Afghanistan when the US-led NATO mission completes its withdrawal later this year, and the endemic lawlessness in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, it is clear that the West is facing its most difficult period since the end of the Cold War.

NATO’s ability to provide an effective response to these multifarious threats will depend ultimately on whether it can summon the collective political will and leadership to take decisive action against its enemies. For an organisation whose decision-making process requires consensual agreement, attempts to find a common policy amongst all the nations of the alliance have all too often been hampered by deep political divisions. Most recently these have surfaced in the way the major European powers have sought to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine, with countries such as Germany and Italy unwilling to back the more robust stance favoured by Britain and the U.S. But neither has the NATO cause been helped by President Barack Obama’s reluctance to become involved in overseas conflicts. Mr Obama’s detached approach was evidentially confirmed in the last few days when the president admitted ‘we don’t have a strategy yet’ for dealing with Islamic State militants: this, despite their murderous assaults on American citizens.

There are some encouraging signs that NATO is preparing to rise to Mr Putin’s bellicosity in eastern Europe. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the outgoing NATO secretary-general, has already announced the establishment of a new, 4,000-strong rapid-reaction force capable of reacting to any future crisis in eastern Europe with just 48 hours’ notice. Many European member states will also come under pressure to honour the NATO commitment of spending 2 per cent of their GDP on defence. The decision to establish new logistics centres along the Russian border to enable the rapid provision and requisition of military equipment in the event of a crisis is also another welcome indication that NATO’s members are not prepared to tolerate any further territorial incursions by the Kremlin. Whilst encouraging that there are signs the alliance has rediscovered a real sense of purpose, effective political leadership is now urgently needed.

Standard