Russia

[Sheaf Saint]

31 minutes ago, egg said:

You're comparing apples with kebabs there mate. We buy a lot of overpriced American stuff with a weak pound. They are not paying those prices, and their rubles go a lot further than our pounds. 

Wait, are you suggesting that Russia could do / have done much more with the estimated £71bn we will spend on F-35s over their lifetime?

OK, point taken.

[skintsaint]

55 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Wait, are you suggesting that Russia could do / have done much more with the estimated £71bn we will spend on F-35s over their lifetime?

Certainly would have lined the pockets of superiors nicely.

Isn't the lifetime of the jets until 2070 or something? I'm sure it doesn't work out too bad if you spread it out versus the MOD budget per year.

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, egg said:

You're comparing apples with kebabs there mate. We buy a lot of overpriced American stuff with a weak pound. They are not paying those prices, and their rubles go a lot further than our pounds. 

If more than a third of those supposed 806 fighter/interceptors are combat airworthy, I'll eat one of them. Russia has nothing that can lay a glove on an F35, their planes get shot down by second hand, eighties built F16s.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

If more than a third of those supposed 806 fighter/interceptors are combat airworthy, I'll eat one of them. Russia has nothing that can lay a glove on an F35, their planes get shot down by second hand, eighties built F16s.

We have some F35s (numbers procured about to be cut again), but almost a non existent supply chain behind it, and virtually no weapons for anything other than the odd strike against a soft target.

of course, the USA on the other hand….

oh, as the UK is about to “retire” a whole bunch of typhoons, so they can come off the list.

you don’t want to see the state of the RN, or the state of the hollowed out army we have left.

[egg]

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We have some F35s (numbers procured about to be cut again), but almost a non existent supply chain behind it, and virtually no weapons for anything other than the odd strike against a soft target.

of course, the USA on the other hand….

oh, as the UK is about to “retire” a whole bunch of typhoons, so they can come off the list.

you don’t want to see the state of the RN, or the state of the hollowed out army we have left.

It doesn't sound like our huge military spend stretches as far as Russia's...

[AlexLaw76]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

It doesn't sound like our huge military spend stretches as far as Russia's...

Absolutely not, an example.

The 6th Astute Class submarine is not that long out of build. It has taken 12 years to get to this point. Not 12 years for 6 of these, but 12 years for just the 6th boat.

Once the 7th, and final, boat is fully tested and operational, it will have been about 29 years since steel was cut on the first boat.

29 years!

Due to time taken, costs have risen by an astronomical amount, and the 7th was nearly canned.
 

For comparison to the 29 years it will take to complete the Astute Class, the entire Trafalgar Class  (7 boats) were all done in 12 years (the time taken to build the last lest SM alone)

the logistical and industrial base is just almost non-existent, compared to a time not that long ago.

even the flag waving of increased defence spending (we are on a war footing after all), much of that will be consumed with more clever accounting, and laden the MoD with additional costs (Chagos, for example)

Edited Wednesday at 18:38 by AlexLaw76

[skintsaint]

38 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

oh, as the UK is about to “retire” a whole bunch of typhoons, so they can come off the list.

'bunch' = 4 planes in two years time.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

[AlexLaw76]

13 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

'bunch' = 4 planes in two years time.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-sets-out-retirement-and-fleet-numbers-for-typhoon/

It is part of the ongoing retirement of 30 in total. Those 30 have no replacement. 

 

[Jimmy_D]

On 12/11/2025 at 07:21, egg said:

Of course we'd get support. That doesn't alter that the fact that our military alone would be steamrolled by Russia. There's no point putting out fingers in our ears and ignoring our own countries position. 

It also doesn't make it "embarrassing" to Russia that a NATO backed Ukraine is only losing slowly to Russia. Indeed, I'd turn the argument - it's bloody concerning that Ukraine are still losing despite the resources being thrown at them. 

So what would Russia’s plan be to invade the UK and ‘steamroll’ our military alone?

[egg]

1 hour ago, Jimmy_D said:

So what would Russia’s plan be to invade the UK and ‘steamroll’ our military alone?

I haven't said that they have a plan. Or even an intention. No idea where you got that idea from. 

[Jimmy_D]

22 minutes ago, egg said:

I haven't said that they have a plan. Or even an intention. No idea where you got that idea from. 

I wasn’t suggesting that you had said that, just simply demonstrating how utterly ludicrous the idea is, and has always been, that the UK military is as weak as you keep trying to imply.

[AlexLaw76]

56 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

I wasn’t suggesting that you had said that, just simply demonstrating how utterly ludicrous the idea is, and has always been, that the UK military is as weak as you keep trying to imply.

The UK military is pretty weak, conventionally. So many capability, personnel and financial gaps. 
 

[aintforever]

54 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The UK military is pretty weak, conventionally. So many capability, personnel and financial gaps. 
 

It’s much better than most countries.

[egg]

2 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

I wasn’t suggesting that you had said that, just simply demonstrating how utterly ludicrous the idea is, and has always been, that the UK military is as weak as you keep trying to imply.

You've said throughout this that Russia's military is weak, that they'll run out of stuff, etc. You were wrong.

Do you believe that our military (ours alone) is stronger than Russia's? Yes, I know that we're part of NATO so with US support we'll be fine, but that wasn't the point at issue. 

[aintforever]

12 minutes ago, egg said:

You've said throughout this that Russia's military is weak, that they'll run out of stuff, etc. You were wrong.

Do you believe that our military (ours alone) is stronger than Russia's? Yes, I know that we're part of NATO so with US support we'll be fine, but that wasn't the point at issue. 

They’ve been fighting for over three years and still haven’t made it a third of the way across Ukraine, I don’t think we have too much to worry about.

[AlexLaw76]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

They’ve been fighting for over three years and still haven’t made it a third of the way across Ukraine, I don’t think we have too much to worry about.

No country other than maybe the USA would have done much better.

We would have been done by the end of the first week.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No country other than maybe the USA would have done much better.

We would have been done by the end of the first week.

N.A.T.O.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

N.A.T.O.

Young man, invasion getting you down?, I said
Young man, pick yourself off the ground, I said
Young man, 'cause you're in a new war
There's no need to be unhappy

Young man, there's a group that has your back, I said
Young man, when you're under attack, you can

Join them and I'm sure you will see
Many ways to get a peace treaty

It's fun to sign up to N.A.T.O.

[skintsaint]

21 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

We would have been done by the end of the first week.

Luckily we don't need a military for invasions of our near neighbours.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, skintsaint said:

Luckily we don't need a military for invasions of our near neighbours.

May as well pack up the lot then?

[egg]

16 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

N.A.T.O.

You've missed the point of the discussion. It was a simple comparison of our military Vs Russia. Nobody seems willing to concede that ours is worse. Yes, NATO plus ours is decent, but that avoids the point. 

[skintsaint]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

May as well pack up the lot then?

You would still need a deterrent, and a sizeable force for issues around the world. Which is where we are.

[skintsaint]

1 minute ago, egg said:

. Nobody seems willing to concede that ours is worse.

What does worse mean? Numbers - yes. Quality - No.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

What does worse mean? Numbers - yes. Quality - No.

Having the best jet is pointless if you dont have the weapons for them, or any credible infrastructure to maintain operations

Having a T45 destroyer is pointless if the engines are/were knackered and unable to operate in warm water

Having Ajax is all well and good, until it routinely puts soldiers in hospital during peacetime testing

Edited 3 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[AlexLaw76]

4 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

You would still need a deterrent, and a sizeable force for issues around the world. Which is where we are.

I think our definition of sizeable is very different.

[egg]

1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

What does worse mean? Numbers - yes. Quality - No.

Numbers, self sufficient supply chain, etc. Russia have been able to replenish at rate we couldn't get near. 

[Jimmy_D]

46 minutes ago, egg said:

You've said throughout this that Russia's military is weak, that they'll run out of stuff, etc. You were wrong.

Do you believe that our military (ours alone) is stronger than Russia's? Yes, I know that we're part of NATO so with US support we'll be fine, but that wasn't the point at issue. 

At the start of the war? Everyone thought Russia were a peer to the USA.

Now? Even after switching to a war economy, Russia can’t protect their own skies, they’re torching their economy deeper and deeper, more and more unsustainably, to fund their military. Materiel consists more and more of civilian equipment, throwing thousands of barely trained troops and foreign mercenaries into gaining small Pyrrhic victories. They can still cause an awful lot of pain, but they don’t have the military means to defeat Ukraine.

Oil money is running out, transport companies are going bankrupt, and even oil companies are going under. In Russia!

The biggest lever they have left is terror, targeting civilians in a desperate hope that it becomes too painful to continue, and they’re pulling on that lever as viciously as they possibly can, but that won’t stop Ukraine militarily.

[badgerx16]

51 minutes ago, egg said:

You've missed the point of the discussion. It was a simple comparison of our military Vs Russia. Nobody seems willing to concede that ours is worse. Yes, NATO plus ours is decent, but that avoids the point. 

There is probably no point in the last 100 years when our military, excepting the navy, has been anywhere near a match for Russia. As Stalin put it, "Quantity has a quality all of it's own".

Edited 2 hours ago by badgerx16

[whelk]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

No country other than maybe the USA would have done much better.

We would have been done by the end of the first week.

This one gets a lot of joy in talking the country down. 

[Lighthouse]

52 minutes ago, egg said:

You've missed the point of the discussion. It was a simple comparison of our military Vs Russia. Nobody seems willing to concede that ours is worse. Yes, NATO plus ours is decent, but that avoids the point. 

Because you seem to have this wild fantasy that Russia is still the Soviet Union, with the world's second best military. You're completely unwilling to accept any of the major, glaring flaws in Russia's military.  Whilst I know Bret is on a wind up, you seem to believe all this stuff is genuine. You seem to be equating Ukraine, armed with donated weapons, with actual armed forces from NATO countries.

Vast swaythes of the Russian airforce sits rusting away on disused airfields, overgrowing with weeds, whilst you seem to equate these aircraft to F35s because, "Russia gets more bang for their buck and are self sufficient." They aren't. They don't have anything like the supply chain or expertise to match the west. Corruption, bureaucracy and inefficiency are absolutely rampant.

[AlexLaw76]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Because you seem to have this wild fantasy that Russia is still the Soviet Union, with the world's second best military. You're completely unwilling to accept any of the major, glaring flaws in Russia's military.  Whilst I know Bret is on a wind up, you seem to believe all this stuff is genuine. You seem to be equating Ukraine, armed with donated weapons, with actual armed forces from NATO countries.

Vast swaythes of the Russian airforce sits rusting away on disused airfields, overgrowing with weeds, whilst you seem to equate these aircraft to F35s because, "Russia gets more bang for their buck and are self sufficient." They aren't. They don't have anything like the supply chain or expertise to match the west. Corruption, bureaucracy and inefficiency are absolutely rampant.

https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/british-armys-ammunition-would-last-only-week-war-says-royal-united-services-institute

https://www.navylookout.com/is-the-royal-navy-at-breaking-point-or-a-turning-point/

Edited 2 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[whelk]

I can just imagine the awe Batman and Egg would have had in 1939 viewing the military might of the Nazis. Would’ve hated Churchill’s speeches too I expect.

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/british-armys-ammunition-would-last-only-week-war-says-royal-united-services-institute

https://www.navylookout.com/is-the-royal-navy-at-breaking-point-or-a-turning-point/

No worries, Russia only had enough petrol for three days, so we'd outlast them by more than double.

[badgerx16]

Padding out your military with convicted murderers and rapists, then borrowing thousands of troops from DPRK, hiring mercenaries from Syria and Kenya, and press ganging Indian students - how to maintain a high quality military.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 hours ago, whelk said:

I can just imagine the awe Batman and Egg would have had in 1939 viewing the military might of the Nazis. Would’ve hated Churchill’s speeches too I expect.

I think you'll find that in 1939, Batman looked down from a Gotham rooftop to the shattered mess below, thinking he'd try something different for his next side kick. Something with a name suggesting flight, but keeping the bird theme.