What can AI do for AirPower?
How do we learn the right lessons from #Ukraine?
How can we master technological change to deliver military advantage.
Great to be on The High Ground podcast to get into all of this with @gregbagwell.bsky.social & @Sean Bell
Listen in👇
open.spotify.com/episode/7r82...
Who’d buy a ‘toned down’ version of America’s F-47?
Hear what @gregbagwell.bsky.social has to say about it here on @forcesnews.com
👇
youtu.be/Pr_QJir48kY?...
Complexity was probably a major reason. But pay is also a reason as it’s tied so closely to rank. If we paid more for each rank it would have been easier to stay with the associated names/positions.
Well observed, there has been a bit of disconnect between ranks and units that dates back a long way. Flights, commanded by squadron leaders etc. It has been like that since at least the Second World War. Everything is basically at least one rank out!
This has all the hallmarks of a Russian false flag operation.
In 2001, NATO nations responded to a US call for an Article V response after an attack on US soil. There was no debate about where the attack took place, where the threat came from or who paid for what, just an agreement that an attack on one was an attack on all.
As the frenzy around NATO spending dominates the defence debate, it’s worth noting whose budget has been reducing👇🇺🇸. And when you factor in how much US spending is outside the NATO area a very different picture emerges. We all need to spend more, but let’s be measured about it.
6/ The UK needs to ask itself some tough questions about its ambition outside Europe - it will probably need to spend every precious penny to defending Europe. ENDS
5/ Pete Hegseth may have been making a broad political point about Europe stepping up, but what he has done is opened a constitutional can of worms. Putin will be overjoyed - Europe needs to see this as an opportunity and not a threat. And it starts with standing up for Ukraine.
4/ NATO needs to reconfigure for this new paradigm with appointments and roles allocated more appropriately. The NAC also needs to consider the specific voting rights of any Nation that doesn’t make a full commitment to the Charter’s Articles.
3/ NATO spending by %GDP is irrelevant now, what is needed is a coherent European force structure which deters and meets its threats in Europe, if necessary, without US participation or assistance. This will require more investment.
2/ He wasn’t specific about US responsibilities under article V - so the US needs to make its position clear on this and address what US Forces can be relied upon either immediately or as reinforcements.
“We're also here today to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” A🧵on what this means if true 1/6. www.defense.gov/News/Speeche...
My over-riding takeaway from this opening “pitch” is if Europe picks up the bill, then Europe gets a vote on the terms, and that vote should be to uphold international law, not appease a US President intent on getting “his” money back & peace on Russian terms. www.defense.gov/News/Speeche...
If you were charged with saving Billions of dollars a day from the US federal budget, would you target the one department that barely makes the “Other” category at a world trailing 0.24% of GDP? It’s not about the money is it?
There will need to be boots on the ground to keep the peace, but there will also need to be eyes in the sky to watch over it.
KFOR would have been similar, but Article 51 of the UN Charter enshrines the right to self defence.
“Occupation forces” was only relevant at the time when the Charter came into being. As written, the Charter wouldn’t cover NATO troops in Ukraine. I suspect it would have to be under UN auspices.
As the UK prepares its most challenging defence review in a generation. Here is an easy to read and digest summary of the current issues it faces in the air and space domains. And it’s free! airspacepower.com/wp-content/u...
If and when a ceasefire starts, a sizeable peace keeping force may be inevitable and is the best chance of ensuring that Russia observes it. Using NATO nation’s troops adds complexity, but who else will step up?
Another great report on drones in warfare, full of useful insights, from @rikefranke.bsky.social
I wonder if the model subtracts value for statements or actions by leaders of countries that undermine security or deterrence…..?
The UK undoubtedly needs to invest in an Integrated Air & Missile Defence system. But the answer is not to use ships to do it against static locations such as the UK and overseas bases - that would be a very expensive solution.
Whereas, an anti tank guided missile can attain speeds of 200m/s if ground lunched (NLAW) or 450m/s if air launched (Brimstone). It’s physics folks.
Commercial off the shelf drones have some physical limitations that differentiate them from more conventional forms of attack. The primary one is their speed. A commercial drone flies at a maximum speed of around 30m/s.
There will have been conversations between HMT and MoD as to what assumptions to make.
As the New Year beckons and before people start talking about Fantasy Defence, here’s a quick reminder of the terms of reference for the UK defence review team👇. It is supposed to be fiscally constrained within the 2.5% envelope: www.gov.uk/government/p...
The primary cause of this accident is more likely to be the damage caused by the missile strike. The erratic flight profile after that was probably more down to the loss of primary control as a result of that damage, rather than any jamming - although that may yet prove to be a contributory factor.
Visibility was low (<2km) around the time of the approach to Grozny, so a visual ID would have been challenging.
It’s radar cued and guided. Good summary here of the overall system as well as the newest model designed specifically for drones: www.twz.com/land/pantsir...
