NATO Future

[Col Nago]

Shame there’s no one to fly or maintain them, then you need somewhere to base them.

We’ve covered this a few times. Leuchars and Leeming will sort that issue just fine. The Italian Airforce are currently utilising the fully functioning HAS and facilities in the former right now.

[pg1610]

Shame there’s no one to fly or maintain them, then you need somewhere to base them.

We’ve covered this a few times. Leuchars and Leeming will sort that issue just fine. The Italian Airforce are currently utilising the fully functioning HAS and facilities in the former right now.

For the number of airframes involved they will easily be accommodated into Coningsby and Lossiemouth

[Thunder]

There’s a difference between three a/c being deployed for a week or two and a whole Squadron being permanently based. Maintenance and support facilities, fuel installations, accommodation and messing and who is going to fly and maintain these jets. Lossie is pretty much maxed out now.

[Yunglee]

Well there’s an empty ex-RAF airfield near Doncaster needing a future

[Vulcanone]

Shame there’s no one to fly or maintain them, then you need somewhere to base them.

We’ve covered this a few times. Leuchars and Leeming will sort that issue just fine. The Italian Airforce are currently utilising the fully functioning HAS and facilities in the former right now.

For the number of airframes involved they will easily be accommodated into Coningsby and Lossiemouth

Your aware of the reason for the Italians using Leuchars and Lossiemouth then....

[Thunder]

No, am not?

[Tally-ho]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO / Nato):-

Originally formed in 1949 to deter an attack from the now extinct USSR and their Warsaw Pact members. Forward to 2025 - Russia remains of that former grouping, Russia was also the largest contributor to that grouping, by a very large margin.

Trump read Nato members the riot act in 2017 at a Nato gathering in Poland, specifically addressing those Nato members who were not contributing the minimum of 2% of GDP (loosely revenues in state coffers).
- the UK at times were just under the 2%, now at 2.3%, and promised to be at 2.5% in 2027
- Europe's largest economy Germany, only very recently came up to 2%
- some Nato members are still well below 2%
- the USA is at 3.4% and because of the SIZE of their economy by far the largest contributor

Now there is a scramble for funds because of events -
- why was there no scramble for funds in 2014 when Russia grabbed Crimea?
- why was there no scramble for funds in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine?
- why did many Nato members still do nothing after Trump's warnings during his first term?

Now the uninformed wants to blame Trump for re-thinking US commitments to Nato. The same Trump who in 2017 told them to pay up, get off their backsides and man-up! Why should the USA in 2025 shoulder the burden of a continent an ocean away, who disrespects, is ungrateful, and cares very little for defence in its very own backyard?

And just to spice things up - if the entire British Army marched into Wembley stadium there would still be 20,000 vacant seats.

I rest my case.

[C24]

How many seats at Wembly?

As of 1 January 2025, the British Army comprises 73,847 regular full-time personnel, 4,127 Gurkhas, 25,742 volunteer reserve personnel and 4,697 "other personnel", for a total of 108,413.

[Tally-ho]

I did not take into account the Gurkhas or the Volunteer Reserve, so based on that calculation, I stand corrected.

Thank you.

[Tally-ho]

To press a fine point if I may, just to keep our minds focussed -
- the British Army (Regular Forces) are now half the number of what they were during the Falklands Campaign in 1982.

[raptor9]

Perhaps Tally-Ho is not aware that the U.K. is much smaller than the U.S.A., whose name, the United States of America, was given to them by an Englishman!!.[Thomas Paine of Thetford], and our Army is much more capable technology wise I suspect than it was in the Falklands era!.

[C24]

Good day,
And the answer is. 90 000 for Wembly

The current force is much less than during WW2. Also, technology requires less bodies than in previous political climates.

E.g. 10 for B-17 against 1 for Typhoon. We could go on and on, on

[Tally-ho]

Perhaps Tally-Ho is not aware that the U.K. is much smaller than the U.S.A., whose name, the United States of America, was given to them by an Englishman!!.[Thomas Paine of Thetford], and our Army is much more capable technology wise I suspect than it was in the Falklands era!.

My reference to the British Army is simply to illustrate how the UK's 'boots on the ground' (to use Starmer's reference as regards peace keeping) capabilities has shrunk over the decades. The broader context is to illustrate the impact this has on Europe's overall contribution to Nato.
This shrinkage in turn leads to the USA questioning Europe's commitment to defence in Europe's very own backyard, and the US reluctance thus far, to give security guarantees, as per Starmer's request.

[Tally-ho]

Good day,
And the answer is. 90 000 for Wembly

The current force is much less than during WW2. Also, technology requires less bodies than in previous political climates.

E.g. 10 for B-17 against 1 for Typhoon. We could go on and on, on

I get what you're saying. See my response to raptor9 in the post above. Remember, I'm commenting with reference to the Subject line "NATO Future".

[cat1]

I don't necessarily buy in to the less man power, more tech idea, look at Ukraine.

In every think tank before that war, we were looking at cyber warfare and plutonium warheads, all of a sudden its trench warfare with FPV drones(who saw that coming).

[NorvilleRogers]

Poland has announced it intends to increase its army (including reservists) from 200,000 to 500,000 and its defence spending from 4.7% to 5%. Add to that the 96 Apaches on order plus the FA50, F-35A and 250 us made tanks also on order they seem to be doing their bit for NATO in Europe.

[david14]

Poland has announced it intends to increase its army (including reservists) from 200,000 to 500,000 and its defence spending from 4.7% to 5%. Add to that the 96 Apaches on order plus the FA50, F-35A and 250 us made tanks also on order they seem to be doing their bit for NATO in Europe.

Given what happened to Poland in WW2 and afterwards, I think it's better to suggest that Poland are doing their bit specifically for Poland rather than the broader NATO - they will be on the frontline if the worst case scenario happens

[Harkins]

I don’t think anyone should be mistaken in thinking that the presence of US forces in Europe is or has been for a long time for the benefit of European defence and security. Certainly not directly.

So maybe the US can withdraw and find somewhere to house over 100’000 service personnel overnight back in the States. And next time they want to bomb Libya, or deal with Iran or Houthi rebels they can do it from CONUS.

On another point, whilst we’re trying to fund the defence of the UK, Europe and Ukraine, maybe we can save money and withdraw our presence from the various places we’ve ended up supporting US adventurism and reprisals over the years? And demand our money back?

[Crusty]

The annual Presidential Address to the US Congress is early tomorrow morning (02.00 GMT), so there you go, all of us followers of US politics will be glued to the box. NATO may well get a mention.

NATO - for the short / medium term I think things will remain as is, the Europeans I hope are stepping up ?? The UK will have to go to 2.5% immediately and Starmer must commit to implementation of 3% by end 2029. Scrap the Foreign Aid budget and close the department is a good start.

Pi55 off you troll

[Tally-ho]

Welcome to the world of the living - 80 posts in 10 years! Where have you been?!