Comments by "Andy Dee" (@AndyViant) on "Drones, politics and costs are killing Europe’s Tigers." video.

  1. Hind is still a highly effective platform. But then again so are Blackhawks and even Hueys, and they been around a looooooooooooooong time.
    7
  2. In effect the high end IFV's provide 90% of the capability of the tank operationally for a fraction of the cost. It isn't the attack helicopters that have made tanks almost obsolete, it's the fact that tanks have gotten too big and heavy to use the existing infrastructure. Hence IFV's weighing medium tank like weights, and wheeled vehicles with tank sized guns that are replacing them.
    5
  3. "more mature" platforms would see us all driving Model T Mk 26 cars around. At some point you have to make a jump to a new platform. The issue is NOT that it is new, but that the manufacturer wouldn't fix problems not repair them under warranty. It was that frustration about not being supported that saw Australia decided to get rid of theirs after we found that service availability was abysmal. If you cannot trust the vehicle to go into combat what purpose does it serve?
    4
  4. Ukraine needs to start paying for stuff rather than just expecting it (or as was recently pointed out demanding it) for free. Countries are tipping in tens of billions to Ukraine while their own residents are starving due to food prices, freezing due to energy prices, or cannot even afford to rent a house. There's limits on how much charity you can give out on the back of taxation of your own people, because all that stuff being given away needs to be replaced. Especially if it is the modern stuff Ukraine keeps demanding to give them a competitive advantage over Russia, but even if it is older generation stuff. Even reserve grade equipment is required by every nation, because if war comes around you need that gear for reserve troops, training, and if necessary even front line troops. Because in a war you cannot normally build or buy anywhere near as fast as the gear gets destroyed. Do you think Ukraine has the ability, capacity or desire to replace gear to all those nations it has received goods off? I know we'll see nothing but "goodwill" from Ukraine when this is over. Probably not even trade concessions.
    4
  5.  @goodshipkaraboudjan  That was in part because Australia wanted to build the subs, partly because the subs were being modified, but mostly because the the particular flavour of government in Australia at the time was more interested in turning every government purchase into a domestic political porkbarrelling/propoganda campaign than an effective purchase. The recent reviews of Australia's recent and proposed military purchases has been scathing about the amount of wasted money, corruption and ineptness in defence spending. That's in the ones that actually happened rather than were merely "announcables" with no actual work done. Money has been spent on the wrong things, in the wrong defence budgets, with massive inefficiency and a fair bit of corruption. Much of it was pure marketing with no actual acquisitions. Australia should have canned their modified conventional Barracuda class and renegotiated a deal for French nuclear subs, and gone with that. The French would have happily built them, they'd have been way cheaper, we wouldn't have had to pay a billion pollar penalty clause, and we'd have got them well before the mid 2030's, and had most of the technology and jobs here (except for the nuclear powerplant refits) . But that wouldn't suit the Americans. What we really need is the UK Astute class, they're 100% the best match for our needs, but build times for them are far off too. French Suffren/Barracuda class subs would be the next best match - pump jet technology, nuclear power for extended mission time at depth and small crew complements for a relatively small navy. Astute requires over 50% more manpower, meaning we can operate at best 2/3 the number of submarines. Virginia needs over 130 people on board compared to Suffren's 60, and costs over twice as much. So we can have less than half the submarines active at any time, or be covering half the area. Australia has a lot of ocean to patrol, so the Virginia class seem to be the worst option of the three by a very large margin. But such is the price of military alliances.
    2
  6.  aperpetualguardsmanwithafl2942  this is why you choose your horses for courses. But also, they don't sink. Air filled tyres are better than tracks fro that. they struggle with traction, which is why chains are a thing.
    1
  7.  @Miata822  yes, but also no. Knights in full armour got replaced. Dreadnoughts got replaced. Battleships got replaced. Heavy tanks got replaced. Super heavy tanks got replaced. An ATGM does way more damage than any tank gun ever will. Defence gains an advantage until weapons overmatch it then mobility and quantity becomes king again. This has been the way since before we could fashion bronze swords and it is still true today. Right now technology favours mobility, high fire rates and ERA armour because the weapons can either penetrate armour or bypass their primary thickness by targetting the roof. Active defence may change that. But you are right in that a heavier tank offers a target which protects weaker targets around it if you fall for the trap.
    1