NATO: Discussion and News

AlfaT8 wrote:For comparison (sadly not the same beach and i couldn't find one of Tigr-M on a beach)

Take note also, not every sand/beach is the same In middle of desert you have places where Hummer will sink, and still you have places where tanks can go without an issue. Muricans like to call that "pathfinding". Failed this time it seems, and it wasnt much of a path, 50m

During same exercise German mountain infantry transporting their mortar with mule.

Militarov wrote:

During same exercise German mountain infantry transporting their mortar with mule.

Unless they were traversing the mountains (ala Afghanistan) this just looks pathetic.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

During same exercise German mountain infantry transporting their mortar with mule.

Unless they were traversing the mountains (ala Afghanistan) this just looks pathetic.

Na, same exercise, this Trident crap from few days ago. Yeah i know it looks patethic but they are after all mountain infantry, i belive Russians obtained donkeys for similar role some years ago. Horses/mules/donkeys are very useful animals for the army even today

Yugoslavian army for an example had 20mm AA guns that you could disassemble and then they would be carried by 4 horses/mules for mountain infantry

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

During same exercise German mountain infantry transporting their mortar with mule.

Unless they were traversing the mountains (ala Afghanistan) this just looks pathetic.

Na, same exercise, this Trident crap from few days ago. Yeah i know it looks patethic but they are after all mountain infantry, i belive Russians obtained donkeys for similar role some years ago. Horses/mules/donkeys are very useful animals for the army even today

Yugoslavian army for an example had 20mm AA guns that you could disassemble and then they would be carried by 4 horses/mules for mountain infantry

Mountain infantry, then it all makes sense, btw were there mountains to traverse during this exercise??

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

During same exercise German mountain infantry transporting their mortar with mule.

Unless they were traversing the mountains (ala Afghanistan) this just looks pathetic.

Na, same exercise, this Trident crap from few days ago. Yeah i know it looks patethic but they are after all mountain infantry, i belive Russians obtained donkeys for similar role some years ago. Horses/mules/donkeys are very useful animals for the army even today

Yugoslavian army for an example had 20mm AA guns that you could disassemble and then they would be carried by 4 horses/mules for mountain infantry

Mountain infantry, then it all makes sense, btw were there mountains to traverse during this exercise??

I suppose in Spain

"Senior US official: President Obama authorized deploying additional A-10s and F-15s to İncirlik base in Turkey."



Source: https://twitter.com/CNNTURK_ENG/status/660114569801658368

Spain To Stay With Patriots in Turkey; Italy Could Deploy Samp/T Missiles

Spain will stay in Turkish soil with its Patriot air and anti-missile defense system despite the withdrawals of United States and Germany units.

After 11 months of deployment, the Spanish government decided to extend its participation in the NATO operation "Active Fence" until Dec. 31, 2016, MoD told Defense News.

The Patriot PAC-2 unit, with six launchers of 4 missiles in each one, is located near the airport of the southeastern city of Adana, the fifth most-populated city in Turkey and 63 miles from Syrian border.

Last October, Turkey appealed to its NATO allies to shore up missile defenses in the country aimed at shooting down Syrian rockets, as United States and Germany decided to withdraw their batteries from the cities of Gaziantep and Kahramanmaras.

NATO is considering an extra deployment of Italian anti-missile defense system Samp/T. The US Navy will offer one of the four Arleigh Burke class, based out of Rota,Spain, to be deployed on a constant basis in the Black Sea.

"This could be the new NATO architecture of the anti-missile defense in Turkey after the withdrawal of the Patriot unit of US and Germany," military sources told Defense News.

I got no idea where to put this:

Hungary Intends to Buy Up to 30 Russian Choppers for $490 Mln

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160122/1033560027/hungary-russia-helicopters-purchase.html#ixzz3xz9PRa3O

Seems NATO decided to launch own version of tank biathlon.

"U.S. Army Europe and the German Bundeswehr will co-host the Strong Europe Tank Challenge at Grafenwoehr Training Area from May 10 – 12, 2016. The award ceremony will be on May 13, 2016.
This is the first Europe-wide tank challenge taking place at Grafenwoehr Training Area since 1991. Seven NATO nations are scheduled to take part in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge – each sending a tank platoon to vie for first place. The participating nations are: Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and the United States. Each team will be tested on offensive and defensive operations as well as tasks including vehicle identification, battle damage assessment, mounted orienteering and more. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge fosters military partnership while promoting NATO interoperability."

What makes me laugh is that Slovenia will participate most likely with Yugoslavian built M84As (M-84A4 Sniper, modernised with Fotona FCS)

Seems NATO decided to launch own version of tank biathlon.

"U.S. Army Europe and the German Bundeswehr will co-host the Strong Europe Tank Challenge at Grafenwoehr Training Area from May 10 – 12, 2016. The award ceremony will be on May 13, 2016.
This is the first Europe-wide tank challenge taking place at Grafenwoehr Training Area since 1991. Seven NATO nations are scheduled to take part in the Strong Europe Tank Challenge – each sending a tank platoon to vie for first place. The participating nations are: Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and the United States.  Each team will be tested on offensive and defensive operations as well as tasks including vehicle identification, battle damage assessment, mounted orienteering and more. The Strong Europe Tank Challenge fosters military partnership while promoting NATO interoperability."

What makes me laugh is that Slovenia will participate most likely with Yugoslavian built M84As (M-84A4 Sniper, modernised with Fotona FCS)

Royal Navy fires warning shots as Spanish vessel harasses US sub in Gibraltar

The Royal Navy fired flares to warn of a Spanish patrol boat approaching an American nuclear submarine off Gibraltar.

The fast patrol boat HMS Sabre fired warning shots across the bow of a Guardia Civil vessel as it twice tried to cut across the path of USS Florida during an incursion into Gibraltar’s waters.

Gibraltar says Spanish vessels regularly stray deep into its territorial waters and the Foreign Office has attacked the incursions as provocative.

But defence sources said it was rare for a Royal Navy vessel to fire flares and it had only happened a couple of times in the past two years.

One Naval source said: "It just got too close and when it's a nuclear submarine, you get twitchy any way. If you have responsibility for the protection of it, then you are going to take action much quicker than you might normally. The force protection measures worked and the vessel went away."

Officials in the British overseas territory have complained about the incident as USS Florida visited the British Naval base last month, the Sun reported.

Spain claims sovereignty over the strategic outpost, which stands on the southernmost tip of the Iberian peninsula, but has been a British Overseas Territory since the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.





In recent years Madrid has warned it is ready to impose a new border tax, close its airspace to planes using the British overseas territory's airport, and investigate the affairs of Gibraltarians with Spanish economic interests.

The row escalated in 2013 after Gibraltar began building an artificial reef it said would improve fish stocks depleted by incursions by Spanish fishermen.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence declined to comment on nuclear submarine operations or force protection measures.

Slovenia with M84 i really wonder how well it will do aganist Leo2 variants.

Militarov wrote:

Germany Claims Trophy in Strong Europe Tank Challenge

Tank Challenge end.

Germany - 2A6
Denmark - 2A5DK
Poland - 2A5
Italy - C1 Ariete
Slovenia - M-84
US - M1A2




All of them with Leos. Even though Leos were not the most modern versions like Abrams.

To Confront Russia’s Subs, NATO Should Team Up on ASW Aircraft

While in Europe recently, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter called for “a continuous arc of highly capable maritime patrol aircraft” to meet the challenge of increasingly sophisticated and active Russian submarines at the boundary of the North Atlantic. It’s an important call to replace a depleted capability — and it will require a special kind of cooperation to make happen.

The need is clear. Russia’s submarine force has become increasingly active; has demonstrated new capabilities, such as launching land attack cruise missiles; and is building new classes of conventional and nuclear submarines. Concerns are rising in NATO about Russian naval access to the Atlantic and the threat its subs might pose to U.S. reinforcements heading to Europe during a crisis.

During the Cold War, maritime patrol aircraft patrolled the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and other key waterways, listening for Soviet subs and standing ready to act. But over the years, Europe’s MPA fleets have quietly eroded. Britain famously retired its entire fleet of MPAs in 2010 in an attempt to save money, but the UK is far from the only example. The Netherlands sold off its P-3 Orions in 2003, and all of Greece’s MPAs are in deep mothball storage as a cost-cutting measure. Other countries, such as Germany, Italy, France, and Canada, have cancelled buys of new MPAs, opting instead to modernize parts of their current fleets. This leaves America’s European allies with a dwindling fleet of aging MPAs, most of which were introduced in the mid-1980s. NATO estimates that Europe will halve its MPA fleet over the next decade.

The U.S. Navy’s MPA footprint in Europe has also shrunk considerably. Where once the U.S. dedicated two squadrons to Europe, today there are a total of five aircraft operating there. In 2006, the U.S. pulled up stakes at the Keflavik airbase, a key site for MPA patrols in and around the GIUK gap.

There are some positive developments. The UK has declared that it is seeking to regain its MPA capability by 2020 through purchases of P-8 Poseidons, and the U.S. is looking to upgrade the Keflavik facilities and begin rotating its own Navy P-8s there for Atlantic patrols. Norway is also looking to deepen its bilateral cooperation with the United States around MPAs.

But these moves do not reverse the long-term trend, nor meet the burgeoning need for anti-submarine warfare and maritime ISR capabilities. It is time for NATO to take a page from its own playbook, and create a consortium of alliance members who are interested in regenerating their MPA capacities.

There is solid and promising precedent for this. In the mid-2000s, 12 alliance members plus partner nations Sweden and Finland joined to form the Strategic Airlift Capability. The group bought and pooled C-17 airlifters, making them available for both NATO missions and national requirements in a time-share system based on the national resources contributed to the consortium. This allowed the consortium members to quickly gain a heavy airlift capacity, with a platform that was out of financial reach for many of its smaller members.

A new MPA consortium could be used to buy a family of aircraft and associated systems, cooperate in training and exercises, develop concepts, and establish shared maintenance. The consortium could even offer membership to NATO countries that do not fly MPAs, but which could offer pre-arranged basing and support. The right countries could allow MPAs to quickly swing from, say, the GIUK gap to the Baltic or Black Sea, two other maritime domains where Russia is challenging the European security order.

And while the United States is recapitalizing its own MPA fleet with P-8 Poseidons and unmanned Tritons, it too has a role to play in a NATO-based MPA consortium. Again, there is precedent: the U.S. operates its own sizeable C-17 fleet, but also contributed resources to the C-17 consortium. In the same fashion, the U.S. could join a NATO MPA consortium, catalyzing European members and contributing its own fleet of P-3s, P-8s, and Tritons for common training, exercises, and patrols.

Carter’s call for a new focus on MPA in Europe is certainly urgent and badly needed. But it will only become a reality if European nations work together and get U.S. leadership and active participation. Russia is once again contesting the sub-surface domain, and part of NATO’s answer should come from the once-ubiquitous maritime patrol aircraft.

Nordic Tank Challenge





Danes won.

So Leo's won all chalanges even in hands of less trained countries. What a "suprise"..... not!

To be fair Nordic Tank Challenge is more biased towards the Danish Army. In Strong Europe Tank Challenge, every country used their own equipment for which the crews were trained. In Nordic Tank Challenge this is not always the case: for example firing the service weapons of the crew is only done with the Danish rifle, which gives the Danish soldiers some benefit (they are trained with this rifle.)



The M1A2 SEP v2, which is currently the most advanced version in US service didn't beat Italians only the Slovenian team in museum piece M84s (clone T72) ,with manual firecontrol, -+1 mil weapon stabilisation and 80's optics. Effectively US teams placed dead last Slovenian team in M84 beat them in most tasks but firing where M1A2SEP tech comes to light. The US team barely edged out T-72 monkeys(M84).


One detail most overlooked ,wining german team was the only one of all participating teams not lead by an officer but by NCO and reservists

Crews suck , they had issues with basic tank skills like camouflaging a vehicle in terrain.
From Strong Europe Tank Challenge






Detailed Score : http://www.mihalko-family.com/Canadian-Army-Trophy-Competition.htm#SETC

NATO Struggles to Recover after Years of Budget Cuts

A recent study set off widespread concern about NATO's readiness to confront Russian aggression. Now, alliance member states are ratcheting up defense spending -- but the numbers still don't add up.

RAND Corporation simulations aren't for the faint of heart. The think tank in Santa Monica, California is a progeny of the Cold War and the 1960 study conducted by legendary systems theorist Herman Kahn -- which examined the consequences of nuclear war -- has not been forgotten.

He believed the aftermath could be managed. Following a nuclear conflict, Kahn proposed, contaminated food should be reserved for the elderly since they would likely die before contracting cancer as a result of radiation. The researcher thus became one of the inspirations for Stanley Kubrick's film satire "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

Several weeks ago, the California-based game theorists released another study that received a fair amount of attention. Financed by the Pentagon, they created a series of simulations for a hypothetical Russian invasion of the two Baltic states of Estonia and Latvia.

"The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO," the RAND researchers wrote in their report. In each simulation, the Russians were able to either circumvent the outnumbered NATO units, or even worse, destroy them. Between 36 and 60 hours after the beginning of hostilities, Russian troops stood before the gates of Riga or Tallinn -- or both.

The RAND simulation triggered heated debate. In an article headlined "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love NATO's Crushing Defeat by Russia," American military expert Michael Kofman questioned strategic parameters used in the simulations. "No one can intelligently articulate the benefits of such potential actions for the Russians," he wrote.

But the game theorists from Santa Monica aren't the only ones simulating grim scenarios these days. The Russians are conducting giant military exercises to practice for a war with the West. At the same time, they are reinforcing military units stationed in the exclave of Kaliningrad, located between Poland and Lithuania.

NATO in turn intends to station rotating battalions to the Baltic States as a signal to Moscow that the alliance takes its commitment to mutual assistance seriously. Security experts and generals, though, are complaining that such moves are not enough and are pushing for the stationing of larger and -- especially -- more permanent units on the alliance's eastern flank.

It has been several months in coming, but the Ukraine crisis has now led to a renaissance of Cold War-era military thinking. In the 1980s, Western military leaders spoke about the strategic vulnerability of the Fulda Gap. Today, it is Poland's Suwalki Gap that is giving them sleepless nights.


Trust Gives Way to Deterrence

At the NATO summit in Warsaw in early July, leaders of NATO member states will discard their policy of "trust" and recommit to a policy of "deterrence." Just like before.

The change will have wide-ranging consequences. Because no matter how many units are ultimately stationed in the east, one thing is clear: It will be expensive. The peace dividend has been exhausted. For a quarter of a century, NATO states were able to shrink their military forces: It made sense and saved money. The German military, the Bundeswehr, alone shrank from half-a-million soldiers to 177,000 over the course of 25 years.

Now it has become clear that force reduction went too far. Lots of European armed forces are operating at the limits of their operational capacity, with too few soldiers and old, worn-out equipment. Over the years, a strong need for investment has accrued. Some Bundeswehr units today are so ill equipped that they need to trade scarce equipment among each -- a process referred to as "dynamic availability management."

The Americans in particular are putting pressure on the Europeans to once again invest more significantly in their own defense. In March, US President Barack Obama complained about the European "free riders" who are profiting from American protection while refusing to take on their "fair share."

The New Cold War - NATO Plans 40k Force, Bases on Russia's Border Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160615/1041407693/nato-cold-war-russian-border.html#ixzz4BgiD6rQi

Curious, with 40K troops to be stationed near Russia, I wonder what will Russia's response be? If it is to station more troops in west, then the US will just respond with even more stationed troops. IT will just be continuous till Russia has no more troops to be able to station in the west.

So something else will have to be done. I figure Russia will have to start moving troops and equipment to Crimea (even more), more to Kaliningrad and start sending troops to friendly nations.

sepheronx wrote:The New Cold War - NATO Plans 40k Force, Bases on Russia's Border  Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20160615/1041407693/nato-cold-war-russian-border.html#ixzz4BgiD6rQi

Curious, with 40K troops to be stationed near Russia, I wonder what will Russia's response be? If it is to station more troops in west, then the US will just respond with even more stationed troops.  IT will just be continuous till Russia has no more troops to be able to station in the west.

So something else will have to be done.  I figure Russia will have to start moving troops and equipment to Crimea (even more), more to Kaliningrad and start sending troops to friendly nations.

Russia outght to have deployed land forces in Belarus, last year.
At least 25,000 like in Crimea.

Not sure how serious these NATO numbers are though. I've only heard about those 4-5,000 so far.

it is quite questionable of course the whole mention of it because it states 4,000 perminant troops but mentions 4 batallions quick reaction forces. So my guess is 40,000 NATO troops trained and ready. So each nation part of NATO will train 40,000 troops to be ready at short notice and flown into the nations. So probably not 40,000 troops of NATO stationed between Romania, Poland Latvia and Lithuania, but trained in various countries ready to be flown in.

Still. Glad to know that there are 25,000 in Crimea. How many in Kaliningrad though? They should increase it to at least 40,000 troops.

sepheronx wrote:it is quite questionable of course the whole mention of it because it states 4,000 perminant troops but mentions 4 batallions quick reaction forces.  So my guess is 40,000 NATO troops trained and ready.  So each nation part of NATO will train 40,000 troops to be ready at short notice and flown into the nations.  So probably not 40,000 troops of NATO stationed between Romania, Poland Latvia and Lithuania, but trained in various countries ready to be flown in.

Still.  Glad to know that there are 25,000 in Crimea.  How many in Kaliningrad though? They should increase it to at least 40,000 troops.

I mentioned 25,000 as the number quoted as maximum for Crimea deployment, before annexation.
That number was treaty-assigned iirc. I assume post-annexation the number may be higher.

Landmark NATO Summit to Begin In Warsaw


On Friday and Saturday (8-9 July 2016), the leaders of the 28 NATO Allies and many partner nations will meet for a landmark Warsaw Summit. Together, they will take decisions to enhance the Alliance’s security by strengthening its deterrence and defence, and projecting stability beyond its borders.

Allies will agree to deploy four robust and multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, on a rotational basis. A multinational framework brigade in Romania will provide a tailored presence in south-eastern Europe. NATO will also take further steps to improve cyber defences, civil preparedness and to defend against ballistic missile attack from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

To project stability beyond our borders, leaders will agree to extend NATO’s training mission in Iraq and to broaden the Alliance’s role in the central Mediterranean. They will also approve the deployment of NATO’s AWACS surveillance aircraft to support the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL. NATO will continue its military and financial support for Afghanistan and will strengthen political and practical cooperation with Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova.

Since NATO’s last summit in Wales in 2014, Allies have implemented the biggest increase in collective defence since the Cold War. Last year, Allies also increased defence spending for the first time in many years. Today, NATO is faster, stronger and more ready for any challenge. The decisions taken at the Warsaw Summit will help to ensure the safety of our citizens for years to come.

There have been 27 previous summits. The first one was in December 1957. The last one was in Wales in September 2014. This Summit is the first to be hosted in Poland and the first to be chaired by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Fifty-eight official delegations will participate in the Summit. This includes all 28 NATO Allies, Montenegro which has been invited to join the Alliance, 26 partner countries and representatives from the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. About 2,500 official delegates and 2,000 media representatives will attend.