Licensing the self-propelled Bohdana for EU manufacture would also be a good option, since it’s battle-proven in peer warfare and doesn’t fall under ITAR, so derisking from our chaos and avoiding Russian allies (also an issue with Indian weapons)
PleasantPersimmon798 on
It would be only fair if Ukraine became one of the EU’s main arms manufacturers after the war.
RealSuggestion9247 on
These designs are unlikely to be of significant use and adaptation across Europe. Europe has in large part moved on from towed artillery, apart from niche uses, and should there be a future need is identified older designs that conceptually are out of date can be updated to modern manufacturing processes and practices with ease.
A reason towed artillery is unlikely to make a comeback is the developments in Ukraine. Without strong combined arms war degrades to near stalemated fronts. Towed artillery has some advantages in such a scenario, cost and complexity being of primary concern, but is very unsuited to combined arms operations exploiting breakthroughs, or for that matter relocating to defence in depth in a volatile battle space. Western doctrine depends on manoeuvre speed and towed artillery does not fit the bill.
People should stop believing everything that comes out if Ukraine is ‘the shit’. Ukraine makes what it can with what it has, and gets access to from its partners. Similar or better equipment can be made in Europe…
That people think Ukraine is to become an arsenal for democracy (Europe) is silly. What European government would, after the war, fund Ukrainian industry and manufacturing (at scale) in Ukraine at the cost of not creating well paid jobs in their own countries? It is delusional.
alexin_C on
There’s a catch that with the emergence of long range drones and counter battery radars, towed artillery has a few disadvantages that are rather terminal. Now, pit that into a mobile system and we’re talking.
4 commenti
Licensing the self-propelled Bohdana for EU manufacture would also be a good option, since it’s battle-proven in peer warfare and doesn’t fall under ITAR, so derisking from our chaos and avoiding Russian allies (also an issue with Indian weapons)
It would be only fair if Ukraine became one of the EU’s main arms manufacturers after the war.
These designs are unlikely to be of significant use and adaptation across Europe. Europe has in large part moved on from towed artillery, apart from niche uses, and should there be a future need is identified older designs that conceptually are out of date can be updated to modern manufacturing processes and practices with ease.
A reason towed artillery is unlikely to make a comeback is the developments in Ukraine. Without strong combined arms war degrades to near stalemated fronts. Towed artillery has some advantages in such a scenario, cost and complexity being of primary concern, but is very unsuited to combined arms operations exploiting breakthroughs, or for that matter relocating to defence in depth in a volatile battle space. Western doctrine depends on manoeuvre speed and towed artillery does not fit the bill.
People should stop believing everything that comes out if Ukraine is ‘the shit’. Ukraine makes what it can with what it has, and gets access to from its partners. Similar or better equipment can be made in Europe…
That people think Ukraine is to become an arsenal for democracy (Europe) is silly. What European government would, after the war, fund Ukrainian industry and manufacturing (at scale) in Ukraine at the cost of not creating well paid jobs in their own countries? It is delusional.
There’s a catch that with the emergence of long range drones and counter battery radars, towed artillery has a few disadvantages that are rather terminal. Now, pit that into a mobile system and we’re talking.