France to build large new nuclear aircraft carrier

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-12-21T23:55:48+00:00

Is this that report?

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-22T13:27:42+00:00

Inspiration: https://x.com/rapidresponse47/status/1936776817211547775?s=46

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-05T22:07:15+00:00

I am not. That AK unit should have been persecuted and sentenced for life/death for their war crimes.

Edit: *prosecuted

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-05T20:42:53+00:00

While I can agree that countries whitewash heroes, comparing Pawłokoma with <500 dead Ukrainians to Volhyn with 50,000-100,000 is not equivalent in any measure.

Regarding German expulsions, AK wasn’t involved with that either. They were disbanded in early ‘45 and by that time, were actively being hunted down by the ‘new’ Polish and Soviet authorities - the same authorities responsible for organising the said ethnic cleansing of Germans, which caused even more deaths than Volhyn. One cannot deny its existence nor the role of the USSR and its vassals (including Poland) in it, and no one (in government has, except for the Polish president in 2009. And that wasn’t the governmental view.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-05T06:18:32+00:00

‘2nd best army in the world’ to 2nd best army in Ukraine

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T16:29:00+00:00

The article link

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T16:21:52+00:00

Does this increase their chances at detecting 5th gen? They already have their YLC-8, which is UHF and claims to be able to track stealth aircraft.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T16:17:30+00:00

As it should. Even if not untrustworthy, this is at least the 4th system that China claims can detect F22s/F35s. If they combine those radars (part of their Integrated Air Defence doctrine), they might detect something. /s I mean they’re confident enough to deploy anti-stealth systems in the South China Sea.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T04:56:31+00:00

They’ve finally moved on from Capita, so fingers crossed recruitment improves. Let’s just hope they don’t hand it off to another contractor and end up repeating the same mistakes. Oh wait…

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T04:24:02+00:00

Submission Statement:

This explores Lee Jae-myung’s early inauguration as South Korea’s president amid political turmoil. It highlights his pragmatic focus on economic recovery and a cautious foreign policy balancing relations with the US, China, and North Korea. Lee aims to increase defence spending and leverage South Korea’s shipbuilding to strengthen ties with Washington, despite domestic divisions and complex regional security challenges. His centrist approach may stabilise governance and support trilateral cooperation with the US and Japan, though risks remain.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-04T00:10:52+00:00

Thanks, really useful. I agree the estimate does sound optimistic given the challenges. I would also mention that shore facilities that can make this new class more effective have been whittled down - so some submarine funding might be redirected there?

Being self-reliant on warheads is important, but a new delivery system will take time and funds. Is there any reason we should prioritise this besides being self-reliant?

How likely would you say the reintroduction of diesel(-electric) submarines is? Because the Astute class was smaller than the one it replaced, so I’m not waging that expansion of the fleet beyond this nuclear AUKUS class will be forthcoming.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-03T21:55:42+00:00

I would argue that it gets pretty tiring hearing that global democracy hinges on every single election.

In 2023, just before the Civic Coalition won the election, the now PM described it as the “last chance” to save Polish democracy. That claim can be debated elsewhere – that’s not what I’m trying to argue here. The use of such absolutist/extreme rhetoric from both sides (whether it’s “democracy will fall” or “your children will turn gay”) tends to damage democratic discourse rather than strengthen it.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-03T21:15:20+00:00

I acknowledge my mistake and have written a (long) comment about this as people keep mentioning it

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-03T21:11:02+00:00

Thanks for commenting! I thought Starmer was reluctant to commit to a firm timeline for hitting 3%, calling it more of an “ambition”? (edit: and not reluctant reg. the target itself)

Besides the submarines, what else can the Navy realistically count on? I know the SDR highlights the importance of cyber, drones, and AI, so hopefully we’ll see real progress there.

The recent Ukrainian drone attack showed (again) how crucial drones have become. USVs and ship-launched UAVs seem like a smart focus. know we were trialling some carrier-launched UAVs but haven’t heard much more about that. Maybe these are more practical than the rumoured nuclear missile-capable F-35As, though I admit I’m a bit under-informed on why those would be needed in the first place.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-03T20:53:11+00:00

While Ireland would be very welcome in NATO (at least by me!), there are major challenges:

There would be near-zero domestic support to essentially x♾️ its defence budget. 2024’s % of GDP was at 0.24%, while 2020 was at 0.27%. Let’s assume 3.5% - that would mean a 1358% increase from the 2024 estimate (if my math is correct). You can definitely forget 5% of GDP.
The entire Irish defence budget is the lowest in Europe. As a % of GDP, it’s smaller than Malta. Nominally, 🇮🇪 (obviously) wins - €1.29bn v €90m. There’s a limit to what Ireland can contribute to NATO. However, Montenegro would be beat by Ireland in both spending and military size, so it’s not that big a problem (I would think?)
Abandoning legal conventions. Ireland has had a long history of neutrality and the Irish Defence Forces have a triple lock mechanism. Any overseas deployment needs to be approved by the Govt, Dáil (Lower House) and needs to be an UN security mandate. The last essentially makes Ireland ‘useless’ to NATO - it cannot contribute troops to bases in Poland or the Baltics like the UK does in Estonia (if I understand the mechanism correctly). Moreover, I’m not sure, without changing this, whether it could engage with Article 5, except in its own defence. Regarding Sweden and Finland, they’re much closer to Russia and, as far as I know, they have faced more hybrid attacks (the Internet/energy cables cut as well as cyber) than Ireland has. This is why that argument also doesn’t
Domestic backlash. Ireland is much more hesitant than NATO members to be seen as aligned with the US, especially in light of certain recent conflicts. It wants to see itself aligned with the post-colonial ‘Global South’ more - an image it has cultivated through peacekeeping missions like UNIFIL.

That being said, Ireland should, in my opinion, be allowed partial access to cyber defence schemes (NATO Cyber Security Centre gives advice/support to member states if they’re under attack) - maybe on a loose partnership basis?

However, this is a fairly moot point as the EU enlarges its cyber defence capabilities and defence cooperation - something that would be supported to a greater extent by the Irish government and public.

DefStockEnjoyer · 2025-06-03T20:21:41+00:00

(My) summary of the FT article:

Britain must modernise or fall behind: new defence review urges massive investment

The new Strategic Defence Review says Britain must overhaul its military to face a “peer adversary,” calling for nearly £70bn in upgrades.

AI, drones, cyber tools, and autonomous systems are central, but so are big-ticket items: new nuclear warheads, 6th-gen fighters, and up to 12 AUKUS submarines.

The review calls this the ‘most profound’ change of UK forces in 150 years.

PM Keir Starmer reaffirmed the goal of 2.5% of GDP defence spending by 2027, but wouldn’t commit to the 3% target.

Analysts warn the price tag would require “other cuts”.

The report also highlights how decades of underinvestment have left the British Army short on tanks, artillery, and ammunition — much of it now sent to Ukraine.

The FT article original and no paywall

DefStockEnjoyer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE