• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

SEP 2024 - Kiel Institute Report - "Fit for war in decades: Europe's and Germany's slow rearmament vis-a-vis Russia"

George Wallace

Army.ca Dinosaur
Reaction score
96
Points
560
The "Weapons and Strategy" page has posted an article by Stephen Bryen, Oct 23, 2024:

A DISTURBING STUDY MAKES IT CLEAR EUROPE CANNOT BE DEFENDED TODAY​


The German Kiel Institute has published a disturbing, but accurate report on German and European defense. The report suggests that the overall picture for Germany, Europe and the United States, is grim. The bottom line is that despite all the NATO war talk, NATO (including the United States) is not ready for any conflict with Russia. It also suggests that the pricing of defense equipment is making defense companies rich, but not helping the overall cause of security.

The Kiel Institute was founded in 1914 and is regarded as Germany's leading influential think tank. In September, the Institute produced a study called "Fit for war in decades: Europe's and Germany's slow rearmament vis a vis Russia." The study is very important: it points out how unprepared Germany and other European countries are should Russia attack them. It tells a sad tale about how overpriced and insufficient is European, specifically German, defense manufacturing.

A great example is a German Air Assault vehicle called Caracal. A Caracal is a kind of wild cat found in Africa, Pakistan, the Middle East, and parts of India. The German vehicle, which is an unarmored gussied-up jeep based on a Mercedes G class chassis, was put together by Rheinmetall, Mercedes-Benz AG and ACS Armored Car Systems GmbH.

The Caracal has no armor on its sides (which are open). A little more than 3,000 of these vehicles were provided to Ukraine at a cost of € 1.9 billion, which works out to a unit price of €620,000. You could bolt an antitank gun or machine gun on a 4 wheel drive commercial jeep for less than $35,000 per copy. (And since Ukraine has no airlift capability, an air assault vehicle dropped onto the battlefield is a non-starter.) The Euro is currently valued compared to the dollar at $1.08.

An equally appalling example is 30mm ammunition for the German Puma. The Puma is an infantry fighting vehicle. The Puma costs a staggering $5.3 million each! But get this, the 30mm ammunition for the Puma comes to around €1,000 per shot! Puma can fire up to 600 rounds per minute. That compares to a US 30mm High Explosive Dual Purpose round (more specialized than a run of the mill bullet) at $100. So German 30mm ammunition is ten times more expensive than from the US.

he German army also is buying tactical military headsets for soldiers. Commercially available tactical headsets are available on a retail basis for $299. If you add features such as noise cancellation, the price may go up to $400, not more. But the German headsets cost a whopping € 2700!

The bottom line is that people are making a lot of money supplying European armies or sending stuff to Ukraine. Some might say it is outright corruption, since governments are unwilling, perhaps complicit, in these deals. Mind that the Kiel Institute only goes as far as saying these purchases are uber-expensive, no more.

The Kiel report has a lot to say about defense industrial output in Russia (which is a lot), by the fact that the Russians are not going to run out of weapons anytime soon, and that supplies are now augmented by North Korea in the form of artillery rounds and missiles. North Korea, it seems, has been grinding out weapons well in excess of anything it can use, and until now it did not export. The Russian deal with North Korea sustains the Kim dictatorship, of course, by providing cash (or the equivalent) and underwriting jobs.

All of this helps explain, in part, that Germany's investments in defense are corrupted (I think that is the right word) by excessively expensive hardware. Even if Germany actually meets the NATO target of 2.1% of GDP for defense, what the German army ends up getting is extremely overpriced, not to mention that a lot of it is ending up in Ukraine and only slowly, if at all, replaced on the home front.

Even with adequate spending, what money is spent on boggles the mind. Very little, for example, is going into air defense, something that is vital for future defense needs.

Overall, NATO-supplied air defenses have done a mediocre to extremely poor job in Ukraine, a harbinger of a deadly future in Europe unless the problem is corrected.

Larry Johnson pointed out to me an intriguing footnote (page 25) in the report, set in ultra-small type and easily ignored. The footnote discusses Ukraine's ability to shoot down Russian missiles and drones. "Sample interception rates for commonly used Russian missiles in 2024: 50% for the older Kalibr subsonic cruise missiles, 22% for modern subsonic cruise missiles (e.g. Kh-69), 4% for modern ballistic missiles (e.g. Iskander-M), 0.6% for S-300/400 supersonic long-range SAM, and 0.55% for the Kh-22 supersonic anti-ship missile. Data on interception rates of hypersonic missiles is scarce: Ukraine claims a 25% interception rate for hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon missiles, but Ukrainian sources also indicate such interceptions require salvo firing all 32 launchers in a US-style Patriot battery to have any chance to shoot down a single hypersonic missile. By comparison, German Patriot batteries have 16 launchers, and Germany has 72 launchers in total."

Take note that interceptor missiles for Patriot are in ultra short supply. These missiles take a long time to manufacture, and gearing up to make them has proven challenging. There is a shortage of critical components, also bolloxing production lines. While Lockheed Martin is the main producer, Boeing provides key parts for the seeker the missile uses to strike its target (when it works). Boeing won't solve that problem, at the earliest, until 2027. Meanwhile Boeing faces a massive industrial strike and an internal crisis far from a solution.

But there are big questions about air defenses. The US has sold Patriot and other systems to Ukraine. The Russians spend a lot of effort destroying them, but even when they function their intercept rate is below par. Europe has supplied IRIS-T, NSAMS and other systems that, so far as can be determined, are roughly equivalent to Patriot. On the whole Israeli systems are better, but they are not deployed in Ukraine. What is regarded as the top US system for air defense, AEGIS (in the form of AEGIS Ashore), is not in Ukraine. The systems are in Poland and Romania.

Europe has very little in the way of home-deployed air defense (Britain essentially has none). The US is not much better off. Some system, especially the Ground Based Mid-Course Interceptor (based in Alaska) is a mixed bag, and the Pentagon is now looking for new interceptor missiles that work better than what they have. Despite a lot of tests that were optimized to try and assure success, the forty of so missiles in inventory only work about half the time.

And the future is also concerning as hypersonic weapons arrive on the battlefield, as already they have in Ukraine in the form of Kinzhal and Zircon. Systems like Patriot or Iris-T or any of the other NATO air defense systems hardly stand a chance against hypersonic attack missiles.

The picture also isn't pretty when it comes to drones, which are being fired off by the thousands by the Ukrainians and Russians. They are hard to kill, and systems like the Russian Lancet drone can destroy modern battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. No one so far, including Israel, has come up with an efficient way to destroy swarms of drones, or even some lesser attacks that get through.

Above all the Kiel report puts a new and important perspective on Europe's security situation and, by extension, the US as it is pledged by treaty to help defend Europe. Instead of constantly expanding NATO and creating angst in Europe and Russia, it is time to step back and see if a credible defense of Europe is possible. Right now, the answer is, it cannot.

 
If we had to go up against the pre-2022 Russian Army without the US in Europe, then I would the Europeans are screwed. but currently, there is no way for Russia to afford a 2nd front. They likley could defend against an incursion, but not invade anywhere successfully. At current attrition rates, they have about 1.5 years of old tanks to reactivate, after that, they will have not enough new armour even for the current fight. If they opened a 2nd front, I suspect that "reserve" would be gone in less than a year, including time to refit the tanks. Their missile stockpile would dwindle just as fast.
Europe needs to rearm to defeat the current Russian army after 5 years of rest and rearmament with no fighting. Thankfully they don't have to face the Soviet horde this time.
 
If we had to go up against the pre-2022 Russian Army without the US in Europe, then I would the Europeans are screwed. but currently, there is no way for Russia to afford a 2nd front. They likley could defend against an incursion, but not invade anywhere successfully. At current attrition rates, they have about 1.5 years of old tanks to reactivate, after that, they will have not enough new armour even for the current fight. If they opened a 2nd front, I suspect that "reserve" would be gone in less than a year, including time to refit the tanks. Their missile stockpile would dwindle just as fast.
Europe needs to rearm to defeat the current Russian army after 5 years of rest and rearmament with no fighting. Thankfully they don't have to face the Soviet horde this time.
Let’s be honest at this point Canada could invade Russia from Latvia - and Russia would be hard pressed to stop you before you got to Moscow and opened up a BeaverTail stand and a Timmie’s. Not because they are weak - but they have everything focused on Ukraine

The Ukrainians are still active in Kursk. Credible reports have them throwing the North Koreans into combat there.
 
Let’s be honest at this point Canada could invade Russia from Latvia - and Russia would be hard pressed to stop you before you got to Moscow and opened up a BeaverTail stand and a Timmie’s. Not because they are weak - but they have everything focused on Ukraine

The Ukrainians are still active in Kursk. Credible reports have them throwing the North Koreans into combat there.
The Russian army still has a lot of conscripts on the borders, maybe not a lot by Soviet/Russian standards, but a lot by our standards. Legally the Conscripts can't fight in the "SMO", but they can be compelled to fight in Kursk, likley that is also why the NK are going there as well.
 
If you are looking for the search term "Canada," you will be frustrated.

More than anything this publication convinces me even more that we need a domestic army oriented arms industry to supplement the Navy and even air force ones.

;)
This brings up an important point. In order to have a proper arms industry, the West would need to reindustrialize and I can't see a way for it to do that without upsetting the proverbial apple cart that we have created for ourselves by heavily favoring and gearing policy towards the FIRE sector vs investing in Labour.

The only way to reindustrialize is to make investments in Labour and none of the major political parties in Canada, the US or elsewhere in the West are pro-labour.

I would argue that in both Canada and the US, the Libs/Cons & Dems/Republicans are all anti-labour and pro-FIRE. Their reasons for being so are slightly different but their means of achieving the ends are the same.
 
Let’s be honest at this point Canada could invade Russia from Latvia - and Russia would be hard pressed to stop you before you got to Moscow and opened up a BeaverTail stand and a Timmie’s.
I'd actually open a outlet mall with a Tim's and a few other coffee joints.
 
This brings up an important point. In order to have a proper arms industry, the West would need to reindustrialize and I can't see a way for it to do that without upsetting the proverbial apple cart that we have created for ourselves by heavily favoring and gearing policy towards the FIRE sector vs investing in Labour.

The only way to reindustrialize is to make investments in Labour and none of the major political parties in Canada, the US or elsewhere in the West are pro-labour.

I would argue that in both Canada and the US, the Libs/Cons & Dems/Republicans are all anti-labour and pro-FIRE. Their reasons for being so are slightly different but their means of achieving the ends are the same.
I'm not sure that we're talking the same scale or that the government is anti-labour and pro-FIRE.

I left out the ship building and aerospace industry as we actually have that at a sustainable level. What we don't have is a continuous army oriented industry (except GDLS in London at a limited focus). We don't need to go far to build tanks and artillery (heavy gun barrels are a stretch right now), IFVs and logistics vehicles other than to ensure that there is a long term production model in place to keep various plants active on a continuing basis rather than the current feast or famine model. Ammunition isn't a challenge either except in terms of continuing outputs at scale so as to make it a profitable system to invest in.

I think we have gravitated away from labour (especially here in Ontario) because both labour and energy have become expensive so that capital flows towards FIRE industries which provide a better, more assured income stream.

Leaving that discussion aside, the macro trends, regardless of reason, do not impact on the industrial characteristics of an arms industry in Canada that would operate at an appropriate scale here. The required outputs would require very little investment in either capital or labour as it is heavily machine dependent. It really just requires a stable, continuous market and a will to make it happen. It's the lack of the latter that is the greatest impediment.

🍻
 
This brings up an important point. In order to have a proper arms industry, the West would need to reindustrialize and I can't see a way for it to do that without upsetting the proverbial apple cart that we have created for ourselves by heavily favoring and gearing policy towards the FIRE sector vs investing in Labour.

The only way to reindustrialize is to make investments in Labour and none of the major political parties in Canada, the US or elsewhere in the West are pro-labour.

I would argue that in both Canada and the US, the Libs/Cons & Dems/Republicans are all anti-labour and pro-FIRE. Their reasons for being so are slightly different but their means of achieving the ends are the same.
I have always told Conservative party types is that labour is ripe for the picking. Promise jobs, tone down the anti-union rhetoric. The only union the Conservatives are likely to harm are the Public Service ones. If Conservatives focus on getting industry and infrastructure jobs going, the rank and file union types will vote for them. The union leadership is generally socialist, but the members of the non Public Service unions generally like their pickup trucks, 4x4, recreational vehicles, ICE cars, guns, hunting and beer. Also the average FN type these days wants a steady job and for most of the remote communities that means resource oriented jobs.
We need to look at vertical integration of resource extraction, to industrial output of steel, chips and components. Then into manufactured products. It may require partial nationalization of certain factories/mills/mines to ensure that we maintain that capacity.
 
A few here are selling Canadian Industry short.
What Canada does and does well is the small things for the larger base. Coatings to prolong the life of rifle, gun and artillery barrels. Production of senser parts for various equipment such as night vision, thermal optics, radars, sonars etc.
Our production workers manufacture and supply through out the world, rubber tracks for armored vehicles. Build road wheels, bearing surfaces, all kinds of forged parts that go into making the larger components work.

Sensor fusion not only for Aircraft and Ships, but also the optics on gun control systems, tracking systems, satellite technology.

Canadian industry does not directly have is requirement to build the larger land force equipment. We do have the expertise to do so. It would not take much to transition over to doing do. It appears a few companies have been been buying equipment such as large hammer forges that could be transitioned over from their normal operations to build things such as tank and artillery barrels.

I do wonder why our ammunition and explosives manufacturing is stunted?
 
I do wonder why our ammunition and explosives manufacturing is stunted?
There was an article a few weeks/months ago on this very topic. It seems that the Trudeau Liberals have created a problem within our "Ammunition Industry" by not keeping our stocks up and allowing the industry to go into bankruptcy, or very close to it. When Trudeau sends our ammo supplies off to the Ukraine and makes no effort to replace it (seems to be a common trend in other military 'donations', as well), then our production is gravely affected.
 
There was an article a few weeks/months ago on this very topic. It seems that the Trudeau Liberals have created a problem within our "Ammunition Industry" by not keeping our stocks up and allowing the industry to go into bankruptcy, or very close to it. When Trudeau sends our ammo supplies off to the Ukraine and makes no effort to replace it (seems to be a common trend in other military 'donations', as well), then our production is gravely affected.
My understanding is GDLS does not want to loose production capability in Canada. It goes past just making shell bodies. But includes the raw materials required for the bodies, propellant and explosives.
 
We need to take a real close look at Germany and VW. VW has gone to their workers and basically told them that if you don't take reductions you will no longer have a factory to work in. With the costs of energy being so high, businesses can't afford the salaries anymore. Unless the government wants to nationalize the entire industry and operate at a loss, the first thing that has to happen is the industries have to be made able to stand on their own. There is a definite market for shells, gun tubes, tanks, APCs: anything you want to name but only if we can make our plants competitive; not cheapest but competitive and rely on quality control to bridge any gaps. But we are long past the date when those industries should have been incentivized.
 
There was an article a few weeks/months ago on this very topic. It seems that the Trudeau Liberals have created a problem within our "Ammunition Industry" by not keeping our stocks up and allowing the industry to go into bankruptcy, or very close to it. When Trudeau sends our ammo supplies off to the Ukraine and makes no effort to replace it (seems to be a common trend in other military 'donations', as well), then our production is gravely affected.

It seems that DND is trying to increase artillery ammo production...

Canada asking weapons-makers for plans to ramp up ammunition production​


"We've donated tens of thousands of rounds of NATO-standard, 155 mm artillery ammunition to Ukraine. But Ukraine needs much more ammunition -- and quite frankly, so does Canada and the (Canadian Armed Forces)," Blair said.

Several of Canada's allies have already signed deals to increase their own production.

 
It seems that DND is trying to increase artillery ammo production...

Canada asking weapons-makers for plans to ramp up ammunition production​


"We've donated tens of thousands of rounds of NATO-standard, 155 mm artillery ammunition to Ukraine. But Ukraine needs much more ammunition -- and quite frankly, so does Canada and the (Canadian Armed Forces)," Blair said.

Several of Canada's allies have already signed deals to increase their own production.

That article came out March 7th, 2024...checks calendar...over 2 full years after Russia's full-scale re-invasion of Ukraine...and we're finally asking our domestic weapons makers for PLANS to ramp up ammunition production?

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it have made more sense to simply place an ORDER for more ammunition on March 7th, 2022 with a commitment for X number of years of ongoing orders and let industry figure out how to ramp up production in order to meet those requirements?
 
That article came out March 7th, 2024...checks calendar...over 2 full years after Russia's full-scale re-invasion of Ukraine...and we're finally asking our domestic weapons makers for PLANS to ramp up ammunition production?

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it have made more sense to simply place an ORDER for more ammunition on March 7th, 2022 with a commitment for X number of years of ongoing orders and let industry figure out how to ramp up production in order to meet those requirements?

Yes 'WE' can ;)


1730232729015.png
 
That article came out March 7th, 2024...checks calendar...over 2 full years after Russia's full-scale re-invasion of Ukraine...and we're finally asking our domestic weapons makers for PLANS to ramp up ammunition production?

Call me crazy, but wouldn't it have made more sense to simply place an ORDER for more ammunition on March 7th, 2022 with a commitment for X number of years of ongoing orders and let industry figure out how to ramp up production in order to meet those requirements?
With hindsight, yes.

But remember back then, most Western observers were betting that Kyiv would be lost in a matter of days, and the country in the matter of weeks. The RUS military was Thunder-Running towards Kyiv until it…didn’t. I’m not sure that NATO militaries were ready to go into UKR at that point.

But a year later? Yeah, definitely should have started talks with suppliers.
 
With hindsight, yes.

But remember back then, most Western observers were betting that Kyiv would be lost in a matter of days, and the country in the matter of weeks. The RUS military was Thunder-Running towards Kyiv until it…didn’t. I’m not sure that NATO militaries were ready to go into UKR at that point.

But a year later? Yeah, definitely should have started talks with suppliers.
we should have started gearing up in 2014 at the very latest. With his actions in Georgia and Chechnya Putin had demonstrated that he wished to rebuild the Soviet Union which would have included the Baltic States and Poland; even possibly parts of Germany but that is a question mark. With what we had available, assuming Ukraine was occupied, what would we have been able to bring to the table to stop those countries from being absorbed? Putin was promising war and we were still scrapping hardware from the cold war with no thought being given to its replacement.
 
Back
Top