International Military Discussion

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 02 Jan 2019 01:20

70-ton crane fell and made a 200-foot hole in Russian aircraft carrier flight deck

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Jan 2019 21:42

US offers Turkey no discount or technology sharing in latest Patriot missiles bid

https://www.yenisafak.com/en/news/us-of ... id-3470935

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 07 Jan 2019 23:36

Israeli F-15 lands safely after losing canopy at 30,000 feet

JERUSALEM: The crew of an Israeli air force F-15 warplane fought freezing temperatures and buffeting winds to bring their aircraft down after its cockpit canopy flew off at 30,000 feet, the military said on Monday.

In a dramatic cockpit voice recording of the January 2 incident airmen can be heard shouting to one another over the roaring wind and engine noise, in what a military statement said were temperatures of -45 degrees Celsius (-49 Fahrenheit).

The landing went without further incident, the statement said, adding that the air force chief of staff ordered an immediate halt to training flights in F-15s pending an investigation.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 12 Jan 2019 23:49

Indian company to take care of Light Armor System Upgrade project for the Philippines
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... pines.html

The Philippine Department of National Defense (DND) has awarded Indian company Larsen & Toubro (L&T) the acquisition project for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)’s Light Armor System Upgrade (LARSU), for a budget of $US 14 million.

Rakesh · Post by **Rakesh** » 13 Jan 2019 00:34

US Military orders additional Trophy Systems for Abrams Tanks
https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/37053

Rafael's Trophy on US Army Abrams tank

Leonardo DRS, Rafael’s US-based partner, announced it had received a contract initially worth up to $79.6 million to provide the US Army and Marine Corps with additional Trophy active protection systems.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 14 Jan 2019 15:56

Austin wrote:
JayS wrote:Mach 27..? Unbelievable. This is a game chaging event. Is there any pic, schematic exists of the hypersonic glider..? What is the range of this glider stage once its dittached from the ICBM its piggybacking..?
Yesterday HGV flew at more than 6000 km from the launch site to test range but that is because that is the limitation of test range most Russian ICBM light one like Topol-M and RS-24 have range more than 11,000 km , Medium category like SS-19 on which AVantgrad is carried has range more than 15,000 km and SS-18 heavy ICBM has any where trajectory means you can fire over north or south pole to reach CONUS or any where you wish.

No official pictures are available obvisouly but some one managed to get patient drawing they claim is for the HGV

Thanks Austin. Do you mean the Hypersonic glider alone flew 6000km..? I want to know how much distance the glider alone can fly once its detached from the mother missile. Of coarse total range will be dependent of what mother missile is used to throw the hypersonic glider and can be any of the numbers you mentioned.

OK, tell me something, is this a scramjet with its own power or just a glider...?

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 15 Jan 2019 08:39

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jan 2019 10:57

JayS wrote:Thanks Austin. Do you mean the Hypersonic glider alone flew 6000km..? I want to know how much distance the glider alone can fly once its detached from the mother missile. Of coarse total range will be dependent of what mother missile is used to throw the hypersonic glider and can be any of the numbers you mentioned.

If you draw a straight line from dombarovsky missile base to kura testing range distance is 6,200 km , The official video or CGI linked below it has boost phase and short 1st stage post that the HGV glides on its own in a ball of plasma in a S shaped trajectory changing altitude and direction presumuly to avoid missile defence ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOXmUqfShXM )

We dont have any office figure on how much distance HGV travelled the CGI does show the HGV does most of the flight and since it does not follow a simple ballistic trajectory but a zig zag one it may be difficult to calculate the distance the HGV traveled , The speed disclosed should give some idea on the inject velocity of HGV. There is a good reason why you wont want to show the design of HGV , Distance traveled and the impact point

OK, tell me something, is this a scramjet with its own power or just a glider...?

It is a powered glider but it is not just pure scramjet I will leave it there, The Pure Scramjet program are Zircon/Brahmos-2 .

Just to give you an idea on what I am trying to say the Designer of Avangard HGV is NPO Mashinostroyeniya , This is the same design bureau which designed and built of Indo-Russian JV Brahmos , Zircon/Brahmos-2 , Hypersonic Cruise missile and now Avangard .... The rival design bureau MITT which specialises only with ICBM and builder of Topol-M , RS-24 and Rubzeuh program has come with its program of glide vehicle

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 15 Jan 2019 14:31

Hmm. I have seen those videos. Its difficult to conclude based on those videos. Perhaps the Glider can indeed travel thousands of kms.
I wonder how it can communicate though that ball of plasma, the way its shown in the CGI.

BTW 'powered glider' is an oxymoron.

To me this one looks like only a glider without any of its own propulsion. The CGI video only indicates presence of DACS which is needed for maneuvering. I must say, I misunderstood initially this with a scramjet, hence "unbelievable" was my first reaction. Now I am disappointed to know that its just a glider.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 15 Jan 2019 14:34

JayS it is a boost glide vehicle not a scramjet vehicle.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Jan 2019 21:47

Current state of technologies HGV and others in this pdf

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yUDOi1 ... XDywc/view

Kakarat · Post by **Kakarat** » 21 Jan 2019 14:15

https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1086193539078332416

On September 16th, 2018 a Palestinian terrorist murdered Ari Fuld, an American-Israeli civilian. Last night, we demolished the terrorist’s residence. Terror will be met with a swift response.

The link has a video

This is how Israel reacts to a terrorist attack on its soil

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Jan 2019 17:26

That kind of hard handed approach by Israel has its own diminishing returns and such approach has lead to more violence , And Israel losses has been quite siginificant as well since October 2015 till Dec 2018 as per Israel Foreign Ministry

https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Te ... -2015.aspx

Terror by numbers:

Since October 2015, 74 innocent people have been killed in Palestinian terrorist attacks and 1167 wounded (including tourists, a foreign worker and several uninvolved Palestinians).

There have been: 201 stabbing attacks and 145 attempted stabbings; 217 shooting attacks; 71 vehicular (ramming) attacks; and 301 roadside/pipe bombs.

In addition, riots and other types of attacks occur occur almost daily: rock throwing (8286); petrol bombs/grenades/arson kites & balloons1 (2376).
In the south, 1221 rockets and mortar bombs have been launched from the Gaza Strip towards Israeli territory since October 2015.

In 2017, 54 terrorist attacks were successfully carried out, while 400 terrorist attacks, including 13 suicide attacks and 8 kidnappings, as well as 1,100 potential lone-wolf attacks, were prevented.

In 2016, 12 vehicular ramming attacks and 100 stabbing attacks were thwarted by security forces. In all, 344 major attacks (including 400 potential lone-wolf attacks) were prevented and 108 attacks were carried out.

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 27 Jan 2019 11:09

France Tests Huge 140mm Tank Gun As It Pushes Ahead With Germany On A New Tank Design

French defense contractor Nexter has reportedly been testing a modified Leclerc main battle tank with a massive 140mm main gun as part of the development of a future Franco-German tank, known as the Main Ground Combat System, or MGCS. For decades, France, as well as Germany, among many others, have considered adding bigger cannons to its tanks to improve their armor penetration and range capabilities, but have repeatedly decided not to do so. So, it still remains to be seen how seriously they’ll pursue this course of action now.

“This is understood to be the first time that a 140 mm gun has been successfully integrated onto a 50-ton MBT [main battle tank],” according to the story, but this could be a reference to a development program that has now been ongoing for multiple years.

The driving force behind this demand appears to be, at least in part, the appearance of Russia’s T-14 Armata tank, which features an improved 125mm 2A83-1M main gun with more capable ammunition. The 2A83M-1M is apparently sized to fit in the same space in a turret as the older, Soviet-era 2A46 125mm gun, meaning that it could potentially be an upgrade option for Russia’s existing designs, such as the T-90.

It may become increasingly attractive then to go to a larger caliber, but shorter main gun instead, regardless of the design demands and logistical issues this might create in the process. It’s worth noting that Rheinmetall’s experimental 130mm gun is shorter than its improved 120mm gun, but is more capable.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 02 Feb 2019 04:02

Boeing Tops Lockheed In Race For This Massive Fighter-Jet Contract

Germany decided against buying Lockheed Martin's (LMT) F-35 stealth fighter to replace is fleet of aging Tornadoes and will instead look at older fourth-generation jets.

The Ministry of Defense is now looking at the nonstealthy Eurofighter and Boeing (BA) F/A-18 Super Hornet and to replace Germany's 90 Tornado aircraft set to retire in 2035.

Berlin may split its procurement between the Boeing fighter and Eurofighter, which is made by a European consortium Airbus (EADSY), BAE Systems (BAESY) and Leonardo.

A purchase of 45 Super Hornets could complement 143 Eurofighters, the Wall Street Journal reported. The total procurement program is expected to be worth $17 billion.

Under NATO treaty terms, Germany's air force must have jets that can carry nuclear weapons. The Eurofighter isn't nuclear capable yet but the Super Hornet is.

In addition to dropping Lockheed's F-35 from consideration, Germany also dismissed Boeing's F-15.

During negotiations, Boeing underscored the Super Hornet's reliability, while the F-35 continues to be plagued by reliability issues as well as cyber security vulnerabilities and poor air-to-ground attack accuracy, according to Bloomberg.

Boeing stock rose 0.5% to close at 387.43 on the stock market today, nearing an all-time high. On Wednesday, shares broke out of a double-bottom base with a 373.80 buy point, as well as a handle with a 367.42 buy point on blowout Q4 earnings. Lockheed finished 0.3% higher, and Airbus' U.S.-listed shares edged up 0.5%.

International Demand For F-35

Germany's rejection of the F-35 could affect sales of the stealthy but expensive fighter to other European countries. Still, the U.K., the Netherlands, Norway, and Italy are purchasing the F-35.

And Last month, Japan boosted its F-35 acquisition by 100 planes, making it the largest international buyer of the stealth jet, amid rising regional tensions.

Japan already has 42 F-35A conventional takeoff variants currently on order. The new F-35 order would be a mix of F-35A jets and F-35B short-take off and vertical landing variants.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 02 Feb 2019 10:45

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Feb 2019 14:20

China, Not Russia Real Reason Behind US Exit From INF Treaty – Indian Analyst

"The primary reason of the withdrawing of the US from the INF Treaty is not Russia. It is China, whom the US wants to stop at the world stage. Definitely, the US will try its best to include China and some other countries, like India, in a treaty akin to the INF. But, I am afraid that such a kind of treaty will not take place in the near future, especially when the US has unilaterally withdrawn in the first place", Rajiv Nayan, senior research associate at the Delhi based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, told Sputnik.

Analyst Rajiv Nayan observes that "Russia is unlikely to jump into the arms race immediately, as it has enough missiles and other weapons that can ensure its security in the region, especially in the backdrop of a shift in the theatre of war to East Asia from Europe".

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 07 Feb 2019 16:05

The entire Indian deterrence is based on intermediate range missiles keeping in view the focus in PRC. That being the case I don't think India will be open to any restriction on our nuke capacity. Especially considering we are already speaking of minimum credible deterrence.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Feb 2019 23:04

Pratyush wrote:The entire Indian deterrence is based on intermediate range missiles keeping in view the focus in PRC. That being the case I don't think India will be open to any restriction on our nuke capacity. Especially considering we are already speaking of minimum credible deterrence.

If you go by that logic PRC 95 % missile are in IRBM class INF range missile .....you have to start with some where in a multilateral agreement

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Feb 2019 23:05

Russia may have violated the INF Treaty. Here’s how the United States appears to have done the same - Theodore A. Postol

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 09 Feb 2019 02:37

Austin wrote:Russia may have violated the INF Treaty. Here’s how the United States appears to have done the same - Theodore A. Postol

Got to wonder what passes as "informed analysis" in the media these days

This gem:

Because of the Aegis radar’s limited power and physical size, it is fundamentally impossible for the system to reliably detect and track long-range missile warheads at the range that would be required for relatively slow Aegis anti-missile interceptors to fly to viable intercept points. This shortcoming was pointed out by nongovernment analyses that my colleague George Lewis and I published shortly after Obama’s announcement; our findings were later confirmed by a Defense Science Board report titled “Science and Technology Issues of Early Intercept Ballistic Missile Defense Feasibility.”

Maybe the author needs to wake up and have a look at the EOR and LOR capability which is A) Operational, B ) Deployed and C) Validated with multiple live fire intercept tests with the latest one as recently as a couple of months ago.

These guys really need to get together and refresh their talking points. I remember they were claiming that THAAD is useless when deployed in Guam because it cannot intercept IRBM class targets and they wouldn't listen at all to the engineers on the program who claimed that they had high confidence that it meets objectives agains that threat class. They finally shut up when they actually did eventually demonstrate an IRBM class target intercept only to then move towards asking for the entire target characteristics to be de-classified so that they could sit in their offices to determine XYZ...INCREDIBLE !

abhik · Post by **abhik** » 09 Feb 2019 23:15

Amazing Video Of Blacked Out Night Stalker Helicopters Buzzing Low Over Downtown LA Street
Some pretty cool footage. Wonder if this sort of training will become more common across, including India.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 10 Feb 2019 13:44

ISIL: Target Russia

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2019 22:31

Very Interesting US Amb to NATO threats with Nuclear Strike against Russia on banned weapon last year. Pentagon/NATO might be planning a pre-emptive strike on Russian sooner or later

Trump’s ambassador to NATO sets off diplomatic incident with a nuclear edge

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 06 Mar 2019 18:22

Rand Paul Stated 6 Trillion USD spent on Afghanistan War ......Thats huge money

High time DT brings all the US forces back

‘Time to declare victory!’ US senators seek to end ‘forever war’ in Afghanistan

Senators Rand Paul and Tom Udall have introduced a bill to end the ruinously expensive conflict in Afghanistan, declaring ‘victory’ in the longest war in US history after 18 years, some $6 trillion and over 100,000 dead.

“It’s important to know when to declare victory and leave a war,” Paul (R-Ky.) said in a video announcing the American Forces Going Home After Noble Service (AFGHANS) Act, adding, “I think that time has long passed.”

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Apr 2019 21:46

Scramjet Will Power France’s Next Nuke
https://aviationweek.com/awindefense/sc ... -next-nuke

A scramjet will power a future hypersonic cruise missile that will replace France’s current air-launched nuclear deterrent, the French directorate general for armaments (DGA) has ...

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Apr 2019 21:53

The article says that ONERA is conducting preliminary studies to support an in service target of 2035. I don't see any reference to them testing any scramjet missile at the current time.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Apr 2019 22:26

history will note AF as a strategic victory for the taliban who fought off/survived the #1 power and killed 5000.
sure they have lost maybe 50,000 fighters but the wombs of their womenfolk will have replaced those losses and rear area in pakistan remains secure.

its the same kind of loss the vietnamese imposed on the US, though I hope it does not end in fall of Kaboul like Saigon fell.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2019 22:17

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/06/midd ... index.html

Asked whether it was acceptable for Saudi Arabia to become a nuclear power, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was unequivocal in a TV interview on Friday.

"We will not permit that to happen. We will not permit that to happen anywhere in the world," Pompeo told CBS. "The President understands the threat of proliferation. We will never write a $150 million check to the Saudis and hand them over the capacity to threaten Israel and the United States with nuclear weapons, never."

A bipartisan resolution introduced in the Senate in February demanded that the use of any US nuclear power technology in Saudi Arabia must be accompanied by safeguards to ensure Saudi Arabia cannot enrich uranium or reprocess spent fuel.

"The last thing America should do is inadvertently help develop nuclear weapons for a bad actor on the world stage," said Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, one of the resolution's sponsors.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Apr 2019 22:31

why does he care?
saudis are in bed with israel
saudis already have working warheads from pak.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 07 Apr 2019 22:52

I think he is just posturing , Just trying to say what would be good to hear in that part of the world , Once he is out of his job it wont be his baby any longer ......that the luxury they enjoy.

Saudi has openly paraded IRBM class missile bought from China ....that itself would have invted Cat 3 sanctions on that as per MTCR ( remember ISRO was sanctioned just because they bought Cryo engine from Russia which has zero missile applications )

And we all know how 3 x 777 came from Saudi in recent crises to take their goodies back.

Saudi has recently threatned US to dump trading in USD if any anti-OPEC bill passes congress

https://www.financial-world.org/news/ne ... top-nopec/

As leader of OPEC , Sunni Ummah and Guardian of Prophet Md Tomb Saudi enjoys a power of a Silent Superpower.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2019 09:37

US labels Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps a 'terror group'

President Donald Trump announced on Monday that the United States is designating Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a foreign "terrorist organisation", marking the first time Washington has formally labelled another country's military a "terrorist group".

Responding to the move, Iran immediately declared the US as "state sponsor of terrorism" and US forces in the region "terrorist groups", state media reported.

Iran also condemned the US decision as an illegal act prompted by Tehran's regional influence and "success in fighting against Islamic State," Iranian state TV said, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).

The US has already blacklisted dozens of entities and people for affiliations with the IRGC, but not the organisation as a whole.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2019 09:38

https://twitter.com/Chellaney/status/11 ... 2358014976

Brahma Chellaney
‏

@Chellaney
Follow Follow @Chellaney
More
Politicizing the war on terror: US adds Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to its "foreign terrorist organizations" list (which omits Afghan Taliban). US has listed North Korea, Iran, Sudan & Syria as "state sponsors of terrorism" but not the main sponsors — Pakistan & KSA.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 09 Apr 2019 09:50

"US does not negotiate with terrorists" - this is a hollywood fad that has attained a life of its own.

first of all , it does negotiate with bigtime terrorists like pakistan all the time, infact its a major non-nato ally (!), white helmets, various syrian and libyan "rebels"

next exhibit, bowe bergdahl. under presidential approval some GITMO detainees were exchanged for him
For months, U.S. negotiators sought to arrange the transfer of five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to the Persian Gulf state of Qatar. The transfer was intended as one of a series of confidence-building measures designed to open the door to political talks between the Taliban and Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.[86] That move – at the center of U.S. strategy for ending the long, costly conflict in Afghanistan – was supposed to lead directly to Bergdahl's release. The Taliban has consistently called for the United States to release those held at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for freeing Western prisoners. But the Guantanamo transfer proposal ground to a halt when the Taliban rejected U.S. conditions designed to ensure transferred Taliban would not slip away and re-emerge as military leaders.[87] Ultimately, the Obama administration agreed to the prisoner exchange, allowing Bergdahl to be released on May 31, 2014

final exhibit, the US envoy khalizad is holding repeated talks in doha, qatar with a taliban negotiating team that includes several Gitmo detainees and one of the founding members, mullah baradar.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Apr 2019 14:11

Singha , US and NATO has worn out and tired in Afghanistan and that logically means handing over the territory to Talibs who are nothing but Proxy of Pakistan.

Just today I read they lost 3 more people , Casulties for US and NATO are in thousands and for Afghan people it is in 10s of thousand and the cost to US exchequere is in Trillions.

This like a Vietnam for NATO , Where cost was imposed by Terrorist and eventually you have to choice but to talk with "Good Terrorist"

Unfortunately this is good news for Pakistan and Bad for India and 5 years from now , Pakistan will be crowing about Strategic Depth and transporting Terrorist from that part of world to India .......back to the 90's

Either call it by Fate or Destiny , Pakistan has been the net winner when SU invaded Afghanistan and when NATO did it a decade later and both met the same fate !

Shwetank · Post by **Shwetank** » 17 Apr 2019 01:00

Salient points:
-The oft repeated trope of soviets defeated germans only through winter and massive numbers is by now often challenged already. But a lot of this view was spread by the fact that the Americans got German generals to write their history of the war and their viewpoint dominated the narrative (obviously favorable towards them), but also it was from guys who were present in the early parts of the war when they were winning and there is little feedback from the generals actually fighting the soviets when the germans started losing.
-Major new finding for me was that instead of Hitler being the one ordering all the doomed thrusts, including Barbarossa itself, most of the German generals themselves were pushing for invading the soviets while he was hesitant. Only the logistics guy was against it and his predictions came eerily true as the germans ran out of steam and became overstretched. After the war they conveniently pushed the blame onto Hitler alone.
-The Germans caught the Soviets at the perfect time was they were reorganizing basically everything in the army. Throw in the the famous fact that Stalin had purged the army ranks a few years earlier of all the talented and competent generals (many of whom had to be brought back from gulags desperately later) and that many of these earlier Soviet commanders and already recognized the value of mechanized and combined arms warfare with fast maneuver and concentration of forces (hell they had been the location for the German's training with armored units when they pretended to be following Versailles in the pre-war years), there wasn't really any significant doctrinal advantage the Germans had, they just got the chance to apply it first.
-Another pet peeve, the Germans didn't have any amazing technological lead over everyone else (especially tanks), the soviets (and french except for their communication hardware I think) comparable or even better equipment in some areas and definitely by towards the end soviet tanks were better. Btw, people also forget that the Germans themselves had a population advantage over everyone they invaded until the Soviets. Hell that was one of their advantages going all the way back to the franco-prussian war where they could get their superior numbers concentrated faster at key points against the french using their trains, no one ever downplays the prussians for just throwing numbers at the enemy.

Really, by the end of the war when the soviets had plugged all their holes, they had one of the scariest (conventional) land forces ever assembled in history; they had the tech, the experience, the strategic and tactical talent, the manpower, the resources and the industry. Fighting them would have been a lot more daunting than the Germans who had a lot more fatal flaws (their industrial and logistical make-up alone was a mess).

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 17 Apr 2019 03:03

Libyan MiG-21 allegedly shot down with MANPADS over Tripoli.

Please see the link below: Video Shows Air Defense Missile Launches.

Link

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 23 Apr 2019 12:54

Some pertinent points about the future of MBTs, by an ex UK tanker. Some problems are common for the UK and for us

The tank is not dead

Some points which stood out

The tank is not dead. Nothing else has the brute force needed to tough it out against determined enemies in head-on clashes. Period.

The best way of defeating a tank is still another tank.

As Active Protection Systems reduce the effectiveness of anti-tank guided missiles, we will increasingly rely on the long-rod penetrators of 120 mm guns to defeat the tanks of potential adversaries.

Weight growth has made MBT deployability an issue. There is a genuine risk of an MBT force not being able to respond quickly enough to get to where it is needed to influence the outcome of a battle.

The 8x8 phenomena has swept through the armies of NATO and potential adversaries. While 8x8 formations excel in rapid response roles, across low-intensity scenarios against non-peer threats, they lack the organic firepower and protection to have resilience against peer enemies in high-intensity conflicts.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 24 Apr 2019 09:53

Navy SEALs Were Warned Against Reporting Their Chief for War Crimes

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Apr 2019 06:21

Who wants to fill this potential vacuum?

Austerity-Battered U.K. ‘Retreating Behind a Nuclear Shield’

NARVA, Estonia — On NATO’s border with Russia, soldiers with Britain’s Yorkshire Regiment recently joined Estonians in a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Royal Navy’s critical intervention in the country’s battle for independence against the Bolsheviks. Schoolchildren clambered over a huge Challenger 2 battle tank, an AS-90 artillery gun and an armored personnel carrier.

To all appearances, it was a stirring reminder of Britain’s commitment to European defense, Brexit or no Brexit.

But the battalion, based in Estonia as a critical part of NATO’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, is the polished surface of a hollow shell — a British military that has been badly damaged by austerity and political choices that have consistently favored symbol over substance in a struggle to remain a global power.

For a military that once spanned the globe, this squad of some 1,000 troops and assorted armor represents the largest British battle group deployed anywhere in the world. Budget cuts have led to sharp reductions in troops, equipment and investment, and analysts warn that Britain is no longer capable of defending its homeland by itself.

Britain remains a nuclear power and a member of the United Nations Security Council. It is one of the few countries able to fight on land, sea and air, and its intelligence capability is world class. In a post-Brexit world, should that come about, Britain’s role as a military power will be vital to its self-image, its geopolitical clout and its relationship with the United States.

But the budget cutbacks have contributed to growing doubts in Washington about whether Britain remains capable of fighting a war alongside the American military. The British House of Commons Library assessed that in real terms, between 2010 and 2015, Britain’s defense budget fell by 8 billion pounds, or $10.5 billion, a cut of 18 percent compared with the 2009-10 budget. The budget has stabilized since then, but has not grown significantly.

Experts say that France is gradually supplanting Britain as the leading European military ally of the United States, further weakening the “special relationship” between Britain and America — a deep concern at a time when both Brexit and the isolationism of President Trump are weighing on British security officials.

“Over the last 10 years, there is a steady decline of Britain as the partner of first choice for the U.S. military,” said Derek Chollet, the former United States assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. “Libya in 2011 was really the last gasp of Britain as a leading military power. Brexit is just a continuation and acceleration of the extended existential crisis.”

Britain has fought alongside American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and joined the fight against the Islamic State. But “the forever wars” have badly sapped British equipment and morale, and have deeply damaged faith in the judgment of the United States. There is waning public appetite for military adventures, and the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is an old lefty who spent decades opposing nuclear weapons and NATO itself.

Perhaps most telling of Britain’s lower military status, the last three formal defense reviews have been predicated on the assumption that Britain will never again fight a war without the United States.

“That’s a big concession to make,” especially in the time of Mr. Trump, said Kori Schake, a former Pentagon official who is now deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. When it triggered Brexit, she added, “Britain made a big bet on the U.S. relationship, so that explains a lot of the jangled nerves now.”

Oddly, the problems with the British military echo the debate over Brexit. “What does Britain actually want to be in the world?” Ms. Schake said. “They don’t know the answer.”

For Julian Lindley-French, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Institute of Statecraft in London, austerity-shrunken Britain is “retreating behind a nuclear shield, no longer with the popular will or the capacity to defend the Continent.” The British, he added, “want the symbols of power — the nuclear deterrent and the ensign on the aircraft carrier.”

In an interview, the British defense minister, Gavin Williamson, spoke proudly of securing another £1 billion or $1.3 billion over the next two years for a military budget that would total £38.4 billion in fiscal year 2019-20, or about $50 billion. That represents 2.1 percent of gross domestic product, just over NATO’s guideline of 2 percent, although since 2015 it includes spending for military pensions and intelligence.

Britain cannot have “the scale or the mass” of the United States, he said. “But we are the only other country in NATO that can lead the way the U.S. can lead, the only country in Europe that has the full range of capabilities.”

Britain is making difficult spending choices, Mr. Williamson said. “How we use our technology and new ideas to improve the lethality we have on the battlefield” in the face of new threats. As for NATO, he said, “I struggle to think of a request from NATO that Britain hasn’t met.”

Another billion helps, but in June, the House of Commons Defense Committee called for an extra £20 billion in military spending, about $26 billion, up to 3 percent of G.D.P., a recommendation unlikely to be met.

It is not just the level of spending, however, that is hurting the British military. More important is how the money is being spent.

The expenditures focus on two projects: replacing four aging nuclear missile submarines and building two world-class aircraft carriers, with all the ships, planes and submarines required to protect them and the F-35B fighter jets to put on them.

The nuclear program alone is costing £5 billion a year, or $6.5 billion, about 14 percent of the annual defense budget, with total costs for the new subs estimated at £31 billion to £41 billion, or $40 billion to $53 billion. Throw in the cost of attack submarines to protect the nuclear subs and total spending on the nuclear enterprise rises to around £70 billion, or more than $90 billion, over the next decade, said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of RUSI, a military research center. That comes to nearly 18 percent at today’s budget and G.D.P. levels.

While capital costs on the two carriers are coming down, with the second due to enter sea trials, the question remains how much of the Navy and the Air Force — submarines, destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft and F-35s — will be committed to just the nuclear deterrent and the carriers.

While it is hard to put an exact number on all that, Britain plans to spend some £186 billion (about $240 billion) on new equipment and support over the next decade, but the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee called the plan incoherent and estimated a significant shortfall.

Presuming the annual defense budget remains more or less the same as a percentage of G.D.P., that spending on equipment and support will represent at least 40 percent of the budget. Submarines alone represent a quarter of that spending, with an additional 22 percent going to aircraft and its various support systems and platforms.

The combined impact of austerity-era cutbacks and spending choices has hit the British Army the hardest of all the services. Now smaller than at any time since Waterloo, it has failed to meet even modest recruitment goals, in part because of an embarrassing effort at outsourcing. It is still several thousands short of its goal of 82,000 “fully trained regular army soldiers,” despite downgrading what it means to be “fully trained,” as well as falling short of its goal of 30,000 in the army reserve.

In other areas of modern warfare, however, Britain’s capacities are more highly regarded, especially in cyberdefense and cyberoffense, intelligence and space.

Tom Tugendhat, a lieutenant colonel in the army reserves who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now chairman of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “The fundamental problem in defense is always personnel. Our army and navy are too small, and our reserves are not even vaguely close to being fully manned,” partly because of the new carriers and nuclear submarines.

But the big-ticket items are a measure of British resolve, he said. “The U.K. will be the only European country with two aircraft carriers, the ability to deploy force and the willingness to do it,” he added. Island Britain “has always used a heavy navy to project a light army,” while Continental forces usually have the reverse.

But the big-ticket items are a measure of British resolve, he said. “The U.K. will be the only European country with two aircraft carriers, the ability to deploy force and the willingness to do it,” he added. Island Britain “has always used a heavy navy to project a light army,” while Continental forces usually have the reverse.

NATO may complain about Britain’s not providing territorial forces to deter Russia, “but it’s Germany that should be providing them,” he said.

In Tallinn, the Estonian capital, the defense minister, Juri Luik, praised the British presence as a symbol of solidarity. Estonian troops fought in a British brigade in Afghanistan, he said, “so it’s a close relationship.”

Whatever their current shortcomings, Mr. Luik said, “the British have a real military culture. They understand a battle is a battle. And they can take casualties.”

Laura Boushnak contributed reporting and research from Molde, Norway, and Milan Schreuer and David A. Shimer from Brussels.