Search found 3960 matches
- 29 Mar 2024, 14:51
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
quite right they now have Viking , HMT 400 & 600 , MRZR , Landrover , Snowmobile what else should they have Firstly, is it sensible that RM and 16AAB are not utilising similar kit? Seems like a missed opportunity especially if the rapid reaction forces are going to increase interoperability. Se...
- 29 Mar 2024, 07:56
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
- 28 Mar 2024, 17:08
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As said before there goal is to fight across a wide area using small fast moving teams to engage and harass the enemy…. The only way it would work is with an incredible amount of support. Otherwise the risk of overmatch by the opponent is substantial. It’s currently not clear where that support is ...
- 28 Mar 2024, 16:56
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 646
- Views: 115306
Re: The future form of the Army
Does the crew come with the module or the vehicle?Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 16:45 The problem I see here is lets a HMT-600 has a Brimstone pack and a commander calls for a role change to a 120mm mortar or 105mm gun pack will the crew need to know how to use all three weapons
- 28 Mar 2024, 14:38
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 646
- Views: 115306
Re: The future form of the Army
It’s a great start.Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 11:42 ….so as far as Brimstone goes the UK built Wolfram for Ukraine witch is in service now
I was thinking more of a universal flatbed unit where modules could be rapidly changed depending on requirements.
It would open the door to a whole host of possibilities.
- 28 Mar 2024, 12:21
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do. Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations? My view is the l...
- 28 Mar 2024, 11:27
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 646
- Views: 115306
Re: The future form of the Army
To my mind, one thing that is missing is a wheeled deep-fires capability to support 1 Division. Initially, keeping the 14 Archer and acquiring (say) 24 HIMARS equivalent (potentially based on a more compact platform, for air-portability) would go some way. Eventually replace the Archers with (say) ...
- 28 Mar 2024, 11:17
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I don't think there is a single 105mm uncrewed turret currently in use beside MGS. Same for 120mm. It is not unthinkable just it will take time for this. At this point crewed and uncrewed isn’t a deal breaker IMO. If the U.K. developed a workable 105mm but ideally 120mm uncrewed turret for Boxer wh...
- 28 Mar 2024, 08:07
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 646
- Views: 115306
Re: The future form of the Army
…what we need right now is deployable formations and there for the armoured brigades need to become Combined arms brigades with 4 x combined arms battalions…. Why not both? If 1st Division is fully mechanised with BOXER, Patria 6x6, Archer and Jackal/Coyote it becomes a highly deployable and versat...
- 27 Mar 2024, 23:52
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I am not sure what kind of rapid reaction force people here expect from UK. And against which adversary is it expected to fight. The British Army is not USMC nor it should behave as such. What has USMC got to do with a U.K. rapid reaction force? Why exclude more firepower when the possibility of a ...
- 27 Mar 2024, 16:13
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
- 27 Mar 2024, 09:34
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
…Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons)……The Ajax and Boxer both also are not on the light side. The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events have clearly shown the continued versatility of the MBT. However that doesn’t necessarily require a CH4. IMO an u...
- 25 Mar 2024, 21:58
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
To assemble a force for such an incursion would require build up and planning. If you have the intelligence assets you would see it. That’s fine but the planning and contingencies still need to be in place. What will the U.K. be contributing to blunt any incursion and then what follows and how do y...
- 25 Mar 2024, 21:46
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
That’s a long way of achieving extended readiness without trying to call it that. If both are permanently crewed then they may as well be both operated concurrently. Nothing meaningful is being saved by having one in low readiness. How do you slow and stop an invading force, part of it is defensive...
- 25 Mar 2024, 21:07
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
i'm not expecting a more peaceful Europe in the 21st century, but I do work to the following: 1. the scale of the threat from russia today is an order of magnitude smaller than was the case when britain was staring down the barrel of 15 soviet shock armies. 2. in consequence, the threat that russia...
- 25 Mar 2024, 20:22
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
….apart from trials the two have not been deployed out side of UK waters concurrently - the principle is that one is deployed or at high readiness and the other is at a lower readiness but is absolutely not in extended readiness. I have never suggested putting a CVF into extended readiness. One hig...
- 25 Mar 2024, 08:26
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
no. no more so than was true in the 19th century. more purple if you will - at the direction of a maritime strategy, yes. The maritime strategy was historically designed to firstly contain Spain then France in the 18th/19th centuries followed by Germany in the first half of the 20th century. The re...
- 25 Mar 2024, 01:00
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
We need to be able to move mass and protect it so from this point of view we would need to get the lead elements of 3 Cdo , 16AA plus the Rangers & SF into the fight so 16AA , Rangers & SAS,SRR would go on C-17 & A400 Plus a reserve Brigade? Also, the only thing that will stop these ini...
- 24 Mar 2024, 23:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Are they using both CVF concurrently? Is it not the case that due to the issues with PWLS that the cycles are out of sync. And QNLZ has had to fill in a vice versa while PWLS is brought up to FOC. Time will tell but they are both currently fully crewed. PWLS substituting QE at such short notice was...
- 24 Mar 2024, 22:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sorry, but this is a completely incoherent argument - the requirement is the multitude of the requirements that we’ve discussed many many times already - they are extremely flexible floating power projection tools that can be configured in a multitude of ways. The reason for two is to ensure that t...
- 24 Mar 2024, 20:41
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Before that, why does the U.K. need to continue with the post-war/cold-war funding paridgm that treats the army as primary source of security, rather than an expeditionary adjunct to a broader maritime power projection? Are you suggesting deleting the Army entirely and just rebuilding around a UKMC...
- 24 Mar 2024, 15:22
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in...
- 24 Mar 2024, 14:51
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
….so people, please tell me more about how tragically expensive the carriers are to run, and how the magic solution is provided by cheap flat-top amphibs...? Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence? It is gradually stripping out the rest of...
- 24 Mar 2024, 09:29
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them. They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now. Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readines...
- 23 Mar 2024, 17:11
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5986
- Views: 1501006
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As I have mentioned before my choice is national requirements around air defence, maritime security and counter terrorism/eod. Beyond that our contributions to coalitions would be around submarines, strategic transport, aar, airborne ISR and special forces (under which I included the RM and paras)....