UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Search found 593 matches

Go to advanced search

by mr.fred
16 Apr 2019, 23:25
Forum: British Army
Topic: Section infantry weapons
Replies: 808
Views: 36234
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

A golf bag approach would require more training, both in the weapons and to be able to make an informed decision about when to use what. Though to a degree, there is already a golf bag approach, at least in terms of additional munitions and how the higher level assets are distributed. Keeping specia...
by mr.fred
16 Apr 2019, 15:21
Forum: British Army
Topic: Section infantry weapons
Replies: 808
Views: 36234
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Lord Jim wrote:As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?

Anywhere between none and 16, depending on the requirements and logistics
by mr.fred
15 Apr 2019, 20:08
Forum: British Army
Topic: Section infantry weapons
Replies: 808
Views: 36234
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Precision fire could almost be seen as harking back to the days of the L1A1 with the troops using carefully aimed semi-auto fire to engage the opposition. But wasn't that also the time when the section machine gun was a belt-fed GPMG? Given the battle drills featuring the Lee Enfield and Bren focus...
by mr.fred
13 Apr 2019, 16:53
Forum: British Army
Topic: Section infantry weapons
Replies: 808
Views: 36234
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

70mm rockets like the CRV7 or 120mm launched munitions are hardly section weapons. Vehicle-mounted weapons are their own thing The same applies, albeit to a lesser degree, to the CG. It may be able to fire lots of different natures, but each one needs it’s own round, which makes it more suited to a ...
by mr.fred
13 Apr 2019, 09:39
Forum: British Army
Topic: Section infantry weapons
Replies: 808
Views: 36234
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Over in the Warrior thread, There’s been a bit of discussion on shoulder launched AT and the comparison between reusable launchers like the CarlGustav and disposable weapons like the NLAW and ASM / Matador. It’s interesting, but probably belongs here more that there. Personally I favour the disposab...
by mr.fred
12 Apr 2019, 18:54
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Stated performance in the literature is 175mm at point blank. Frontal arc protection of a basic T55 is 200 mm, so it’s not going through that. It’s an improvement on the 30mm, but not so much that you would be guaranteed to go through something protected against 30mm at all angles. Mounted NLAW, in ...
by mr.fred
12 Apr 2019, 17:57
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Basing the system on the Boxer makes sense, with a clean slate I would, as suggested have a Gun Module using the enhanced M777, but I would also develop a Ammo Module for a partner vehicle, similar to what the US Army did with the M109. For longer reach I would go with HIMARS but use the Armoured c...
by mr.fred
12 Apr 2019, 11:31
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

O for Overfly
by mr.fred
11 Apr 2019, 21:48
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Soldiers aren't assets. Assets have value but are ultimately replaceable. Soldiers are not. Forgive me, but they are. At least as far as the battlefield. Obviously you don't want to spend them frivolously, but equally you can't achieve zero casualties and you are likely to suffer more if you try no...
by mr.fred
11 Apr 2019, 21:22
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

I think “operational analysis” is the term you are looking for. A protected wheeled chassis (probably Boxer) with the upgraded M777 ordnance (ERCA project) and the ability to fire Vulcano rounds would seem about the right place. This thing is supposed to be be the field artillery for the mechanised ...
by mr.fred
10 Apr 2019, 20:57
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Although I do not believe the CTA40 could actually penetrate and destroy a T-80 from the form it could possibly achieve a mission kill, taking out optics and/or tracks, so its utility should not be underestimated. It can't do it to a T55, let alone something even slightly more modern. The utility o...
by mr.fred
08 Apr 2019, 23:43
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

When it comes to Army procurement, it’s a four letter work beginning with ‘f’ that has done much of the damage. Could you imagine what the situation would be like had we not gone down that particular rabbit hole? Boxer in service, Warrior 2000 being the primary IFV with the Rarden equipped vehicles ...
by mr.fred
08 Apr 2019, 20:46
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Spike NLOS or Brimstone are rather too large and capable to be part of an armoured Infantry Battalion. An attached artillery battery, perhaps. Javelin, Spike LR or MMP are more suitable for infantry use, although they are rather expensive. I wonder if there would be mileage in fitting smaller infant...
by mr.fred
07 Apr 2019, 16:15
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

I guess with top attack (and the flight trajectory that goes with it) the ability of the target to hide behind obstructions is much diminished? To varying degree, depending on the system. Javelin only goes up 150m so at longer ranges it won’t change the angle that much. Fire-and-forget seekers also...
by mr.fred
06 Apr 2019, 18:04
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Costswise, I was thinking more along the lines that a pintel mount is cheap and requires almost no additional training, but puts your soldiers at considerably greater risk to use. A rigid mount is easier to design and build, but you could have to expend more on operations as environmental conditions...
by mr.fred
06 Apr 2019, 13:08
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

Fitting ATGW is easy. Functionality is harder. There are all manner of different capabilities of mounting ATGW, for example: Missile on a pintle mount Missile deployable from a protected mount. Missile always protected Missile operable from under armour Missile operable from under armour on the move...
by mr.fred
04 Apr 2019, 23:02
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

20 RPM? Eeh, what's this cuckoo land they live in? Not even heavy mortars can reach that, light mortars just barely with proper procedures. Seems like you're shooting for the stars only to crash and burn. Like I said, probably a typo (2 rounds a minute sustained, more likely) or missing information...
by mr.fred
04 Apr 2019, 18:07
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

It looks like they are casting the net wide with the ideal, on the understanding that they won’t get it, but judging the balance of what is offered. That said, some of it looks like a typo. 20 rounds per minute? That’s 1 tonne in shells alone. Over 10 minutes it’s more rounds than you’d be likely to...
by mr.fred
04 Apr 2019, 07:50
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

I’d say that Caesar is a L0 on the basis that the crew are unprotected during operation.
The only L4 protected SPG I know of off hand is the PzH2000, although the Boxer variant might be able to claim it too.
by mr.fred
03 Apr 2019, 18:17
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Ron5 wrote:
Sounds like the RFI is written around Caesar.

Does it? I haven’t seen it.
by mr.fred
03 Apr 2019, 17:50
Forum: British Army
Topic: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments
Replies: 48
Views: 3243
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Artillery/Royal Horse Artillery future developments

Digging up the old thread; it seemed the most appropriate place for this: https://www.janes.com/article/87623/uk-releases-rfi-for-new-self-propelled-howitzer 98 off, apparently. I would hazard for the Strike brigades, but could cover AS90 too. Hopefully Caesar gets kicked into the long grass early d...
by mr.fred
26 Mar 2019, 07:40
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
mr.fred wrote: A 120mm might more sense for an armoured formation

Breech-loaded & in a turret?

Probably. That would be most likely to fit on the hull.
On the other hand the greater range and lethal area would require more control than the 81mm.
by mr.fred
25 Mar 2019, 23:11
Forum: British Army
Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)
Replies: 455
Views: 24385
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicle Variants (British Army)

The mortar variant might be a touch too far for a simple conversion. The Warrior hull is set up for a turret rather than a large roof hatch, so it might be better to see if you could fit a gun/mortar in a turret if you wanted a mortar vehicle. A 120mm might more sense for an armoured formation. Othe...

Go to advanced search