Agreed, using the computer modelling software SAAB has developed, plus the flying testbed should allow them to hit the ground running when a prototype gets built, probably almost at full spec from the outset.

But still no "Turreted" Ajax arriving! There is definitely a bottleneck somewhere.

The Cavalry Regiments are separate from the Mechanised Infantry in a similar way to how the Armoured Infantry Brigades Operate. The Idea is not to form permanent Battle Groups but to allow them to be form these as required to meet the mission profile. I see each Mechanised Regiment forming three Com...

And I think they are starting to realise that the F-35 isn't ideally suited to all the roles originally envisaged for it, and that other platforms can do the job such as new build F-15s and F-16s for example.

bobp wrote:At least a prototype to test all the new technologies.

Already in the works with the 757 they have obtained. As for a prototype or demonstrator, like the EAP was for Typhoon, that could be quite a few years away

Tom8 wrote:Do you think the Strike brigades should abandon the separation between light cav and mechanised infantry units and simply be made up of 4 all arms formations?

Have a look at the very first post on this thread.

SW1 wrote:The service could buy as many as 144 aircraft, according to Boeing.

I can see them buying more as well as overseas operators looking to the possibility of upgrading their jets to a similar or as near too configuration. Step forward Israel for starters.

A review of this type should have been conducted years ago but at least it is now happening. Problem is will the Army take any notice of it and even if it does will it have the resources to take any of the recommended actions?

We probably wont see another UK CBG that way for a couple of years, It will probably be longer than that, but the current planned cruise will be a major achievement and having USMC aboard will also show our willingness to work with allies in the region especially if you add ships from other allies ...

I have always thought the reason behind needing two carriers was so that one would be operational and one undergoing maintenance and/or refit. The RN has never intended to operate both carriers at the same time but rather continuously maintain a Carrier Strike capability. The same goes for the FSS, ...

Of course there is also the possibility that some of the RA/RHA Regiments will retain or gain the green Beret and be allocated to provide the precision fires in operations where they need to be landed by sea or air to establish a counter A2/AD zone once the RM have secured an area. To this you can a...

I am impressed by how much work is being done to change how the programme will be managed etc. compared to previous ones. If it works it would be very useful in other programmes for platforms in all domains from the T-45 replacement to new ground vehicles and so on. fingers crossed.

From what I have read, these "Vanguard Companies" are the way forward for the Royal Marines, to be forward deployed to various locations, and remember we are talking about the 40 and 45 Commando as 42 has now been assigned the role of Maritime Operations Specialists. So yes it is feasible ...

It will be a while until I would consider the Carriers "Well protected".

Well considering the plan is to form several of these "Vanguard Companies" and have them spread all over the place I would assume this is the size of force for the future. This in turn puts the large LPDs in the crosshairs, especially if the RN wants to obtain a number of Littoral support ...

Yes, far better to revitalise the FAA by giving them control of the F-35B fleet. I am sure they would still let some RAF pilots fly the plane if they asked nicely and grew a beard.

Yes other countries may have an annual budget, but large programme gain multi-year funding allowing for more sustainable procurement. With the UK programmes lurch from year to year. As for capability, every escort the Italians have launched in recent years has come with a complete weapons and sensor...

RAF probably realises that it will not be able to behave like it did with the Harriers, where it seemed to only deploy them on the carriers when it had to. If it could have gotten away with it it wouldn't have done so at all. With the F-35Bs Carrier Strike is too high a profile and they are worried ...

Looking again at the Army's Land Environment Fleet Optimisation Plan - LEFOP this is what is happening it seems; Already axed- Warthog Buffalo ordnance clearing vehicle. Talisman counter IED system. Vixen patrol vehicle. In the process of being axed- Hundreds of MAN SV 6T trucks. A number of Terrier...

This is what happens when you have a well thought out long term naval construction plan that is properly funded without having to worry about annual accounts. UK take note.

Alternatively, like the US and French navies you could have an Engine Bay and UETF on the carrier to repair and then test u/s engines, requiring only spares and at most replacement engine modules.

What about the other underwing pylons that can be fitted to the F-35? If needed surely these could also carry a number of Meteors?

If we are actually serious about Carrier Strike and all that entails, the RN is eventually going to realise it needs a COD platform if it wishes the Carriers to be able to stay at sea for an period of time. What fills that role could be a Merlin, a Chinook or least likely an Osprey.

Form the video it might look the simplest in form but its avionics and sensors are next generation to say the least, and remember the issues the F-35 has in those areas.

And how much of the profits from the Ajax or Warrior programmes end up going abroad? We let our AFV manufacturing base wither and die through lack of investment and orders. You reap what you sow.