SW1 wrote: ↑03 Apr 2024, 15:27 Its what being the framework nation means bring all the nations together go where the need is, command the operation and support it.

Can the U.K. reliably do that in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic?

There is little sign of that currently.

But we have also accepted leadership of NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence battle group in Estonia and we have signed specific defence treaties direct with both Estonia and Poland. So the focus is spread wider and hence more thinly than just southern Finland and Gotland. I’m not suggesting the Battle...

It’s not about moving a dial it’s about being there. If there is say 2000 uk soldiers on Estonias border and they are killed by a Russian attack the reckoning is that would cause a full response and they know Russia knows that too. The British Army isn’t big enough anymore to knowingly sacrifice 20...

…BBEF (Baltic British Expeditionary Force) is the future reason of the amphibious force, but that I think we all agree makes no sense. It’s a fair question. What should LRG(N) look like if it’s specifically designed to provide rapid transportation of troops and vehicles across the Norwegian coast/B...

So not the JEF region after all just the bits that best suit the narrative. Not at all. It’s the entire JEF area. In the same way that UK Battlegroups in Denmark and the Netherlands would be pointless is a single UK Battlegroup in Estonia going to move the dial? Deploying 2 or 3 rapid reaction Brig...

You dismiss a UK contribution to the 'continental land war' as pointless and a mere token but big up a similar contribution to the Nordics as as huge. A couple of U.K. Battlegroups in the Baltics would be irrelevant apart from boosting morale. It’s a token gesture. The question of securing the Balt...

tomuk wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 22:55 So by putting or small contribution into a smaller battlefield it makes it look bigger?

You will have to explain the relevance of whatever that means before I can respond.

OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings No argument. My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need? 5 of the JEF nations are in continental Europe. I know but deploying B...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 17:35 OK 3 Cdo and 29 RA Cdo could do with few GBAD Vikings

No argument.

My point is: If the Army is concentrating of the JEF region and leaving the large land armies to continental Europe, how many Vikings will the British Army need?

Tempest414 wrote: ↑02 Apr 2024, 14:15 Maybe the RM could do with some CAMM capable Vikings

Why RM?

It needs to be British Army now.

Interesting concept. https://www.stellersystems.co.uk/news/steller-systems-has-recently-built-and-trialled-a-6m-concept-demonstrator-of-our-19m-offshore-insertion-craft-the-demonstrator-has-successfully-proven-the-innovative-features-of-the-full-scale-craft/ 19m is an interesting size, suggesting 6x...

And where do you expect them to be based, in UK or Europe? Depends. The rapid reaction Brigades will be one of the UK’s biggest contributions to global security so just concentrating on Euro NATO isn’t enough. • 16AAB should be UK based but focused on Euro NATO, primarily in the JEF region. • 3 Cdo...

That’s one way to look at it and you raise valid points. The other way to look at it is to say that defence is being run too hot and there is virtually no excess to allow for a realistic rate of attrition in a conflict. Continuously running hot fleets is a peacetime luxury that goes out of date as ...

SW1 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2024, 18:49 Just sounds like a fantasy shopping list to me tbh

Looks like a solid grasp of the priorities to me.

Interesting how the RAF didn’t get much of a mention.

My thoughts are all over the place here and I’m know it’s a lot more complicated than I’m putting down here but I am sure the MOD could have put itself into a much better position to allow themselves to ask for this money. At least they are starting to articulate what is required that can’t be curr...

SW1 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2024, 11:17 Really is that all sensible on top of everything else?

I think the short answer is, yes, absolutely it really would be sensible.

It’s just time to fund it and do it now.

Extremely illuminating. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13254155/JAMES-HEAPPEY-spend-three-cent-GDP-Armed-Forces.html • Grant Shapps was offered 2.5% GDP in a decades time! Effectively 3 parliaments away. • Heappey proposing increase to 2.5% by NATO 75 summit in July. • Heappey proposing ...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2024, 09:19 Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support…..

Do the rapid reaction Brigades need 155mm and M270?

Would HMT based 105mm Howitzer, GMLRS, Brimstone and Protector be enough? At least in the initial stages?

If 16AAB and 3Cdo have a underslung Chinook capability without losing effectiveness then where is the negative? I never said there is a negative but why would they limited themself just to the weight which is transportable by Chinook, especially as both have other means to transport much heavier eq...

Everything I see points to a top-end ambition that includes a scale and compelxity of formation that shouts "battlegroup!", and again; that is a cascade of procurement consequences that makes the idea of harmonising commando equipment to 16AAB Chinook-undersling seem short-sighted. It’s w...

Coyote is already borderline heavy, in the best case, or to heavy, in the worst, to be transported by Chinook. Adding armoured cabin would significantly increase its weight. Paras already went back to WMIK from Jackal which is lighter than Coyote. Having modular vehicles make sense but there an iss...

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...

Repulse wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 17:49 They’ve got an option for snow for the MRZR Alpha

Thanks.

The tracks are great until you hit the first rock.

The RZR have a role to play but as a universal vehicle for the FCF IMO they have major limitations.

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 ...

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

Does the crew come with the module or the vehicle?