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 Continuously running hot fleets is a peacetime luxury that goes out of date as ...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?

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 11:42 ….so as far as Brimstone goes the UK built Wolfram for Ukraine witch is in service now

It’s a great start.

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.

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...

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) ...

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...

…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...

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 ...

sol wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024, 10:40 For what?

To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces.

With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weight below 37t so than one can be transported by a A400M and 2x in a C17.

Also much easier to get ashore in a LCM or a Mexefloate.

…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...