That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23. But T26 and T31? Who knows.Ron5 wrote:Not if your VLS isn't long enough.
Pretty sure it would fit on the MAN Land Ceptor unit though..
That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23. But T26 and T31? Who knows.Ron5 wrote:Not if your VLS isn't long enough.
Yes, it's been stated that the longer missile fits on the army's system without any mod. But as Jim points out, the software would need an update.Timmymagic wrote:That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23. But T26 and T31? Who knows.Ron5 wrote:Not if your VLS isn't long enough.
Pretty sure it would fit on the MAN Land Ceptor unit though..
See, it is the question of length and mushroom shape, coming together, on both sides of the AtlanticNot if your VLS isn't long enough.
That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23.
below the belt comment (see what I did there?) but made me smileArmChairCivvy wrote:See, it is the question of length and mushroom shape, coming together, on both sides of the AtlanticNot if your VLS isn't long enough.
That's the question isn't it. Have the RN allowed any room for growth, perhaps not on T23.
... at least we are more civilised about it
Ground launched C.uda...and no one ordered that either. There are simply too many actual real missiles at the present for anyone to be interested. Either LM put the money up to actually fly one or it won't happen.Lord Jim wrote:Probably 3x the cost as well.
I agree with your post in a general way. There is a difference, though, between the drive to improve the fighter loadout through smaller missiles and having loadsa of the same for GBADTimmymagic wrote:Ground launched C.uda...and no one ordered that either.
The previous spat was over Poland wanting the C&C module for use with their Patriots... and the US said "no cakeism... sorry! We want the system in service - and in due course we might sell it.NickC wrote:the current spate between the Germans and US
+NickC wrote:when launched from the Russian Kaliningrad enclave on south coast of Baltic Sea bordering Poland can directly target Berlin)
Nicely concentrating the minds in Berlin? Time to shave off the beards and make the Bundeswehr into true soldiers again (not a core force of 35.000 only, trained to fight)NickC wrote: a leaker maybe version with its nuclear warhead hitting Berlin.
I don't think the Germans will keel over easily; the political side has a lot of say (sometimes too much)NickC wrote: Shades of UK/US 2005 F-35 dispute over the promised waiver
Moderate. Good missile, but it's not anywhere close to being as BMD optimised. More aimed at SCUD etc.Lord Jim wrote:How effect is the land based version of Aster, used by the French and Italians? It that getting the same ABM update the navies of these countries are developing?
Yep. DefenceNews (March 29) gives the orders of magnitude involved in such optimisation:RetroSicotte wrote:Moderate. Good missile, but it's not anywhere close to being as BMD optimised. More aimed at SCUD etc.
MEADS - Development work was allocated in accordance with national funding: USA 58%, Germany 25%, and Italy 17%.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Anyway, things are happening... while Germany haggles with the US over access to secret missile-performance data.
- wasn't Italy on the MEADS wagon, too, at some point?
Cold War dinosaurs seem to travel: https://www.janes.com/article/84614/rus ... e-to-syriaArmChairCivvy wrote:Does anyone happen to know of the "specialisms" that the different RAF Rgmnts might have?Gabriele wrote:Brize Norton for permanent air mobility security taskings.
- the NRBC role was short lived; hope something was left behind to help maintain base security also against non-kinetic (denial) attacks
Not seen anything about a replacement for Fuchs. You would have thought the Germans would be developing a Boxer variant to take on the role, but nothing yet..ArmChairCivvy wrote:If we are serious about being able to protect forward air/ air-supply bases, the RAF Rgmnt should have a similar capability; does not matter if it is with the army, as long as they train together for deployments
- what would you rather drop from a commercially sourced drone: a single hand grenade, or something more potent (esp. if the OpFor is 'non-state')
I think the 'inners' for those that we have got refurbed... but the number of them in total is not much off from 10!Timmymagic wrote:Not seen anything about a replacement for Fuchs