Search found 4819 matches
- 29 Sep 2023, 19:27
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the whole premise of the LSGs and the reforming of the RM to under take raiding operations ? I think we are all working out what is the role of the FCF, “global raiding” does seem to be one of the key requirements, but that isn’t the only role if they are to remain...
- 29 Sep 2023, 19:23
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If the untied states with an embarrassment of riches in the amphibious domain have deemed they can’t support heavy armour over the beach how can we? The idea that planning should expect a suitable port will always be available is extremely unwise. One of the reasons why ship to shore connectors are...
- 29 Sep 2023, 15:36
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
There is no capability or requirement to land an army brigade using ship to shore connectors. No need for LSDs/LHDs/LPDs. Whats that based on? If a maximum effort scenario occurred the UK still has enormous sea-lift capacity. 2x Albions 3x Bays 4x Points Argus Plus a CVF acting as LHA or LPH. 9x LC...
- 29 Sep 2023, 11:19
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Just to step aside what do we want / need to move a army brigade from ship to shore IMO this main question has two sub questions. 1: What will it require Pre 2035 2: What will it require Post 2035 RN has the hulls for thorough experimentation but without an Albion taking part, landing a Brigade wit...
- 28 Sep 2023, 22:24
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The seakeeping qualities will be improved with the bridge aft. Another interesting concept - not exactly what would be needed for a FCF forward operating base, but I can see a variant doing a good job. https://www.ex2.com.au/news/stern-landing-vessel-ready-to-take-on-littoral-manoeuvre-challenge/ W...
- 28 Sep 2023, 09:46
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
…You may wish more allocation to people/support/ infrastructure and stocks in that timeframe That sounds like feast and famine. Maintaining a sovereign shipbuilding capability is not a discretionary spend unless supporting the shipbuilders is less important than supporting the aviation industry. Wi...
- 27 Sep 2023, 22:52
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If there was 11b pounds to spend acquiring new thing for the navy and I’m not sure there is would you spend it like that. What if you said I’ll take 5.5 billion of that and increase the attack submarine fleet to 11. Intetesting question but the numbers are pretty clear. Overall defence spending is ...
- 27 Sep 2023, 15:43
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Don’t discount a FloFlo as part of the MRSS procurement. Would it be possible to do something similar with the future sealift ships? Perhaps a vehicle ramp that is also cleared for a hovercraft? Only if RN go for another LCAC? The ship to shore connectors are the crucial element but what if heavy l...
- 26 Sep 2023, 11:27
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 624
- Views: 42421
Re: The future form of the Army
They’re being grouped as they are to make it look better than it is we don’t have enough of the enabling assets to make it work. Agreed but is a cull of light infantry on that scale politically advantageous? The decision may be taken that funding the enablers is the easier option. Political expedie...
- 26 Sep 2023, 10:54
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 4952
- Views: 993379
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Just as a reference and interesting exercise to look at considering the direction of travel and the relevance of some equipment. https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2023/09/eye-toward-russia-and-china-northcom-concludes-special-mission-arctic/390302/ This was the second iteration of Operation Polar D...
- 26 Sep 2023, 10:52
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 624
- Views: 42421
Re: The future form of the Army
They’re being grouped as they are to make it look better than it is we don’t have enough of the enabling assets to make it work.
It should also be remembered with comparisons we are not Germany or Poland we have different needs.
It should also be remembered with comparisons we are not Germany or Poland we have different needs.
- 24 Sep 2023, 16:33
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 624
- Views: 42421
Re: The future form of the Army
I suppose when you only have about a brigades worth of engineering logistics and artillery’s available you can always group it into a divisional structure and make it look good by claiming it can support more than one brigade. If the headcount is remaining at 73K until they lose about 1/3 of the cav...
- 24 Sep 2023, 16:23
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 3792
- Views: 863346
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
Aircraft numbers aren’t the issue, who’s going to maintain and fly them if more are leaving than joining. Comparing numbers with other Europe countries is nice an all but how many can they actually use. Between NATO and shader we have maintained a significant number of typhoons on operations this pa...
- 23 Sep 2023, 11:01
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1580
- Views: 62024
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
2003 vibes trust me I’m Tony.
- 22 Sep 2023, 20:07
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 17520
- Views: 3635855
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
If you were asking for an alternative to tempest… Push Tempest as far as it will go but it’s the money that will ensure success or failure. As long as the entire defence budget doesn’t start to disappear into a Tempest black hole then great. Is Tempest and AUKUS just too ambitious to run simultaneo...
- 22 Sep 2023, 19:12
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 17520
- Views: 3635855
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
In relation to tempest that would be like saying we will stop building nuclear submarines and compensate by building offshore patrol vessels. But is Tempest realistic for the UK? Let’s hope so. As a Tempest backup I was talking about a next-gen drone. Medium attitude and long endurance marinised ST...
- 22 Sep 2023, 17:50
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 3792
- Views: 863346
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/Japan-s-new-jet-fighter-alliance-pushes-limits-of-defense-policy The GCAP is the flagship project of the government's increasingly proactive defense policy, part of a broader effort to transform Japan's pacifist legacy in the face of an increasingly t...
- 22 Sep 2023, 17:43
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 17520
- Views: 3635855
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Moving because it’s not really relevant to the other thread but if you had something like global hawk or possibly zephyr in the future mounting an ISR payload would it need to be able to land on a ship at all? I think so for many reasons but for example, if it where to be truly multi purpose it may...
- 22 Sep 2023, 17:06
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 3792
- Views: 863346
- 22 Sep 2023, 16:55
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
- Replies: 17520
- Views: 3635855
Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Could we see a AAW radar ship with say just 16 ABM's on it with the inner ring carried by other escorts What about a ring even further out? This is where the MALE drones could be crucial IMO. Having 24/7 OTH ISTAR is of paramount importance for the CSG. Much more useful than a crowsnest type system...
- 22 Sep 2023, 10:44
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 3792
- Views: 863346
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
I would only say this is tweet is coming from a channel/person/organisation that if you have been around long enough started as “save the RN”. Who at the beginning was very vocal in wanting the RAF disbanded and used its media presence to cheerlead that line of thinking. So amplifying stories around...
- 22 Sep 2023, 10:36
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 287
- Views: 41637
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
If FADS is going to be as revolutionary as it sounds how basic could the T83 become? Are the beam dimensions and/or propulsion systems of the T45, T26 or T31 suitable? Could the T83 and T32 use the same hull? Obviously as the hull dimensions start to enlarge damage control becomes more difficult wi...
- 22 Sep 2023, 08:55
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 287
- Views: 41637
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run. I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge. This could work if the lean...
- 21 Sep 2023, 21:32
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 287
- Views: 41637
Re: Type 83 Destroyer (RN) [News Only]
Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run. Yes and no. If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option. Witho...
- 21 Sep 2023, 20:19
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 3792
- Views: 863346
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
And from Japan https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/09/21/japan/jet-fighter-project-hq-uk/ The headquarters will be in Britain, but for the sake of balance, someone from Japan could head it," said one of the sources, all of whom asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the iss...