Search found 528 matches
- 28 Mar 2024, 14:22
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15444
- Views: 4409259
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
For example of a decent video, I like this video as it breaks down things for Project Ark Royal; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM7xTL65quo Yes it is good video but basically it is just a video presentation of this article https://www.navylookout.com/cats-traps-and-uas-the-royal-navy-considers-opt...
- 28 Mar 2024, 09:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Given the amount of small and medium tanks that are being developed around the world its clear that many nations can see the potential. Keep in mind that majority of those are purposely developed as "light" tanks and there is a reason behind each of them depending on country. still very f...
- 27 Mar 2024, 18:38
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces. 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. With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weig...
- 27 Mar 2024, 10:40
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons). The Japanese Type 10 was made lighter due to geographical issues (lots of bridges could not take previous tanks). Neither or those two are tanks or could take tank role. The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events ...
- 27 Mar 2024, 10:32
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2802
- Views: 714794
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Not sure would I take this article as accurate. For example Simultaneously, Germany, one of the main members of the OJAC/Boxer program, was developing its own IFV. Rheinmetall, the huge German defense contractor, started developing the Lynx to “fill a gap” in the market. This vehicle, which competes...
- 25 Mar 2024, 10:58
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Swedish Armed Forces
- Replies: 238
- Views: 22224
Re: Swedish Armed Forces
Nope! But it intends to, slowly (Unless plans are changed or stopped). Yes, that is a vision, but it would take time and it is uncertain will it happen in entirety. Lot will depend on money as usual. And even if all happen it will happen in stages over many years. So will not see STOBAR/CATOBAR pla...
- 25 Mar 2024, 10:08
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Swedish Armed Forces
- Replies: 238
- Views: 22224
- 25 Mar 2024, 09:53
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)
- Replies: 612
- Views: 211853
Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)
Today, 656 Squadron AAC will make the last flight with Apache Mk1 before it is withdrawn from service
- 25 Mar 2024, 09:44
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2802
- Views: 714794
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It would give us multiple vehicle types and be a bit of a nightmare, but is it really too late to buy the CV90? ... To late to buy it for what? IFV? Issue is UK does not have a project of replacing Warrior so no set budget. Boxer was intended to serve along upgraded Warrior but now that is canceled...
- 23 Mar 2024, 20:56
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If you think that the F35b’s will always be allocated to the carriers then three squadrons are ok, I suspect that the RAF has other plans however. I don't think it was ever intended for F-35B to operate just from CV. So of course that some squadron might be deployed elsewhere, for example somewhere...
- 23 Mar 2024, 17:11
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Didn’t the Joint Harrier Force have 70 a/c with 4 front-line squadrons, each with 9 a/c? After retiring Sea Harriers and conversion of 3 Squadron to Typhoon in 2006, there were 60 Harriers, plus 11 training two seat version, operated by 4 squadrons, each with 9 planes. But after further reductions ...
- 22 Mar 2024, 20:46
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2142523
- 22 Mar 2024, 20:43
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
There is another way 3 x 16 = 1 OCU & 2 FL Sqn's = 48 plus 4 for the TEU leaves 22 in Deep maintenance this could allow a standard peace time carrier deployment of 16 jets or a war time deployment of upto 32 It is already decided that there will be (at least) 3 frontline squadrons and 3rd Squad...
- 22 Mar 2024, 11:46
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I've seen it stated that CSG25 will have a 'full compliment' of 24. Yes but considering all delays with TR-3 it is hard to see how this would be possible. More realistic would be up to 16 aircrafts from both 617 & 809, for more probably part of 207 would need to be deployed too. But I think tha...
- 22 Mar 2024, 11:42
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Perms of 48, take your pick: 1x18 + 3x10 1x18 + 2x12 + 1x6 1x16 + 2x12 + 1x8 1x14 + 2x12 + 1x10 You are missing TEU which currently has 4 planes. If I am not wrong, original plan was to have 3 previously deployed to US to be upgraded to TR-3 and sent to UK while 17 Squadron would get 3 new planes. ...
- 22 Mar 2024, 10:07
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Well I would say we need to get away from the Norm that the RAF operate as these jets are and should be for the Carriers firstly given a front line number of 59 the aim should be to deploy 20 jets to the duty carrier meaning that when jets/ Sqn's are not deployed to a carrier they should be in main...
- 21 Mar 2024, 21:20
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 2432
- Views: 526517
- 21 Mar 2024, 17:05
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I think 4 Sqn's plus OCU & TEU could be done with the 74 jets the aim should be to have 2x Sqn's with 20 jets ready to deploy on the high readiness carrier plus 2 sqn's training or on leave With 60% plane availability, there would not be enough planes for 4 frontline squadrons, even with 70%, a...
- 20 Mar 2024, 22:44
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
- 20 Mar 2024, 22:15
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1724067
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
4 squadrons would probably required some 80 to 90 planes, even with 10 planes per squadron. 74 would mean 3 squadrons. Considering which one will be raised, I expect to be from RAF. Still choosing some currently inactive squadron between 201 to 217, 209 for example, it could still keep strong connec...
- 20 Mar 2024, 18:02
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
No the Hyūga-class are LPH's in real terms as were the Izumo-class before they were converted into full light carriers Hmmm ... not sure about that. Yes it is helicopter carrier, but Hyuga class is primary ASW platform, and not intended as an amphibious ships, which L in LPH is suggesting. But it c...
- 20 Mar 2024, 14:33
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Thanks - LHA is a US term, basically IMO a LPH on steroids, but without a well dock - e.g USS America or I would argue a CVF in an amphibious assault configuration. A LHD obviously has a dock but is less optimised for the aviation part of its role, typically with a shared hangar / mission deck. Yes...
- 20 Mar 2024, 13:31
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: Swedish Armed Forces
- Replies: 238
- Views: 22224
- 20 Mar 2024, 13:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500295
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Just to confirm we are talking about the same things - the RN has never operated a LHD. HMS Ocean was a LPH, the old Albion and Bulwark were light carriers that were converted to be Commando carriers (LPHs before that was a term). Yes I was talking about old Commando carriers. And yes you are right...
- 20 Mar 2024, 13:20
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: USA Armed Forces
- Replies: 2089
- Views: 108821
Re: USA Armed Forces
Plans for AC-130J to get laser direct energy weapon are scrapped. It could also lose its 105mm gun
https://www.twz.com/air/ac-130-gunships ... be-removed
https://www.twz.com/air/ac-130-gunships ... be-removed