Search found 3958 matches
- 27 Apr 2023, 09:58
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2142728
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
With the reduced importance of NGS mainly due to the proliferation of Anti-Ship Missiles a low cost land strike capability on the T31 needs to be found. The NSM is a great Missile but it’s range is less than 10% of a TLAM BlockV. In real terms that means if an NSM was fired from Portsmouth in an eas...
- 26 Apr 2023, 20:17
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2142728
- 26 Apr 2023, 14:36
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
- Replies: 8470
- Views: 2142728
Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
Devils advocate. Apart from 24 to 32 CAMM what is realistically going to go in the Mk41s in the next decade or two? T31 can take 16 NSM canisters. No need for anymore than 8 canisters to be fitted in normal circumstances but quickly doubling up to 16 is important IMO. A T31 fitted with 16 NSM and 2 ...
- 26 Apr 2023, 14:24
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
Re: The future form of the Army
Could Patria be the Army’s T31?
Even it cost £2bn it would be a great result for 1st Division. Built rapidly under licence in the U.K., what’s not to like?
- 25 Apr 2023, 16:45
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Do 3Cdo even know what this is, because I sure as hell do not! Good question. I agree it’s as clear as mud and the rate of transformation since 2021 appears modest to say the least. Hopefully the defence command paper will actually articulate something comprehensible rather than vague references to...
- 25 Apr 2023, 16:35
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Khartoum to port Sudan is 500 km plus. Good luck with helicoptering on a 1000 km round trip in a hot country with elevation. Add ground force protection to each helicopter flight and that unworkable. It’s why everyone is using transport planes and not helicopters. Cant agree here. Khartoum is where...
- 25 Apr 2023, 16:07
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
North & west Africa and Gulf & East Africa Typo, apologies. Also we can't use the RM twice there are ether a Rapid response brigade holding a Battle group ready for the High North or they are thinly spread out in company level light LRG's I agree it’s a reorganisation. The structure I envis...
- 25 Apr 2023, 13:52
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
Re: The future form of the Army
…ditch Ajax and stop Boxer…. I’m not suggesting that. Properly modernising 3rd Division is an absolute priority and shouldn’t be diluted in any way. If the Army need the 590 Ajax to achieve it great but what if the defence command paper recommends upgrading 227 CR3? As for Boxer I’m suggesting carr...
- 25 Apr 2023, 13:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Groups 1 & 2 would be UK based and mainly European and African looking but can be deployed as needed Group 3 would be based EoS and mainly looking at the Indian Ocean and south Asia The crisis in Sudan illustrates the importance of forward basing IMO. By dispatching both LRG(E) and LRG(S) as su...
- 25 Apr 2023, 13:19
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
Re: The future form of the Army
we need to remember that the 5 Boxer Battalions will use between 90 and 100 boxers each…. The modularity helps move things around if required. Still time to spilt the procurement between tracked and wheeled to allow the CR3, Ajax and tracked Boxers to form a fully tracked force backed up by wheeled...
- 25 Apr 2023, 13:09
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
You might want to scroll back a page or two
- 25 Apr 2023, 12:07
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
- 25 Apr 2023, 10:58
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
Re: The future form of the Army
I have scraped nothing everything we have on order would be used in the 3rd division but I would then order 1000 Patria 6x6 for the 1st division to allow 3 Brigades of 3 Battalions with each brigade made up like so 1 x Light Cavalry = jackal 3 x Mech infantry = Patria 6x6 1 x Artillery regt = HMARS...
- 25 Apr 2023, 10:52
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 642
- Views: 115232
- 25 Apr 2023, 10:47
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I don’t buy the money has to be found line. Defence has to sort itself out within its current budget, it’s simply not a priority for the electorate and therefore not a priority investment area for politicians. It doesn’t need more money to defend the country. I would have agreed with that 5 years b...
- 24 Apr 2023, 22:39
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I’d be interested to know what is considered a sensible headcount? Whatever is required to allow all units to function properly but it’s difficult to accurately assess now that the reserve in so intertwined. To do it properly requires 90k to 100k plus a reserve of 20k to 25k. It’s a big uplift whic...
- 24 Apr 2023, 21:49
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The current situation in Sudan is a good example of a likely scenario that any future amphibious force needs to deliver……shows lack of depth. Its shows an embarrassing lack of depth although let’s wait and see how this plays out before being too critical. It is a vindication once again for the forw...
- 24 Apr 2023, 21:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I like the broad thrust of proposal Thanks ….. missing an Arctic IPS Its a question of priorities and unfortunately the British Army isn’t fit for purpose currently and RN is too small. The headcount has fallen too low and is going to fall further unless action is taken. RN/RFA can’t man what is in...
- 24 Apr 2023, 12:13
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Here is my attempt at what is achievable by 2026 with a slightly increasing budget per annum. Reorganisation of UK Land/Maritime Forces by 2026 [/b] (Gradual 0.1% increase per annum to 2.5% GDP by 2026.) Main Changes: - Invest majority of rising defence budget in Army/RN/RM/RFA recruitment and rete...
- 24 Apr 2023, 11:36
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15444
- Views: 4409614
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Its a disaster for all involved. Imagine what RN could have done with that crew allocation in those four years.Tempest414 wrote: ↑24 Apr 2023, 10:37 I think I would challenge that posting as he spent only a handful of days at sea
- 22 Apr 2023, 20:51
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Within current funding plus a net injection of @£200mn. Thanks. Interesting proposal. The Ice ship issue is interesting as patrolling the High North is going to become a hot topic over the next few decades. When an IPS is discussed the overwhelming opinion is simply to build more RRS SDA(s) but is ...
- 22 Apr 2023, 14:08
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Focusing purely on the RN contribution (although to be clear this needs to be part of a joint Purple strategy) and with few new additions I think a reconfiguration of the amphibious forces as below is possible in the short term. Are you trying stay within the current funding envelope or is this a w...
- 22 Apr 2023, 14:06
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Maybe because they are inhabited by navy aircraft flown by navy personnel unlike the UK? A mistake by the UK that could be so easily corrected. If the UK ever achieves the 3% GDP Defence spend transferring all F35b to the FAA should be one of the top priorities. The RAF can concentrate on Tempest. ...
- 22 Apr 2023, 11:49
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502
- 22 Apr 2023, 11:13
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 5981
- Views: 1500502