Search found 562 matches
- 31 Mar 2024, 11:49
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Indeed because the vehicle you posted an image off has a gross vehicle weight limit which is less that the weight which can be lifted by chinook. So you are still missing the point. So regardless of what configuration it is(gun, cab whatever) it should still be lift able by chinook. Somehow I doubt...
- 31 Mar 2024, 10:40
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
- 30 Mar 2024, 20:32
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
- 30 Mar 2024, 20:03
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
If something like coyote was towing a 105mm gun I don’t see the problem. How about something like this, because, if I am not wrong this is something that he had in mind https://i0.wp.com/militaryleak.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/supacat-and-am-general-unveil-hmt-extenda-mk2-with-105mm-light-weigh...
- 30 Mar 2024, 19:44
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4030 Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank (1983-2001) (British Army)
- Replies: 6
- Views: 7771
Re: FV4030 Challenger 1 Main Battle Tank (1983-2001) (British Army)
Jordanian CR1. Some seems in good state but some are obviously used as a source of spare parts
- 30 Mar 2024, 19:41
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Why can’t archer be moved by a400m? To big or to heavy, not sure. Info came from one twitter post by Gabrielle Molinelli. We have already done the helicopter move within Europe from the fwd mounting positions on operations so I don’t know why it would be impractical now. Yes, I know that Chinook, P...
- 30 Mar 2024, 18:31
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support also maybe both 3 Cdo and 16AA should be looking at LMV 400/600 as a replacement to Landrover WMIK Archer can not be moved by A400. It require C-17. Having two air mobile fast reaction Brigades (ideally with a third in ...
- 30 Mar 2024, 08:39
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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...
- 29 Mar 2024, 15:48
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6181
- Views: 1874376
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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. Aren't they already doing that? Secondly, can everything that 3Cdo and 16AAB needs (on land) be made air mobile by...
- 28 Mar 2024, 14:22
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
- Replies: 15455
- Views: 4470478
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: 6181
- Views: 1874376
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: 6181
- Views: 1874376
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: 6181
- Views: 1874376
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: 2825
- Views: 748462
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: 25066
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: 25066
- 25 Mar 2024, 09:53
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)
- Replies: 615
- Views: 216950
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: 2825
- Views: 748462
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: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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: 8501
- Views: 2204086
- 22 Mar 2024, 20:43
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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: 6102
- Views: 1774464
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...