SW1 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2024, 11:17 Really is that all sensible on top of everything else?

I think the short answer is, yes, absolutely it really would be sensible.

It’s just time to fund it and do it now.

Extremely illuminating. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-13254155/JAMES-HEAPPEY-spend-three-cent-GDP-Armed-Forces.html • Grant Shapps was offered 2.5% GDP in a decades time! Effectively 3 parliaments away. • Heappey proposing increase to 2.5% by NATO 75 summit in July. • Heappey proposing ...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2024, 09:19 Both Archer and M270a2 can be moved by LCU or A400m so both could bring support…..

Do the rapid reaction Brigades need 155mm and M270?

Would HMT based 105mm Howitzer, GMLRS, Brimstone and Protector be enough? At least in the initial stages?

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...

Everything I see points to a top-end ambition that includes a scale and compelxity of formation that shouts "battlegroup!", and again; that is a cascade of procurement consequences that makes the idea of harmonising commando equipment to 16AAB Chinook-undersling seem short-sighted. It’s w...

Coyote is already borderline heavy, in the best case, or to heavy, in the worst, to be transported by Chinook. Adding armoured cabin would significantly increase its weight. Paras already went back to WMIK from Jackal which is lighter than Coyote. Having modular vehicles make sense but there an iss...

quite right they now have Viking , HMT 400 & 600 , MRZR , Landrover , Snowmobile what else should they have 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. Se...

Repulse wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 17:49 They’ve got an option for snow for the MRZR Alpha

Thanks.

The tracks are great until you hit the first rock.

The RZR have a role to play but as a universal vehicle for the FCF IMO they have major limitations.

As said before there goal is to fight across a wide area using small fast moving teams to engage and harass the enemy…. The only way it would work is with an incredible amount of support. Otherwise the risk of overmatch by the opponent is substantial. It’s currently not clear where that support is ...

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 16:45 The problem I see here is lets a HMT-600 has a Brimstone pack and a commander calls for a role change to a 120mm mortar or 105mm gun pack will the crew need to know how to use all three weapons

Does the crew come with the module or the vehicle?

Tempest414 wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024, 11:42 ….so as far as Brimstone goes the UK built Wolfram for Ukraine witch is in service now

It’s a great start.

I was thinking more of a universal flatbed unit where modules could be rapidly changed depending on requirements.

It would open the door to a whole host of possibilities.

We need to start with what is the requirement in a UK context, and then decide what it needs to do. Is it to launch brigade level amphibious operations? Is it to transport large formations or troops and kit to reinforce the JEF region? Is it a platform for reinforced SF operations? My view is the l...

To my mind, one thing that is missing is a wheeled deep-fires capability to support 1 Division. Initially, keeping the 14 Archer and acquiring (say) 24 HIMARS equivalent (potentially based on a more compact platform, for air-portability) would go some way. Eventually replace the Archers with (say) ...

I don't think there is a single 105mm uncrewed turret currently in use beside MGS. Same for 120mm. It is not unthinkable just it will take time for this. At this point crewed and uncrewed isn’t a deal breaker IMO. If the U.K. developed a workable 105mm but ideally 120mm uncrewed turret for Boxer wh...

…what we need right now is deployable formations and there for the armoured brigades need to become Combined arms brigades with 4 x combined arms battalions…. Why not both? If 1st Division is fully mechanised with BOXER, Patria 6x6, Archer and Jackal/Coyote it becomes a highly deployable and versat...

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. What has USMC got to do with a U.K. rapid reaction force? Why exclude more firepower when the possibility of a ...

sol wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024, 10:40 For what?

To support the rapid reaction expeditionary forces.

With an uncrewed turret try and keep the transportable weight below 37t so than one can be transported by a A400M and 2x in a C17.

Also much easier to get ashore in a LCM or a Mexefloate.

…Something more in line with the M10 Booker or the Japanese Type 10 (i.e 40-50 tons)……The Ajax and Boxer both also are not on the light side. The CH3 is just a stopgap and recent events have clearly shown the continued versatility of the MBT. However that doesn’t necessarily require a CH4. IMO an u...

To assemble a force for such an incursion would require build up and planning. If you have the intelligence assets you would see it. That’s fine but the planning and contingencies still need to be in place. What will the U.K. be contributing to blunt any incursion and then what follows and how do y...

That’s a long way of achieving extended readiness without trying to call it that. If both are permanently crewed then they may as well be both operated concurrently. Nothing meaningful is being saved by having one in low readiness. How do you slow and stop an invading force, part of it is defensive...

i'm not expecting a more peaceful Europe in the 21st century, but I do work to the following: 1. the scale of the threat from russia today is an order of magnitude smaller than was the case when britain was staring down the barrel of 15 soviet shock armies. 2. in consequence, the threat that russia...

….apart from trials the two have not been deployed out side of UK waters concurrently - the principle is that one is deployed or at high readiness and the other is at a lower readiness but is absolutely not in extended readiness. I have never suggested putting a CVF into extended readiness. One hig...

no. no more so than was true in the 19th century. more purple if you will - at the direction of a maritime strategy, yes. The maritime strategy was historically designed to firstly contain Spain then France in the 18th/19th centuries followed by Germany in the first half of the 20th century. The re...

We need to be able to move mass and protect it so from this point of view we would need to get the lead elements of 3 Cdo , 16AA plus the Rangers & SF into the fight so 16AA , Rangers & SAS,SRR would go on C-17 & A400 Plus a reserve Brigade? Also, the only thing that will stop these ini...

Are they using both CVF concurrently? Is it not the case that due to the issues with PWLS that the cycles are out of sync. And QNLZ has had to fill in a vice versa while PWLS is brought up to FOC. Time will tell but they are both currently fully crewed. PWLS substituting QE at such short notice was...