Search found 1468 matches
- 04 Sep 2023, 20:33
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 2323
- Views: 1031491
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I can't help but wonder about the cries about how the CR2 was so hopelessly obsolete.
- 02 Sep 2023, 12:11
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
I’ll use an example that I think is really ironic Ukraine has asked for fighter aircraft to defeat what we consider our main peer threat in this part of world, and what was the choice championed by the “experts” was it f15, typhoon, rafale, f35 no it was F16 and gripen! If that is more than good en...
- 29 Aug 2023, 19:54
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1723599
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I understand. But hey the harrier could do VTOL, let alone STOL, without a separate liftfan. But couldn't go supersonic or carry as much due to the limitations of the Pegasus arrangement. What is said is if a rather useless VTOL capability is of detriment to the price, range and maintenance of the ...
- 29 Aug 2023, 18:05
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1723599
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Yes, but without the VTOL requirement, thus reducing how powerful the liftfan had to be, maybe not having it at all, thus saving weight, increasing range. If there wasn't a need for the liftfan at all, then there might not have been a need for a B variant at all, thus reducing costs enormously. Tha...
- 29 Aug 2023, 17:14
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1723599
- 29 Aug 2023, 15:52
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6067
- Views: 1723599
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Imagine how much better F-35B would be if instead of VTOL it was just SVRL and safely takeoff with heavy load in 250m/ under 500ft . F35B is V/STOL and can do shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL). Going from the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) nomenclature, do you mean something li...
- 20 Aug 2023, 18:43
- Forum: UK Defence & Aerospace Industry
- Topic: Hill Helicopters
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3068
Re: Hill Helicopters
Well, give us a summary when you're done.Little J wrote: ↑20 Aug 2023, 18:33 They have a lot of interesting videos (including VLOG's), only watched a few so far, but I'm working my way through them
https://www.youtube.com/@HillHelicopters/videos
- 20 Aug 2023, 10:58
- Forum: UK Defence & Aerospace Industry
- Topic: Hill Helicopters
- Replies: 12
- Views: 3068
Re: Hill Helicopters
While I'd love for a startup to achieve it's aims, I've only seen marketing spiel from this so far. Looking at their recruitment page: https://www.hillhelicopters.com/careers There are a lot of roles that I'd expect to see filled already, if they had product rather than CAD models. If they expect to...
- 03 Aug 2023, 19:46
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
- Replies: 4067
- Views: 950051
Re: Future UK Combat Aircraft (Project Tempest)
So it's 2026, Tempest has been cancelled by Labour as it trys to balance the books. You're the Defence Secretary, ordering a replacement is now getting critical as time ticks away? Options???? Give up and go home? You've no money for anything save maybe a few export grade F35s or maybe a lease a fe...
- 28 Jul 2023, 12:27
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: AW101 Merlin Helicopter (RN)
- Replies: 513
- Views: 273061
Re: AW101 Merlin Helicopter (RN)
Thanks, understandable for engine, but no damage to airframe. I've heard helicopters described, amongst other things, as a flying vibration testing machine. If the engine is running harder then so are the rotor blades and between the engines, transmission and rotor blades, the vibration is going to...
- 26 Jul 2023, 22:49
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: AW101 Merlin Helicopter (RN)
- Replies: 513
- Views: 273061
- 23 Jul 2023, 22:04
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 1041
- Views: 318410
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I agree that an armoured rapid reaction force is important but due to the distances involved how quickly could it reliably be deployed and would it even make it to the incursion before getting attacked? IMO what Ukraine lacked was an air mobile rapid reaction force. Virtually everything required sh...
- 22 Jul 2023, 22:12
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
- Dispute resolution needs to be clear at the outset and heavily weighted in favour of the taxpayer. If the contractor over promises, under delivers and blows the budget then a clear mechanism is in place to deal with that. All things come with a cost and if you place more risk on the contractor th...
- 22 Jul 2023, 20:04
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
Pure spite isn’t fair Nor blind optimism. my concern is that the Army won’t learn their Nimrod/T45/T26 lesson. It can’t be business as usual. If we expect industry to be held to its contracts then I think that should go for MoD as well. If they aren't held to account and just handed more money to f...
- 22 Jul 2023, 18:21
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
Why are you so convinced based on the programs performance to date? I look at the information presented. At present I think let it run with increased scrutiny. Is it just blind optimism? I'd like to think it's no more that than your opinion is based on pure spite. When? Now or 3, 5 or 8 years from ...
- 22 Jul 2023, 12:26
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
That is the same argument that manages to prolong the agony of HS2. With HS2 I think you could cancel it with no replacement without really affecting anything other than those directly involved. I've not been involved with discussions on it so I don't know what arguments get advanced, but I hope no...
- 22 Jul 2023, 11:56
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 1041
- Views: 318410
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Closer to £3.2bn at current rates, then add inflation.
- 21 Jul 2023, 14:19
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
Since when did the MoD become a hostage to industry? Since they sold off all of their ability to design and build new equipment. Is Ajax really fixed? Or is it just easier to say it’s fixed? More that at least half the money has already been agreed upon and paid out at given milestones. It may have...
- 20 Jul 2023, 19:13
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
Clearly that’s a contractual matter between contractor and client. Yet you wish to base a plan upon it being resolved in the least likely way? However, hypothetically speaking, how would future MoD procurement decisions be influenced by a contractor who walked away with £5bn for a vehicle program t...
- 20 Jul 2023, 12:02
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
If you cancel Ajax I don’t think you’ll get much, if any, of the money back
- 19 Jul 2023, 19:43
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: General UK Defence Discussion
- Replies: 1842
- Views: 183945
Re: General UK Defence Discussion
Swallow hard and scrap Ajax - Rebuild 1st Div and 3rd Div around a mixed fleet of CV90, Boxer and Patria 6x6. You could also write that as:Write off £6bn and spend another 5 years at least getting something else into service which will cost considerably more per vehicle. Then pair up another vehicl...
- 17 Jul 2023, 19:16
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 43150
- 17 Jul 2023, 18:46
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 43150
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
I didn't know that NLAW or AT-4 had seekers. Can somebody confirm one way or the other? Neither have seekers. The NLAW is guided to follow a flight path dictated by the position and movement of the launcher at and before launch. It also has a sensor to initiate the warhead as it passes over the tar...
- 10 Jul 2023, 22:45
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 43150
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
At the risk of my sanity, I will defer to the armchair generals infinite wisdom. Operational experience and extensive training is irrelevant in the light of such omniscience. Shame what has happened to the rather good MP net. If you have to resort to "because I said so" and "don't yo...
- 10 Jul 2023, 18:53
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 43150
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
4,000m is the max with LWCLU. 4,750m is achievable from a vehicle mount. The seeker head of the missile still has low resolution though, unless you're firing one of the exceptionally expensive brand new G variants. Like I said, related to the CLU rather than the missile. The G model is listed as be...