Search found 5628 matches
- 29 Mar 2024, 08:44
- Forum: Defence Elsewhere
- Topic: French Armed Forces
- Replies: 1878
- Views: 144346
Re: French Armed Forces
This is clearly just ministers try to deflect from there part in this witch is delaying orders and upgrade programs to suit them
- 28 Mar 2024, 16:45
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 665
- Views: 153792
Re: The future form of the Army
….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. The problem I see her...
- 28 Mar 2024, 16:19
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
So if it is right that the RM are moving to LSU's with 2 x strike companies plus support with a total of between 400 and 500 troops then what they have done is moved from 2x infantry size battalions to 4 x Ranger size Battalions with 2 at high readiness and 2 at low readiness. As said before there g...
- 28 Mar 2024, 11:42
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 665
- Views: 153792
Re: The future form of the Army
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) ...
- 28 Mar 2024, 11:32
- Forum: General Discussion
- Topic: The future form of the Army
- Replies: 665
- Views: 153792
Re: The future form of the Army
…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...
- 27 Mar 2024, 18:08
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
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. If you really wanted / needed a light fire suppor...
- 27 Mar 2024, 15:18
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Airbus A400M Atlas (RAF)
- Replies: 394
- Views: 159565
Re: Airbus A400M Atlas (RAF)
Even better still take a Bay class from Cyprus with 2 x Mexeflote and a LCU drop thousands of tons right on the beech and make a real difference Agreed. But clearly there's issues with "boots on beaches" that US Military have been trying to address. Couldn't think what the issues could be...
- 27 Mar 2024, 15:15
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Post-war British Aviation - [Fantasy and Speculation]
- Replies: 32
- Views: 3035
- 27 Mar 2024, 14:22
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Airbus A400M Atlas (RAF)
- Replies: 394
- Views: 159565
Re: Airbus A400M Atlas (RAF)
Even better still take a Bay class from Cyprus with 2 x Mexeflote and a LCU drop thousands of tons right on the beech and make a real difference
- 27 Mar 2024, 13:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Type 26 Frigate (City Class) (RN) [News Only]
- Replies: 5693
- Views: 1494300
- 27 Mar 2024, 10:56
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
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 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...
- 26 Mar 2024, 18:10
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I can flip that why have you jumped to the conclusion that we don't . Frigates and fleet carriers have there own job to do we can't alway rely on them being able to undertake secondary roles or that we will have the second carrier fit for duty. I do agree some op's can be undertaken as you laid out...
- 26 Mar 2024, 15:45
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
With the Challenger 3 being reduced in number reportedly due to lack of operable Challenger 2s to upgrade I've not seen this, where have you? Thanks. As with all things Military it's hard to say for sure but it was reported we only had 157 workable Challenger 2 tanks currently, and the 148 number s...
- 26 Mar 2024, 14:25
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
In Fact all 3 are needed we are now getting an idea of what the FCF is looking to do which is dispersed battle group op's using 12 man team by air and sea this will require a aviation centred MRSS with a dock… I don’t know how you’ve jumped to the conclusion that we need a MRSS - helicopters from a...
- 26 Mar 2024, 11:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Before dismissing such a group the consideration must be what can a modernised ARG actually achieve? 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...
- 24 Mar 2024, 16:27
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Before that, why does the U.K. require two active CVFs if only ~2.2% GDP is being spent on defence? … Sorry, but this is a completely incoherent argument - the requirement is the multitude of the requirements that we’ve discussed many many times already - they are extremely flexible floating power ...
- 24 Mar 2024, 16:18
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The ultimate guarantor of nato is the nuclear umbrella and that will remain. The response to nibbles or testing along its border more interesting and why Baltic states in particular are extremely nervous. It’s the political leadership and command elements most missing without the US you saw that in...
- 24 Mar 2024, 12:54
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
in fact no one has come back with good reason as why a flat top LPD would be a bad move nothing wrong with a flattop, it is literally a zero cost option vis-a-vis any other configuiration of amphib - provided all other core tasks are accomodated. that is not to say that you can anything useful with...
- 24 Mar 2024, 11:28
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them. They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now. Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readines...
- 24 Mar 2024, 09:42
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
…my answer to that is I’m not sure they are crucial it can be done without them. They can’t be excluded from the discussion, RN literally revolves around them now. Finding an operating model that is both affordable and sustainable is crucial. If RN doesn’t do that a CVF will be in extended readines...
- 24 Mar 2024, 09:21
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers… Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating air...
- 24 Mar 2024, 08:45
- Forum: Royal Navy
- Topic: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
- Replies: 6178
- Views: 1870195
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I don’t want to turn this into another discussion about aircraft carriers… Fair, and don’t want to kick off the same circular discussions either. What I would add though is that I see a CVF as “4 acres of floating sovereign territory” - it should be seen in the same way as any forward operating air...
- 23 Mar 2024, 12:52
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6098
- Views: 1768680
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots? Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from? You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance Line maintenance? I take that to mean betw...
- 23 Mar 2024, 10:14
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6098
- Views: 1768680
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
How would having more sqn with fewer aircraft mean more pilots? Problem with creating more Sqns is it requires more people, where do all these people come from? You seem to be a bod in the know how low does it take to turn a jet around for line maintenance Line maintenance? I take that to mean betw...
- 23 Mar 2024, 09:44
- Forum: Joint Service
- Topic: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- Replies: 6098
- Views: 1768680
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...