Search found 220 matches
- 24 Aug 2022, 16:42
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 458467
Re: Section Infantry Weapons
When ammunition is so highly restricted and discouraged in terms of civilian sales we only have a big enough market to have one large scale manufacturer. There are plenty of factories in the US and Europe that could supply us as a back up. I'm sure if we sourced our ammo directly from the US or East...
- 29 Jun 2022, 10:07
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 2433
- Views: 542182
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
I'm still in disbelief that it can take engineers so long to understand and remediate the problem. If it was down to CQ on the hull, it doesn't take years to manufacture new hulls to the correct spec and then install the turret and sensors from the out of spec hulls. Rubber tracks would go a long wa...
- 29 Jun 2022, 01:34
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 358
- Views: 78254
Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Pretty sure he is referring to trials. There is no experimental cannon or ammunition handling system that has never been trialled before so I don't expect trials to be an issue unless there are serious QC issues. I don't see any reason all of the C3's can't be delivered this decade. Ajax is still a ...
- 21 Jun 2022, 13:27
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 358
- Views: 78254
Re: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The turret on the KF51 looks huge. I thought any future tank would follow the Russian concept with an unmanned turret and the crew inside an armoured shell inside the hull which would reduce weight while maintaining crew protection. This Ukrainian conflict will remind everyone that mobility is top p...
- 18 May 2022, 00:14
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 2433
- Views: 542182
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
Or mount them in the back of a MAN modularised container at a fraction of the price. If Brimstone is launched NLOS from 20km away does it need to be on a boxer chassis.
- 30 Apr 2022, 12:58
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
- Replies: 767
- Views: 233397
Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)
JLTV doesn't have much domestic content so it's an easy one to postpone. I have a feeling they will re-run the whole thing again when they actually have money but for now looks like all the money is going on Ajax, Boxer, C3 and Indirect fire. I don't think anything will enter services on mrvp until ...
- 21 Apr 2022, 15:32
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Section Infantry Weapons
- Replies: 1492
- Views: 458467
Re: Section Infantry Weapons
One thing I expected to be included on any future rifle was a universal/integrated power source for the optics, night vision and lasers to reduce weight and bulk.
Maybe it was considered a single point of failure and to keep everything running off their own batteries.
Maybe it was considered a single point of failure and to keep everything running off their own batteries.
- 30 Mar 2022, 21:56
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ground Based Air Defence
- Replies: 743
- Views: 205924
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
For all the money that was poured into developing CTA I would expect Ajax to be able to engage UAVs with airburst rounds.
- 30 Mar 2022, 21:51
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 2433
- Views: 542182
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
If he uses the words cautiously optimistic and 2030 in the same sentence he exemplifies everything that is wrong with the program to begin with.
- 30 Mar 2022, 21:48
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 2433
- Views: 542182
Re: Ajax Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
That date can't be serious. It was meant to be in service last year and they are just going to knock is out 9 years. I thought 2025 was still taking the piss.
- 21 Mar 2022, 18:24
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)
- Replies: 114
- Views: 55304
Re: Thales Watchkeeper WK450 (British Army)
I don't think they would serve much purpose taking out high value armoured targets but for low value low cost targets like insurgents in the back of a pick up or laying IED's having LMM mounted on a Watchkeeper makes sense.
- 18 Mar 2022, 12:00
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 45584
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
I'm sure Russia and China have already managed to get their hands on a few NLAW and Javelin missiles long before now to assess their effectiveness and try to reverse engineer them.
- 07 Mar 2022, 19:09
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2826
- Views: 749914
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
I never said they always had to be switched on, I did say they needed to be fitted on every vehicle which gives them the option. There is no contradiction, the same principle applies to RN ships operating in the ocean with their radar turned off to avoid detection. I also didn't suggest aps would de...
- 07 Mar 2022, 17:32
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)
- Replies: 615
- Views: 217623
Re: Apache Attack Helicopter (British Army Air Corps)
We were never going to win exports for brimstone in Apache. Brimstone best selling point is it's optimisation for fast air. Hopefully the Germans, French and Pole's will finally commit to buying them as they don't have the luxury of developing their own in 10 years time.
- 07 Mar 2022, 17:29
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2826
- Views: 749914
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
If vehicles are manoeuvring 20-30 miles outside of the front line and want to avoid detection it makes sense to switch off just about everything that creates an electronic signature. But once your within 5 miles of the enemy especially ones armed with thousands of man portable ATGMs vehicles need AP...
- 07 Mar 2022, 13:12
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2826
- Views: 749914
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It is clear that every vehicle now needs APS regardless of cost if we value soldiers lives, adding 10 tonnes of armour does very little against modern ATGMs and reducing vehicles speed, range and mobility leaves them vulnerable to attack.
- 07 Mar 2022, 12:57
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
- Replies: 2826
- Views: 749914
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
It's hard to tell how much of the issue is down to maintenance and the tires being in a poor state of repair and how much is down to mud. No matter what logistics vehicles will always be required on wheels so being able to go cross country simply isn't an option. In regards to front line APCs and IF...
- 02 Mar 2022, 09:18
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 45584
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
I don't think that would result in a good outcome for anyone. If NATO did intervene it wouldn't take Putin long to realise he would lose a conventional war and launch a tactical nuke at Kyiv. The only response to that is Armageddon. If Putin loses this war he will he removed from power so he is alre...
- 01 Mar 2022, 22:08
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 45584
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
NATO has bent over backwards not to give Putin an excuse to escalate things. He still went ahead and invaded but had to do so without any kind of credible justification leaving him isolated internationally. If we put troops in before hand I think Putin would have bitten on anything to justify invadi...
- 01 Mar 2022, 19:20
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
- Replies: 118
- Views: 45584
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
The Ukrainians are certainly making good use of their NLAW and Javelin missiles. Hopefully we can ship a good few more over to them to help clear a 40km traffic jam. For all the complaints about how the British army lacks mass it really shows how easily it can reduced with effective ATGMs. It's frus...
- 08 Feb 2022, 14:47
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ground Based Air Defence
- Replies: 743
- Views: 205924
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Things can be too dependant on networking. If the signal is jammed the missile box would become completely useless.
- 08 Feb 2022, 14:45
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: RBSL Challenger 3 (Future) Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- Replies: 358
- Views: 78254
Re: RBSL Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I assume the sights will need some calibration when moving from the CTA40 to the 120mm
- 07 Feb 2022, 12:50
- Forum: Royal Air Force
- Topic: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
- Replies: 409
- Views: 185153
Re: Boeing E-3D Sentry AEW.1 (AWACS) (RAF)
I read a report stating cancelling 2 wedge tails cost the mod £18m in fines to boeing. I assume that's the loss of discount through EOS that ordering all 5 would have brought, rather than plans incompetence if the individual price would have been the same if we ordered 3 in the first place with an o...
- 04 Feb 2022, 09:10
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
- Replies: 1041
- Views: 331081
Re: Warrior Armoured Vehicles (British Army)
They certainly don't hang around when it comes to scrapping armoured vehicles. Could they not park them up in a shed for spares. The scrap value is peanuts. I assume the cannons and electronics where all removed for storage.
- 01 Feb 2022, 16:02
- Forum: British Army
- Topic: Ground Based Air Defence
- Replies: 743
- Views: 205924
Re: Ground Based Air Defence
Maybe the Russia situations is focusing minds a little more to fund these capabilities rather than consider them optional. The MOD seems to think because the UK is realistically out of reach from Russian bombers it doesn't need air defense but pretty sure the sub launches TLAM capabilities is a bigg...