About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
The Other Chris
July 1, 2014 9:22 pm

@TD

Thank you!

The Other Chris
July 1, 2014 9:23 pm

Continuing with the aircraft theme…

Dutch and French NH90’s suffering corrosion problems:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/corrosion-issue-halts-dutch-nh90-deliveries-400944/

steve taylor
July 1, 2014 9:30 pm
MSR
July 1, 2014 9:33 pm

Storm Shadow reminds me of those car top boxes you carry luggage in.

Perhaps this Typhoon can self deploy? Tent in one, ground crew in the other.

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
July 1, 2014 9:37 pm

That Stormshadow loadout looks very short legged. We need to crack on and get those conformal tanks sorted.

Topman
Topman
July 1, 2014 9:40 pm

You can still fit a CL tank, so you’re only 1 tank down on normal fit.

Hohum
Hohum
July 1, 2014 9:42 pm

Lots of pre-SDSR posturing going on. The Telegraph even ran a save the Red Arrows story today. Could get quite entertaining over the next few months.

Observer
Observer
July 1, 2014 9:43 pm

@Repulse

*shrug* What can we say? Your Navy really did stake a lot of their credibility on the ships.

@x

ew… Direct Inpingement. The 3nd biggest cause of jams I’ve experienced. The first was deformed aluminum magazines (no feeding). 2nd was weak arse blanks (stovepipe jams). 3rd was that damn gas tube choking up or leaking (no feeding). Give me gas piston any time.

The Other Chris
July 1, 2014 10:00 pm

Chris Werb
Chris Werb
July 1, 2014 10:08 pm

It’s good that you can still have the centreline tank, but presumably you could have had that in addition to the underwings with a full air to air missile fit, so you’re still down two tanks and up two c. 1200kg underwing stores over a long range air to air loadout. I’d love to know how the range worked out vs a Tornado GR4 with two Stormshadow and if it’s possible to carry Stormshadow on Typhoon in an assymetric (missile under one wing and tank under the other) configuration. It’s probably not a fair comparison, but Rafale can carry two Stormshadow, three large tanks, plus two short and two long ranged AAMs. The Rafale can be fitted with conformals, but I’m not sure it can carry them in addition to the above loadout.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=73166&stc=1&d=1112430753

Repulse
July 2, 2014 6:09 am

@Observer: The 2 carrier challenge isn’t a UK only problem just look at the French situation, even the Spanish and Italian.

I’m actually quite confident well keep both, and it’s the usual worse case doom and gloom news stories to prepare people for a mixture of “good” and bad news.

Observer
Observer
July 2, 2014 6:14 am

Did I say it was a problem? My bad, it isn’t. My point was that your Navy has a lot riding on this issue. Statement, not critique.

Topman
Topman
July 2, 2014 7:36 am

Normal role fit is 2 tanks, although 3 are used sometimes. Yes it would have been better to have the ability for drop tanks and heavy stores at the same time as the rafale pic. Which is pretty good that they squezzed large drop tanks on. Although it does loose quite a few AAM which Typhoon doesn’t and has only 2 u/w pylons, but still that’s pretty good. I doubt it could carry any more weight, CFT I think would be an either or in the that role fit. It looks very heavy and close to it weight limit i would think.
There were plans for large(r) drop tanks on Typhoon but they were cut to save money, ~£20m I think there were 1400 L.

Chris
Chris
July 2, 2014 7:37 am

TOC – thanks for the video – confirms that playing with guns is dangerous

The Other Chris
July 2, 2014 8:25 am

@Chris

Stand out point for me (amongst the insanely stupid) were the number of shooters seemingly taking rifle shooting seriously but being hit in the eye on recoil by their scopes.

Chris
Chris
July 2, 2014 9:06 am

TOC – expensive tools do not a craftsman make? Doesn’t matter how much money is spent on Gucci kit, if the operator lacks expertise the results are unimpressive…

The Other Chris
July 2, 2014 9:30 am

ARGUS-IS upgrade to Gorgon Stare has passed field testing by the USAF.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sierra-nevada-fields-argus-is-upgrade-to-gorgon-stare-400978/

This is the 1.8 billion pixel fused image system drawing from a hemispherical array of 368 cameras that can provide real-time coverage of all activity in a 100km2 area.

TD posted the below video up on a dedicated article that is well worth revisiting:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/08/nothing-eyes-update/

The system is to be deployed on MQ-9 Reapers and MC-12 Liberty’s. I’m not aware if the UK were able to purchase MQ-9’s with the Gorgon Stare Increment 1 pod, however this level of surveillance capability is certainly valuable and useful.

Kent
Kent
July 2, 2014 1:26 pm

Can Apaches carry ASW torpedos? If so, they might be able to supplement the QEC ASW helicopters when the “bad guys” come to sink your shiny new carriers.

July 2, 2014 6:06 pm

Cool accessory every vehicle should carry.
http://www.parrot.com/uk/products/bebop-drone/
Specs are at the bottom but do watch the video link

El Sid
El Sid
July 2, 2014 9:02 pm

URL says it all, looks like F-35 might not make it to Rosyth this week :
http://aviationweek.com/defense/british-f-35b-not-yet-ready-transatlantic-crossing

This has more details of the F-35 visit :
http://aviationweek.com/farnborough-2014/priming-jsfs-transatlantic-trip

The Other Chris
July 2, 2014 9:12 pm

Wonder if the three US aircraft will still make the journey?

El Sid
El Sid
July 2, 2014 9:23 pm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/30/us-japan-defense-idUSKBN0F52S120140630

Japan’s cabinet is expected on Tuesday to end a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since World War Two, a major shift away from post-war pacifism and a political victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who has pursued the change despite some public opposition.

The move, seen by some as the biggest shift in defense policy since Japan set up its post-war armed forces in 1954, would end a ban on exercising “collective self-defense”, or aiding a friendly country under attack.

It would also relax limits on activities in U.N.-led peace-keeping operations and “grey zone” incidents that fall short of full-scale war

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
July 3, 2014 8:46 am

More of everything is not feasible til they reduce a bit of the foreign aid budget or sort out the bloated and inefficient NHS and benefit culture.

It is also fantasy to think of major increases in kit and personnel, but some small enhancements or keeping what we have are possible, given the political will.

1) Maintain what we have. No more cuts.
2) Bring PoW into service, in reserve if necessary.
3) RN prioritises Carriers, SSN, RFA, RM and Amphibs.
4) RAF prioritises ISTAR, AAR, Transport and SHF.
5) Army prioritises rapid reaction style forces while maintaining minimum 1 Armoured Division, which we are doing anyway.
6) Maintain high spending on UKSF and intelligence community – SS/SIS/GCHQ.
7) Remove Trident from MoD budget, a total scandal.
8) Reintroduce small no of MPA.

Tenor
Tenor
July 3, 2014 11:30 am

Daniele Mandelli, removing Vanguard subs and their missiles will not increase the budget. They will NOT get that money back to spend on other things.

Renewing it is the only option or we will fall off the high leagues entirely with no way back on them again.

The Other Chris
July 3, 2014 12:11 pm

Brazil upgrading their Lynx 21A’s with the LHTEC CTS800-4N engine found in the AW159 Wildcat and the retrofitted British Army Lynx AH9.

Work to be carried out at Yeovil (congratulations!) with a contract worth over £100m:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-engines-to-transform-brazilian-lynx-helicopters-401039/

The Other Chris
July 3, 2014 12:26 pm

Brazilian Lynx upgrades not just limited to engines:

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/brazilian-navy-lynx-helicopters-set-upgrade/

– Glass cockpit;
– Satellite navigation;
– Tactical processor;
– Traffic Collision Avoidance System;
– Instrument Landing System;
– Radar Warning Receiver;
– Electronic Surveillance Measures;
– Countermeasure dispensers;
– Night Vision Goggle compatible cockpit;
– Electrically powered rescue hoist;
– Flight Training Device;
– Support and training package.

July 3, 2014 12:54 pm

@Tenor,

I think you are spot on. If HM Treasury thought for one moment that they could use the cash from chopping the CASD they’d do it in a heartbeat to spend on more emotive items like health and education.

Why health and education? Because those are the services most people are closest too and use the most. If the voters were asked, “Do you think we should spend £10bn on two aircraft carriers or take that cash and use it for cancer and long term care?” what do you think the answers would be?

Gareth Jones
July 3, 2014 12:56 pm

The Aircraft Carriers that never was

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28128026

July 3, 2014 12:59 pm

@Daniele Mandelli “or sort out the bloated and inefficient NHS….”

Pound for pound, the NHS is probably the most efficient health service in the world….

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8877412/NHS-among-best-health-care-systems-in-the-world.html

Those findings have also been supported by research from the Kings Fund. The NHS does waste cash and effort but on that score so does any govt. dept.

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
July 3, 2014 1:03 pm
Simon
July 3, 2014 1:07 pm

Allan,

If I got my way all the hospitals of this country would get a massive slap on the back. They do an utterly amazing job considering the accusations that are levelled against them.

I’d then sack all the useless GPs – they’re the real waste.

The “if it’s still like it in 2-weeks come back” response is getting too long in the tooth, especially when it turns out to be pancreatic cancer!

Peter Arundel
Peter Arundel
July 3, 2014 1:16 pm

It seems remarkable to me that a bunch of extremely wealthy institutions have run this country into the ground whilst our governments (of both political flavours) have sold off everything we as a country own and the result of all this is that the average man in the street blames his woes on immigrants and scroungers.
As an exercise in spin it’s a text-book example.

Simon
July 3, 2014 1:29 pm

Peter,

Have you heard of “asset stripping”?

Seems that unfortunately now these wealthy bods have managed to internationalise the world they are “asset stripping” the UK… I guess after which they then leave to pastures azure ;-)

Hohum
Hohum
July 3, 2014 2:07 pm

You know someone has no idea what they are talking about when they use the term “asset strippers”.

Simon
July 3, 2014 2:15 pm

Hohum,

Please elaborate…

Kent
Kent
July 3, 2014 2:15 pm

Scenario – ISIS/ISIL (whatever) takes a port and loads jihadis, tanks and other equipment captured from the Iraqis on civilian ships (those RORO jobs if they can find them) and attempts to export their “caliphate” to the high seas. Using the civilian crews to interact with “the authorities,” they endeavor to enter ports in selected countries with near simultaneity. Without waiting for pilots, inspections, etc., they run into the ports and force their way to docksides where the RORO ships disgorge tanks, IFVs, trucks, and heavily armed jihadis. Ports from Naples to Marseille to Gibraltar to Lisbon to Brest to Portsmouth to London are targeted by these attacks.

Questions:

1. Could the ships avoid interception/inspection when leaving the port and sailing to their targets?

2. What are the odds that members of the local mohammendan communities join the jihadis?

3. How do the local authorities react?

4. How do the national authorities react?

5. How do the militaries react?

6. What level of damage/disruption can be expected?

Hmmm?

Random
Random
July 3, 2014 2:21 pm

Kent
We execute mi6 and the entire forign office for starters. Then the navy then the SBS.

Random
Random
July 3, 2014 2:27 pm

Sorry i misread the question the above is what i would prepose if that plan seccuseded. Then i would suggest handing other the country cos we clearly have no business running anything

Kent
Kent
July 3, 2014 3:40 pm

@Random – Okay, that answers #4.

Kent
Kent
July 3, 2014 3:51 pm

The US Aircraft Carrier that never was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_United_States_(CVA-58)

July 3, 2014 4:05 pm

On Daniele Mandelli comment
7) Remove Trident from MoD budget, a total scandal.
I am sure they will correct me if I am wrong but I think they meant that the UK gov should fund it directly not hide it in amongst the UK’s conventional forces budget. The on going costs of maintaining and one day replacing the Nuclear Deterrent distort the Militaries budget.
@Kent
If the they land in London the Household Calvary will mount up and charge them down Sabres drawn while the Yeoman of the Guard from Tower take them up the rear ( ‘they don’t like it up them’ )

On a more serious note on those that would join the Jihadist its more than likely that there exists a list in the hands of every Chief Constable refreshed periodically by GCHQ/MI5 on who to bring in for questioning.

Kent
Kent
July 3, 2014 4:12 pm

Possibly the most beautiful jet fighter ever designed, built, and put in service: The Grumman F11F Tiger.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
July 3, 2014 4:14 pm

@Kent – They are more likely to start small – a rusting ferry could make one of the Dodecanese from Syria or the Lebanon in hours loaded with Jihadi Technicals, and all the Islands have harbours…they could probably evade detection by presenting as a vessel bound north to Turkey for refit or scrapping, and then make a last minute left turn opposite any one of the numerous resorts that are clearly visible from the Turkish Coast…run in just before dawn and they could be homeward bound in a few hours loaded with Northern European High School Graduates…many of whom take “spring break” type holidays with their pals after the summer exams in just those places. Boko Haram, but with slaves from Swansea, Stockholm and Stuttgart…

Prepared carefully it would be easy enough to put an advanced party of Western Jihadi “holiday makers” in place to deal with the local authorities and communications, and generally sow enough confusion to prevent an immediate large-scale response…and once aboard the ferry, the girls can be be shown live on the Web to guarantee a safe return passage. :-(

Worse than that, with the way teenagers live on social media you can’t rule out the odd immediate “wedding” between some bearded loon from Birmingham and that blonde he always stalked when they were in High School together – he having since signed up with the Caliph but kept on tracking the girl of his dreams by face-book and twitter… :-( :-(

Copyright GNB 2014 (I’m watching you, Clom Tancey!)

July 3, 2014 4:16 pm

@Kent
Mine is one of yours as well

East_Anglian
East_Anglian
July 3, 2014 5:08 pm

I’d like to see:

1. All of the T45’s properly equipped. We haven’t got many, so we need to turn them into” proper” destroyers – Harpoon/Tomahawk fit.

2. No more pissing about with the T26 – get on with it with a 1:1 replacement for the T23

3. Two more Astutes?

4. PoW bought into service

5. Our AH-64D’s upgraded to AH-64E model

6. MPA capability reinstated – a dozen P8’s would be nice

That will do for now :-)

Simon
July 3, 2014 5:17 pm

Had this on my wall for many years…

Had this on my wall for many years…

And something similar to this.

Until I found my true love.

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
July 3, 2014 5:21 pm

concurs.

Mark
Mark
July 3, 2014 5:39 pm

Dear high Wycombe (aka TD towers)

I’ll take a squadron of these in 2015 no excuses

The Other Chris
July 3, 2014 6:04 pm

Five more UK Reapers have started operations in Afghanistan:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-raf-reapers-take-to-the-skies

The Other Chris
July 3, 2014 6:11 pm

Trident Commission have released their report, broadly supports retaining the deterrent:

http://www.basicint.org/publications/trident-commission/2014/trident-commission-concluding-report

Naval Technology have a decent summary:

http://www.naval-technology.com/features/featurecommission-signals-support-for-uk-trident-renewal-4308865/

RT highlight the report notes successor has heavy dependence on US (although common missile compartment work is almost entirely UK funded) and is worth a read as well:

http://rt.com/uk/169688-trident-deterrent-dependent-on-us/

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
July 3, 2014 7:15 pm

“Renewing it is the only option or we will fall off the high leagues entirely with no way back on them again.”

Tenor

Totally agree. I was not proposing getting rid of Trident, only the hope that it should be funded from where it was previously, not the MoD’s conventional forces budget.

The UK is and should remain a P5 member. That means Trident and comprehensive intelligence capabilities, of which we have both.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
July 3, 2014 7:18 pm

East Anglian.

1 2 4 5 and 6 should be possible. No chance of extra Astutes in my opinion.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
July 3, 2014 7:31 pm

“But all that, some critics argue, is part of the problem, and the idea that the country is still trying to be a global player on the scale that these new ships imply.”

Passage from the CV01 article posted by Swimming Trunks, and one of the major problems of this country.
Just when will the left stop belittling its own nation?

Last time I looked Great Britain was a P5 member, a G8 member, is plugged into the most comprehensive intelligence network seen and has one of the worlds top 10 economies. Just why should we not try to be a global player?

I want the UK to be a country that influences world events, not gets influenced by them. Great Britain is somebody.

Get those carriers built and in service. Both of them.

Some what amused
Some what amused
July 3, 2014 8:02 pm

I am a little uncomfortable when the military chiefs produce statements/articles/speeches complaining about their lot. They might be right in what they say, are no doubt under strain to meet capability targets and have served gallantly for their country. The government and the public do not value enough the need for a robust defence posture and the funding that goes with that stance. But these individuals are in the armed forces and that should be the one branch of public servants who, publically at least, keep quiet and follow unquestioningly the will of H M Government. This doesn’t of course mitigate frank private discussion with the government.

Phil
July 3, 2014 8:20 pm

Why are we so keen to see an AAW destroyer equipped with an ASM? We don’t hang SAMs off tanks and we don’t put LGBs on helicopters.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
July 3, 2014 8:29 pm

Phil. If you send a destroyer off to patrol thousands of miles away, who is to say that the enemy will co-operate & only attack it from the air? What if they are bounders & use ships & submarines?

Phil
July 3, 2014 8:37 pm

If you send a destroyer off to patrol thousands of miles away, who is to say that the enemy will co-operate & only attack it from the air? What if they are bounders & use ships & submarines?

You don’t send a ship on its own into that sort of threat. That’s the point. People want kit to do jobs that the platform would never reasonably be expected to do. The Army doesn’t do it, the RAF don’t do it – so why do it for the Navy?

We didn’t send Battleships off on their own against the enemy and we’re not going to send T45s off on their own into a fight like that. We’re not going to use them as sleek little raiders either operating alone and cloaked.

It’s not a capability worth breaking the bank for. They are AAW destroyers, money should be getting spent on keeping them the best in the world. Not bolting pointless weapons on them. If we stuck Rapier on a CR2 people would cry that we were mad.

Mark
Mark
July 3, 2014 8:43 pm

http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/uk_14-29.pdf

The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the United Kingdom for continued participation in the USAF/Boeing Globemaster III Sustainment Partnership and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $250 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale on July 3, 2014.

July 3, 2014 8:47 pm

“We didn’t send Battleships off on their own against the enemy”
We did with Force Z in WW2 we lost the new battle ships Repulse and the old Pow.
They were supposed to have a carrier escort but it grounded itself on a sand bank.
The battleships and their small destroyer escorts were no match for the Japanese Navy’s Air Arm and were sunk on 10 December 1941.
Your right T45 etc need to fight as a combined group but carrying a variety of weapons for other vessels to call upon if their load out gets depleted or the T45 is better positioned to get a kill surely the extra complexity is worth it?

Phil
July 3, 2014 8:58 pm

We did with Force Z in WW2 we lost the new battle ships Repulse and the old Pow.

Force Z comprised 6x ships…

The T45 won’t be in a better position to get a kill – why on earth would you have the most powerful AAW destroyer in the world engaging a surface vessel when we have several other tools in our armoury to do that? Hardly meets one of the principles of war: economy of force. In 1982 the only modern Naval conflict so far, not a single ASM was fired. In 1991 not a single ASM was fired by the coalition. Yet a great number of enemy ships were sunk or damaged.

Mark
Mark
July 3, 2014 9:01 pm

“7) Remove Trident from MoD budget, a total scandal.”

I agree it would be a total scandal to remove the trident costs from the MOD budget.
A weapons system used for defence of the realm manned by members of the armed forces should be part of the defence budget. Wouldn’t it be nice to get others to buy things for us because there a tad expensive.

At the end of the day if its deemed vital then that’s what defence money will be spent on, that its expensive and will suck funding for other pet projects is simply tough. Perhaps it will make them in charge focus with a critical eye and decide if its value for money in today’s world.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
July 3, 2014 10:20 pm

Phil. When the RN had 50 escorts, we could afford to send more than one. Usually Type 42 with its long range air defence, along with a T23 armed with short range air defence, Harpoon & Torps. Now the RN has only 19 escorts, chances are there will be only one ship deployed, so it better be able to handle whats thrown at it.

Kent
Kent
July 3, 2014 10:30 pm

My late father’s favorite.

Phil
July 3, 2014 10:32 pm

@JH

Nobody sends ships into combat zones on their own. Full stop. They might patrol in low threat zones or fly the flag but if China launched a surprise amphibious assault on Japan we’re not going to steam a T45 around the South China Sea on its own.

The T45 doesn’t have to be able to fight every threat anymore than a tank has to. Money is finite, it should be spent on things that add effectiveness. Spending money on a weapon that is unlikely to ever be fired (slack handful fired in four decades) is damaging.

There’s no rational reason to spend money on Harpoon for T45.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
July 3, 2014 10:54 pm

Spoken like a true Bulldog @Danieli Mandelli… :-)

Two from Newsnight…the CDS had a plan to train an Arab Legion in Jordan and Turkey to smarten up Assad, and the Cousins might have been interested – but HMG and the Commons mucked it up between them – with the Black Flags of the Caliph on the road to Baghdad that went well didn’t it?…and China are looking like closing down GSK for bribing people (in China – unheard of!) – any bets on their getting the recipes, factories or IP back after the dust settles? Thought not…

A very Gloomy Gloomy. :-(

DB
DB
July 3, 2014 10:55 pm

Harpoon on the 45s is happening already. It was always a case of plug and play.

Back on thread, if I was a defence minister overseeing SDSR15, I’d be asking why an army of c 100k struggled to generate troops for Iraq and Afghanistan and whether a force of c 80k, plus (minus) reserves was actually any more flexible, or simply retained the same proportion of capabilities useful for heavy metal state on state warfare, but undeployable when needed for more likely ops.

I would also ask serious questions on whether the RN and RAF could genuinely sustain further cuts and retain critical mass

Challenger
Challenger
July 3, 2014 11:48 pm

OK here it goes….

1. A decision on MPA, 5-8 high-spec P8 or 10-12 ‘good enough’ C-27.
2. A planned purchase of 60 F35B to stand-up 3 squadrons and a large OCU.
3. Replacement of Typhoon and possible additional F35 deferred to until post 2030.
4. 9th and 10th C17’s ordered and a stated intention to look at picking up some extra, second-hand A400m.
5. Either Sentinel retained or a firm plan for an alternative sketched out.
6. POW retained in reserve to alternate with QE.
7. 1-2 more Astute’s squeezed before/alongside the successor sub program.
8. A single new RFA to replace Argus and Ocean (partially) by 2020.
9. MARS SSS accelerated with a 4th modified vessel to replace Diligence.
10. New OPV’s retained alongside the Rivers.
11. A smaller fleet of 50ish Apaches upgraded to AH-64E.
12. Something, ANYTHING, to move forwards with FRES.
13. The Regular Army further trimmed to 80,000 and the Reserve to 20,000 for an overall 100,000.

Probably loads more but that’s all i can think of in the small hours of the morning. Naturally i’d pay for most of it through a slight increase in the budget and possible further selling off of MOD real-estate and maybe a few base closures.

July 4, 2014 4:45 am

Mines in the post above yours GNB!
I’d add replacing Albion and Bulwark with a couple more flatty’s with their command and control gubbins pulled thru, when the time comes.
A robust plan that’s what, seperated from the politics (Yeah Right!)
It’s been mentioned before that there is a core of what we need to be able to do, I’d put Amphibious assault in that list too, we must be able to mount enough of a conventional deterrent to be able to deter anyone from ingressing on our EEZ. So we need Subs Flat Tops and Commando Carriers, as well as CASD and enough planes/choppers to land on em. I think a buy of sixty-seventy F35B is enough, all for the carriers though as that will become our expeditionary strength, trickle buy Typhoon 3B and flog off the series ones to anyone that’ll take em (If anyone will?) to keep the force relevant.
Army I’m no expert but I see trouble ahead for the Para’s with people publishing capitation rates. Whatever Army force structure we end up with must have enough of the right gear, if it means having less bodies to do that then we must, reserves must know they may have to fight, which is where I think the trouble lies with recruitment, the public have got that and the Army can’t see it… Getting shot or blown up as part of your weekend job is not so attractive to some of the youth of today. My current business adviser had both happen to him on the dame day, which he thinks was terribly careless of himself!

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
July 4, 2014 8:28 am

Harpoon on T45 are recycled from T22, so only 4 of the 6 T45 will get them. Those that do, will have a limited shelf life.
Phil. If the RN still had 50 escorts, it would have the luxury of sending several ships, each with different capabilities. Now with only 19 escorts, most of the time, we will only be able to send one, so that one ship better be able to defend itself against all likely threats.
Look at the Armilla patrol in the Gulf , 1980s. To keep 3 ships on station, involved 9 ships in total, because as well as the one there, you have one coming home & one getting ready to go. Fine if you have 50 escorts, but not if you have only 19.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
July 4, 2014 9:10 am

Well if we are to rebalance the economy, the gov should put some money into developing/procuring some new kit, we can also export.
So , in no particular order.
Provide R&D funds for Perseus.
Ship & Shore/fixed wing launched versions of FASGW-H, & for pities sake give it an easier name.
A squadron of ground attack Hawks for the RAF based on either the 100/200 , but with the updated engine & systems of the T2. Armed with Paveway IV, later versions of Brimstone, the 25mm Aden gun, a targeting pod/EO turret, FASGW-H?,
Limited funds for a Stormer 2020 prototype with lightweight modern armour. 2 versions, One troop/warfighter/servant version armed only with a 7.62 machine gun & carrying as many bods as possible. The second a fire support version with a 40-60mm gun & a few Brimstone.
Develop the lightly uprated version of the EJ200.
Investigate the Possibility of a long range F-35E to replace the Tornado GR4.
Study a larger version of Taranis to be a true intercontinental bomber.
On the civil front, a 21C VC-10 cruising at Mach 0.935 for 6000 miles, carrying 186 passengers in a 3 class layout.

Nick
Nick
July 4, 2014 10:23 am

US Navy testing anti-ship missile defence system based on an obscurant generator using carbon fibre, looking very promising.

http://defense-update.com/20140628_pandarra-fog.html#.U7ZwhvldW6E

Mark
Mark
July 4, 2014 12:42 pm
Mark
Mark
July 4, 2014 3:08 pm

http://www.janes.com/article/40381/bae-systems-to-launch-striker-ii-next-gen-helmet-at-farnborough

“Whereas earlier iterations of the Striker family have been analogue, the Striker II is digital with integrated night vision capability. What this means is that it will deliver all of the performance all of the time, without the need for transition,” he said. According to Colston, the Striker II mixes enhancements to the earlier Striker products that have been developed as a result of lessons learned, with the research and development associated with the Night-Vision Goggle Helmet-Mounted Display (NVG HMD) system for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.

MikeKiloPapa
MikeKiloPapa
July 4, 2014 3:58 pm

@ challenger

“13. The Regular Army further trimmed to 80,000 and the Reserve to 20,000 for an overall 100,000.”

When people bandy around numbers like 80-100,000 i think its prudent to remember that the amount of actual trigger-pullers is at best a quarter to one fifth of that , so no more than ~15-20,000. And since you need at least a 3 to 1 force ratio to sustain deployments , we are talking a maximum of 5-6,000 ,( in reality probably less) combat troops that you could field and put in theater. From a country of +60 million people, not exactly impressive , more like Belgium ;-).

The Other Chris
July 4, 2014 4:00 pm

Hope we purchase the Striker II to upgrade our Typhoons from the original Striker.

Phil
July 4, 2014 5:25 pm

Back on thread, if I was a defence minister overseeing SDSR15, I’d be asking why an army of c 100k struggled to generate troops for Iraq and Afghanistan

Because 10,000 troops deployed means 10,000 there, 20,000 building up, 10,000 just been, thousands helping those going plus lots of other standing tasks. The Army struggled to deliver everything when it was fighting 2 campaigns. When Iraq draw-down settled down and the Army re-structured to focus on HERRICK then things settled down quite a bit.

El Sid
El Sid
July 4, 2014 5:36 pm

The relative size of Flankers and other aircraft was mentioned recently, I came across this graphic which may help on the Western fighters :

Mark
Mark
July 4, 2014 5:39 pm

Yep TD the sensors in f35 are now available on many other types the question has always been how much cost/benefit do you put in the low observable nature of the airframe. If you want to go up and down vertically you have little option if you don’t get your calculator out.

Toc I would agree.

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
July 4, 2014 6:18 pm

‘Back on thread, if I was a defence minister overseeing SDSR15, I’d be asking why an army of c 100k struggled to generate troops for Iraq and Afghanistan’

To be honest it was not really the manpower that was the problem (apart from some key trades) it was the equipment requirements for the types of operations we were conducting that were crippling. Since 1992 the UK has deployed approx 20,000 ground troops of all services in various ops around the world. While we had about 10,000 troops in NI we had roughly the same in Bosnia, the difference being that the equipment we used in Bosnia was practically all the mechanised stuff we had in our armoury (Warriors and 432’s which were not suitable for NI) we had no need for COIN equipment in any way. Iraq and Afghanistan where a perfect storm in terms of equipment requirement, from ECM,specialist armour and conventional mechanised armour to carry out our mission, that is the difference.

as
as
July 4, 2014 8:01 pm

Is this the US Army’s next generation ‘superchopper’? Radical design has dual tilting blades and can travel at over 270mph – 50% faster than a Black Hawk

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2681074/Is-US-Armys-generation-superchopper-Radical-design-dual-tilting-blades-travel-50-faster-Black-Hawk.html

Obsvr
July 5, 2014 7:31 am

@ Jules

I’m at a loss to see why amphib assault should a core capability. Amphib asslt is just one option for getting boots on the ground somewhere. ‘Asslt’ is not going to happen, it implies an opposed landing, nobody in their right mind is going to do this. There is also nothing mystical about getting ashore, 70 yrs ago it was done by normal infantry battalions, armoured and artillery regts.

Heli are absolutely no different there is nothing whatsoever mystical about heli movement. It’s a routine matter, even when the LZ is unsecured, and having done it a few times in a war zone I actually know what I’ve talking about. The fact that RM try to make it a big deal of it says a lot about them, they are desperate to justify their existence.

It’s also useful to remember that arriving somewhere by whatever means is only the first step. If you want to deploy somewhere in any useful strength and usefully equipped then you need at least a port for the ro-ro ships and a decent airfield or two, particularly if the port is some way off. You will not obtain these by some pissant amphib asslt, you get them from somewhere reasonably friendly in the neighbourhood you are trying to get to.

Phil
July 5, 2014 8:05 am

If you want to deploy somewhere in any useful strength and usefully equipped then you need at least a port for the ro-ro ships and a decent airfield or two, particularly if the port is some way off. You will not obtain these by some pissant amphib asslt, you get them from somewhere reasonably friendly in the neighbourhood you are trying to get to.

Well I never thought I’d say it, but Obsvr, all of the above occurred 8,000 miles away on a bog that some unfriendly and bellicose chaps have an inexplicable affinity for using some rusty old phibs and a couple of excitable cruise liners.

Although I agree, assault isn’t going to happen on any scale. Although if you’re going to land somewhere where you know unfriendly chaps may reside in low strength, best to land in fighting trim.

I’m off to bathe in bleach to cleanse myself after using 1982 in an argument.

Repulse
July 5, 2014 8:13 am

@Obsvr: Whilst I’m a big advocate of a maritime posture, I agree with the thrust of your comments. Anything larger than a small scale raid needs either a secured port or temporary port, we are just kidding ourselves otherwise. As such LPDs / LHDs come at the bottom of my wishlist. Given the size of the navy 2 Capital CVF ships is enough to protect and the RMs should be deploying from Support Type Frigates.

Give the LSDs, a new Aviation Support / Hospital ship and Point Class to be used by the Army.

Repulse
July 5, 2014 8:17 am

@Phil: But wouldn’t the Falklands be a good example where we would use helos to land the bulk of troops? (I agree not supplies)

In fact, if all of the Chinooks had made it wouldn’t the Falklands been fought differently even back in 82?

mr.fred
mr.fred
July 5, 2014 8:41 am

as,
I must say that I like the coaxial / pusher system. Sikorsky is also doing one.
http://raider.sikorsky.com/raider-overview.asp
Plus the Raider looks prettier. That said, the AVX JMR looks a bit more versatile.

Phil
July 5, 2014 8:45 am

@Repulse

It depends on the situation and air threat. An amphibious assault ala Iwo Jima or D-Day is a non-starter but even in 1982 there were a few Argies about the beaches, enough to cause dramas if they had been a bit better. You might have done a heli op and a landing. Or just a landing if the air threat was bad enough. The gold standard would be to identify enemy positions beforehand and fix them using SF assets as you landed (as in 1982). If you can come in using LCUs and helicopters I would say all the better. If you’re not going to maintain the flexibility to deliver 3 Commando via LCU and air assault then you may as well bin 3 Commando full stop.

Nick
Nick
July 5, 2014 10:10 am

Lockheed Martin have been awarded US Navy contract to update the MK 41 VLS of $10M up to max. of $182M. It will give bi-directional digital interfaces to control and test the missiles.

There was a suggestion that the MK 41 could be modified to take the Raytheon SM-3 IIB, in effect a new BMD missile capable intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles whereas the current SM-3 IIA is being jointly developed with Japan (at approx. $3 billion + budget) is a shorter range missile for countering regional ballistic missiles eg North Korean. The difference between the IIA and IIB was the missile diameter was increased from 21″ to 27″ and the upper stage was a performance liquid propellant replacing the solid propellant to give the necessary increased range.

Obama cancelled the IIB last year under pressure from Putin, but due to Ukraine it could be re-instated and if so will the MK 41 be modified to take the larger diameter IIB under this new contract.

El Sid
El Sid
July 5, 2014 1:26 pm

Although there was talk of IIB cancellation being blamed on Putin, it was really just a cover for a dog’s dinner of an R&D programme that was an easy victim of budget cuts.

Trouble is the geometry is wrong if you base in Romania, it’s not much better if you’re in Poland, really you want to be in the middle of the North Sea but if you want the speed of a liquid-fuel rocket then that’s difficult on a ship.

I can’t see them using anything bigger than Mk57 as a launch tube, but we’ll see.

El Sid
El Sid
July 5, 2014 1:27 pm
Phil
July 5, 2014 2:05 pm

Soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have complained that the 9mm round is not powerful enough to be effective in combat

I’d bet the farm that the number of Taliban actually killed with a pistol of any calibre in Afghanistan can be counted on one hand.

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
July 5, 2014 2:12 pm

Back to the future with a modernised M1911 then? :-)

GNB

July 5, 2014 3:16 pm

Or back to 2003 when NATO after extensive testing wanted to drop the 9x19mm Parabellum in favour of the FN 5.7x28mm used in their P90 and FiveseveN pistol .
Fired from the pistol it will penetrate a Level IIIA Kevlar vest at 50m,from the P90 at 200m.
However the Germans had a hissyfit HK’s rival round the 4.6×30mm was rejected and refused to agree to the switch over.
The FiveseveN pistol is used by many American military arms already in low volumes including the Secret Service and many weapons have ben chambered for it.

jedibeeftrix
jedibeeftrix
July 5, 2014 3:28 pm

there was a story ten years back that the SAS had adopted the fiveseven as their standard handgun…

steve taylor
July 5, 2014 3:40 pm

If they do change it will be to .40SW. Though if you are in a dangerous place and your government has given you a nice rifle all of your own you have no excuse not to take it with you, everywhere.

El Sid
El Sid
July 5, 2014 4:06 pm

The scale of the current Ebola epidemic is unprecedented in terms of geographical distribution, people infected and deaths.” According to the World Health Organization, this is the first time Ebola has been epidemic in urban areas since it was initially recognized in Zaire in 1976. That increases the likelihood that someone carrying the virus could travel to other parts of the world.

The current outbreak, which began in March and affects Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone…the risk of somebody coming from the affected area and causing a huge outbreak in North America or Europe is extremely low.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/ebola-epidemic-unlikely-to-spread-beyond-africa-1.2695879

Sort of thing that never reaches the consciousness of most people but is a further destabilising factor in an already complicated and important part of the world.

The Other Chris
July 5, 2014 4:26 pm

You half expect the PDW discussions to start up all over again.

Anyone had the pleasure of firing a P90 or FiveseveN?

Nick
Nick
July 5, 2014 5:37 pm

@El Sid
My thoughts on the MK 51 update is that firstly $182M seems a large figure just to design and test a new digital highway control system and secondly they could retrofit the updated MK 51 on a one for one basis into the 75 Arleigh Burkes destroyers active, building and planned plus the 22 active Ticonderoga cruisers to use the IIB whereas there are only 3 Zumwalt ships which use the larger MK 57. The US Navy see BMD as a prime mission plus funding of the IIB would be by the MDA (Missile Defense Agency) headed by a vice admiral.

Repulse
July 5, 2014 6:25 pm

@Phil: “If you’re not going to maintain the flexibility to deliver 3 Commando via LCU and air assault then you may as well bin 3 Commando full stop.”

Understand where you are coming from and whilst I’m not going to say the RMs should be scrapped I do feel it needs a good review. Days of brigade level assaults are long gone, and I do wonder the worth of being able to assault a beach using a battle group.

I’m sure I’ve missed some but I see the RMs doing the following:
– Anti piracy ops
– Being the UKs “Brown Water” soldiers
– Coastal raiding and sabotage
– Sea based helicopter assault operations
– Securing lightly defended ports / harbours for the Army

I see LCVPs / CB90s supported by amphibious vehicles being the mainstay equipment rather than LCUs.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley
July 5, 2014 7:37 pm

Well I like fullsize .40 handguns. If you are to stop a suicide bomber before they get too close then .40 is better than 9mm. So a Glock 22 in .40 is a good choice. However, I got a chance to shoot a 9mm Glock 26 a decade ago & I was impressed how accurate it was, considering it was the same size as a Walther PPK (OK a bit thicker). Considering all the gear troops have to carry these days, then perhaps it is better to have a small 9mm on you when you need it, rather than a big .40 left in a locker.

steve taylor
July 5, 2014 8:03 pm

@ John H

It a choice between marginal and a bit less marginal. The only thing that would make a difference would be a move from FMJ ad that again is just another move from marginal to a bit less marginal. I just think they will get another 9mm but a plastic one. Glock are made in the US now so who knows?

The Other Chris
July 5, 2014 8:32 pm

Where are the L131A1’s (Glock 17 Gen 4) for the British Army being made?

steve taylor
July 5, 2014 8:46 pm

I don’t know. But I suppose Austria. The US market is so large local production makes sense. I think Glock have something like 60% of the police market.

Obsvr
July 6, 2014 7:20 am

@ Phil

a bit of history might be in order. In WW2 the RM division mobilised but was broken up in about 1943, the engineer element made itself useful; building airfields around Sydney and then the BPF fwd base at Manus Island. Apart from a handful of AA regts the remainder basically crewed landing craft, plus, of course manning turrets on battleships. The senior RM officers knew the corps was on borrowed time and in the deep brown role wise, they had to find a new justification for their existence.

They latched onto the commando role, which were army units comprising volunteers from all regts and corps. BY 1944 about half the cdo units were RM (several army cdos having disbanded). This continued after the war but the raiding role gradually disappeared and RM morphed into little more than standard infantry with a high standard of physical fitness. In 1982 the parachute battalions didn’t seem to have too much difficulty in using boats to get ashore. Nor would any other infantry battalion.

steve taylor
July 6, 2014 10:17 am

Mark
Mark
July 6, 2014 12:16 pm

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_168285/scientists-unveil-aircraft-technologies-of-the-future?_afrLoop=2579826954582000

The four technologies unveiled are: 3D printers so advanced they could print UAVs during a mission; aircraft parts that can heal themselves in minutes; a new type of long range aircraft which divides into a number of smaller aircraft when it reaches its destination, and a directed energy weapon that could engage missiles at the speed of light, destroy them and protect the people below.

Mark
Mark
July 6, 2014 2:30 pm

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140705/DEFREG01/307050016/Maintenance-Contract-Awarded-RAF-A400Ms

British regional airline company Flybe Aviation Services is expected to be named as the winning bidder for work on the RAF’s latest aircraft once the deal is signed in the next few weeks, according to sources familiar with the work.

The delivery changes will result in a rapid build-up of British A400M numbers with the final delivery of aircraft to the British being advanced several years.

“By the end of the year, it is anticipated that the UK will have received the first five aircraft, four of which should be in service with the RAF. Final airframe delivery to the UK is now planned for March 2018,” the MoD spokeswoman said.

Britain is scheduled to spend £2.8 billion (US $4.8 billion) buying the A400M.

Airbus, along with its partner, Thales UK, also has a £502 million (US $860 million), 18-year agreement to provide training services for the A400M. ■

The Other Chris
July 6, 2014 4:25 pm

FlyMaybe? Oh dear God.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
July 6, 2014 4:51 pm

@TOC

Totally :(

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 6, 2014 10:29 pm

Going to work song:

I am embarrassed to admit, Plastic Bertrand and Ca Plane Pour Moi, and max revs from the crappy Citroen sound system. You have to have both windows down and the volume on 11 so that Huntingdon station gets the full benefit.

Am I very bad?

wf
wf
July 6, 2014 10:46 pm

Yeah, you’re bad. Tossers like you motivate me to cycle faster when you blaze past cutting me up :-)

You only get respect when it’s AC/DC….

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 6, 2014 11:18 pm

Wf,

I can offer you Johnny Cash and The Wreck of the Old 97 if you’d prefer…..

Or for Friday evenings coming home, Waterloo by Abba at high decibels. Always puts a smile on the face, that one.

I am however a prisoner of the past in music terms. Nothing now is any good. :(

wf
wf
July 6, 2014 11:47 pm

Johnny Cash I can deal with. Abba I have a weakness for, although Waterloo is hardly one of the better ones :-)

Observer
Observer
July 7, 2014 1:35 am

Mama Mia! There is a reason these songs are called evergreens. :)

Navyreco
Navyreco
July 7, 2014 7:49 am

MBDA’s First Sea Ceptor/Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) Firings Are A Double Success

picture of test:

MBDA carried out two successful guided firings by the Sea Ceptor air defence system on 29th May and 5th June at the land-based Vidsel range facilities in Sweden. These firings were the first seeker guided firings for the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), including using its two-way data link to communicate with the Sea Ceptor system.

The trial demonstrated the functionality of Sea Ceptor’s Command and Control (C2) system and its ability to process data from a third party radar and then command an engagement by a CAMM missile.

The CAMMs both performed as expected, with their active Radio Frequency (RF) seeker acquiring the targets shortly after launch and staying in track until they intercepted their respective targets.

CAMM is to be used by the Royal Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy in the Sea Ceptor system and the British Army with the Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) Land system.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1879

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
July 7, 2014 8:14 am

It can be quite a nice AD bubble when enough ships carry Seaceptor, cointeracting the range limitation
“The trial demonstrated the functionality of Sea Ceptor’s Command and Control (C2) system and its ability to process data from a third party radar and then command an engagement by a CAMM missile.”

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
July 7, 2014 9:06 am

Is there space put aside on the CVF’s for Sea Ceptor if necessary?

mickp
mickp
July 7, 2014 10:31 am

@Daniele – you would hope so on a 70kt aircraft carrier. It’s back to doing CVF properly and it should have Sea Ceptor as part of a minimal defensive armament. If not at the outset then fairly soon after

Dunservin
Dunservin
July 7, 2014 11:02 am

An ‘aerial drone’ (UAV) confronted by SAMs. Make sure your sound is on at full welly:

http://time.com/2957348/fireworks-drone/

Fedaykin
July 7, 2014 11:31 am

There has been some interesting stuff done in recent years to allow 9mm a certain degree of competitiveness with .40sw.

9mm +p rounds are the popular thing now for those who conceal carry State side. Catch is those high pressure rounds tend to be hollow point.

steve taylor
July 7, 2014 11:31 am

@ Daniele Mandelli

Look at Cavour’s stern and you can see the A-43 Sylver launchers,

and then look at similar options on QE,

Would be doable.

Fedaykin
July 7, 2014 12:01 pm

The Indian navy managed to find some space Barak point defence VLS on the old INS Viraat (Hermes).

So there must be room from a few CAMM silos on the QE class, I vaguely remember that kind of thing was always earmarked as a growth option for the class. The ships certainly have a suitable radar fit and presumably an electronics databus that can handle data for such a system plus suitable hotel services to run it.

In the end it is a cost issue.

Craig
Craig
July 7, 2014 12:16 pm

@Obsvr
“In 1982 the parachute battalions didn’t seem to have too much difficulty in using boats to get ashore.”

Arguably their lack of appreciation of amphibious logistics and the wider picture directly caused the Bluff Cove disaster.

smallwarsjournal.com/documents/bolia1.pdf

steve taylor
July 7, 2014 5:24 pm

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 6:32 pm

The problem with the .40 S&W in handguns like the Glock 22 is that the round has the same high-pressures as a 9x19mm with heavier bullets. Recoil is sharp and relatively unpleasant in light-weight handguns. If restricted to non-expanding (FMJ) bullets, the low pressure .45 ACP is a much better choice than the other two common choices.

Moving to “non-traditional” rounds such as the 5.7X28mm provides lightweight of firearms and ammo with very high capacity handguns and PDWs with extreme penetration in military FMJ ammo. When shooting at body-armored folks, this is important, but I don’t know if the round itself has a high enough velocity to provide rifle-like hydrostatic shock with a non-expanding round. Again, “stopping power” in any handgun is only fractional compared to rifles and shotguns. However, a 20 round magazine in a full-sized, lightweight pistol might make soldiers feel better about practicing “triple-taps” to stop an enemy.

I have fired the FN Five-seven and the FN PS90 (semiauto carbine version of the P90). Recoil is negligible with either; accuracy is good; and they’re somewhat more powerful than .22WRM ammo in either. Some US SWAT teams allow the FiveseveN’s use or issue them for entry teams, specifically the sledgehammer wielder, or for barricaded subjects. Of course, police aren’t limited to FMJ/AP ammo, so Hornady 40 grain V-MAX bullets are used for non-barricaded subject situations. Report is loud with both firearms and the muzzle blast in the pistol is remarkable. Recoil is negligible in either.

In olden days, when they were getting ready to select a 9x19mm pistol to replace our venerable M1911A1s for armor crewmen, some of us recommended issuing the MP4K-PDW with the 0-1-3-AUTO trigger group since we were also losing our M3A1 “Greaseguns.” We also recommended the issue of suppressors to keep our OP/LP guys lower profile and to aid us if we had to E&E from a disabled vehicle. Of course, no one listens to the end user so that went nowhere.

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 7:06 pm

In the interests of full disclosure concerning my comments above, at work I carry a 4 inch barreled S&W Model 686-6 .357 Magnum revolver as a duty weapon with a 1⅞ inch barreled S&W Model 37 as a concealed backup rather than a Glock 22 .40S&W like everyone else. I really don’t like Glocks, and M1911A1 pattern semiautomatics aren’t an option for my agency.

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 7:15 pm

@GNB – A .577 is right out.

Fedaykin
July 7, 2014 7:16 pm

@Kent

Going on that comment I was going to say that you are not from Kent, then I remembered Folkestone can be a tough place.

Simon257
Simon257
July 7, 2014 7:17 pm
Observer
Observer
July 7, 2014 7:23 pm

Every time I hear Soryu, I keep thinking soya sauce. :)

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 7:26 pm

@Fedaykin – Nope. I’m from Oklahoma. My patrilineal ancestor was from Middlesex and came over to Virginia as an indentured servant in 1674. My dad liked Kent when he was in the 8th Air Force, so, as the second son, I got tagged. My brother got the III appellation since he shares his name with my father and grandfather. After doing much work on our family genealogy, “Kent” isn’t such a bad name.

Simon257
Simon257
July 7, 2014 7:29 pm

@ Craig

Neither 2 or 3 Para had any difficulties coming ashore at San Carlos, it was the Welsh Guards which were on the two LSL’s at Fitzroy.

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 7:32 pm

@Observer – Every time I hear Soryu, I think Battle of Midway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_S%C5%8Dry%C5%AB

Gloomy Northern Boy
Gloomy Northern Boy
July 7, 2014 8:07 pm

@Kent – the Garden of England is well worth a visit if you ever find yourself this side of the Pond…a lovely spot, and I speak as one both Gloomy and Northern…on the question of firearms, I make no comment on the utility of the later Webleys, but my Great Uncle (Imperial Yeomanry, and Allenby’s EEF) thought well of his Mark IV and his Mark VI, but as I recall they were .455; they were certainly bloody big, but then I was only a lad…

…and there is no other choice for a Gentlemen in extremis…either reflecting on a life well-spent in one’s study with the Whisky Decanter at one’s elbow…or holding one’s post as HM’s enemies close in for the kill…

GNB

Kent
Kent
July 7, 2014 8:19 pm

@GNB – I have a bottled-in-bond of 10 year old Kentucky sour mash table whiskey and a bottle of dark Jamaican rum in the cabinet. Since I’ve been retired from the US Army for nigh onto 19 years, standing my post while the hostiles close in is unlikely. I’ll raise a glass* your way.

(Just a splash of branch water in the whiskey. Rum “neat.”)

My trips across the pond were to Germany and points east. Didn’t manage a stop in the UK. Right now, my wife’s health precludes long distance travel. Maybe things will change for the better in a while.

steve taylor
July 7, 2014 8:26 pm

I am not sure soldiers getting in landing craft and being taken to the shore is all there is to amphibious warfare but I am open to persuasion, not.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
July 7, 2014 8:43 pm

Just a thought.

Is there enough height in a standard ISO to enable one to be used as a VLS launcher? Perhaps 8 shots per container, the rest of the space to be used for gas storage for soft launches, and some external umbilical connector for data connection to a ship’s combat systems?

Clearly, not a long range solution, but for shorter ranged missiles it might be an option? And with the deck real estate on modern ships, it might be a good modular solution for temporary deployments for singleton ships. A Chinook can easily cross-deck an ISO weighing less than 10 tonnes, and you can imagine that loading a T45 or T26 specific software load to integrate with the local command system depending on the host ship would be a relatively easy job.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
July 7, 2014 9:00 pm

@RT

Unfortunately not, what you would need is a soft launch missile and one that does not require updating from a dedicated Fire Control (FC) radar or a Multi Function Phased Array (MPAR) as if you had either of these then you are already going to have missiles. For instance Sea Wolf is only 1.9M but no use without a pair of 911 FC trackers. CAMM is 3.2M long so too big and although capable of receiving enough info from non FC or MPAR Radar would still need the radar it was receiving from to meet a certain standard (which I do not know off the top of my head and I am pretty certain will be classified anyway).
The best and I think only real option to fit a Point Defence Missile System (PDMS) to a non equipped ship is SeaRAM.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/searam/

Craig
Craig
July 7, 2014 10:33 pm

@Simon257

The point is that there is a considerably more to amphibious operations than getting your knees wet as the article I linked describes. Mind you, 2 Para’s concept of air assault logistics (commandeering the only Chinook) left a lot to be desired as well.

Dunservin
Dunservin
July 8, 2014 1:20 am

Craig July 7, 2014 at 12:16 pm
@Obsvr
“In 1982 the parachute battalions didn’t seem to have too much difficulty in using boats to get ashore.”

Arguably their lack of appreciation of amphibious logistics and the wider picture directly caused the Bluff Cove disaster.

http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/bolia1.pdf

Thank you Craig. An informative article amply demonstrating that there is a darn sight more to amphibious warfare than simply “…using boats to get ashore”. 5 Brigade was utterly unprepared and ill-equipped for such operations in 1982 and shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

Gratifyingly, it looks like certain Army commanders and their units are now being exposed to the specialist skills, practices and capabilities of the Royal Marines by participating in successive JOINT WARRIORs and COUGARs. Moreover, the subject is given much more attention on various command & staff courses although I’m sure there are still those in the RN who don’t yet ‘get it’.

Obsvr
July 8, 2014 8:44 am

@ Craig

I’ve heard the para regt blamed for many things, and certainly some of their feats are a bit over-egged (think Plaman Mapu), but I don’t think they can be blamed for Bluff Cove.

Infantry bns don’t decide landings, nor to bdes in multi-bde ops, try Force HQ, commanded by ???

The Other Chris
July 8, 2014 9:25 am

RAF Rivet Joint being boom-refuelled for the first time!

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-rivet-joint-completes-first-in-flight-refuelling-401124/

By a Boeing KC-135…

The Other Chris
July 8, 2014 9:30 am

Any PDMS functionality/capability upcoming in LMM? Thinking of a Seahawk Sigma type arrangement.

Obsvr
July 8, 2014 9:30 am

It’s also worth noting that 5 Bde was a fairly ad hoc formation and the HQ had had very little training.

The Other Chris
July 8, 2014 9:39 am
steve taylor
July 8, 2014 11:43 am

steve taylor
July 8, 2014 8:17 pm

More on the US service pistol…..

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/07/08/army-says-9mm-enough-pursuing-modular-handgun-system/

I bet it will an M&P in .40mm………

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765389_-1_757955_757781_757781_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

Can’t see them going XD or Glock. The former is built abroad and the latter is a foreign company. After M9 there will be some pressure for an American system.

Mark
Mark
July 8, 2014 10:23 pm

http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-avionics-gripen-typhoon-and-rafale

Modernizing electronics is the most efficient way to upgrade a fighter design, and European governments and industry are investing in those areas to keep their programs competitive.

wpDiscuz
↓