gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3350
    MEMBERS
  • 190141
    MESSAGES
  • 12
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

UK military spending review   General Military Discussion

Started 13/3/21 by autogun; 12778 views.
nincomp

From: nincomp

15/7/21

Gee, that is the most comforting post I have seen in a long time.

Of course, my first thought was  " That's nice...  I wonder what thread this is?  Oh, UK spending."  

In reply toRe: msg 36
autogun

From: autogun

22/7/21

In today's Financial Times:

Army's £5.5bn armoured vehicle project at risk

A £5.5bn project to build the army a state of the art armoured fighting vehicle may be scrapped after more than a decade, a defence minister has admitted. Delivery of the Ajax vehicle should have started four years ago , but trials have been halted twice after concerns that noise and vibration were damaging crews' hearing. One MP said "it's heavier than a Sherman tank. It's too small. And it's as stealthy as a Ford Transit full of spanners".

Too small? That's a new one. It's already the size of a bus and dwarfs the CVRT it's intended to replace.

There is a growing air of failure around the project. If a defence minister has gone public in doubting its future, then it's probably only a matter of time.

graylion

From: graylion

23/7/21

autogun said:

How can anyone mess that up so badly, then keep carrying on with it as if everything's OK?

Nimrod AEW.1. Nimrod Mk.4. To name just 2. National pride.

autogun

From: autogun

24/7/21

I grant you the Nimrods, but I doubt that national pride had anything to do with it. I suspect that no-one wants to bring the bad news to those at the top, so they keep their heads down and keep beavering on in the hope that someone, somewhere, will come up with some solution. In the meanwhile, they keep getting paid, and keep their fingers crossed that the inevitable finger of blame will point to someone else (if anyone at all).

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/10/21

Tony, I think you might find this article from The Economist interesting. Basically saying that England is shifting back towards focusing on Naval as opposed to land power.

Archived to bypass paywall:

https://www.economist.com/britain/2021/10/14/british-defence-strategy-is-undergoing-a-naval-tilt

https://archive.fo/HQHnz

Admiral Radakin will be the first naval officer to hold the top job in almost two decades. That is no coincidence. After 20 years of grinding land warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan...British defence strategy is once more acquiring a pronounced Naval flavour.
In March the government published a review of foreign policy that emphasised Britain’s role as a “maritime trading nation”. It promised to deepen the country’s connections to Asia, Africa and the Gulf and set out a “tilt” to the Indo-Pacific. A subsequent defence review said that the armed forces would be designed for “permanent and persistent global engagement”, not just preparing for big wars.
One manifestation of this maritime tilt is that while the army is being shrunk, the navy’s fleet is planned to grow to 24 frigates and destroyers by the 2030s, though with a lean period over the coming decade.
...
These strategic shifts—a maritime turn, greater attention to Asia and an emphasis on using the navy to make friends—came together in the aukus pact of September 15th, in which America and Britain agreed to help Australia build nuclear submarines to deter China. It cannot have hurt Admiral Radakin’s candidacy that he helped negotiate the agreement.
Meanwhile on land, the mood is glummer. Having provided six of the past ten defence chiefs, the British Army saw Admiral Radakin chosen ahead of two of its own: General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, chief of the general staff (the head of the army) and General Sir Patrick Sanders, who leads Strategic Command, which controls special forces and cyber capabilities.
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
autogun

From: autogun

27/10/21

Sounds like a fair summary of the situation.

stancrist

From: stancrist

27/10/21

...the armed forces would be designed for “permanent and persistent global engagement”...

Meaning what, exactly?

...America and Britain agreed to help Australia build nuclear submarines to deter China.

Deter China from doing what?  Shipping goods to any countries other than the United States and Britain?

In reply toRe: msg 41
autogun

From: autogun

17/12/21

More detail on the Ajax problems:

Some extracts:

the MOD still considers the General Dynamics United Kingdom-designed vehicles as “not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”....

HS&EP describes Ajax as being far from being a modified Military Off-the-Shelf programme (the Ajax is mechanically based on the Spanish-Austrian ASCOD infantry fighting vehicle), with Ajax in practice “spearheading a range of world-leading technologies” that required significant testing before manufacturing could start. Instead, the developmental decision was made to conduct concurrent demonstration and manufacturing phases for six different vehicles at four build standards or “capability drops”. The review team found that the concurrent nature of the program was not what teams were used to managing, resulting in confusion, disagreement, frustration and in some cases paralysis of decision making across the program, in addition to increasing the amount of potentially exposed personnel due to the Reliability Trials conducted on currently built Drop 1 Ajax vehicles.

Oh joy.....

renatohm

From: renatohm

17/12/21

At this point, sucking up and dropping would be less embarrassing than going on, and potentially cheaper and faster too.

Ajax has had quite a lot of issues already.

TOP