Military Discussion Thread

[Tozmeister 0]

Purely cost-saving from what I've read. Make one-size-fits-all round to serve all 3 branches of the military and save money on R&D and manufacture.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I'm tending to the theory that this is (was?) a misprint of .50 cal that's run away with itself, everyone's just c&p'ed the false info and no one's correcting it because they don't want to appear to be out of the loop. Does anyone know differently?

Definitely a typo. IIRC it was put in an MoD press release, so I guess everybody's copied it because of the source.

It is a 6x6 wheel-drive patrol vehicle from Force Protection Inc. which carries six people, plus two crew. It has a maximum speed of 55 mph (89 kph), and can be armed with a machine gun, 50mm canon or 40mm automatic grenade launcher.

source

The article is dated 2007; to date I've not seen a single Mastiff, Ridgback etc. are armed with anything but a L7A2 7.62mm GPMG, L111A1 12.7mm HMG or L134A1 40mm GMG on a crew-served turret or a remote weapon station (Enforcer or Protector). If they were going to stick anything bigger on, they'd have done it by now and you'd bloody well notice an auto-cannon turret plonked on top of one. :)

Bushmaster III was put forward by Lockheed Martin for Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme but the MoD went in favour of the 40mm CTWS.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The Ocelot, a modular pod design, four wheel steering, with a V shaped armoured hull, and offset wheels on a skateboard style armoured spine, has been chosen as the replacement for the snatch landrover

22 September 2010 Last updated at 14:24

Ocelot revealed as Snatch Land Rover replacement

The Ministry of Defence has announced that a vehicle partially designed by Formula 1 engineers is to replace the controversial Snatch Land Rover.

The British-designed Ocelot has a V-shaped shell intended to defend against attacks coming from below the carriage.

The patrol vehicle can also be easily dismantled if needs be.

The Land Rover had been criticised for not offering troops in Afghanistan and Iraq enough protection from roadside bombs.

The first Ocelots should come into service by next year...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11388724

As allways follow link to full article

There are some picture here:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ocelot-lppv/ocelot-lppv1.html

Along with some more details

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ocelot-lppv/

There is a video here:

There are a lot more videos, pictures and information here:

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=4328

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 22, 2010 by walker

[icebreakr 3107]

Nice modular vehicle, looks much more safer - reminds me a bit of our Otokar Cobras :)

[nodunit 397]

Been wondering when this was going to happen, since I saw it I figured it would replace the snatch since it's far safer against IED's and has better armor protection. Nice to see the British guys getting some better protection for the heavy stuff.

[stgn 39]

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-scar-who-meet-the-colt-cm901-modular-multi-caliber-7-62mm-nato5-56mm-nato-battle-carbinesbrrifle-for-u-s-military-special-operations-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/

uhh a 7.62 caliber M4 I am loving it! hope they change the styling on the lower though, less triangles please.

STGN

[HyperU2 11]

I'm getting ready to buy and build an M4 and I'm torn between the .308 and .223, Bushmaster already offers a nice one. Modular would make for an easy choice.

[4 IN 1 0]

I don't know, aint the selling point for the ACR is the modular design?, I mean, changing the barrel without all the bolts losing and torque wrenching(keeping a gun zeroed after a barrel changing is only a dream BTW)

[DenisRUS 10]

Good Russian military video

One of my favorite

[Tonci87 163]

Then some Croatian Stuff

Our Pistol used for example by the FBI

jCsx9DPdv8Y&feature=related

Our new Assault Rifle VHS (known as SA XD-45 in America)

O4OX3X_3NM4&feature=related

Our MBT

8PMxSayySck

And some footage from Afghanistan

xiWsq9UVNZ4&feature=related

Thank God we still haven´t loosed a single soldier there

P.S: I would really like to have some of that Stuff moded for Arma2 ;)

[maturin 12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHvCRqcDfg

Take a look at this video of ISAF troops practicing with their AT-4s on an old tank.

After several of the impacts, you see small objects flying slowly through the air, followed by a very loud metallic clang. (Good view at 0:35) Is that a piece of armor peeling off from the impact, like some sort of exterior spall? Or a bit of the rocket that didn't fly very far?

I've always thought of HEAT weapons making very neat little holes on the outside, but come to think of it, ACE 2 adds a similar effect to these warheads in-game where bits fly off your tank.

On a related note, I wish that Arma 2 had explosions like these for its AT weapons. The massive ball of smoke that covers a four-lane highway is a little much for a 70mm warhead, at least until it has had a chance to spread out.

Edited October 14, 2010 by maturin

[jayeasy 10]

Refering to this, what the heck - a kamikaze ? Man this looks serious, but this guy is seen on his knees afterwards. Hope he's ok.

wow that is intense :butbut:

[HyperU2 11]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHvCRqcDfg

Take a look at this video of ISAF troops practicing with their AT-4s on an old tank.

After several of the impacts, you see small objects flying slowly through the air, followed by a very loud metallic clang. (Good view at 0:35) Is that a piece of armor peeling off from the impact, like some sort of exterior spall? Or a bit of the rocket that didn't fly very far?

I've always thought of HEAT weapons making very neat little holes on the outside, but come to think of it, ACE 2 adds a similar effect to these warheads in-game where bits fly off your tank.

On a related note, I wish that Arma 2 had explosions like these for its AT weapons. The massive ball of smoke that covers a four-lane highway is a little much for a 70mm warhead, at least until it has had a chance to spread out.

It's not unusual for some metal to fly off but I think that clanging was some shielding set up behind the shooters falling over from the backblast. We knocked the back corner off of an abandoned amphib target during one of my trips to the range and it simply fell off, didn't fly far at all.

[Tonci87 163]

Watch this

5N5chpAoebg&feature=player_embedded

Really good skills

[pre-Vet 10]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa6_1227267138

here it is from the outside, without the zodiac though.

[Tonci87 163]

A quick way to wash your chopper^^

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) was published today.

I'm sure most of the British members of this board have already have a fair idea about what it contains, but I dare say some of you in the rest of the world will be keen to see what our armed forces are facing.

It was always expected that it'd be a pretty savage cut but it's caused a fair amount of outrage regardless.

You can read it here:

Securing Britain in an

Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review

An overview of what it means for each of the armed services can be read in these:

Royal Air Force

Royal Navy

British Army

In summary:

• We'll lose around 17,000 service personnel (7,000 Army, 5,000 RAF, 5,000 RN) and 25,000 defence civil servants.
  
• RN will lose 2 of its 3 flat-top vessels; the carrier HMS Ark Royal and either our other carrier HMS Illustrious or our LPH, HMS Ocean.
  
• Four of the RN's frigates will be decommissioned.
  
• One of our six LPDs will be decommissioned - it'll be one of the 'Bay class' vessels, leaving us with 3 'Bay class' and the 2 'Albion class'.
  
• The two Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be built, but one of them will be put to sea (the second may be sold).
  
• Queen Elizabeth class will be CATOBAR so F-35C will be used instead of F-35B as originally anticipated (JSF will arrive a number of years after the first carrier is commissioned).
  
• The remaining Astute class SSN and Type 45 destroyers will be built as planned, and a new 'Type-26' frigate will be built. (7 Astutes and 19 Type 45+46)
  
• Replacement of Trident nuclear deterrent will continue.
  
• Heavy artillery numbers to be cut by 35% (most likely AS90 55mm SPH, rather than GMLRS - which seems to be viewed favourably)
  
• Challenger 2 MBT numbers to be cut by 40%
  
• Restructuring of Land Forces to form 5 deployable brigades to perform multiple roles by combining elements of the 6 deployable brigades we currently spread among recce, armour, logistics and infantry (mechanised and light-role).
  
• Withdrawal of British forces from Germany (an Armoured brigade).
  
• FRES to continue (Scout, and the previously halted Utility Vehicle).
  
• Sea King and Gazelle to be retired s planned.
  
• Pumas to be upgraded to HC.2 standard.
  
• Wildcat (Future Lynx) are still planned for AAC and RN.
  
• 12 new Chinooks to be ordered (last government planned for 22 in December 2009).
  
• Nimrod MRA.4 cancelled, and RAF Kinloss to close.
  
• Sentinel R.1 to be withdrawn when it's no longer required in Afghanistan.
  
• Harrier to be withdrawn from service.
  
• 38 Hercules to be replaced by 22 A400M (Hercs out of service 10 years ahead of previous schedule).
  
• Rivet Joint ISTAR aircraft (assume this is to replace Nimrod R.1).
  
• UKSF capabilities to increase (budget, and possibly personnel numbers).
  
• Greater emphasis on cyber security.
  
• 'Rationalisation' of Defence estate (offices, workshops and bases to close, relocation of units etc)
  

Frankly, some of the decisions with regards to supporting amphibious operations just seem bonkers to me.

Edited October 21, 2010 by da12thMonkey

[Inkompetent 0]

Now even Sweden is starting to get more violently involved in Afghanistan by the way. Our soldiers have been leading PRT Mazari Sharif (Provincial Reconstruction Team) with relatively low threat level for the soldiers involved and we've suffered very few wounded or killed (only 4 KIAs until last week, where we suffered a 5th).

With recent deliveries of example Stridsfordon 90 (CV9040) the offensive capability has increased dramatically and the last few months our soldiers have - together with the Afghan army and police - started to actively seek out and attack Taliban strongpoints to extend the reconstruction effort even to areas that earlier have been avoided due to being Taliban-controlled.

Personally i consider this very good since it gives our military some well-needed experience in both joint operations and to try out and polish own doctrines and equipment. If we are deployed into a warzone anyway we might just as well intend to fight as well (instead of like previously avoided fights if possible and disengaged at every battle if able). Now it has turned from showing presence to active partaking in the war effort, and I believe that out of about 30 battles in the last few months the force called for American CAS 30% of the time, clearly showing that it's more than small skirmishes.

Our last KIA was from what seems like a well pulled off trap by the Talibans where they provoked a pursuit by mechanized infantry and then engaged the CV9040 with grenade launchers (and possibly RPGs, but I'm not certain of that), and using IEDs as the second wave of attack against the reinforcing armoured vehicle coming to support the CV9040, managing to kill one soldier and injure two.

This seem to have taken the force somewhat by surprise as the conventional way is to use IEDs first and hand-held weapons and grenade launchers as the second wave.

[dm 9]

It was always expected that it'd be a pretty savage cut but it's caused a fair amount of outrage regardless.

Its fucking brutal, is what it is :(

Frankly, some of the decisions with regards to supporting amphibious operations just seem bonkers to me.

Because its written by bean counters and pen pushers. And I bet none of them have taken a pay-cut :j:

[pre-Vet 10]

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think its odd to see half of the decisions involve serious cuts and the other half buying new stuff, its like cutting to compensate modernisation.

# FRES to continue (Scout, and the previously halted Utility Vehicle).

# 12 new Chinooks to be ordered (last government planned for 22 in December 2009).

# 38 Hercules to be replaced by 22 A400M (Hercs out of service 10 years ahead of previous schedule)

That must be expensive.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I think its odd to see half of the decisions involve serious cuts and the other half buying new stuff, its like cutting to compensate modernisation.

The overall trend is still for fewer aircraft, fewer ships and fewer AFVs. Regardless of the increased capability of new equipment I think recent operational experience has taught us that equipment numbers are what allows for flexibility.

The aspirations for new kit to replace the old still run the risk of delays and failure to meet expected capabilities. Requirements can also change dramatically in the intervening years, which contributed heavily to the overspending of FRES, MRA4, CVF and will continue to do so without rationalising the MoD's procurement procedures and establishing a firm concept of what the role of Britain's armed forces will be for the next 20 years. IMHO the SDSR is still wishy-washy on these aspects, and does very little to try and prevent us from ending up with the same mess once the MoD's deficit is cleared through reductions in the expenditure on the current forces.

The review also indicates several capability gaps IMO: no long-range ASW aircraft and reduced numbers of frigates to cover the gaps, retirement of Sea King without any proper indication of what will replace them for AEW and Commando Helicopter Force, potential loss of RN personnel skills in maintaining and operating fixed-wing - could prove costly to retrain, and jeopardize the effectiveness of the future Naval Strike Wing.

Increasing Special Forces budget while cutting two highly capable ISTAR aircraft that could support them (Sentinel and Nimrod) also seems a bit moronic to me.

[-Snafu- 77]

Depressing reading indeed. :confused_o:

[Baff1 0]

I don't think the loss of fixed wing pilots from the navy is a major concern. They can easily be recruited from the air force.

Given that they are going for catapult launched planes and not VTOLs this time, it's not like current RN training places the pilots at any advantage over RAF training.

All in all a predictably shit restructure.

I have difficulty rationalising foreign aid as more important than this.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I don't think the loss of fixed wing pilots from the navy is a major concern. They can easily be recruited from the air force.

Given that they are going for catapult launched planes and not VTOLs this time, it's not like current RN training places the pilots at any advantage over RAF training.

Losing the lads from 800 and 801 wasn't my concern; they'd have to be retrained on CATOBAR anyway, having flown nowt but STOVL for decades now. AFAIK RN has already been doing pilot placements with the US Navy to build up for a catapult deck.

I was more concerned with losing basic knowhow of ground crew on how to maintain fixed-wing aircraft at sea. Naval operations present some unique challenges for ground crews in maintaining the jets mechanically, arming them and marshalling them both in the air and on the deck, that aren't present in naval rotary-wing or land-based aviation. Retraining the basics in addition to operational conversion to the JSF and a new deck, only serves to add additional costs and delays to the programme.

[pre-Vet 10]

@da12thMonkey

Does the British DoD have any problems with getting personnel? Here its pretty bad, like having battalions only half filled for years. After every rotation out or Afghanistan more people leave the service than people come in, even lowering the standard (yeah great idea right?) didnt help.

I ask because 43.000 people are a lot of people getting unemployed in harsh times.

On the new systems, its always hard to get brand new systems to work out in the field, be it a new vehicle or new equipment. Often problems like a few or no spare parts for the system and low skill and experience level of personnel make it even harder.

What I'm trying to say is, modernization is good, but so much in such a short time might be hard or even dangerous for operational personnel. And as you said before, there is always the risk of delays.

Is there a estimation when the troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan? I think these cuts might have an impact on the British involvement in that country and on the rest of coalition partners in RC:South.