UK Strategic Defence Review 2020 - get your bids in now ladies & gents
The requirement for the system is undeniable, trawling the market place for existing or planned systems to do the job is sensible. I fear, however, like a number of projects for which I have recently managed requirements under a 'must be COTS' directive, the shelf may currently be bare of something that matches the bulk of requirements, and require a cooperative development pathway with a chosen supplier.
Anyway the relevant technologies have come a long way since it involved my old man and an oppo paddling a canoe round Trincomalee Harbour armed with a bucket of hand grenades trying to identify any intruding IJN minisubs with a sensor outfit consisting of four Mk1 eyeballs, four Mk 1 ears, and a pair of binoculars.
Anyway, I am off to continue reading Citadel of Waste. https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/656595-citadel-waste-david-hill.html
Anyway the relevant technologies have come a long way since it involved my old man and an oppo paddling a canoe round Trincomalee Harbour armed with a bucket of hand grenades trying to identify any intruding IJN minisubs with a sensor outfit consisting of four Mk1 eyeballs, four Mk 1 ears, and a pair of binoculars.
Anyway, I am off to continue reading Citadel of Waste. https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/656595-citadel-waste-david-hill.html
Last edited by SLXOwft; 31st Dec 2023 at 17:30. Reason: grammar
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
There’s an elephant in the room in the Royal Navy, and it’s the UK’s Commando Force.
Pulled from pillar to post, lacking clear vision and direction, very senior officers trying to take chunks out of them and then using them for things they’re now not designed for 1/18
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...312714186.html
Pulled from pillar to post, lacking clear vision and direction, very senior officers trying to take chunks out of them and then using them for things they’re now not designed for 1/18
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...312714186.html
Soon they will be conisdering fitting 104 NSM to HMS Victory and turning it into and arsenal ship. They might try some VLS but assume the mast and the rigging will play silly buggers with them
Thread Starter
Its about time they finished the refit on her and got her back to sea 
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by artee:
Thread Starter
yes and 100+ missile silos firing unguided missiles with LOT of reloads available
Make you wonder why they didn't equip the T45's with a few.......................
Crewing numbers are a bit high tho'
Make you wonder why they didn't equip the T45's with a few.......................
Crewing numbers are a bit high tho'
I read somewhere that the weight of shot from a single broadside from Victory was greater than that if all the artillery used by the British Army at the Battle of Waterloo fired at once. Not sure if its true but if so it rather demonstrates the power of a single man o war. I would not like to be on the receiving end.
Thread Starter
Mark Adkin's "Trafalgar Companion" pg 302 has a comparison. Adkin also wrote similar massive and well illustrated book on on Waterloo & Gettysburg.
"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."
Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................
"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."
Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Commons Defence Committee announces the intention to hold an evidence session within the next few weeks examining the future of HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and Royal Marine capabilities.
https://committees.parliament.uk/com...-capabilities/
https://committees.parliament.uk/com...-capabilities/
Mark Adkin's "Trafalgar Companion" pg 302 has a comparison. Adkin also wrote similar massive and well illustrated book on on Waterloo & Gettysburg.
"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."
Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................
"At Waterloo a total of 497 guns were deployed by the British, Prussian and French - at Trafalgar there were 4662 guns. One discharge of all the artillery at Waterloo would total 1,5 tons of metal. compared to the combined 47 tons at Trafalgar. The French Grand Battery (80 guns) could fire 0.25 tons in volley whereas a single 74 , such as Mars, could fire 0.75 tons in a (two sided) broadside."
Of course at Waterloo you also had 200,000 infantry and Cavalry all shooting as well - although none of them were as effective as a single French marksman on the Redoutable.................
Thread Starter
Thread Starter
maybe just accept that their time has come and roll them into the Army as Naval Battalions as in WW1 - they can keep the title (as in Rifle Brigade, Hussars, Lancers etc ect) but use them as PBI. "Commando" was a WW2 creation
They are naval forces for a reason. That reason is not necessarily recreating Overlord, Corporate, Telic.
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
I'll be interested to see if Labour plans to address the hollowing out and funding shortfalls across all three services, but I suspect the defence parsnips will not be buttered in the next parliament.
Royal Navy ‘underfunded’, says shadow defence secretary as UK strikes Houthi group
The Royal Navy is “hollowed out and underfunded,” the shadow defence secretary has suggested.
Speaking on Friday morning (12 January), after the UK and US launched targeted strikes against military facilities used by Houthi rebels in Yemen, John Healey shared his worries over the resources available to the armed forces.
“The former defence secretary told me in the House of Commons, he admitted that over the last 13 years, the government has hollowed out and underfunded the forces,” he said.
“It is important that we are able [to] - as we have in recent weeks in the Red Sea and wider region - act alongside allies.”
(Article credited to Oliver Browning on The Independent website)
The Royal Navy is “hollowed out and underfunded,” the shadow defence secretary has suggested.
Speaking on Friday morning (12 January), after the UK and US launched targeted strikes against military facilities used by Houthi rebels in Yemen, John Healey shared his worries over the resources available to the armed forces.
“The former defence secretary told me in the House of Commons, he admitted that over the last 13 years, the government has hollowed out and underfunded the forces,” he said.
“It is important that we are able [to] - as we have in recent weeks in the Red Sea and wider region - act alongside allies.”
(Article credited to Oliver Browning on The Independent website)