|
The Army’s new recruitment drive insists robots cannot replace soldiers, just days after the Prime Minister said the UK did not need more troops. The spokesman added that it was “wrong to focus solely on the numbers” and stressed that the Government is investing in cyber warfare and other new technology. However, Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, warned in a speech on Tuesday at the Rusi think tank that “it would be perverse” for him to advocate for reducing the size of the Army “as a land war rages in Europe and Putin’s territorial ambitions extend into the rest of the decade and beyond Ukraine”. Defence sources said: “Gen Sanders said we need to be ready and mobilised now, so we need to fill our ranks in both reserves and regulars really quickly. It would be great if this increase in defence spending manifested in a bigger army. That makes recruiting now even more important.” Military sources added that the Army currently stood at 77,000 and was decreasing “all the time”. “It takes 18 months to alter that trajectory, so the decision to pause or regrow needs to be taken faster than the 2.5 per cent target,” they said. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...6996f2147b725d Meanwhile Poland is ramping up their forces, after ordering 500 Himars, they have just bunged in an order for 32 multi-role AW149 helicopters to start deliveries possibly next year... https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...4d0e0e0e6e0952 How is the Puma replacement coming along :ugh: |
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?
Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models? Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move. |
"Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move."
Because politicians and their voters are always seduced by "support local companies" (we'll pass over the US tanker saga) BAe, Airbus, Boeing etc don't provide all those jobs for retired officers and politicians for nothing................ |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11254806)
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?
Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models? Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move. |
Then of course there might be the "Stealth Blackhawk" variant,,,,,, :)
Hat, coat etc..... |
Acehawk
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11254806)
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?
Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models? Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move. One of the prime contenders for the Puma replacement is offering exactly that, "previously owned" Blackhawks with new engines and gearboxes as well as a digital Garmin cockpit. It also gives the UK Mil the numbers they are after (circa 44). If they go down the Airbus or Leonardo route they will get half the required numbers, judging by the cost of the Polish deal. AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11254061)
Nutty....Russia borders Ukraine....Germany was a very long way from Russia and in turn the Russian Supply lines were as long as the Germans but ran in the opposite direction.
The Russians received 400,000 Trucks and Jeeps from the United States....which allowed the Russians to supply its troops and move artillery. Along with the 400k trucks and Jeeps, the USA also sent..
About the only thing the USSR had in abundance which it used was human beings as cannon fodder, pretty much no different to what its doing in Ukraine 75 years later. |
AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location. |
" If they go down the Airbus or Leonardo route they will get half the required numbers, judging by the cost of the Polish deal. AceHawk seems to also tick the local jobs box as well, although up North instead of the traditional Yeovil location."
But Airbus and Leonardo will wave the flag - and they are the ones who shovel jobs and money around the scenery - they'll claim also that you need national design and production because you cant't trust people - Trump might return! And, TBH, the experience of "upgrading " old kit sounds great but has led to some of the worst cost overruns we'v ever seen |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11255100)
[color=#000000]" And, TBH, the experience of "upgrading " old kit sounds great but has led to some of the worst cost overruns we'v ever seen
RMPA/Nimrod 2000/Nimrod MRA4 is rightly held up as a prime example, but it is never mentioned that there was a sister programme which 'led' on key areas, and delivered ahead of time, under cost and to a better spec. That programme succeed by following some basic rules. Nimrod didn't. A solution emerges.... |
Without revisiting in detail an ocean of past posts on the subject a PLAN is a good idea IIRC - and a line of responsibility.....
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11254806)
RE the Puma replacement....why not buy off the shelf Blackhawks?
Sikorsky built Blackhawks....same as the latest generation US Army Models? Lots of reasons for that to be a smart move. |
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
(Post 11255548)
Perhaps because we want something better, and a little less archaic?
The actual recipients who have to debug the product and the treasury which has to pay the inevitable overruns, probably not so much. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.