Hmmm...
Here's a Challenger...(look at the lower picture of the two)
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
...& here's a Skorpion Light tank...
FV101 Scorpion Light Tank
Methinks I'm right....
SA
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Here's a Challenger...(look at the lower picture of the two)
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
...& here's a Skorpion Light tank...
FV101 Scorpion Light Tank
Methinks I'm right....
SA
Count the running wheels, the shape of the turret and the size.Hmmm...
Here's a Challenger...(look at the lower picture of the two)
Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank
...& here's a Skorpion Light tank...
FV101 Scorpion Light Tank
Methinks I'm right....
SA
What 50 tonnes between friends.....DOH !!!
:nutkick
(eats humble pie....)
SA
Something I have noticed in general with the UK military is their apparent preference for role specific rather than general purpose capabilities, just look at the RAFs combat fleet, not a multirole fighter in sight. Same issue with the surface fleet.
They are coming around but this is after decades of single roling units and their equipment.
You have hit the nail on the head. The absense of even a small deck level hanger for a couple of Merlins on the Albion/Bulwark so limts the operational flexibility of them. One of the problems is the RN/UK Armed Forces generally will not compromise on anything and are inclined to gold plate everything. So if they can't have a complete through deck on a LPD like the Mistral/JCI they don't want anything. I am sure major reason why RN ships have not attracted export orders.
You can see the same mistake happening with the Type 26, which will end up reducing the RN escort fleet to c12-14 ships.
Last edited:
Both very expensive, and not really the type of bomber the army needs to support it in either a Afghanistan or an armoured thrust into Iran.
The RN needs to learn from the mistakes of the last few years in particular. I think it has relied on the Falklands War for to long, as an unchallengeable example of its reason for existing. A generation has grown up for who it is just a distant memory or they were not even alive.
RN assets need to become more relevant to the army. Its not just a case of saying they are joint assets when they are under direct threat. There needs to be far more joint excersises with Challengers/Warriors being beach landed, infantry units not just marines. Apache's and other Army Air Corp units, if not permanently, more often than not station onboard carriers/the assault fleet. They could take a whole armoured/AAC force on a sales trip to: Canada, Brazil, Saudi and India with a complement of politicans abroad.
The RN should consider a subsonic armoured light attack aircraft that can operate between an Apache and F35/EF. A heavier Hawk 200/Goshawk type aircraft that will be cheap and supplement reduced F35 numbers.
Last edited:
Please explain to me the tactical advantage of an Albion class assault ship exhausting limited funds to host two Merlins? To lift what, a section, troop, company, and under what circumstances? What do you mean by operational flexibility within the context of how 3 Commando operate? To maintain two Merlin you need to add all the supporting infrastructure when they can simply deploy from Ocean, land and pick up wave after wave of chalks sepecific to task (if a beach landing is considered a no brainer). The only time two airframes will be used stand alone will be for an SF task or as a cab. The UK amphib fleet was designed as a result of hard lessons learnt in realtime, not in a some simulated exercise. The fleet was not designed to sell overseas, it was designed to meet UK requirements within a fixed budget.
Volkadov made a statement that there are no RAF multi-role assets in sight, which is wrong.
And arguing against equipment being not versatile enough makes little sense when one wants to procure a light attack craft which is only good for pounding some low tech guerillas. Developing and procuring such an improved Hawk + the needed targeting pods won't be much cheaper than just using existing designs (Toni, EF). Those are paid for. One has to keep sunk costs in mind. One just needs additional operational costs to use them in a theater like Afghanistan. I doubt that this is more expensive than developing and procuring new airframes and equipment.
Procuring such limited equipment withing a limited budget makes no sense as they take away money from equipment which is not only usefull when the enemy is composed of some rag tag militia.
I hate quoting figures from papers but according to the Time it cost £90k/hour to operate the EF, twice the Tornado, in fact I think they claimed if it was ever deployed against the Taliban it would be cheaper to buy them off. A developed Hawk 200 would be more robust than helicopters in that role and see more use, of course you could use Harriers.
Volkadov's comments were general about single function approach, surely you are not claiming the EF is a true multi role aircraft, you will be claiming the F3 Tornado was a fighter next!!
Last edited:
You are seeing these as just RM assets, for the sole role of beach landings, just the approach that has got one heading to "extended readiness". If they could operate at least 2 Merlins (ideally 4) they can operate independently, increasing the options,getting value out of their command/lift facilities for such things as: disaster relief, coordinating patrol work and acting as a mothership for CB90h type boats, MCM using helicopters or ROVs and yes special forces insertions. The above are all very mundane (well except for the SF I guess) but they are important and also gets the RN profile.
The RN needs to learn if you don't use it you lose it. Not fair I know, but they have to learn the rules of the game, and start playing it.
Last edited:
citizen578
New Member
They've done it countless times. They frequently do it during large-scale exercises in Norway. There was a big flurry of press articles about QRH heavies (plus Scimitar) being landed by Bulwark on Portsdown beach.
I'm sure you are right, but the only photo I can find of an LCU 10 landing a tank is this one incorrectly discribed as a Challenger when it looks like an Abrams.
That's not the operating cost. IIRC it's an estimate of the total lifetime cost divided by an estimate of total lifetime flying hours. It's also been said elsewhere that it's an overestimate.
The marginal operating cost (i.e. the difference between leaving one sitting on the ground & flying it) is a small percentage of that.
citizen578
New Member
That is defeintely a Chally 2. You can tell by the sight above the main gun.
Unfortunately the RN site is still down from the hack, but it is full of pics from the exercise I mentioned (which I believe had a Bay in support also).
Something from the Army's site in the meantime though...
Wiltshire cavalry regiment tackles amphibious assault - British Army Website
Well thats conclusive proof on the use of Challengers.
I am not sure about the photo I posted as the front looks flat like an Abrams, but the tank is at an angle so that might be it. Thisphoto looks like the same tank and is an Abrams, but I'm not so sure as the landing craft looks smaller so maybe not an LCU10.
Well I guess you have to take depreciation into to cost of the aircraft. But even if you exclude, and what ever the figure is, it's going to be much greater than a navalised Hawk 200?
It's defenitely a Chally.
But again, what does a navalized Hawk bring to the table?
It will only be usefull against some low tech enemy.
But if you have a QE operating of the coast of some African hellhole in order to conduct and/or support an evac op a dozen F-35s + some Apaches can do the job just as good.
You don't need the extra numbers for operations like this. And against a more sophisticated enemy one doesn't want to bring a Hawk to the fight anyway. Save the money and procure and operate as many F-35 as possible.
But again, what does a navalized Hawk bring to the table?
It will only be usefull against some low tech enemy.
But if you have a QE operating of the coast of some African hellhole in order to conduct and/or support an evac op a dozen F-35s + some Apaches can do the job just as good.
You don't need the extra numbers for operations like this. And against a more sophisticated enemy one doesn't want to bring a Hawk to the fight anyway. Save the money and procure and operate as many F-35 as possible.
The second photo is not a challenger the 1st maybe. A light attack aircraft based on a Hawk 200 would be a lot cheaper and more useful than a F35 in supporting troop on the ground, in low or high tech situations and would have greater range, armament and ability to be armoured than an Apache. In a high tech war the F35 (or Rafale) can focus on CAP and deep strike, leaving tank busting to a dedicated aircraft. Don't think of it as a cheap multi role but more a light A10.
Based round the Hawk 200/Goshawk, but slower speed, greater range, capable of carrying: 8 Brimstone/4-8 SDB and 30mm cannon. Armoured in the key areas to withstand ground fire. This would be the sort of aircraft the Army would actually value. Rather than more competitors for the deep strike role.
Hello, 1805, after a year or so of only really bothering with Yuku etc I see you are still posting utter drivel. I cant stand the laughter anymore, lets see last week....
"My T83 would be the T45, ideally with a hanger for 2 Merlin (that would cost next to nothing), fitted with TAS (this could come across from a T23) and a flexideck plus accomodation for c200crew + up to 300 mission personel (again not going to cost much)."
So you are taking the hull form of a Type 45 adding a bigger hanger? Maybe. Then adding space for 20 tonnes or so of TAS gear and winches, yes maybe, but are you going to quieten the machinery to make that worthwhile? But here is the real mystery. Is there space in the hull of a Type 45 (even a stretched one) for a flex deck and acommodation for 300!!!! mission personel????
Lets see, how much space will you allow each person in square meters, then times that by 300? Then add galley facilities, sanitary systems, air con and heating conduits. How long will they be on board for? Then you need cold storage for supplies, ammunition storage and handling, How much room do troops need to form up, how do you deploy them from the flex deck bearing in mind there is a TAS taking up most of the stern. And finally if you want to deploy 300 mission personel, why don't you just use a Bay Class??? Dont you mention gold plating quite a bit? ummmm.
And here is another classic!!
"Based round the Hawk 200/Goshawk, but slower speed, greater range, capable of carrying: 8 Brimstone/4-8 SDB and 30mm cannon. Armoured in the key areas to withstand ground fire. This would be the sort of aircraft the Army would actually value. Rather than more competitors for the deep strike role.[/QUOTE]"
So at a time when we are trying to reduce aircraft numbers....1805, the Hawk is what it is, a small relatively capable aircraft, with an Adour powerplant of about 6000lbs... if you can magically add greater range, a substantial weapon load and "armour" F.F.S then you truly are a genius. Yes lets take an existing light trainer and stick on a titanium bathtub for the pilot and armour on the underside???. its bound to fly!
I have to give you great credit 1805, you come on here day after day and get rebuffed by those with actual expertise in the military or industry (and I do not count myself amongst them in any way) and repeat the same old same old. I feel I am in a time machine, 2000 tonne frigates "like a (fill in the gap), fitted with( fill in the gap), we could then afford (fill in the gap)
And theres more....I ask you, if you take LHD-6, and take away the dock, its not a bloody LHD-6 is it?
Thanks for the entertainment 1805.
"My T83 would be the T45, ideally with a hanger for 2 Merlin (that would cost next to nothing), fitted with TAS (this could come across from a T23) and a flexideck plus accomodation for c200crew + up to 300 mission personel (again not going to cost much)."
So you are taking the hull form of a Type 45 adding a bigger hanger? Maybe. Then adding space for 20 tonnes or so of TAS gear and winches, yes maybe, but are you going to quieten the machinery to make that worthwhile? But here is the real mystery. Is there space in the hull of a Type 45 (even a stretched one) for a flex deck and acommodation for 300!!!! mission personel????
Lets see, how much space will you allow each person in square meters, then times that by 300? Then add galley facilities, sanitary systems, air con and heating conduits. How long will they be on board for? Then you need cold storage for supplies, ammunition storage and handling, How much room do troops need to form up, how do you deploy them from the flex deck bearing in mind there is a TAS taking up most of the stern. And finally if you want to deploy 300 mission personel, why don't you just use a Bay Class??? Dont you mention gold plating quite a bit? ummmm.
And here is another classic!!
"Based round the Hawk 200/Goshawk, but slower speed, greater range, capable of carrying: 8 Brimstone/4-8 SDB and 30mm cannon. Armoured in the key areas to withstand ground fire. This would be the sort of aircraft the Army would actually value. Rather than more competitors for the deep strike role.[/QUOTE]"
So at a time when we are trying to reduce aircraft numbers....1805, the Hawk is what it is, a small relatively capable aircraft, with an Adour powerplant of about 6000lbs... if you can magically add greater range, a substantial weapon load and "armour" F.F.S then you truly are a genius. Yes lets take an existing light trainer and stick on a titanium bathtub for the pilot and armour on the underside???. its bound to fly!
I have to give you great credit 1805, you come on here day after day and get rebuffed by those with actual expertise in the military or industry (and I do not count myself amongst them in any way) and repeat the same old same old. I feel I am in a time machine, 2000 tonne frigates "like a (fill in the gap), fitted with( fill in the gap), we could then afford (fill in the gap)
And theres more....I ask you, if you take LHD-6, and take away the dock, its not a bloody LHD-6 is it?
Thanks for the entertainment 1805.