Jump to content


Photo

Royal Marines Experimenting With Ugvs


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,673 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 03 May 2019 - 0239 AM

Stuart, the Russian's don't have to leave harbour to launch SLCMs that can reach the UK. Their latest conversions will allegedly carry 72 a piece. Yasens can carry 32 or 40 Kalibrs depending on which source you believe.

 

Yes, to counter that threat, it doesn't matter if we have 150 or 250 operational tanks. This is where I think we lack joined up thinking. We currently think we can counter Russian military aggression in the Baltics conventionally. Let's say we are right and that four Challenger tanks and five Apache helicopters we have deployed there could stop them. There is nothing to stop them going seriously assymetric on us in ways that are impossible to defend against. The alternative is to deter with analogous capabilities, but there is no political will (i.e. potential votes are lacking) to put that in place.  Interestingly, the US are experimenting with treaty busting ranged conventional cruise and ballistic land-based missiles now, so it could still happen and there is a vanishingly small possibility we might deploy it. The main opposition will come from the RAF who won't want to see their expensive planes replaced by truck-launched munitions.

 

And how long are they going to take to arrive? If during the Cold War we had GLCM as a second strike weapon, then why would these be any different? Ineffectual though the RAF is post 2010 defence review, I find it hard to believe Russia is going to be able to unload enough SLCM's on the UK that we wont notice and wont react to. What would be the point to exclude the rest of Europe? They would have to mass produce cruise missiles to a degree the Luftwaffe did with the V1 to have the kind of strategic effects needed. Yes, in the middle of a conflict when we are already taxed, it could be an issue. As a bolt from the blue, im simply not buying it.

 

And yes, asymmetry is the name of the game and what im truly worried about. The ONLY good news about that is the Estonians, whom are in more threat imho than the others, have a first rate reservist system and what to my mind sounds eerily like the Volunteer movements that were so popular here in the Victorian period. I think if the Russian's ever did try to Donbas Eastern Estonia, they would be in a mess, because the Estonian light infantry would be all over them.  Latvia is probably less well prepared admittedly, but they arent the Ukraine Army Circa 2014 either.

 

I think we want a range of capabilities of all kinds. Not JUST tanks (and im not deprecating them either) but Special Forces and ground launched drones and light infantry. Fortunately most of the allies already possess those in theatre already. At which point you have to ask, well why should we replicate capablities that already exist on the ground, why dont we do something that NATO needs and the American's seem to be slipping their gears on? And that quite clearly at this juncture is seapower. In the Baltic states, yes perhaps there is limited application of it. I somehow doubt the Russians would be as enthusiastic about territorial advancement on Ukraine or the Baltic states, with an aircraft carrier permamently off their coast. And it doesnt really matter whose flag is flying from it in this day and age. Even the Italian carrier would a JSF air wing on it would be a valid threat.

 

Just my view, and apologies if I am as always contentious.


  • 0

#22 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,936 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 03 May 2019 - 0349 AM

1. How long they take to arrive does not matter. If it takes them one hour longer to shut down our power grid, what difference does that make?

 

2. It wouldn't be a bolt from the blue - it would be in response to our resisting their taking over the Baltic Republics.

 

3. It wouldn't have to exclude W. Europe, but that would mostly be more easily targeted by land-based launchers.

 

4. It wouldn't need vast numbers of missiles. There are many obvious targets, the loss of which would really screw us  What percentage of Luftwaffe bombs actually hit something of great value or real strategic importance? I can think of one raid by a Ju-88 on the Mosquito factory at Hatfield (by a pilot who had visited it pre-war no less). 

 

5. Really, seapower in terms of power projection in Europe, is of very little use, and is downright counterproductive in terms of the capabilities we can field on our own doorstep. If you're going to shoot Tomahawks at Russia, does it make sense to put them on an SSN or a truck?  The truck will get much closer and give you a lot more range into Russia. It will also be more flexible as you can afford a lot of trucks in a lot of different places for the price of one SSN. It won't keep voters in jobs in Barrow though.

 

6. As for different capabiities for different scenarios, even the Americans are drawing back from spending decades in sandboxes at vast expense, achieving very little. I'm not for spending billions to hang on to the Falklands either. Argentina is a democratic country now and they're most welcome to have the problem of policing some windswept islands at the other end of the world.  Are we just spending money and lives to convince the Americans we are good allies?  If so, what happens when the Russians threaten to shut down large portions of the US power grid if they don't cut us loose?


  • 0

#23 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,126 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 03 May 2019 - 0604 AM

I was just going to say that it was a Milrem Themis, but as BD1 beat me to it by a couple of days, I'll just add that it seems to be using the MBDA Impact turret design with two MMPs (Check the second download from this article https://www.mbda-sys...-ground-vehicle/ )

 

Now, this doesn't mean that RM is buying MMPs, just that it's playing with a Themis that is currently kitted out with a (demo) system that's likely inert.

 

The boxes on the rear of the mudguards aren't in the earlier one, either.


  • 0

#24 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 03 May 2019 - 1202 PM

i still fail to see any point of it before the price comes down to manned equal-capability platform , like atv.

 

unless it carries something really spectacular, like davy crockett or rail gun.


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users