Jump to content


Photo

Royal Marines Experimenting With Ugvs


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1404 PM

Can someone please identify this UGV?

 

https://ukdefencejou...-cornish-beach/


  • 0

#2 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 29 April 2019 - 1924 PM

Is this to deal with the tank gap? 


  • 0

#3 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0154 AM

Doubt it, the Royal Marines haven't had tanks since Sword Beach.


  • 0

#4 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0302 AM

If I was a guessing man, I say it was a Harris Corporation Robot. The MOD already took delivery of some T7's for bomb disposal 2 years ago, and this looks like it might be an adaption of that into a combat bot.

https://www.harris.c...-worth-up-to-70

Just a pure guess on my part mind.


  • 0

#5 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,832 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0401 AM

To me, what was more interesting was the side bar notice of Argentina buying an ex-South Korean frigate. 


  • 0

#6 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0515 AM

To me, what was more interesting was the side bar notice of Argentina buying an ex-South Korean frigate. 

 

I didn't notice that - thanks for pointing it out.


  • 0

#7 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0521 AM

Typical armament when the class was in service includes eight Harpoon missiles in two quadruple launchers, six 324mm Blue Shark torpedoes in two triple tubes as well as two Otobreda 76mm guns and three Otobreda 40mm Close in Weapon Systems.

However, local media report that the frigate is to be delivered with only two 76mm cannons and four 30mm. Missiles and torpedoes launchers will be removed. Leaving the vessel to function primarily as an Offshore Patrol Vessel.

https://ukdefencejou...om-south-korea/


  • 0

#8 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 30 April 2019 - 0555 AM

Its going to look nice, tied up alongside that Type 42 they scuttled. :)


  • 0

#9 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 30 April 2019 - 1149 AM

Doubt it, the Royal Marines haven't had tanks since Sword Beach.

At this point maybe they feel they need to take up the army's slack? 


  • 0

#10 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 30 April 2019 - 1214 PM

Dont see why. We still have more tanks than most European nations, and no immediate prospect of that changing.


  • 0

#11 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 30 April 2019 - 1221 PM

That's a foolish metric. Are you likely to go to war with Denmark and Holland? 


  • 0

#12 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 01 May 2019 - 0157 AM

How about applying the same metric to yourself? You have 6000 Abrams tanks, the Russians have over 12000 tanks of all kinds. Closer to 16000 now they decided not to scrap older types.

 

Who are you planning to fight, California?


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 01 May 2019 - 0216 AM.

  • 0

#13 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 01 May 2019 - 0617 AM

That's a foolish metric. Are you likely to go to war with Denmark and Holland? 

 

Yes, it's a crappy metric. The thing is, we've downscaled almost everything and yet we insist on keeping up the headcount (and, more importantly, regimental badge count) with "light-role" infantry that most countries no longer bother with. If we upped the tanks we'd have to up everything else proportionally, and, despite a deteriorating security situation on our doorstep, there ultimately just aren't the votes in it. It's very sad.  I'm not invoking it as a metric, but the ultimate disaster in terms of drawdowns is Belgium. Look at what they had in 1989 vs now - they've essentially disbanded their military as far as continental European defence is concerned. 


  • 0

#14 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 01 May 2019 - 0644 AM

Oh God Chris, dont keep reinforcing this narrative we are on the brink of military collapse that he keeps reading in the Daily Mirror. Yes, we need more funds, yes we need more foresight on the threats we face. But we are better off than we were in the 1930's, and my usual pessimism cannot extinguish the fact that, underfunded though we are, at least we arent over-committed to a war in Syria and trying to pretend 1980's tanks are new. As Russia is. They cant pretend they can replace their armed forces with broke Robots. At least ours work, early days though it is.

 

In the end, we try to be good allies. In the 1980s, the Americans wanted us to be a good mechanized army. So we demolished our navy, and built a good mechanized army. In 2001 they wanted a good light infantry force. So we demolished our heavy forces, and builta light infantry force for the hills of Afghanistan. And today we have American's saying 'Well you have the wrong armed forces'. Well jesus Sherlock, maybe it would be a great idea if you all made your minds up what kind of armed forces you want us to have so we can remain consistent. Because there is no consistency in what they want us to have, and the scrapes they find themselves needing allies in.

 

Would I like us to retain a 250 tank army? Yes. But lets look at the facts, since 1953, we have only had 3 expeditions involving tanks. One was at Port Said, with a Battalion of Centurion's. One was in 1991 with 174 Challenger 1's. The other was in 2003 with 116 Challenger 2's. We clearly need to retain a mechanized capability, But 250 tanks at a time when we are struggling to maintain a navy which we have always needed since time immemorial seems a no brainer to me. And if people think we are showing a net reduction in our land forces, it will be more than compensated by our maritime forces at a period when the Americans are struggling for the first tine since the 1970's to put a viable force at sea.

 

We need to look beyond just putting troops in Eastern Europe. Recent evidence is that Russia has far wider ambitions to nobble nascent democracies, whether its Sudan and Venezuela, and we ought to be ready to deal with it even if the American's wont. That needs seapower. We are putting the money into the right thing, but its going to take a good 2 decades to see any benefit from it. And precious few thanks I shouldnt wonder.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 01 May 2019 - 0646 AM.

  • 0

#15 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,113 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:estonia

Posted 01 May 2019 - 0713 AM

Can someone please identify this UGV?

 

https://ukdefencejou...-cornish-beach/

 

 

https://milremrobotics.com/themis/ ?


  • 0

#16 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 01 May 2019 - 0957 AM

Oh God Chris, dont keep reinforcing this narrative we are on the brink of military collapse that he keeps reading in the Daily Mirror. Yes, we need more funds, yes we need more foresight on the threats we face. But we are better off than we were in the 1930's,


Yeah. You are. But, Being better off than you were in the '30s is also damming by faint praise. Your biggest ally, US, still has globe spanning power projection that other countries can only dream of. So, your nation and the rest of the EU can continue to pare down their military capability using it as a jobs and wealth transfer program.


In the end, we try to be good allies. In the 1980s, the Americans wanted us to be a good mechanized army. So we demolished our navy, and built a good mechanized army. In 2001 they wanted a good light infantry force. So we demolished our heavy forces, and builta light infantry force for the hills of Afghanistan. And today we have American's saying 'Well you have the wrong armed forces'. Well jesus Sherlock, maybe it would be a great idea if you all made your minds up what kind of armed forces you want us to have so we can remain consistent. Because there is no consistency in what they want us to have, and the scrapes they find themselves needing allies in.


When we converted tank units to light infantry (truck borne really) we sent the tanks out to storage and ran many through a SLEP. Why not do the same. Remember the articles about how congress was forcing more tanks on the Pentagon and putting them in storage.

Conversely, what have you chaps done with your tank factory?
  • 0

#17 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 01 May 2019 - 2027 PM

Well, the tank factory is gone, but a new tracked AFV plant has opened in Wales to make the FRES-SV thingy. I don't doubt we could make tanks if we decided we needed them, but would it really make sense to make our own?.

 

As for being better off than we were in the 1930s, that would probably depend when in the 1930s and vs who. In 1939-45 fairly significant bombing utterly failed to disrupt our infrastructure. One Russian SSGN could do a far better job of doing that to us with conventional SLCMs than the Luftwaffe managed in WW2. Vs 1939 our civil preparations for war are virtually non existent. There are no plans, that I know of to defend commercial ports and hydrocarbon terminals and no kit to do it with. 


  • 0

#18 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,546 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 01 May 2019 - 2053 PM

Well, I guess I shouldn't be annoyed. More products for the US to sell to the UK Military establishment. Personally, I'd rather see the nation that invented the tank continue to develop examples that are useful.
  • 0

#19 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,776 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 02 May 2019 - 0158 AM

Well, the tank factory is gone, but a new tracked AFV plant has opened in Wales to make the FRES-SV thingy. I don't doubt we could make tanks if we decided we needed them, but would it really make sense to make our own?.

 

As for being better off than we were in the 1930s, that would probably depend when in the 1930s and vs who. In 1939-45 fairly significant bombing utterly failed to disrupt our infrastructure. One Russian SSGN could do a far better job of doing that to us with conventional SLCMs than the Luftwaffe managed in WW2. Vs 1939 our civil preparations for war are virtually non existent. There are no plans, that I know of to defend commercial ports and hydrocarbon terminals and no kit to do it with. 

 

And what the Russians going to attack them with, Beluga whales? :) Oscars arent going to last 10 minutes in the North sea. They are too old and too loud.

 

The Russians have a lot of theory and a lot of prototypes involving cruise missiles. And even if they did build them (which I doubt) I strongly doubt a 250 tank arm is going to do much to defend against them.

 

Russia is a threat, but I think we see 2 entirely different kinds of threats. You would seem to think a general conventional war involving extensive Cruise missile is likely. I think a small scale combined force battle (yes, maybe even as high as a brigade) followed swiftly by nuclear escalation is far more likely.  And I think they would do that very early because its the only way they could possibly win against NATO, under-spending or not.

 

Of course you need to meet threats at all levels. But if horizontal escalation worked for John Lehman, Im not getting why it cant work for us 40 years later.


  • 0

#20 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,955 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 02 May 2019 - 0613 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.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users