Recent content by FJAG

All those take a lot less power than what is needed to destroy an object. Just one of Nelson's First-Rates had almost as many guns (120) as Wellington at Waterloo (156). Sometimes the technology just isn't there yet - if ever. 🍻

It probably would have been reasonable if they hadn't spent all that time redacting things that shouldn't have been redacted. 🍻

Nope. Range still too short and size and poor mobility makes it difficult to deploy and a magnet for incoming stuff. Lasers will find their place when they are effective a bit further out and their power cells can be squeezed into and recharged in a LAV-sized armoured vehicle. 🍻

Sorry. My bad. - I knew that IFM was in options analysis (and for all I know may be in definition by now based on the original timeline that I saw) and had issued an RFI but seem to be behind on knowing that there was an allocation of funds. I thought it was just high on the CCA's priority for...

I was going to use the :ROFLMAO: emoji on this and then thought better of it because there's really nothing funny about what is going on down there. Back in 1971, shortly after having joined my regiment after my basic artillery officers' training, I decided to get a jump on the next stage of...

They certainly should. IFM is still unfunded and in RFI, to the best of my knowledge. I tend not to count my chickens albeit with GDLS ACSV and a Swedish NEMO one is adequately staying aways from Yankee kit. :giggle: So odds are better. 🍻

I like the idea of uncrewed ships but I think I'd make it look like a rusty cargo vessel with rusty containers on deck (but a really good power pack) - a la a Q Ship. :giggle:

"Another" would indicated there had been at least one before this, but . . . It doesn't say how many they are buying but based on the fact they currently have only mortars for their three infantry regiments, I'd guess one 18-gun battalion at best. 🥱

With luck and a little planning, maybe they'll slot in some mortar carriers and MSHORADs and ATGM carriers. 🍻

I agree entirely on ACSV. In fact here's what I said just up thread. It's the IFV where I have issues. We purchased some 278 infantry section carriers which at roughly enough (together with the CP versions etc) to outfit some 6 Mech battalions plus schools and operational stock. There may be a...

That could be a good one for the 400,000. :giggle:

Yes. But who won the pool? :giggle:

Read my lips. We have enough LAVs. We need heavier and lighter. We have enough of the middle. Look at the US - they're dumping SBCTs. Sure the Germans have Boxer, but the last announcement was for 687 Puma. The Brits have gone for Boxer but that was years ago that decision was made and with...

Sure they could, but this whole thread is about nationalizing critical defence products, especially expendables - and it may sound silly but barrels are getting more and more into the field of expendables when you are planning to reach out and touch someone at longer ranges and with many...

I'm old but not that old. The sum total of my knowledge of this subject comes from Wikipedia here and here. 🍻