RAF & Navy hardware looking quite modern nowadays
Discussion
OK so quantity-wise we haven't got a lot of hardware these days, but the quality of what we have now in the RAF and on its way for the RN looks pretty good compared to most countries:
RAF
F35
A400M
Typhoon
C17
Sentinel
Shadow R1
Voyager
Hawk T2
P-8A Poseidon (2020)
Chinook
Navy
T45 Destroyers
T26 & 31e Frigates to come
QE carrier with F35
PoW carrier to come
Merlin helicopters
Wildcat helicopters
Astute subs
Dreadnought subs to come
How's the Army doing in comparison? Maybe its turn for a spending spree?
RAF
F35
A400M
Typhoon
C17
Sentinel
Shadow R1
Voyager
Hawk T2
P-8A Poseidon (2020)
Chinook
Navy
T45 Destroyers
T26 & 31e Frigates to come
QE carrier with F35
PoW carrier to come
Merlin helicopters
Wildcat helicopters
Astute subs
Dreadnought subs to come
How's the Army doing in comparison? Maybe its turn for a spending spree?
williamp said:
Army have a new rifle too
More of an upgrade than newhttps://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2018/...
IMO should have just paid for a licensing agreement and made M4's
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The L85 has a 20 1/2" barrel and is 1" shorter than the M4 which has a mere 16" barrel.
The upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
not as alley thoughThe upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The L85 has a 20 1/2" barrel and is 1" shorter than the M4 which has a mere 16" barrel.
The upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
930m/s vs 920m/sThe upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
The amount of effort required to keep it clean, the necessary frequency of cleaning make it unpopular. Despite the A2 upgrade, in practice, despite what is spouted in press releases, it is not all that. The end user must be confident in their equipment and the L85 doesn't engender confidence. And not to mention extra weight of the L85.
For the users who are given a choice, there is no choice.
stevesingo said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The L85 has a 20 1/2" barrel and is 1" shorter than the M4 which has a mere 16" barrel.
The upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
930m/s vs 920m/sThe upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
The amount of effort required to keep it clean, the necessary frequency of cleaning make it unpopular. Despite the A2 upgrade, in practice, despite what is spouted in press releases, it is not all that. The end user must be confident in their equipment and the L85 doesn't engender confidence. And not to mention extra weight of the L85.
For the users who are given a choice, there is no choice.
you should know better than to question a crab about small arms weapon effects
she has been responsible for range training and safety for cooks and airframe fitters don't you know.
and is notorious for being hyper defensive if anyone dares question her knowledge.
you naughty naughty boy
Wonder if / when a replacement for challenger 2 is on the cards.
Only half are in service and they are still very competitive vs the other options.
Lots of interesting tech in that area, changes in armor layouts, ir stealth technology etc.
Though I kind of expect the next mbt to be a drone perhaps
Only half are in service and they are still very competitive vs the other options.
Lots of interesting tech in that area, changes in armor layouts, ir stealth technology etc.
Though I kind of expect the next mbt to be a drone perhaps
AFAIAA the quoted muzzle velocity for a 16 1/2" barrel is 892 M/s.
Given that the SA80 family use what is effectively an AR-18 bolt with splines, so similar to that of the AR-15/M16/M4, I'm curios as to why it should be more difficult to clean than the Armalite designs?
I grant you that the L85 is somewhat heavy though.
Given that the SA80 family use what is effectively an AR-18 bolt with splines, so similar to that of the AR-15/M16/M4, I'm curios as to why it should be more difficult to clean than the Armalite designs?
I grant you that the L85 is somewhat heavy though.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 17th May 22:14
citizensm1th said:
stand by for incoming
you should know better than to question a crab about small arms weapon effects
she has been responsible for range training and safety for cooks and airframe fitters don't you know.
and is notorious for being hyper defensive if anyone dares question her knowledge.
you naughty naughty boy
Ouch! A bit unnecessary....you should know better than to question a crab about small arms weapon effects
she has been responsible for range training and safety for cooks and airframe fitters don't you know.
and is notorious for being hyper defensive if anyone dares question her knowledge.
you naughty naughty boy
RobDickinson said:
Wonder if / when a replacement for challenger 2 is on the cards.
Only half are in service and they are still very competitive vs the other options.
Lots of interesting tech in that area, changes in armor layouts, ir stealth technology etc.
Though I kind of expect the next mbt to be a drone perhaps
I think we are more likely to see upgrades than replacementOnly half are in service and they are still very competitive vs the other options.
Lots of interesting tech in that area, changes in armor layouts, ir stealth technology etc.
Though I kind of expect the next mbt to be a drone perhaps
i wonder how "force field" is coming along
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/748774...
RobDickinson said:
Yep there are always upgrades.. But some things just can't be bolted on.. I guess stealth tech could be.
Realistically they'll be going into the 2030s
I am not sure if we have the domestic capability to produce a main battle tank in the uk any more so if we do have to replace it may well be bought in.Realistically they'll be going into the 2030s
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
AFAIAA the quoted muzzle velocity for a 16 1/2" barrel is 892 M/s.
Given that the SA80 family use what is effectively an AR-18 bolt with splines, so similar to that of the AR-15/M16/M4, I'm curios as to why it should be more difficult to clean than the Armalite designs?
I grant you that the L85 is somewhat heavy though.
The L85 has separate gas parts which are another part to clean. The AR family have an integral bolt/colt carrier arrangement which act as gas parts. Given that the SA80 family use what is effectively an AR-18 bolt with splines, so similar to that of the AR-15/M16/M4, I'm curios as to why it should be more difficult to clean than the Armalite designs?
I grant you that the L85 is somewhat heavy though.
Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Thursday 17th May 22:14
The L85 bolt carrier assembly runs up and down a set of separate rail with a return spring. The AR family has the bolt carrier running up and down machined surfaces within the body of the weapon. One less thing to clean.
A little Colin Chapman in that an assembly carries out two functions.
The AR type weapons are well sealed against ingress of s
t. The trigger mech fits snugly against the body of the weapon without any holes. The ejection opening cover also closes tight. Due to the L85 having the bullpup design, the cooling for the barrel is facilitated by a series of hole in the body of the weapon. These hole allow st to get inside and there is little in the cleaning kit, save some stupid sponge lolleys, which can get in to it. The trigger mech in also pretty loose fitting.Stripped down for cleaning the AR type weapons strip to 8 parts, 10 if you strip the extractor, which you can't do on an L85. An L85 is 10 part without being able to strip the extractor.
The reason the MOD adopted the L85 was politics. The cost of replacing is prohibitive in a time when all the decision makers look at is the cost during their two year posting and not the through life cost.
I'm aware that the AR-15 design uses direct gas impingement on the forward face of the bolt carrier assembly, rather than using a seperate gas piston.
IME this causes more problems with carbon fouling around the face of the bolt and chamber area owing to venting gas and carbon directly into the receiver. I find it telling that Arthur Miller's development of Eugene Stoner's last design (the AR-16) and which became the AR-18, had a gas piston.
The AR-15 also has that crappy charging lever.
Having fired the L85 and L98 as well as the AR-15 and AR-18, personally I prefer the bullpup design as being better balanced with the weight to the rear, and more 'pointy'. It is too heavy though.
I'd agree that the SA80 family of weapons were political (and rather messed up by the rechambering to 5.56 from 4.85, let alone the decision to fit the cocking lever on the 'wrong' side and the binning of the left handed weapon option). At the last RASAAM in 1993 the Omanis (IIRC) were using the Steyr-Aug fitted with an aftermarket optic sight (I can't remember whether it was SUSAT of the American C17. Possibly we should have gone down that route.
I'm told by the Range Warden at Honington (himself ex-Army) that when the Americans come over from Mildenhall and Lakenheath with their M4s, the Regt boys historically want to swap their L85s for the M4 until they fire the thing, The Americans, on the other hand, go home wanting to swap their M4s for the L85! Go figure. Make of that what you will.
I guess it's the case that troops always covet what others have got.
IME this causes more problems with carbon fouling around the face of the bolt and chamber area owing to venting gas and carbon directly into the receiver. I find it telling that Arthur Miller's development of Eugene Stoner's last design (the AR-16) and which became the AR-18, had a gas piston.
The AR-15 also has that crappy charging lever.
Having fired the L85 and L98 as well as the AR-15 and AR-18, personally I prefer the bullpup design as being better balanced with the weight to the rear, and more 'pointy'. It is too heavy though.
I'd agree that the SA80 family of weapons were political (and rather messed up by the rechambering to 5.56 from 4.85, let alone the decision to fit the cocking lever on the 'wrong' side and the binning of the left handed weapon option). At the last RASAAM in 1993 the Omanis (IIRC) were using the Steyr-Aug fitted with an aftermarket optic sight (I can't remember whether it was SUSAT of the American C17. Possibly we should have gone down that route.
I'm told by the Range Warden at Honington (himself ex-Army) that when the Americans come over from Mildenhall and Lakenheath with their M4s, the Regt boys historically want to swap their L85s for the M4 until they fire the thing, The Americans, on the other hand, go home wanting to swap their M4s for the L85! Go figure. Make of that what you will.
I guess it's the case that troops always covet what others have got.
From the outside, the Army does seem to be getting the shortest investment straw at the moment. Excerpt from today's BBC News website:
"Army numbers fall
The reports come as Ministry of Defence figures, published on Thursday, show the size of the Army is at its smallest for more than 200 years.
The UK's regular army has just over 77,000 troops - well short of its target strength of 82,000."
"Army numbers fall
The reports come as Ministry of Defence figures, published on Thursday, show the size of the Army is at its smallest for more than 200 years.
The UK's regular army has just over 77,000 troops - well short of its target strength of 82,000."
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
I'm aware that the AR-15 design uses direct gas impingement on the forward face of the bolt carrier assembly, rather than using a seperate gas piston.
IME this causes more problems with carbon fouling around the face of the bolt and chamber area owing to venting gas and carbon directly into the receiver. I find it telling that Arthur Miller's development of Eugene Stoner's last design (the AR-16) and which became the AR-18, had a gas piston.
The AR-15 also has that crappy charging lever.
Having fired the L85 and L98 as well as the AR-15 and AR-18, personally I prefer the bullpup design as being better balanced with the weight to the rear, and more 'pointy'. It is too heavy though.
I'd agree that the SA80 family of weapons were political (and rather messed up by the rechambering to 5.56 from 4.85, let alone the decision to fit the cocking lever on the 'wrong' side and the binning of the left handed weapon option). At the last RASAAM in 1993 the Omanis (IIRC) were using the Steyr-Aug fitted with an aftermarket optic sight (I can't remember whether it was SUSAT of the American C17. Possibly we should have gone down that route.
I'm told by the Range Warden at Honington (himself ex-Army) that when the Americans come over from Mildenhall and Lakenheath with their M4s, the Regt boys historically want to swap their L85s for the M4 until they fire the thing, The Americans, on the other hand, go home wanting to swap their M4s for the L85! Go figure. Make of that what you will.
I guess it's the case that troops always covet what others have got.
The carbon fouling of the face of the bolt is no worse than the L85. Carbon does foul the gas chambers at the rear of the bolt, but it is easy to clean. The AR18 modifications to add a separate gas piston have not been adopted by the military as far as I'm aware.IME this causes more problems with carbon fouling around the face of the bolt and chamber area owing to venting gas and carbon directly into the receiver. I find it telling that Arthur Miller's development of Eugene Stoner's last design (the AR-16) and which became the AR-18, had a gas piston.
The AR-15 also has that crappy charging lever.
Having fired the L85 and L98 as well as the AR-15 and AR-18, personally I prefer the bullpup design as being better balanced with the weight to the rear, and more 'pointy'. It is too heavy though.
I'd agree that the SA80 family of weapons were political (and rather messed up by the rechambering to 5.56 from 4.85, let alone the decision to fit the cocking lever on the 'wrong' side and the binning of the left handed weapon option). At the last RASAAM in 1993 the Omanis (IIRC) were using the Steyr-Aug fitted with an aftermarket optic sight (I can't remember whether it was SUSAT of the American C17. Possibly we should have gone down that route.
I'm told by the Range Warden at Honington (himself ex-Army) that when the Americans come over from Mildenhall and Lakenheath with their M4s, the Regt boys historically want to swap their L85s for the M4 until they fire the thing, The Americans, on the other hand, go home wanting to swap their M4s for the L85! Go figure. Make of that what you will.
I guess it's the case that troops always covet what others have got.
The L85 is a good weapon for firing on a static range, such use plays to it's strengths. Unfortunately, that is not where operations are conducted.
citizensm1th said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
The L85 has a 20 1/2" barrel and is 1" shorter than the M4 which has a mere 16" barrel.
The upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
not as alley thoughThe upshot is that the M4 never produces the muzzle velocity that the L85 produces so the down range performance (accuracy and penetration) is poor in comparison.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff