RAF & Navy hardware looking quite modern nowadays

[Martin4356111]

LotusOmega375D said:

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

On the contrary, I'd say we're still in quite a dark place as far as the RAF is concerned.

The A400 is still falling well short of its promised capabilities with a terrible serviceability rate. In fact I'm pretty sure that Airbus are now making a loss on this project and are now being charged millions in fines/charges for not delivering.

Sentinel is hanging on in there by a thread, despite the very excellent capability it provides. The fleet has been cut from five to four and extended to 2021 and if this is not extended or a buyer can't be found as is, they will be scrapped as they will not be able to be converted back for civilian use do to the extensive magnifications.

The RAF C17 fleet has been flown to within an inch of its life. I believe the RAF are now world leaders in C17 single aircraft hours and again these are suffering from major serviceability issues.

The good news is the extension of the out of service date for Shadow (2030), the excellent work that the Voyager fleet are doing and the welcome addition of the P8 in the coming years.

[captain_cynic]

citizensm1th said:

I think we are more likely to see upgrades than replacement

Is anything more needed?

Until a radical new technology comes along, it doesn't make sense to create entirely new designs when the existing ones can continue to be modified and remain fit for purpose. Creating a new design takes years of work to get right and the UK's equipment isn't bad at all.

The UK army wen't through a radical modernisation in the 1980's with new vehicles and weapons. These are still amongst the worlds most modern. A lot of noise is being made about this new Russian tank, but Russia is still playing catch up to where the UK was in 1990.

[LotusOmega375D]

Martin4356111 said:

On the contrary, I'd say we're still in quite a dark place as far as the RAF is concerned.

The A400 is still falling well short of its promised capabilities with a terrible serviceability rate.

That seems to contradict what was posted by "Fluid" on the A400M thread yesterday:

"I have a friend who is a Flight Sergeant techie on the Atlas Force and he can't praise the A400M enough."

[aeropilot]

Martin4356111 said:

The RAF C17 fleet has been flown to within an inch of its life. I believe the RAF are now world leaders in C17 single aircraft hours and again these are suffering from major serviceability issues.

And with the production line closed down 3 years ago, there is nothing to replace them when they have to be retired earlier than all the other operators fleets as is likely to happen. Another capability gap no doubt looms in the future
There was one left unsold sitting at Boeing's San Antonio facility for a few years after the Long Beach line closed, but I think the Indian AF have finally done a deal to buy that one recently, and so that's it.

[maffski]

Orders signed for new Ajax scout/recon vehicles
Development and evaluation for Warrior IFV upgrade (effectively putting the Ajax turret on it)
Just rejoined the Boxer 8x8 program with a view to procurement
Challenger II upgrade offers from BAE and Rheinmetall being assessed, although it looks to be limited to electronics and optics rather than the possibility of a smoothbore gun or engine upgrade

[Tim-D]

Anecdotally RAF tornados still being the most useful antiques....but absolutely knackered....neighbour services hydraulics.... Used way more than German or Italian ones....best ones left belonging to the Saudis as allegedly hardly flown by comparison...

Huge capability gaps remain despite shiny new toys... Much due to limited quantity... Ask the navy what they'd actually prefer ... A pair of carriers or..........???

[telecat]

In Use the AR15 and SA80 designs have proven very durable. Do not forget in Vietnam the M16 was not a success.Issues with Jams and misfires meant it did not become popular until a new cleaning regime was implemented. Even then those that used to have them would have preferred the M1.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

citizensm1th said:

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/s

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.

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

Don't get this.

Peep's need to understand the wounding criteria of the US and NATO spec 5.56 rounds ie velocity + rotational rate of bullet thus the round lacks gyroscopic precession to yaw and explosively fragment around the cannelure..







So Ginetta Girl is correct.

Put up or Shut up.

PS Ref= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

[citizensm1th]

I have no idea what you think those pictures prove seeing as both the rounds they purport to show the effects of were fired from a m16. not a weapon we were discussing.

[Kccv23highliftcam]

citizensm1th said:

I have no idea what you think those pictures prove seeing as both the rounds they purport to show the effects of were fired from a m16. not a weapon we were discussing.

CORRECT!

However, look up the barrel lengths of the current UK weapon and the M4 and M16.

It's no surprise that GG gets pissed off with REMFs when some people just CANNOT help but be a fking smartass.

Who's that?

As Paul Harell says "YOU decide"




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgGlolY-8s

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 22 May 22:28

[AndrewEH1]

This thread...I can't believe people are falling over each other to try and defend the SA80

Perhaps not the best design in the world, but it's proven itself and for better or worse the UK armed forces are stuck with it and it's many service modifications!

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Yawn!

SA80 refers to Small Arms 1980 a family of weapons.

Usually slagged off by people who have never used it properly, or idiots who have never learned how to use it correctly.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Tuesday 22 May 23:02

[Kccv23highliftcam]

AndrewEH1 said:

This thread...I can't believe people are falling over each other to try and defend the SA80

Perhaps not the best design in the world, but it's proven itself and for better or worse the UK armed forces are stuck with it and it's many service modifications!

Compared to the 7.62 SLR the SA80 wins hands down on pointability.

The flat trag meant plinking argie helmets [post conflict] at 400 was a piece of cake.

And that is where it's at, so to speak.

[nikaiyo2]

I was lead to believe that the ITDU wanted South African R5s over the LA or M16 family of weapons.

[citizensm1th]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

citizensm1th said:

I have no idea what you think those pictures prove seeing as both the rounds they purport to show the effects of were fired from a m16. not a weapon we were discussing.

CORRECT!

However, look up the barrel lengths of the current UK weapon and the M4 and M16.

It's no surprise that GG gets pissed off with REMFs when some people just CANNOT help but be a fking smartass.

Who's that?

As Paul Harell says "YOU decide"

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 22 May 22:20

Remf's hahaha your funny, it was interesting to see they had to bring back the 7.62 round in the guise of the sharpshooter due to the ranges involved in various sandy places.

I guess 5.56 would be an acceptable round in a high intensity european war involving lots of fighting in densely built up areas at close ranges given you can carry nearly 3 times the amount of ammunition for the same weight of 7.62.

The current british rifle is not a battlefield rifle it is a heavy (weight wise) assault rifle but weighs close to the same weight as it predecessor that weapon of the gods the SLR, far heavier than the m4.

With assault rifles you need to balance weight against effectiveness a heavy assault rifle is slower to bring into action than a lighter one and is more tiring to lug around during combat.

As a crab GG has little or no experience of combat with small arms urban or battlefield yet is willing to jump in with pearls of wisdom learnt on the range shooting at fig 11's.

Yet according to some that extra 6 inches of length is important (insert gratuitous sexual comment here)

The problems both the US and UK forces have had with the 5.56 round is nothing to do with the missing six inches but more to do with the wrong weapon being used in theatre hence the need to reintroduce a weapon capable of firing 7.62 to the sections.

personally for an assault weapon the sa8o/l85 is hampered by crap ergonomics (stupid cocking handle) far to heavy for an assault rifle, really bad rearward bias on the weapons balance.

The M4 has much better balance and is so much lighter and quicker to get to shoulder and generally less tiring and it is quicker to mag change on the M4 in my experience.

But what the hell white knighting is soooo much more important than you know experience and facts

[Kccv23highliftcam]

citizensm1th said:

Kccv23highliftcam said:

citizensm1th said:

I have no idea what you think those pictures prove seeing as both the rounds they purport to show the effects of were fired from a m16. not a weapon we were discussing.

CORRECT!

However, look up the barrel lengths of the current UK weapon and the M4 and M16.

It's no surprise that GG gets pissed off with REMFs when some people just CANNOT help but be a fking smartass.

Who's that?

As Paul Harell says "YOU decide"

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 22 May 22:20

Remf's hahaha your funny, it was interesting to see they had to bring back the 7.62 round in the guise of the sharpshooter due to the ranges involved in various sandy places.

I guess 5.56 would be an acceptable round in a high intensity european war involving lots of fighting in densely built up areas at close ranges given you can carry nearly 3 times the amount of ammunition for the same weight of 7.62.

The current british rifle is not a battlefield rifle it is a heavy (weight wise) assault rifle but weighs close to the same weight as it predecessor that weapon of the gods the SLR, far heavier than the m4.

With assault rifles you need to balance weight against effectiveness a heavy assault rifle is slower to bring into action than a lighter one and is more tiring to lug around during combat.

As a crab GG has little or no experience of combat with small arms urban or battlefield yet is willing to jump in with pearls of wisdom learnt on the range shooting at fig 11's.

Yet according to some that extra 6 inches of length is important (insert gratuitous sexual comment here)

The problems both the US and UK forces have had with the 5.56 round is nothing to do with the missing six inches but more to do with the wrong weapon being used in theatre hence the need to reintroduce a weapon capable of firing 7.62 to the sections.

personally for an assault weapon the sa8o/l85 is hampered by crap ergonomics (stupid cocking handle) far to heavy for an assault rifle, really bad rearward bias on the weapons balance.

The M4 has much better balance and is so much lighter and quicker to get to shoulder and generally less tiring and it is quicker to mag change on the M4 in my experience.

But what the hell white knighting is soooo much more important than you know experience and facts

"The problems both the US and UK forces have had with the 5.56 round is nothing to do with the missing six inches"

Do yourself a favour and book a session with someone who cares about "your" er, experiences...

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

As a crab GG has little or no experience of combat with small arms urban or battlefield yet is willing to jump in with pearls of wisdom learnt on the range shooting at fig 11's.

REALY?

The reality that I carried an L85 during my tour in Bosnia shows you to be the tt that you are.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Wednesday 23 May 01:34

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Go on. tell me how an M4 is faster than an L85?

[IanH755]

citizensm1th said:

As a crab GG has little or no experience of combat with small arms urban or battlefield yet is willing to jump in with pearls of wisdom learnt on the range shooting at fig 11's.

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

The reality that I carried an L85 during my tour in Bosnia shows you to be the tt that you are.

Not the same thing GG!

His quote was specifically about "no experience of combat with small arms urban or battlefield" so your quote of "I carried an L85 during my tour in Bosnia" doesn't prove him wrong at all, unless your tour somehow involved "Urban or Battlefield" use which, as aircrew (even in a ground role), seems more unlikely than likely.

I also carried a L85 during various tours but "carrying a L85 on tour" t doesn't mean I saw combat on the "battlefield or urban" which is what he's posting about so I don't feel able to say "you're wrong" to his post because of that as I have no experience of combat with the L85.

[stevesingo]

Kccv23highliftcam said:

CORRECT!

However, look up the barrel lengths of the current UK weapon and the M4 and M16.

It's no surprise that GG gets pissed off with REMFs when some people just CANNOT help but be a fking smartass.

Who's that?

As Paul Harell says "YOU decide"




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjgGlolY-8s

Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 22 May 22:28

REMF?

Interested to hear what evidence you have to call someone a REMF, and why you feel it is appropriate to use a derogatory term for those Service Persons not in a combat role?

Edited by stevesingo on Wednesday 23 May 10:05