Stealth technologies questioned

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Kromeriz, Jul 27, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Military technology: Trucks, not limos | The Economist

    This could be controversial.

    However, there are some points such as the longevity of older more spacious platforms that are easier to be reconfigured. In the cash strapped future Brit Mil, surely food for thought, especially perhaps when thinking of assymetric warfare, littoral combat etc, would be the question of whether we need to gold plate everything and whether quantity has a quality all of it's own.
  2. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    There is always, in a long term procurement (it's different for UOR's), a tendancy to go for slight gold plate, on the basis that this equipment needs to last 20, 30 or 40 years and needs to be adaptable for future, possible threats. The US have the luxury of being able to buy specific to task equipment that the UK MOD can't. Admiral Greenert may be right - the USN may be able to get away with a much less capable platform to carry their strike capability because they can put a load of other assets in the area to provide fighter cover and defence suppression. We can't. We need the best available platform, whatever it is, because it may need to operate and survive on its own resources.
  3. There was another article on about the fact that only US nationals are allowed to work on them... which puts a rather large financial spanner in the works for basing them in Singapore.

    In replies to the original article on the Economist one poster points out what happens when the Comms systems are taken down. Chinese sat killer anyone?

    Also today, Hammond spoke of wanting to equip Brit Mil with the very best... even if it meant getting rid of a Battalion or 21 to do so...

    Can a grown up explain things to me please coz I is getting confused.
  4. Bouillabaisse

    Bouillabaisse LE Book Reviewer

    We regularly fly people out to British ships for repairs and maintainance when our local office could do it cheaper and just as effectively with local engineers.
  5. I don't think the Admiral is saying anything new, just cautioning about putting all the eggs in one basket.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. As examples
    6 Anti Air warfare destroyers is getting pretty close to putting all our eggs in one basket?

    How many F35 X will be able to field in one go from how many carriers?

    How many Astutes?

    How many actual infantry and supporting arms?
  7. What happens when you are down to only one egg?
  8. Depends if it is put out of action. If it is, we is doomed.
  9. I saw some Bedford 4T driving in BFG yesterday, wondered if they were being brought back into service
  10. Quote "This could be controversial."

    Only if you are a defence contractor thats been milking the Dept of Defense or MoD for several decades.
  11. Hope you have plenty of soldiers...

    Oh wait!
  12. The LCS is just a cat's paw to draw Chinese warships into shallow water, where they have form for running aground.
    Think sneaky not stealthy.


    Who writes these releases anyway?
  13. You gonna feel sorry for the tossers though?

    For me the controversy will come down to
    Deploying people on ops and knowing that they may get topped - it happens, but is controversial;
    Deploying a significant amount of people on ops and knowing they will be topped BUT being able to dominate the ground...
    ... because we have chosen life over expensive equipment
    Not being able to deploy people on ops because systems have become so expensive we are no longer in the game...

    Which of the above three puts us more at risk?
  14. Who is "us"?