The UK DragonFire laser programme – led by MBDA, with partners Leonardo UK and QinetiQ – is accelerating following a decision from the Ministry of Defence to install the weapon system on Royal Navy ships.

The decision, announced by Defence Secretary Grant Shapps, will see the DragonFire laser weapon system rapidly develop from a demonstration programme to an operational capability for the Royal Navy.

The next stages of this development will include further live firings and the manufacture and installation of weapon systems onto Royal Navy platforms.

“The UK DragonFire programme is a flagship example of the Government’s new Integrated Procurement Model, designed to reform defence procurement and drive increased pace in the delivery of military capability.

The UK DragonFire programme brings together the best of UK industry. It leverages MBDA’s decades of weapon system manufacturing expertise, Leonardo’s position as a world leading authority in laser technology, electro-optics and advanced targeting and QinetiQ’s experience as the only UK company to successfully develop and safely operate high-energy laser sources in the UK and coherent beam-combining technology.”

The latest announcement follows a series of highly successful firing trials that demonstrated the capability of the DragonFire laser weapon system.

DragonFire has been developed through a £100 million joint investment by industry and the UK Ministry of Defence, working with Dstl.

Chris Allam, MBDA UK Managing Director, said:

“MBDA are proud to lead this laser weapon programme that will give the UK Armed Forces game-changing operational advantage to protect and defend themselves, and the UK’s strategic assets.”

Mark Stead, Leonardo UK SVP Radar and Advanced Targeting, said:

“Leonardo welcomes the commitment to UK science and engineering represented by today’s announcement. The development of DragonFire is securing vital skills and security capabilities onshore in the UK, keeping them available to support our Armed Forces and generate world-class, readily exportable products.”

Steve Wadey, Group CEO, QinetiQ, said:

“Today’s announcement is a positive endorsement of UK industry and government working together, to deliver equipment to the front line.

“Our team of scientists and engineers who have developed this world leading capability have played a unique role in developing a technology that will provide real operational advantage.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

85 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810760)
1 month ago

Meanwhile, I’m reading some of the RNs urgently needed T26 may be diverted to Norway.

Ian M
Ian M (@guest_810762)
1 month ago

Make ‘em wait till the new shed can build two at a time

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811393)
1 month ago
Reply to  Ian M

We’ll take a decade to get the frigate factories up to full speed.

Sheffield Steve
Sheffield Steve (@guest_810763)
1 month ago

Can I say No! And Yes! At the same time? No – the Royal Navy needs the ships now but yes – great to get in some exports. Where have you read this?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810770)
1 month ago

Thin Pinstriped line on Twitter. Sir Humphreys blog. BAES in talks. I like the export idea but not with the current state of the RN! HMT will no doubt jump at it.

Sheffield Steve
Sheffield Steve (@guest_810773)
1 month ago

I’ve just read on MSN and The Telegraph online too. It does exactly help explain the recent investment in the yard. If they can pick up build schedule, maybe even contacting out block work, it’s surely worth a 12-18 month delay on ship 3 to get a massive export win?

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810793)
1 month ago

Spookily they announced last week that some steel fabrication for T26 is being subbed out the CL and A&P on Merseyside.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810808)
1 month ago

Oh and I 100% agree with you it’s a 1 ship delay, so short term pain for a long term gain.
By the way I’m Derby based but damn we were so glad when BW (a Tory) took SFM into public ownership and invested in the Steel City.
Too many people just look at the immediate and forget that keeping our Industrial capacity going is a Strategic Necessity.

Oh and sorry but can’t resist COYR we’re going up ⚽️

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_810774)
1 month ago

That’s a worry, to be honest, nice that BAE could get orders….but we are so bare bones on the escort fleet it’s not great timing.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810780)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’m with you on this. Although exports are great, and Norway, a close ally, whose use of them directly helps secure the GIUK gap, the thought of waiting even longer horrifies me.

Andy P
Andy P (@guest_810804)
1 month ago

A delay might mean we can find some matelots to crew it.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810824)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy P

With HNMS on their cap bands !

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_810807)
1 month ago

I suppose thinking about it more it depends how long it would take BAE to shuffle through them with the new shed…in theory they could manage 2 in the new shed and one in old shed and one outside the old shed…so they could likely manage both a UK and Norwegian order….the issue would be workforce……but the Uk could steel those from others… the delivery would need to be 2029… so looking at the launch schedule as a finger in the wind with the RN hulls we have and the potential slots we have ( old shed, outside, new shed… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_810853)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

There is also the distinct possibility of a workshare agreement/alliance w/ CL, A&P, H&W, etc. If UK PLC accelerates the pace of program, perhaps it becomes cost competitive as a 2nd source to USN? 🤔
Believe current US law requires domestic production, but USN is clamoring for any/every reputable company to open additional shipyards and BAES already has a thriving naval business w/ Uncle Sugar. (Actually surprised BAES has not floated the concept of a teaming arrangement to boost USN SSN production.)

Bleak Mouse
Bleak Mouse (@guest_810858)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Six, the Norwegian Navy want Six ASW frigates

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811397)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

2029 we’ll still be waiting for our own.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810821)
1 month ago

M8 Sometimes I have to resist the temptation to scream, this is one of those moments. We, us, our are all singular expressions, I believe you are ex Army and of a generation when we had BAOR. So you served alongside other NATO members who all had different equipment to you but still had the same objective. What you relied on was your neighbour, fighting alongside you and doing as good a job as you. We are part of NATO the GIUK gap is part of NATO tasking and right now it doesn’t matter a damn if we deliver 8… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810825)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Mate, lol, I’m not ex army or ex anything.
I’m 52, so I know about the Cold War and BAOR.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810994)
1 month ago

My mistake M8, but your knowledge of Army indicates that was their loss 😉

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811050)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Bless you mate, thank you.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_810844)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

It is a risk for the RN. But for the bigger picture. It could be a risk worth taking for such a close ally.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810822)
1 month ago

Bae did interestingly say that if they didn’t get more orders or exports there could be a gap to the T-45 replacement to fill, perhaps by slowing down T-26 programme. So will be interesting to see how they fit this new work in to the schedules?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811398)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

And somehow squeeze a type 83 and the T31 Into the workload. We’re not going OUR ships never mind anyone else😡😡

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811396)
1 month ago

We need those ships now not whenever what more important the protection of the nation and the people, or the bank balance?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_810782)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Wish USN could place an order for T-26, not feeling very comfortable w/ the choice of Constellation Class from Fincanteri at the moment (3 yr. delivery delay recently announced and program has barely begun). 🤔😳😱☹️

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810827)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Yep What you should have done is not specify “must be an existing, tried and tested design”. But when you have 3 or 4 very different allies (including 60% of 5 eyes) all making the same decision (and choosing a very expensive one), they may actually have a point. I think the Constellation class will be a good, well crafted GP Frigate, no more or less. And if you were to announce a 2nd supply stream and go for 50 it would be a great buy. But just 20 when Canada will have 15 which can run circles around them,… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_810848)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yup, the Peter Principle is obviously alive and well w/in Uncle Sugar’s acquisition bureaucracy. “We have met the enemy, and they is us,” in the words of the immortal Pogo of the Okifanoki swamp. 🙄
Actually, a second source may be an inspired concept! Hell, if we can have two vendors for the Little Crappy Ships, why not for real surface escorts? 🤔😳

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_811191)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The LCS1 is disaster and hence it’s going OOS pronto, but the LCS2 has some uses due to the sheer internal volume and speed of them.
The bit that would make me bloody nervous is they are being built at the same yard that produced the LCS1 🥴
IMHO the US should open a yard on the West Coast and get the Japanese to manage it. That would deliver ships quickly and shake the “US Military / Industrial” complex to the core, which is probably way overdue.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810832)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Really, 3 years and it’s supposed to have been the safe option too thus making relative limitations in the original design worth the compromise so as to get it into the water quickly. I guess the considerable redesign for US use has had a debilitating effect. The US isn’t having much luck with new designs of ships what with the Littoral debacle. Can see why endlessly upgrading older designs has been the norm but that does have its limits and that may become more stark with the quality of the Chinese output these days.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_810857)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Yes, quite concerned USN program managers may have caught a full case of British Army redesign fever. 😱😉

Dern
Dern (@guest_810872)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It also means you loose the design skills to make new designs…

Gunbuster
Gunbuster (@guest_810906)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

An its likely to cost more than a T26!

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_810969)
1 month ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

The issue with the Constellation class is that the US has basically bastardised the FREMM design and came up with something more resembling the Navantia offering that they could have chosen – no doubt they would do the same with the Type 26 if they wanted to migrate to another Ship.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810795)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It will effect nothing this decade and just 1 frigate out of 8 being delayed.
The only thing that would change the present crisis is if we could send Arnie back in time to 2010 and tell Cameloon to order the T26 right then.
We have what we have, and look on the bright side if you think the RN is a mess try the Russians.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_810813)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Hi Rodney, the issue is Norway want the first frigate delivered by 2029…so if the RN gave up a hull it would be Cardiff or Belfast…so hull 2 or 3…it may be worth it if the RN get some considerable benefit budget wise in aiding BAE in getting five orders.

There are things that can be done as it’s not impossible to get 3 T26 hulls for 2028 and that is profoundly important in regards to china as it’s matching chinas potential high point for invading Taiwan ( 2027-2028).. so it would be a real balance of benefit vs risk.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811400)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jonathan

They want it by 2029? We’ll still be waiting for the Glasgow fss!!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810836)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes and rather like the US extending subs to Australia in reality they will be doing fundamentally the same job in the same place whoever is actually operating them so might help with crewing if one wants to be positive.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811401)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Should have offered the Aussies the retiring Trafalgar class boats. My lad. Was on Torbay when it retired and the consensus of the captain, crew, and the yard ,was, that they all had years of service left in them.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810789)
1 month ago

M8 Just hold fire for a minute, the devil is in the detail and it may actually be a great big cream cake with a Cherry on Top. Norway has 4 Nansen class light frigates that are a decade newer than our T23. They will be refitted so probably good for another decade. Secondly the Telegraph reports that BAe is asking if they can delay 1 T26 delivery to accommodate a possible Norwegian order. So you get 7 out of 8 on schedule. I’d snap their hand off in a second because BAe will have the funding to accelerate the… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810798)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

My fire is held, mate.
Thanks for putting reality into context.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810830)
1 month ago

If it happens it’s bloody brilliant. To put it into context I can understand why the US is being Arsey about RAN wanting to buy / lease some Virginias. Same boats, same mission and someone else footing the bill.

Nick C
Nick C (@guest_810801)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Don’t forget that Cammell Laird have been subcontracting to BAE at Barrow for a number of years, I’m not sure if they make actual hull sections but they are certainly making internal units, which by definition have to be to a very high standard.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_810829)
1 month ago
Reply to  Nick C

Last blocks they built were either the T45 or Parts for the QE’s.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810841)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

… and that certainly explains why Bae suggested that T-26 might need to be slowed if no new work is ordered to start within 9 years, so pretty much hinting that there will be a delay to T-26 probably not dissimilar to any inherent delay in producing this order… u less the MoD fancy coughing up the cash and giving them additional orders. Canny play though probably pushing against an already open door in reality where the Govt is concerned.

Expat
Expat (@guest_810794)
1 month ago

Well as its 2029 for the first Norwgian T26, so RN could stop gap with one more T31, but RN must demand all 8 T26 hulls plus 1 more stop gap T31 for their troubles.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810818)
1 month ago

Difficult one this, the prime operating sector for these ships preventing Russian subs from breaking into the North Atlantic and Icelandic gap is the edge of the Barent sea down the coast of Norway into the North Sea so it will certainly be great news to think the best ship class to do that will be operated by the Norwegians. Wouldn’t the Norwegians be able to build their own version of this with perhaps the first being built here to get them one asap.

Heidfirst
Heidfirst (@guest_810885)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

they certainly ought to be able to do some of the block work which could help speed up production on the Clyde. But even 1 on the Clyde & the rest built in Norway woud still mean exports for Rolls Royce & other UK suppliers (esp. if they don’t go like RAN with a different radar & Combat System).

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811407)
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

As long as they’re happy with a 15 year wait.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_810820)
1 month ago

I think we need to as it secured BAE’s build and gets T26 exporting.

If #3 is sold for its £1.2Bn price tag and replaced with a £800 T26 from Batch 2.2!!!

There are big long term savings here in training and spares stocks.

As well as having a fully integrated ally.

terence patrick hewett
terence patrick hewett (@guest_810826)
1 month ago

Daily Telegraph and Shephard Media.

Ron
Ron (@guest_810843)
1 month ago

Shepardmedia and the Telegraph, they are saying that if BAE get the contract for the new Norwegian frigates BAE might need to delay the delivery of hull three and four which I think is Belfast and Birmingham to meet the Norwegian time line. In some ways I would say yes as it would or could mean an extra 5-6 T26 type frigates being built and possibly built in the UK. The Norwegians are looking at the possibility of six ASW frigates at the same time the US Navy is reporting at the moment a three year delay in the delivery… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_810898)
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Wonder if it could also mean CAMM-ER/ MR which after Sweden would be great news also?
Great commentaries everyone, hope this all comes to fruition and maybe an extra bonus ship for the RN.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810781)
1 month ago

Behave, Sir!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_810866)
1 month ago

🤗

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_810842)
1 month ago

Good news getting more orders ,but don’t want to see the RN left with 🚣 🙄 🇬🇧

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_810849)
1 month ago

Evening mate, I heard it might be hulls 3 and 4. I would potentially be ok with that, especially if the Norwegian order allows them to go full bore on construction. They are apparently expecting to be able to get a hull done in 12 months by the end of the run, if I read the latest Save the Royal Navy piece.

Jon
Jon (@guest_810902)
1 month ago
Reply to  Joe16

Don’t mind hulls three and six, three and five at a pinch with a really good compensating upside, but three and four is pushing it. That will mean a big old ASW gap in the RN in the early 2030s as we can’t stretch the T23s further. An extra Type 31 alone is no compensation as it can’t do ASW. We need to buy/develop ultraquiet USVs that can deploy towed thin-line arrays, or at least lightweight ones and learn to use several multi-static at a distance from a Type 31 or another mothership of some kind. We can order small… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Paul T
Paul T (@guest_810976)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

A small crumb of comfort is that all 7 Astute Subs will be operational in the relevant timeframe.

Joe16
Joe16 (@guest_810978)
1 month ago
Reply to  Jon

Fair point, I’ll revise my position to the 3 and 5 option. I think the compensation is that our yards will get another 2 to backfill those, and potentially 1 or 2 more to fulfil Norway’s order if they don’t want to build their own. That’s a significant amount of extra CAPEX on a hull that’s somewhere a little north of £1B, not to mention retaining skilled workforce for another 2-4 years to cover the (almost certain) delay in awarding T83 work, plus the reduction in overall programme cost for T26. If Norway are buying some, then it may even… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_810880)
1 month ago

I think we’ve already got such a massively delayed T26 build program we shouldn’t divert & delay any further until all 8 RN T26 are built. If we had spare shipbuilding capacity it wouldn’t be a problem but we’re fully occupied. The fleet is way too small.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_810973)
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

A possible Norwegian order would be too good/lucrative to turn down regardless of the woes of the RN Fleet.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811621)
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

It shouldn’t be about Norway it should be All about the RN

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811408)
1 month ago
Reply to  Frank62

Navy needs those ships now not whenever.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_811452)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

Absolutely Andy.

Sjb1968
Sjb1968 (@guest_810909)
1 month ago

I think we all have the same feelings but in the longer term it would be great news for the RN as it gets us a volume production run, which will bring costs down and for the metal bashing trades bridge the gap to following classes of vessels. Could we even up our own order and take advantage of a cheaper unit cost whilst perhaps ordering another 3-5 Type 31s (batch 2s) possibly lengthened with enhanced AAW capability. We could consign the Type 32 to the bin and focus design efforts on MRSS and the Type 83. Fantasy stuff? I… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810939)
1 month ago
Reply to  Sjb1968

I don’t share your optimism I’m afraid. Increasing numbers costs money I very much doubt a Labour government will provide.
There are a few things they are interested in and defence isn’t one of them. And if Starmer is somehow removed like Johnson and Truss were and the left take over, well it’s goodnight.

Sjb1968
Sjb1968 (@guest_810968)
1 month ago

From a political perspective you are of course correct but because they tend to offer more support to industry they quite often invest more than the Tories who seem know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_810982)
1 month ago
Reply to  Sjb1968

I agree on the industry, manufacturing side. Though that has it’s own issues.
How many billions are going on AUKUS, GCAP and what is the UK military actually getting for that, conventional numbers wise? I’d guess another inadequate number of SSNR, 7 or 8 at most, and less than 100 Tempest.
Meanwhile numbers still fall off a cliff.

Sjb1968
Sjb1968 (@guest_810992)
1 month ago

I think on both we have the opportunity with collaboration to keep unit costs down by having a larger production run, which might help us afford more. However, particularly with SSNR the physical increase in the size of each boat could offset any savings we may make.
Obviously both projects are cutting edge but we do need to guard against making them too complex, specification creep and trying to put too much new technology in one platform.
A very difficult ask, which requires strong project management skills.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_811014)
1 month ago

Been doing some maths and looking at the Statement made by BAe’s MD last week about build rate. Sub out some Steel Fabrication to CL and A&P helps avoid bottle necks. But the next bit is even better… Cut the total build per ship from 96 months down to 60 months and compress the Lay down / Delivery schedule from 18 months between start dates to 12 months. And don’t forget they are assembling 2 side by side. So overall that’s one hell of a speed up, which means not to big a delay overall at the back end of… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811029)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Thank you for the deeper analysis mate.
I’d always go for more SSN than surface escorts any day.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_811197)
1 month ago

FYI SSNR is now no longer used its SSN(A). And the design is rumoured to be just about mature enough to start thinking about how it’s all going to come together. Then the fun starts because they long lead items will need to be ordered years before the build starts.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_811200)
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Thanks mate.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_811252)
1 month ago

You asked “and what is the UK military actually getting for that, conventional numbers wise”. In the case of AUKUS it’s all about the numbers and costs, the numbers required force efficiencies to be paramount. And those drive down the costs, which me and you can afford to buy more. You only need to look at the T26 to see the difference between an old fashioned, under capitalised and inefficient build (B1) and the newer and more efficient process (B2). £1.31 billion per hull for B1 compared to £840 million for B2. Total cost £8.1 billion but if the build… Read more »

Andy reeves
Andy reeves (@guest_811392)
1 month ago

Where?

Brom
Brom (@guest_810764)
1 month ago

Royal navy leads the world which is nice. Let’s hope it’s a compliment to, not a replacement for, ciws etc

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_810845)
1 month ago

I find that rather difficult to believe, they have enough trouble producing their own high tech weapons, Armata, Su57 little more than mythical beasts, no ability to produce new AWACS, missing tech from tanks, civil airliners dropping out of the sky, heating systems/pumps unfixed all due to incompetence or pressure on receiving/replacing Western parts or expertise so I find it difficult to believe they can just back engineer complex Western tech and produce in numbers even if their own propaganda or the Daily Mail will give that impression. We must be conscious of something they are excellent at ie creating… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Spyinthesky
Steve
Steve (@guest_810917)
1 month ago

The complete under investment and constant delaying of decisions and orders for the navy is on the verge of being found out. If isreal strikes back hard at Iran, I can see Iran coming against the RN for the UK involvement of shooting down its drones. They won’t want to go directly after the US and so the UK will be a proxy. Let’s hope all RN ships in the region are fully armed and ready to fight.

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve
Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_810922)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

Also the UK government need to start getting a bloody move on when it comes down to Defence 👍

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_810927)
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Fully agreed.

Both Labour and the Tories should both agree that, whomever wins the next election, defence will increase to a minimum of 2.5% immediately after the general election.

Personally, I’d say 3%, but even 2.5 is an improvement of around £10-15 billion a year extra.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider (@guest_811093)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

The slowly widening scope of conflict today reminds me of how the WW2 started as a series of regional wars that gradually got rolled into one huge conflagration. We currently have a group of countries China, Russia, Iran and North Korea (being the main ones) who are seeking to remake the world, by force if necessary, to suite their own ends. I think of the grouping as being not entirely dissimilar to the group of nations that became know as the Axis Powers. Neither the current group or the Axis can be called an alliance in the same way that… Read more »

Steve
Steve (@guest_811115)
1 month ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I dont think there has been a single point in human history where one country or tribe tried to change others through force, including the British empire and over the last 60 years the US empire and now rising China and Iran.

Steve
Steve (@guest_811118)
1 month ago
Reply to  Steve

The big challenge is the US has been seen to be weak and a bad ally in recent times, whether it’s abandoning the kurds to Turkey, afgan, constant Iran proxy wars, Ukraine and now isreal. Their weakness is empowering other nations to feel like they can act without consequences.

Steve R
Steve R (@guest_810926)
1 month ago

To be honest, Dragonfire would have little chance of being captured in places like Kyiv, Lviv, Odessa etc.

Keep it away from the front lines but put into civilian and industrial infrastructure in the western parts of the region; this could shoot down drones and incoming missiles without having to worry about ammunition supplies.

This would then enable more missile-based GBAD such as Patriot to be used more towards the frontlines, to keep Russian aircraft at bay.

It’s not a perfect solution but would help the Ukrainians make the most of their current air defence munitions shortage.

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_810955)
1 month ago

Watched the article on Forces .Net and it showed a simulation of a Frigate with a Dragonfire down the Stbd Waist would this imply that at least 2 Dragonfire would be fitted 1 portside 1 stbd side too each Frigate ?