In Action: Army Technology Of The Future • FUTURE | Forces TV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- More: www.forces.net...
The Army has been displaying how it could carry out urban-warfare operations in a future conflict. Using a range of military kit, from tiny drones to gaming headsets, the British Army have been exploring what new technologies they could take to the battlefield. At the annual Combat Power Demonstration on Salisbury plain, 1st Battalion Royal Welsh, King's Royal Hussars, and 26 Engineer Regiment demonstrated how they might liberate an industrial town from an enemy.
Subscribe to Forces TV: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: www.instagram....
Twitter: / forcesnews
#BritishArmy #Future #Kit
I would loved to have seen that live.
David Houseman I did
@@vortexgaming1072 jealous.
David Houseman Looks cool ay.
😂🤣😂🤣 preview of LONDON in 2021!
Not quite sure about the Russian tanks though
boomer humor
Soldier American boomer
Soldier American Ok boomer
Ok boomer.
That T-55 though lol
That's just to distract them. Whilst an atgm goes into the side of the challengers turret ring.....
Blogs Blogs I’ve alway thought the turret was a weak spot.
That's a normal day in Basildon. Crystal palace has more smoke though.
Free World There’s too many Brits in this video for it to look like Crystal Palace mate.
I love seeing Gaming Headsets being implemented in the military
Glad to see the firepower demo back. I watched it in 94/95 as an army cadet. I joined the army myself soon after and have been in the defence industry for all of my civilian career since leaving.
What’s wrong with that guy doing the interview lol
Adam Allen Soldier didn’t stop talking.
Damaged circuitry
He's a bit of a spaz, isn't he
He snorted 3 lines of coke before the interview.
Good stuff.
Brilliant! FAITH in UK! 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
With this kit in the hands our lads liberation will be instantaneous.
@Wuotans Krieger Lol how can liberation be confused with War mongering? Just a boomer with idiotic comments.. War mongering is the act of provocation to another country about potentially starting a war, liberation is the freeing of a settlement/country from an opposing side. You cant liberate and war monger at the same time.. stoooopid boomer
@Wuotans Krieger You said "Liberation or war mongering?" This directly entails that you a stooopid boomer and don't know what the difference between the two are.
@Wuotans Krieger You havent asked me this question before mate, I dont know why you've chosen to speak in such ways on a youtube video, maybe to try and prove something? Perhaps you think typing in the way you do gives you more prestige over the matter? No clue, but back to this question you seem to think you've asked beforehand (which you havent boomer) the British armed forces have aided multiple countries in disaster relief which is not liberation, but not exactly war mongering is it? I could also mention Afghanistan, Iraq too but I know you'll bring up your petty boomer anti army comments 👍👍😂
Just gonna put this here that there was a guy who clearly got overwhelmed by how wrong he was and deleted his comments. I'll leave mine to show how stupid he was
What were the danish soldiers doing at the event?
“The involvement of Danish personnel also served to underline the army’s commitment to working with other Nato militaries.”
Frederik - Bringing home the bacon.
Eating pastries
Thats great, with a german boxer! The german Porsche Boxsterle is also the best^^
I wish the UK Defence budget (as a percentage of the overall GDP) was raised in a big overhaul of how the government behaves towards and cares for the military, to around 4.0% GDP (as of 2019, the real figure is currently at 2.1% of GDP)
Would make the UK incredibly strong, while allowing far greater options in so many ways.
Don’t you think the NHS needs more funding?
@@rezvlt9285 [2/4] There is no way that I'd condone increasing military spending for no reason. I have my own opinions on this and how it should be done, but admittedly I'm just a civilian not someone who knows this from a military perspective. I'd be the first to admit that. But every soldier was a civilian once. Doesn't mean civilians can't have and make valid opinions, of course not. We're all human. The point is, that I sincerely believe that the UK Armed Forces need to be strengthened (note, I said strengthened, not necessarily expanded) Spending more money on a stabilised number of professional troops and officers, would make sense.
Spending more money on veteran's housing, veteran's care and doing everything physically and mentally possible to stop the tragedy of the neglect and suicide of so many veterans across the country, would make every bit of sense.
Boris making a special committee or whatever it was on veterans concerns was a good step in the right direction but I think a lot more needs to happen on that front; which costs more money. Housing for soldiers families should be better and not cheaply done as it seems to be in some cases, with bare essentials and basics. They put their lives on the line for us all and the government give them ''meh'' accommodation? Seems like that could be improved.
The person who commented on my comment after you, as I am typing this reply to you, unfairly must have seen your reply and thought, ''oh lets jump in and have a go about spending money on killing versus living''. I haven't even finished my reply yet -.-' sure it's long but I actually care about these topics and issues and don't half-arse them with half-baked ideas (not saying you were, as your question was pretty simple and didn't necessarily get asked in bad faith - as for the person after you, not so sure :/ )
Suffice it to say, I'm *not* some idiot who just wants ''MOOOR GuNz N StuFF'' for the sake of it or any fool missing the point about what DEFENCE is truly about.
The Ministry of DEFENCE was renamed post-WWII as it had originally been called, the Ministry of WAR. An unfortunate euphemism perhaps.
But then again, the definitions of war are varied and complex, and must all be considered together simultaneously.
War is a many-headed thing. Intelligence, surveillance, preparedness, resource availability, tactical and strategic reserves, morale, information dispersal, resource management, a shed-load of bureaucracy and paperwork (no doubt) and infrastructure architecture etc etc Naval architecture, aviation industry, weapons manufacture, weapons procurement, weapons testing, research and development, training and countless other aspects must all be considered.
It's all very well being put off by the word, ''war'', and replacing it politely with ''Defence''. But bottom line, when it comes down to it, defence does involve warfare - whether in the political, diplomatic, deterrence based strategy, war gaming scenario context or otherwise. It must be planned for and anticipated. Being caught off-guard is a massive fear of many nations. An ounce of prevention, being worth more than a pound of cure etc
That is a big part of why upping the spending on the military would make us safer. It'd allow for more frequent missile, anti-tank and artillery firing training, more frequently, for more units. It'd allow more incentives for recruitment drives as salaries could be expanded - helping deal with the problem of manpower shortages due to a combination of factors including lowering morale partly caused by a mismanagement of recruitment and bad advertising by Capita and the MoD. If the government would set up recruiting stations with veterans given special jobs paid for by the theorised spending increases, then this would probably result in more effective recruiting efforts and help with morale.
The point of having Armed Forces is to defend our people, our nation and our interests around the world and at home - as well as to support allies and active commitments to others in the sphere of influence the UK has. It is often said that the UK has a lot of ''soft power'' in terms of power projection; in part thanks to the immense status and role of the Queen around the world, but also thanks to historical (formerly imperial/colonial, now strictly friendly ties) Britain had it's fingers in a lot of pies so to speak around the world and whether we like it or not that makes Britain responsible for a lot of the helping out I'd say.
e.g. if there is a Hurricane that ravages the Caribbean, including places like Jamaica, it'd be entirely right and proper that the UK should fly the flag and support them in disaster relief. The UK *has* done this many times all over the Caribbean as well as fighting drug traffickers and modern day pirates in the Gulf of Aden and into the Persian Gulf. Royal Navy ships are sent all over the world for reasons just like this. Speaking of which? We need more ships. Manpower issues in the RN are intense though, with even just 36,000 being a difficult figure for the RN to currently maintain itself at as it hovers around 34,000-35,000 regularly. It's a far cry from the *960,000* strong Royal Navy at the end of WWII. Obviously, very different times (those were heady and horrible times, of course)
However, the Royal Navy has determined it really needs *at least* 25 MSC's (Major Surface Combatants) and we currently have 19. Preferably we really need 30-40 MSC's in my opinion, especially with the new UK CSG's (Carrier Strike Groups) being escort hungry and needing constant major fleet assets to guard the carriers (Type 45's, Type 26's and sometimes the odd Type 31, by the mid-late 2020's, will be involved in that; and our hunter-killer submarines no doubt; and RFA/Royal Fleet Auxiliary support vessels)
Suffice it to say that the Royal Navy is more efficient than it has ever been and using the most technologically advanced ships it has ever possessed in over 500 years of rich maritime history - but it is still facing the pressing issue of manpower shortages.
The Royal Navy ought to have 45,000-50,000 personnel at least. How the UK government has allowed the RN to atrophy to the point it now only has 77 ships (of which only 19 are MSC's in operational status) is a crying shame. I blame the Labour socialists for this. They reconfigured the UK towards being more or less reliant on allies in many situations. We shouldn't have to beg the Americans and even less the French, to lend us destroyers and frigates to help protect our new supercarriers. We should have more than enough of our own - but we don't.
Having supercarriers gives the UK massive power projection capabilities, largely lost this past decade thanks to the 2010 SDR (Strategic Defence Review)
They won't be fully operational with healthily large air-wings of the Fleet Air Arm until 2021/22 roughly. But when they are ready, they'll allow the UK carrier strike capability with fixed wing VTOL gen 5 aircraft from a gen 5 multi-billion pound carrier of the future. It is very impressive stuff.
A triumph of the work of 10,000 British workers and British naval engineering - but with HMS Prince of Wales, the 2nd ship, being given the green light and saved from potential and oft rumoured scrapping in the 2015 SDR (just about one of the only good things David Cameron was ever responsible for lol, I have to give him that; he helped save HMS Prince of Wales, though perhaps only in truth, because by 2015, the cost of scrapping had by then exceeded the cost of completing; so even in this, Cameron wasn't being some big heroic patron of the Royal Navy, probably far from it)
But it could seriously do with a dozen more destroyers and frigates on the drumbeat of orders to help secure our strategic capabilities with those ships.
Though small, the RN is mighty impressive and still packs a punch. Far better than most navies, and could be regarded as a Tier 2 Blue Water Navy (along with the French Navy, only; no prizes for guessing whom is alone in Tier 1 BWN; the US Navy - note: the Royal Navy *used* to be Tier 1 BWN in several different paradigms, in a retrospective application of that categorisation system rejigged for past eras, for what? 250 years? More? At least up until the 1950's/60's)
Note: the British Defence budget in 1980 was around 5.79% GDP, in the height of the Cold War. This isn't even all that long ago. Four decades. Big whoop. Not exactly an aeon ago. But after the Cold War, the British military reconfigured from continental warfare to expeditionary and limited warfare. Naval strategy, shifting from hunting Soviet nuclear submarines in the North Atlantic, North Sea and beyond, to the active deployment and safeguarding of British interests around the world. In many ways, what I'm proposing would merely be a continuation of that reconfiguration (just, in an enhanced form)
Killing to protect the living, it's called defence.
@Wuotans Krieger a) that was a horrifically loaded question that absolutely had no need to be asked. ''Killing''? Do you really think that Defence isn't about protecting the living too? Of course militaries kill others. That is kind of how it goes. No it's not nice and yet of course sometimes it's just not something we can avoid. Military forces take out dangerous terrorists to save innocent lives e.g. what the Americans just did to the leader of ISIS. It was a special forces military operation i.e. part of warfare against the terrorist death cult. So, you know, of course killing those whom would seek to kill us, is not something to be glorified; just accepted as a grim but necessary reality of survival.
It's kill or be killed. I'm amazed I have to explain this basic logic.
We don't live in a fairy tale world where war is impossible and there are no conflicts.
b) Besides what you said being incredibly disingenuous and unfair (it was a rude question to be honest) it was also pretty invalid.
The question basically assumes a lot about the military expenditure allocation and the outcomes of that. Clearly, you just think it's about killing. Not at all. It's about making the British Armed Forces stronger and individual units more survivable. It's about protecting life. But whose lives come first, from a British perspective in a context of life or death situations, to British people? British lives or enemy combatant lives? Sorry but hands down it'll always be the former to British people.
I'd love to see money invested in making British soldiers incredibly well-protected on a unit by unit basis and make them as safe as possible considering the circumstances.
Corner cutting cost lives in recent conflicts e.g. vehicles with a lack of sufficient I.E.D proof blast deflection armour on the chassis, and infantrymen left with subpar issued personal body armour (not all troops got the right kit in time)
It beggars belief for me, that this could be allowed to happen in this day and age. Any time within the last 20 years, would shock me that this was allowed to happen.
But there you go. Governments cut corners and troops paid for it.
Politics of wars aside (and no, I do not know what to make of the Middle East conflicts as of yet; a mess to be sure, but there are so, so many aspects to it e.g. I am glad Saddam is gone; wouldn't have happened the way it did without Western intervention in Iraq; but yes it was a total mess)
Better combat armour, better sensors, better vehicles, better everything possible. Technology research and development would take up a lot of the money. So would new platforms. Military projects like new ships, new carriers and new tanks, need money. Then they all get LEP's (life extension programs) to extend the time for development of their successors. Much of UK military infrastructure is pretty old e.g. our ports and dockyards could be improved a bit on the whole. Things like that are very expensive but in fairness massive military infrastructure projects are once in a lifetime things.
I think you automatically assumed I was just thinking about the fighting aspects of the military, and not the holistic approach taking everything into mind. I was indeed thinking about all kinds of aspects of British military spending big and small. Yes it often boils down to making them more efficient at their jobs (and yes that does mean they'll kill in defence of the realm, Parliament and HM the Queen) I have massive respect for them. They do incredibly dangerous jobs with only limited recognition from only some of the British public. A lot of disrespectful voices are out there too, sadly.
Spending 4% on the military instead of 2.1-2.3% is not an outrageous expansion.
Several other nations would still spend a higher percentage than the UK in that scenario. 4% is big by 21st century globalist standards; but in the grand scheme of things, it's basically a British average. Relax.
@@webtoedman thank you
Remember this is a demo with 100+ soldiers.
If we are invaded the enemy force could be a million soldiers
500 tanks
300 APC support vehicle infantry.
Artillery and drone's and rocket launchers.
Helecopters
Jet's
Bomber's
Missles.
We need much better than now more Boots on the ground
I think the interviewer in the black coat has just snorted a line or 2 lol
In the future there is only war....🤗
The boxer is basically Thunderbird 2, just quicker
Ooo. I do hope there's a thunderbird 4 module. And a mole.
@@davidhouseman4328 YES
British Army about the same size as in Wellington's day?
@Tom G ?
When britain owned half of the world the largest the standing armed forces size was 150,000 strong. Not far off from what it is now, so why would we need any larger of an armed force unless were at war :?
Army formations how many brigades in a division dDivisions in a corpsand an army
no a larger force bigger divisions ànd corps
army groups like battalliion ànd brigades and up to a army groups Leslie
What is Britain's army strength.
197,000 soldiers.
We need another 200,000 soldiers.
This can be achieved in 2 year's.
Lower entrance standard pass every one who volunteered to join army.
For those below par, training them up when they join their respective regiments.
These guy's and lassie's joined to fight and die for our beautiful country.
100 soldiers now 60 pass.
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
100 sailors now 40 pass .
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
100 airforce now 30 pass.
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
100 Royal Marines now 30 pass.
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
100 airborne Paras now 30 pass.
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
100 SAS now pass 20.
Lower entrance standard pass mark's 100.
We need more boxer infantry support APC.
We need more challengers tanks
Mark 2/3
Scimitar light recon tanks.
Scorpion light recon tanks.
Ajax APC support vehicle infantry.
Rockets launchers
Drone's operators.
Double frigate's
Double destroyers.
Technology is good but Boots on the ground is needed to ward off future enemies attacking Britain.
Great👼
i want to see this in person ='( good video tho i loved it
Anyone know what the gaming headset and drone combo was?
Its PR right
Err... boxer was old tech 10 years ago..... we paid most of the Dev costs
Also.. if I had 20 guys and even half decent kit... they would have lost that tank... the breaching vehicle.... likely 20 or more troops... and wtf was that apache longbow over flying for.... grief...
You'd almost think is was a display and not a training exercise...
*ARMCHAIR GENERAL DETECTED*
@@bobmartin9918 I will backstop weapon fire as good as anyone currently in the services
Did they have Russian tanks playing enemies?!
Presumably the Boxer isn’t CBRN capable then
Major Clanger - Yes it is.
With a modular body like that I’m surprised
So nothing new just a display
xclone jager sounds like a smart phone
Thunder bird 2
Quando o país é sério, e é muito mais do que o país do futebol, a defesa ,política externa, e o patriotismo, é o que faz um país ser grande e o diferencial dos demais.
what mg is that at 1:02
@Dont Trip yes I thought that but l7a2 gmpg doesn't normally have a box magazine and what seems to be a sight it also looks smaller and more recognisable to the minimi
Wow i'm really early
training for Brexit rioters
Training to kill the Brexit remoaning traitors should they try to forcefully take control to remain.
Yea all those 50+ gonna be rioting? ha yea right most of them will have a stroke just getting up to a jog.
It’s ok, remainiacs will need to get a note from mommy for a day out of school first! Whilst liberal assflakes run around in their drama costumes chatting up the riot police.
That Tom in the section silhouetting himself on the first Debus not good. I have heard of fight light but we're was your ammo food water etc.
Sorry but this is very mediocre of the army. Gone are the days of the entire battle group at larkhill watching the firepower demos with everything firing and hundreds of vehicles and troops. Now we get a FIBUA village with a couple of tanks rolling around, some pryo and that’s it. What happened to our full scale live firing public events.
The only positive is I see a T-55 rolling around which is pretty cool
Pish
Clearly preparing for a post-Brexit Britain!
Stay mastiff it's British the boxer is German . I always buy British
Mastiff is US, at least as much as the Boxer is German. The Boxer will be majority built in the UK and we have export rights, we also started life in the Boxer program but dropped out.
Not sure if they're going to sell the Mastiff, but it does seem like it would be a good idea to have them all put in storage. That way if we ever need them, or if there's a situation which Mastiffs are more suited to than Boxers, we'll have them.
does it really matter if its saving lives you goon
@@saiph8872 LIVES, you goon!
@@thewomble1509 oh no a spelling mistake! thanks bb xox
Stop showing the world our capabilities and tactics....edited to help grammatically overburdened people sleep
@Wuotans Krieger English is an adaptive language, What are you a School Teacher?
Stewart Savage - LOL! I’ll have to remember that. “It’s not that I can’t spell, I’ve merely adapted the language’. Might not wash with some people though.
@Wuotans Krieger xo o7