A key pointjedibeeftrix wrote:different now where the interface isn't a discrete collection of allied nation states
... raiding isn't about ex-Soviet submarine pens, either
A key pointjedibeeftrix wrote:different now where the interface isn't a discrete collection of allied nation states
Bearing in mind that they would be Viking 2s, I wonder if the options for 'helicoptering' them are affected by the greater weight?Lord Jim wrote:the need for additional Vikings is more pressing
my apologies, i was not clear in my intent.Lord Jim wrote:Given the idea is for the RM to be able to operate anywhere, the Viking is a good choice. It has reasonable armour for a vehicle in its class, is amphibious and superb cross country performance and load carrying capacity. It can also be carried underneath Chinooks if split into two loads if needed. Yes the RM will probably get a number of whatever end up being purchased under the MRV(P) programme, but I am not keen on the idea of large numbers of Supercats. Yes they are light weight but also have all the limitations this can bring. The only other vehicle I would like to see would be an Amphibious 6x6 or 8x8, like the new vehicle the USMC are introducing, as a complimentary platform to the Vikings, but the need for additional Vikings is more pressing.
Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12jedibeeftrix wrote: burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)
Out of curiosity could any of the old warthogs be upgraded for use by the RM ?ArmChairCivvy wrote:Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12jedibeeftrix wrote: burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)
Upgraded so much that they... don't swim!Jake1992 wrote: be upgraded for use by the RM ?
I knew they didn’t have as capably amphibious set as a Viking but didn’t realise they had none at all.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Upgraded so much that they... don't swim!Jake1992 wrote: be upgraded for use by the RM ?
Perhaps not.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12jedibeeftrix wrote: burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)
Are we saying that the first wave raiders will just on foot with just some unmanned to take some weight ? Sounds very weak to me.Lord Jim wrote:The new Vikings, if ordered, are to replace the old Bv206s in many of the support roles such as Signals, REME and so on. WIth luck we will end up with a common fleet with our existing Mk2s being brought up to the latest standard.
Spotted something interesting in Jane's. I have often mentioned how the Dutch Marines will be folded in the 3 Commando in and NATO Conflict. Well it now appears that the Dutch and the Germans are continuing their co operation, with the German Army's Marine Infantry Battalion being attached to the Dutch Marine Force form the end of 2020. Now will this mean that this new joint force will go its own way or will it come under 3 Commando?
AS for vehicles for the "Raiding" groups, I suppose this depend a lot on the mission. What I can see, together with 16 AA is the use of UGV "Mules" to carry heavy weapon, ammo and supplies. Going by RUSI's paper, vertical lift would mainly be part of a 2nd wave due to the likelihood of enemy Air Defence capabilities which will need to be degraded by the 1st wave and long range precision fire.
The idea of an LCVP Mk6 has been going round my mind for a while for some reason I just can’t see that type of connector being dropped, it offers a mind road set up when an LCU is over kill but a CB90 just can’t deliver. It’s only really let down is like with the LCUs there speed.Repulse wrote:Given the requirement to land six RMs plus a Ultra Light Vehicle, is the LCVP not dead after all and perhaps we should be looking at a high speed MkVI?
Fantasy perhaps, but how about reconfiguration of a Albion LPD to carry the following:
- 4 CB90s (or equivalents) on davits
- 6 LCVP VIs in the well dock
- 2 Griffon 2400TDs deployed from the vehicle deck
Well from what we can tell with the plans going forward is the need to offload 6 RM and an ultra light vehicle with this in mind a CB90 can’t do that and an LCU size vessel is just over kill while also limiting what it can be transported by.jedibeeftrix wrote:do we really need a new LVCP?
the smaller davits can certainly be used for CB90 (which everyone agrees is part of a raiding future).
what does an LVCP mk6 really offer that couldn't be met by a LCU Mk11 (Caiman90)...
I can see a utility for the to be fare, I see them as a stop gap giving much needed aviation until the main amphibious force is replaced, once replaced I’d move the LSS to more of a high end SF platform where these ops can be operated from all year round.jedibeeftrix wrote:ah, yes.
i tend to focus on the ASG rather than the LSG - where i see no future utility in them.
By what? I read the whole thrust of the RUSI paper to be more of we need forward presence that will be modest in size but can scale. It will also be closer to shore, backed as needed by the JSG. As aviation assets are vulnerable anything from the LSG and ASG will be unmanned - hence the need for fast ship to shore connectors. Personally, I see a long life left in the LCVP concept.Jake1992 wrote:I see them as a stop gap giving much needed aviation until the main amphibious force is replaced
Well what does the LSS offer that is t already supplied by the other amphibious other than aviation ? This is why I see them as a stop gap in terms of the role they will current conduct ( not in that they will be binned off early )Repulse wrote:By what? I read the whole thrust of the RUSI paper to be more of we need forward presence that will be modest in size but can scale. It will also be closer to shore, backed as needed by the JSG. As aviation assets are vulnerable anything from the LSG and ASG will be unmanned - hence the need for fast ship to shore connectors. Personally, I see a long life left in the LCVP concept.Jake1992 wrote:I see them as a stop gap giving much needed aviation until the main amphibious force is replaced