SW1 wrote:starting point for a littoral strike group a bay, 4 such patrol vessels, 2 wildcat, 5 scan eagles air vehicles and 80 RM. would require considerable investment to make it happen.
shark bait wrote:Sounds like a job for the LSS
shark bait wrote:SW1 wrote:starting point for a littoral strike group a bay, 4 such patrol vessels, 2 wildcat, 5 scan eagles air vehicles and 80 RM. would require considerable investment to make it happen.
Sounds like a job for the LSS
(Also not Scan eagle, go for it's big brother, the Blackjack (terrible name))
Lord Jim wrote:Maybe we should just build a couple more Bays to a slightly modified design and call them the LSS?
It would be an attractive option, especially if DFID funded a couple of converted points anyway.Repulse wrote:Does seem a waste as the best RM platform would be an Albion but we have one tied up. Maybe getting both LPDs back in service and replacing Argus should be ahead of any FLSSs.
SW1 wrote:https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/07/08/the-us-navys-riverines-are-up-gunned-high-tech-and-ready-to-lean-into-great-power-competition/
The head of NECC, Rear Adm. Brian Brakke, is taking that new focus and his new Mark VI platform and turning toward the challenge at hand: great power competition.
“Where I would like to go is where do we have the opportunity inside the littorals to be able to conduct missions for the Navy that may free up capital assets to go do other missions,” Brakke said.
The new Mark VI has a communications suite that well exceeds that of the RCB. The new boat can connect with the fleet via Link 16; it also has high- and ultrahigh-frequency and satellite comms so shore side controllers won’t lose track of the boat, as happened during the Farsi Island incident. The 85-foot boat has a top speed of more than 40 knots and a range of up to 500 miles.
It has a 10-person crew and can accommodate up to 20 personnel — the RCB maxed out at 15 personnel.
Among the possibilities Brakke is looking at: using the Mark VI as a mothership for swarm attacks in conjunction with new 40-foot patrol boats being introduced to the force; operating unmanned aircraft for over-the-horizon surveillance; operating autonomous wave runners for various missions.
Tempest414 wrote:We are more than capable of building a real good fast patrol boat and if we take the Archer as a point in case the hull is designed to reach speeds of 45 knots and be fitted with a 20mm but its speed was limited by the engine fit and so on. however if we were to take a Archer add 8 meter up rate the engines and fit better armament we would have a nice boat capable of say 40 knots 800 km fitted with say a stableized 12.7 HMG and 2 x miniguns could match your Mk-6
Tempest414 wrote:All I am saying is that a P2000 design with a extra 8 meters would make the boat 28 meters I was being reserved when saying fit a few 12.7 HMG it could take 2 x 25mm if needed and have link 16 and what ever. However in day to day use the Mk-6 or anything like it would not be used by the RM and is more a RN boat as it not the day to day job of the RM to undertake patrols in real terms what the RM needs is the CB-90 fast able to move 20 troops and can be used at a push for work like the latest Gulf operation. So for me I would say we should buy 12 CB-90 for the RM and then set about replacing the Archer's and Scimitar's with a Mk-6 type boat which can be deployed as needed for tasks like backing up UK boarder patrols or Gib or overseas in the Gulf
donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not understand most of the "love for Mk. VI" expressed here. I agree handful of them will be useful, but it is non-related to Archer replacements.
Do not forget US has a big coast guard. Is US replacing all their coast guard patrol-craft with Mk. VI-like heavily equipped ones? No, never. US Navy is also using many small boats for their port defense, similar to UKBF 20m coastal patrol vessel. So, very lightly armed, or even un-armed fast boats are nothing wrong as the majority of UK RN small boat fleet.
Then, as need for Mk. VI like boats does exist but is very minor (maybe only 4 to 8 will be needed), importing Mk. VI or CB90 or alike will be no problem, I think.
Really? The university guys, and a handful of marine engineers appointed to them, can operate/handle Mk. VI boats with link 16, high-grade armaments, high-level of CMS and very high power engines? I am very very skeptical.Jake1992 wrote:The Mk6 can easily do the arch replacement role as well as its own while a basic archer replacement would struggle to do the Mk6 role.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Really? The university guys, and a handful of marine engineers appointed to them, can operate/handle Mk. VI boats with link 16, high-grade armaments, high-level of CMS and very high power engines? I am very very skeptical.Jake1992 wrote:The Mk6 can easily do the arch replacement role as well as its own while a basic archer replacement would struggle to do the Mk6 role.
I am not saying anything wrong about them. I am just imagining handling a Scimitar CRV(T) in place of my lovely Toyota Prius. For me, it is impossible.
I will suggest,
- buy 6 Mk. VI boats for, 2 in Clyde, 4 with RM
- leave 2 Gib patrol boats to what will be purchased soon (anyway, it is almost independently operated), may be Cyprus boats as well?
- buy 12 Archer replacements, which could be more simple than Archer itself. If possible, this could be enlarged UKBF 20m coastal patrol vessels (say, 25m version?)
I see no big problem here.
Just turning the power off? Or, taking all of them off before sent to URNU? I do not think it is cost effective. How about engines? It will be very maintenance heavy kits, I'm afraid?Jake1992 wrote:When operating as a training vessel does the link 16 or CMS need to be used ? Do the grade launcher ( which are an optional ) need to be fitted do even the 25mm chain guns needed to be fitted ?
I still do not understand here. Why Archer is required to rush into Holmz strait? In what case Archer will be required to fire 25mm guns with support of Link 16?What the Mk6 in this role would allow though is the ability to give a more realistic training set as and when desired but also allow a good number of capabilities Vessel to be armed and rushed in to use when needed.
Why do you need to buy BOTH Mk6 and CB90. Why cannot these two be merged?Can the RN afford to buy and operated and maintain 3 different classes of boats ( Mk6, CB90, Archer replacement ) when 2 classes can do the job ?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Just turning the power off? Or, taking all of them off before sent to URNU? I do not think it is cost effective. How about engines? It will be very maintenance heavy kits, I'm afraid?Jake1992 wrote:When operating as a training vessel does the link 16 or CMS need to be used ? Do the grade launcher ( which are an optional ) need to be fitted do even the 25mm chain guns needed to be fitted ?I still do not understand here. Why Archer is required to rush into Holmz strait? In what case Archer will be required to fire 25mm guns with support of Link 16?What the Mk6 in this role would allow though is the ability to give a more realistic training set as and when desired but also allow a good number of capabilities Vessel to be armed and rushed in to use when needed.
All armaments needs good maintenance support. If RN lacks it in peace time, RN also lacks it even in war time. Simple platform is very versatile so that it can be heavily operated with less maintenance support. This is clear figure of merit on which Mk. VI is very very bad at. For some tasks, Archer class is much more better than Mk. VI, not vice versa. Of course, for some tasks, Mk. VI is much much better than Archer, as well. In short, Mk. VI and Archer is a different class of asset. For me, it is like comparing River B2 and T26, and saying T26 can do everything. No it cannot. T26 will never be able to achieve 320 days long sea-going days. For EEZ patrol, T26 is much much inferior to River B2. Similar comparison comes with Mk. VI and Archer.Why do you need to buy BOTH Mk6 and CB90. Why cannot these two be merged?Can the RN afford to buy and operated and maintain 3 different classes of boats ( Mk6, CB90, Archer replacement ) when 2 classes can do the job ?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests