Royal Marines boats

[Repulse]

donald_of_tokyo, would say these would be complimentary to the P2000s as they are good simple boats for the URNU, training and also could have secondary security roles.

These would be more akin to the Gibraltar boat squadron which are a permanent role and require a higher level of capability in higher threat areas.

The costs of running both would be trivial in the big scheme of things, and as pointed out give a base for future USuV ops.

Jake1992, the Barracuda is interesting, but would see it more as a CB90 alternative where it operates from a mothership. For me, we would need something larger capable of operating independently for a number of days.

[shark bait]

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))

[Repulse]

Sounds like a job for the LSS

If RFA Victoria had CAMM it could do this role.

[Lord Jim]

Maybe we should just build a couple more Bays to a slightly modified design and call them the LSS?

[SKB]

Or buy/steal HMAS Choules (ex RFA Largs Bay) back.

[SW1]

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))

Scan eagle 3 was what I had in mind don’t know if that’s blackjack or not.

Maybe we should just build a couple more Bays to a slightly modified design and call them the LSS?

My problem is it’s not the ships we lack we have 5 one of which is mothballed it’s the smaller craft and systems, the logistics tied to the strategic concept and c&c thinking that needs invested in and tested not buying more ships.

[Lord Jim]

So maybe one of the Bays should be tasked with running a few trials, again beg borrow or steal various types of craft and see how they operate with the bay and start working out how one might employ a LSS and its assets. Once you have a good idea you can make the case for the purchase of the necessary craft and have a good idea of what you need from the LSS. Surely this is better than hurriedly converting a couple of merchant vessels and then trying to work out how to use them and what assets may be needed. Evolving the Bay design would seem to be a good way of moving forward the RN's amphibious assets in a logical, step by step manner. It could even have some bearing down the road on what replaces the Bays and possibly the Albions. In the mean time we would have two additional Bays, a platform that has shown its versatility since they first entered service.

As for boats for the RM, we need to run another series of trials with the CB-90 on both the Albions and the Bays. The CB-90 should be possibly seen as the bench mark but not necessarily the solution best suited to the needs of the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy.

[Tempest414]

As most if not all tests can be done from a ship at anchor and instead of taking a Bay out of the loop move Bulwark out to a safe point and conduct tests from her

[SW1]

I think it goes to the heart of what is the strategic for conducting missions that are not blue water mission which will remain the domain of type 26,45 and the carriers.

It’s how the whole range of missions from security, boarding mcm, asw and the like is conducted in the shallows and choke points. We’ve seen the RN starting to borrow and trial US and Israeli Navy equipment in these areas and the platform of choice has been the bay. It needs a clearly defined and funded roadmap like complex weapons based on developing and deploying small craft using uk companies.

We have a long history in a number of fields spending money to field equipment then switch to the next new shinny without fully exploiting the platforms, continuing development make better what we have and ignoring the smaller equipment and personnel budgets that transform a capability.

[Repulse]

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.

[Poiuytrewq]

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.

It would be an attractive option, especially if DFID funded a couple of converted points anyway.

[Lord Jim]

As mentioned elsewhere, use the money from the FLSS and possibly the T-31e to allow the purchase of both manned and unmanned small craft and the conversion of one or more Bays to operate them effectively. I really think the CB-90 should be adopted as part of the RM's arsenal, there are few better platforms for inshore and littoral work currently in use.

[SW1]

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/ ... mpetition/

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.

[Jake1992]

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.

Iv been saying for along time this is what we should replace the archers and scimitars with.

They’re larger, pack more of a punch, have better sea keeping, faster and can give a more realistic training being armed.

[Tempest414]

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

[Jake1992]

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

The problem is we really need something like this now not in 10 years and the Mk6 is here.
The twin 25mm chain guns and link 16 for drone control gives them a far bigger punch than just a couple of 12.7mm GPMG, this along with its boat ramp for a Rhib or USV/UUV is more flexible than the archer design.

I’m all for home design and build but some times there’s no point in recreating the wheel just for the sake of it. At around £10m unit cost a fleet of 20 of these would be spot on for the RN and RM

[Tempest414]

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

[Jake1992]

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

I agree it could be done to a similar effect with a stretched archer but like I said it’s just reinventing the wheel when money and time is not really there to do so.

I agree 90% of the time the RM wouldn’t be using this type of vessel, I was think more of in the instance of policing the Clyde like they do now or every Portsmouth now it’ll be home to the “conventional deterrent”. But yes the RM defintly do need a CB90 style vessel with out a doubt.

The Mk6 would also be the perfect fit for Gib, a pair of these to race out to the Spanish would give a good bit more fear than the current scimitars, couple them with a forward based RB2 or Venari 95 type vessel should do nicely

[donald_of_tokyo]

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.

[Jake1992]

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.

The question Iv got here is can the RN afford to have the Mk6, CB90 and an archer replacement ?
We all know the USN/USCG can but IMO the RN could have 2 of the 3 at best, so in that case one of the vessels would need to be able to do 2 roles and this for me is where the Mk6 wins out.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Jake1992]

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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]

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 ?

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?

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.

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?

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. It can even not be able reach a half of it. For EEZ patrol, T26 is much much inferior to River B2. Similar comparison comes with Mk. VI and Archer.

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 ?

Why do you need to buy BOTH Mk6 and CB90. Why cannot these two be merged?

[Jake1992]

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 ?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 ?

Why do you need to buy BOTH Mk6 and CB90. Why cannot these two be merged?

What can the archer do better than the Mk6 besides being a cheap trainer ?

The archer wouldn’t be sent into harms way as they are no designed for it, I’m looking at there replacement to be able to if need be to allow the RN to get the most out of its vessels. Having a training vessel that if sh**t hit the fan can be used as more is a better use of limited funds.

The CB90 and Mk6 are designed for very different uses, the CB90 is shallow draft vessel to allow it get close to shore and isn’t much good in bad open waters. Where the Mk6 is design for just that it’s designed to operate in the brown and green waters for security and not for land troops.

[donald_of_tokyo]

For me, difference between Mk.VI and CB90 looks very small compared to difference between Mk.VI and Archer. Sorry, I cannot follow your point... Why you are saying Scimitar CRV(T) = a warfighter can replace Toyota Prius = a training car ?

[EDIT] You need well trained marine engineers, may be several of them, to operate Mk.VI, while you may need only 1 or 2 for Archer. The training level required for the engineer differs a lot, as well. There is a reason why Archer is simple. Mk.VI will never be able to cover Archer tasks. On the other hand, enlarged/enhanced CB90 will be able to cover many, if not all, of the Mk.VI tasks.