UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Royal Marines boats

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby Jake1992 » 09 Jul 2019, 14:42

donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.


The CB90 and Mk6 are very different vessels but mainly in the roles they are designed to do.
You’re enlarged CB90 would either have to keep the same shallow hull design to allow it to come very close to shore ( meaning poor sea keeping in open water ) or keep the deeper hull design of the Mk6 to allow better sea keeping ( meaning can’t come as close to shore as required ) it’s either this or a half way house that means you get neither benefit.

Yes a Mk6 would need more engineers than an archer but not by a great deal, the Mk6 has a crew of 10 for combat operations so for basic training purposes that can be reduced. They won’t need the weapons crew or crew for link 16 or CMS as these won’t be use during training. Yes I do agree a larger engineering crew would be needed compared to archer but IMO this is worth it to have a fleet of vessel that would have a combat use if ever needed unlike the archers.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Jul 2019, 14:46

It would be foolish to not simply just get a home borne design. They're not expensive, and the Archer hardly needs anything fancy to replace it, given its role. Nor is a replacement needed urgently. They can continue to run. The idea of marching them up into Iran is just nonsense. A decent patrol boat that can hit the same speeds with modernised engines is all that it needs, and better to keep that in UK yards. It's a training and border boat for home waters. Little else.

For the Royal Marines needing a more deployable punch, it is a "nice to have" thing. The MkIV is a decent option, as is CB90. However it is not outstanding on top priority for the RM. The landing craft needing replaced is a MUCH higher priority.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby Jake1992 » 09 Jul 2019, 15:01

RetroSicotte wrote:It would be foolish to not simply just get a home borne design. They're not expensive, and the Archer hardly needs anything fancy to replace it, given its role. The idea of marching them up into Iran is just nonsense. A decent patrol boat that can hit the same speeds with modernised engines is all that it needs, and better to keep that in UK yards.

For the Royal Marines needing a more deployable punch, it is a "nice to have" thing. The MkIV is a decent option, as is CB90. However it is not outstanding on top priority for the RM. The landing craft needing replaced is a MUCH higher priority.


I would normally agree with home build home design but with something so small and inexpensive is there any point in times of short funding ?
I wouldn’t use them to march in to Iran but to protect ports like Clyde, Portsmouth, Gib, Cyprus, the gulf and Far East 1 or 2 at each along with them to be used from a bay or Albion as the security role.

The RM really need most of there kit replacing or soon to.
They need new fast LCUs and LCVPs, CB90 style vessels.
Soon to need a next gen Viking, maybe look at the USMC ACV to compliment the vikings.
New fast transport helos / tilt rotors.
New BARVs
New light artillery
Maybe there own CAMM platforms
All this along with personal Weaponry like for me the Mk-14 40mm grenade Launcher to give them a punch.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Jul 2019, 16:33

Before we start buying al the new kit the Royal Marines need we need to really lock down what their role is to be going forward.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby RetroSicotte » 09 Jul 2019, 16:41

Jake1992 wrote:I would normally agree with home build home design but with something so small and inexpensive is there any point in times of short funding ?
I wouldn’t use them to march in to Iran but to protect ports like Clyde, Portsmouth, Gib, Cyprus, the gulf and Far East 1 or 2 at each along with them to be used from a bay or Albion as the security role.

Yes, because even if it does turn out more expensive than paying someone else for them vs tax etc, the cost difference would be minimal for such simple craft. Why kill off people's livelihoods and lose yet more national self-support to save pennies?

The RM really need most of there kit replacing or soon to.
They need new fast LCUs and LCVPs, CB90 style vessels.
Soon to need a next gen Viking, maybe look at the USMC ACV to compliment the vikings.
New fast transport helos / tilt rotors.
New BARVs
New light artillery
Maybe there own CAMM platforms
All this along with personal Weaponry like for me the Mk-14 40mm grenade Launcher to give them a punch.

Correct on all, although priorities and which ones are more desires rather than crucial needs are important.

Archer replacement is a different thing from direct RM need, and has gone up lately with regards to the needs post-potential-Brexit. The landing craft are the most important aspect of that right now. They have fallen severely behind. Vikings just got upgraded, helos are in service, light artillery is a separate RA thing budget on model most likely. The CB90s I feel we need more information on the exact need/role for them on top of the ORCs already. As Jim says, we need to know what is planned for them, whether the Gov wants to keep them as they are, or whether they'll lose yet more capability. (Lets not kid ourselves about "what their role is", it's cut or not cut.)

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby Jake1992 » 09 Jul 2019, 16:48

Lord Jim wrote:Before we start buying al the new kit the Royal Marines need we need to really lock down what their role is to be going forward.


For me they should be there for:
1 - to capture and hold any needed port or landing spot being the leading group of any landing force up to brigade size ( most likely part of an allied force for now )
2 - raiding forces, enter over a beach to take a position from behind any enemy.
3 - our special artic warfare force.

They should be light armour based and be quick moving where applicable.

The RM along with 16AA and the Gurkhas should be see as elite forces and should be a priority to equip due to them being our best asset for any allied force. I’d like to see 8000-10,000 of each of the 3 forces personally.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1443
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby Jake1992 » 09 Jul 2019, 16:59

RetroSicotte wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I would normally agree with home build home design but with something so small and inexpensive is there any point in times of short funding ?
I wouldn’t use them to march in to Iran but to protect ports like Clyde, Portsmouth, Gib, Cyprus, the gulf and Far East 1 or 2 at each along with them to be used from a bay or Albion as the security role.

Yes, because even if it does turn out more expensive than paying someone else for them vs tax etc, the cost difference would be minimal for such simple craft. Why kill off people's livelihoods and lose yet more national self-support to save pennies?

The RM really need most of there kit replacing or soon to.
They need new fast LCUs and LCVPs, CB90 style vessels.
Soon to need a next gen Viking, maybe look at the USMC ACV to compliment the vikings.
New fast transport helos / tilt rotors.
New BARVs
New light artillery
Maybe there own CAMM platforms
All this along with personal Weaponry like for me the Mk-14 40mm grenade Launcher to give them a punch.

Correct on all, although priorities and which ones are more desires rather than crucial needs are important.

Archer replacement is a different thing from direct RM need, and has gone up lately with regards to the needs post-potential-Brexit. The landing craft are the most important aspect of that right now. They have fallen severely behind. Vikings just got upgraded, helos are in service, light artillery is a separate RA thing budget on model most likely. The CB90s I feel we need more information on the exact need/role for them on top of the ORCs already. As Jim says, we need to know what is planned for them, whether the Gov wants to keep them as they are, or whether they'll lose yet more capability. (Lets not kid ourselves about "what their role is", it's cut or not cut.)


I do agree with keeping industry with home build and design but it is not for the MOD to do so, this is where other departments such as DTI and the Treasury should help supplement the costs. Iv made this same argument for choosing Foxhound over the JLTV for the light armour. IMO it should happen but only if other departments step up not if it’s solely down to the MOD as we just don’t have the funds.

Yes the LCUs and LCVPs are the priority for the RM they really need 2 modern landing craft that can do 20-30+ knots full load and 40+ knots empty to get them back in the game.
For me the CB90s would be there to help protect these landing craft along with landing troops of there own. They would also land troops in small raiding forces.

SW1
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Royal Marines boats

Postby SW1 » 09 Jul 2019, 21:09

The reasons a boat like this maybe of interest is because the role of the marines is changing. If we’re going to be placing a greater importance on the littoral and working in it then boats like this should be considered as a way to exert control over the littoral thru the littoral strike group.

We recently seen a deployment of the archer vessels to the Baltic I believe so scope for deployments is there, add to that a growing offshore infrastructure around the the uk, for power generation undersea cables and pipe lines, a requirement to escort visiting Russian friends as they pass thru congested waters of the North Sea and channel and the ability to increase presence lends itself to such a vessel . The increased maritime security role of 42 commando and the more commando nature of the whole force operating in smaller teams also point to looking at new vessels to support that task.

The US navy recently conducted some long range deployments of this vessel in th Pacific hoping between islands getting aid into confined shore after a recent typhoon. So the potential to work in conjunction with the bay in the Caribbean could offer an increase in marine security and aid missions in the Caribbean.

We could design our own vessel along similar lines however I find the criticism on using this design because it’s foreign odd is that not exactly what’s being championed with type 31? We could easily take the base designs and modified the aft deck space for to be a large modular payload area by making the aft compartment removable.

Finally as unmanned systems develop there’s no reason why we couldn’t start integrating such systems onto this payload area , it may allow optional manning in congested or areas of degraded communications were by the craft if piloted but the payload operates autonomously.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PhillyJ, Urbane Gorilla and 13 guests