Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

different now where the interface isn't a discrete collection of allied nation states

A key point
... raiding isn't about ex-Soviet submarine pens, either

[Lord Jim]

Regarding the fire support for the Marines in the form of three Mortar Batteries each of three self propelled 120mm Mortars. Maybe these should actually be part of the Commando rather than the Royal Artillery Regiment assigned to 3 Commando Brigade. They should receive HIMARS as the Brigades "Big Stick".

The repeated reference to three Companies rather than a Commando related to the fact that these tree Companies are going to be assigned individual tasks when in "Raider" mode. They will be self contained combining elements currently in both the Stand off Companies and the Close Combat companies. When operating in "Land Warfare", mode then you will have the Commando operating as a single unit. In the latter mode there will be at least enough Vikings to move a Company, possibly two and with a possible future purchase of additional Vikings the whole Commando could be Mechanised if needed.

But the biggest change is going to be the very important ship to shore connectors, that are vital for this strategy to work and the platform(s) from which they are launched. I am not so sure of the idea put forward by RUSI that the LOVs are to be some sort of wolf in sheep's clothing. Any opponent will know what the vessels are and most likely will realise that despite the risk of escalation, it the LOV is taken out the chances of any intervention by allied forces declines markedly. The sequential escalation mentioned by RUSI will only happen if both sides are following the same rule book, and how likely is that to happen. Possibly against lower tier opposition but less likely against peer opposition who would see the sinking of one or more assets in the LSG a viable tactic in the short sharp initial engagements at the start of their own "Bite and hold" operations.

[jedibeeftrix]

just vikings (for the company alone)?

[Lord Jim]

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.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the need for additional Vikings is more pressing

Bearing in mind that they would be Viking 2s, I wonder if the options for 'helicoptering' them are affected by the greater weight?

"It can be carried underslung by the CH-47 Chinook or split in two sections and carried by the Merlin helicopter.

The BvS 10 [Viking] has already reached its limit of further uparmoring. So recently a bigger Viking Mk.2 with higher payload has been developed by BAE Systems.

BvS 10 Mk.II, improved version of the original all-terrain vehicle. It features much improved mine protection, more powerful engine, and many other changes. Improvements are based on experience gained during operations in Afghanistan. The Viking Mark II retains a carrying capacity of its predecessor."

[jedibeeftrix]

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.

my apologies, i was not clear in my intent.

the “just Vikings“ comment was to ask whether we were talking about the commando company alone?

i.e. two hundred burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles), or whether we're talking about a longer tail including detatchments of reme/rlc/etc that operate with that company?

[ArmChairCivvy]

burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)

Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12

[Jake1992]

burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)

Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12

Out of curiosity could any of the old warthogs be upgraded for use by the RM ?

And what are the major difference between as I’m finding it hard to find much info

[ArmChairCivvy]

be upgraded for use by the RM ?

Upgraded so much that they... don't swim!

[Jake1992]

be upgraded for use by the RM ?

Upgraded so much that they... don't swim!

I knew they didn’t have as capably amphibious set as a Viking but didn’t realise they had none at all.

It was just a curious question as reading above that with the Viking Mk2 we are looking for better armour and load capacity, this seemed to fitted with what the warthogs already had but lacked in the amphibious set compared to the vikings

[ArmChairCivvy]

The 12 dismounts 'equation' was solved differently by the Finns, when they, too, were wrestling with the dilemma of having organic fire support for the 'super' mobile infantry:
- add 1 mtr to length and do the armour with kevlar - mainly against splinters - and voi la... there's the 12 man dismounting section (plus more, staying with the 'cab'): " Front unit accommodates driver and four passengers, while up to 12 troops are seated in the rear unit. Interior is lined with Kevlar lining"
- the bigger size was necessary to go up from 81 mm to 120 mm mortars, as there might be no roads for the artillery to 'take part'

[jedibeeftrix]

burly chaps with bergens (and the drivers of said vehicles)

Can't be a coincidence that the Viking2 takes 12 (incl. the driver) and the RUSI doc proposed the new section strength @12

Perhaps not.
Does leave the question open on whether these chaps are roaming around on their tod...?

[Jake1992]

With the RM in part be rerolled in to a raiding force do we believe they will get or need new vehicles to for fill this role and if so what types are we looking at ?

I read up thread that some though we should be looking at ship to shore connectors that are like the CB90s but with the ability to handle one light vehicle for the offloading troops. With this in mind Iv been looking at more the super light end of things like Flyer 60s and Polaris MRZR as they are V-22 / chinook internal transportable as well.

[Lord Jim]

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.

[Jake1992]

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.

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.

[Repulse]

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

[Jake1992]

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

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.

With the need for 6 troops plus an ultra light vehicle I come back to my earlier post of looking at something like Flyer 60 or Polaris MRZR these both fit the bill IMO.

The problem with the Albion’s is the lack of hanger for the second wave by air that is mentioned, for what you’ve suggested above the LSS could work. 8 dividends 4 CB90 4 LCVP Mk6 with the Griffon 2400s off load from the rear ramp all while hosting helos or tilt rotars.

[Lord Jim]

I agree there will need to be a combination of platforms to facilitate first wave operations. Any next generation LCVP will have to have the same performance as a platform like the CB-90 with a speed of around 40kts, ideally low vis characteristics, some level of firepower like two .50 cal HMGs, and some level of armour protection. Such a craft would probably more expensive than a platform just carrying troops, and some operations would be troops on foot. A CB-90 style platform would also be used as a fire support platform. Thinking about this we are almost looking at a littoral equivalent of what the USN developed in Vietnam for riverine warfare with their "Brown water Navy".

[Jake1992]

For the ship to shore connectors I believe we need 3 types out side of hover craft to be able to fully do raiding ops and commando ops.

CB90 or equivalent to transport a small number of just troops or offer fire support to the larger landing force

LVCP Mk6 this to offer a troop plus ultra light vehicle for raiding forces or just a good number of troops for a larger op. This would need a speed of at least 30knots full load and a reconfigurable interior to allow best set up of troops or vehicles.

LCU Mk11 for your larger ops of delivering heavy vehicles or supply’s, once again would need a speed of at least 30 knots full load.

Lacking any one of the above types would result in us not being able to conduct either role properly IMO

[jedibeeftrix]

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)...

[Jake1992]

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)...

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.

There is also the fact that part of the roles for the LSS is to conduct HADR, now it most likely won’t have a well dock so will need a way to off load vehicles and supply’s when a port isn’t available.

For the reasons above I believe a fast reconfigurable LCVP size connector has a place in the future mix.

[jedibeeftrix]

ah, yes.

i tend to focus on the ASG rather than the LSG - where i see no future utility in them.

[Jake1992]

ah, yes.

i tend to focus on the ASG rather than the LSG - where i see no future utility in them.

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.

But for the raiding force to operate effective I still believe an LCVP sized vessel is needed, it should have 3 configurable set ups.
1 - as a full covered troop carrier with say 2 remote weapon systems of say 7.2mm.
2 - a full on light vehicle / stores carrier
3 - a mix of the 2 above, something that can carrier load and off load 1 or 2 ultra light vehicles like flyer 60 or Polaris MRZR along with 6-12 RM

[Repulse]

I see them as a stop gap giving much needed aviation until the main amphibious force is replaced

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]

I see them as a stop gap giving much needed aviation until the main amphibious force is replaced

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.

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 )
Once the current amphibious fleet is replaced I see the replacements being much more suited to the current and future planing so a wider role for the LSS will be needed and I see that being a high end SF platform.

I agree LCVP sized and type vessels still a part to play in the future.