Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7655
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Has liked: 80 times
Been liked: 218 times
England

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by SKB »

Build some new SR-N4 Mountbatten class hovercraft in pussers grey, but without the duty free trolley. :mrgreen:
Image
Image

(Stephen Hoadley) 15th August 2017
In 2000 Hoverspeed announced the end of only remaining cross-Channel hovercraft service. In the late summer of that year I went down to Dover to record something of their last few weeks in service. I could not have been made more welcome by the Hoverspeed team, as will be obvious when you watch the videos. This first video shows some of the action to be found at the Dover Hoverport.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7286
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Has liked: 317 times
Been liked: 351 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Far from stealthy and wya too big uless it was to be the MRSS. :D

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2533
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Has liked: 94 times
Been liked: 69 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by Caribbean »

Lord Jim wrote: 20 Oct 2022, 11:10 could a T-26 embark one or more
The T32 graphics posted recently would seem to show that they could carry something of similar dimensions on the stern ramp (though it looked more like a CB90). along with four Rhibs. It would make sense to design both the MRSS and the T32 to be capable of carrying the same offboard systems
These users liked the author Caribbean for the post:
Poiuytrewq
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4695
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 239 times
Been liked: 248 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

an air draft of less than 2m would be beneficial (this is the only dimensional constraint)

Very interesting. It is NOT required to be less than 11-12 m, so carriage into T26 mission bay, or comparable length to MCM USV is NOT mandatory.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4695
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 239 times
Been liked: 248 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

How about a smaller, and stealthyer version of this ? CNIM LCX concept. (this version surely do NOT meet the < 2m height requirement though)
Image
https://cnim-groupe.com/en/businesses/d ... x-missions#

Or wider version of this? (Finnish jurmo class, do not need 37knots speed).
Image

Or simply a bit modified this? Dutch Damen LCVP.
https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/la ... onnel-1604

Looking around, it looks like typical LCVP, a bit smaller than current Mk.5, with enclosed top and inclined side (both for stealth).... Hmmm.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 584
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Has liked: 811 times
Been liked: 93 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

I am assuming that the Polaris MZR could be ideal for LRG(S), where it would allow RM's quick deployment inland where high mobility is more important than higher degree of protection from MRAP vehicles.

I still think there us enough scope for Viking vehicles in LRG(N), especially if RM being deployed to Scandinavia. Although I am curious how RM's mission will change after Sweden and Finland join NATO.

I like the sound of the new Landing Craft. Will they count as LST or LSU? Is that dependant on size or cargo they cen carry?

Post Reply