UK Defence Forum

Tempest414 wrote:No they have used this term for sometime

Originally they were LSL(A) or LSA (L); the last two letters for Logistics and Auxiliary
- NATO, however, did not have any designation that would have been a close match

Now we just need to slow things down, conduct the trials for four or five years until the NEXT Review and by then the RN should be able to put forward a pretty solid case for investment in the assets needed to make the aspirations reality.

https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTIC ... HTML&src=0

II.2.4)
Description of the procurement:

The authority intends to place a contract for the supply of protected weapon mounts for the Viking (BVS10) platform.

BlueD954 wrote: protected weapon mounts

Mounts for Vikings, under the heading of Artillery Systems. Will the MG be traded for an autocannon (isn't that where the dividing line lies)?
- or is it that the header can be anything, willy-nilly as it is only an 'after the fact' notice

I thought we only had around 100 Vikings in service or do we have some more hidden away somewhere. I know the Mk2 is in the running to replace the Bv206 in a supporting role.

What caught my eye though was the value of the Contract, £3.5M, so that could be up to £350,000 per Protected Weapon Mount. I wonder if they are going to be similar to those fitted to other platform with large bulletproof panels allow observation. Anyone go t any other ideas, I do not think they are talking about a RWS.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

BlueD954 wrote: protected weapon mounts

Mounts for Vikings, under the heading of Artillery Systems. Will the MG be traded for an autocannon (isn't that where the dividing line lies)?
- or is it that the header can be anything, willy-nilly as it is only an 'after the fact' notice

Lord Jim wrote:I thought we only had around 100 Vikings in service or do we have some more hidden away somewhere. I know the Mk2 is in the running to replace the Bv206 in a supporting role.

What caught my eye though was the value of the Contract, £3.5M, so that could be up to £350,000 per Protected Weapon Mount. I wonder if they are going to be similar to those fitted to other platform with large bulletproof panels allow observation. Anyone go t any other ideas, I do not think they are talking about a RWS.

99. I wonder if the number will drop under the Future Commando Force plan if they are focused more on raiding. Or are Vikings needed for raiding units?

We'll keep they for use in Norway as they are the best platform for up there by a large margin, even if the Army ends up using them again.

Is Viking2 , with its better protection level, amphibious like BV206?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is Viking2 , with its better protection level, amphibious like BV206?

The original Vikings were amphibious, so the 99 converted to MK2 standard probably are. I thought that some Vikings had weapons mounts, and bar armour for A'stan but these were possibly MK1 versions.

Namely, what sunk the Warthog fleet (as for transfer to the RM) was all that added armour... and they were no more amphibious.

Then they were going to be used for UAVs
- and by now we know that only the tactical part of the Watchkeeper comms are not on them but rather on modified Viking2's;
as the WK itself, taking off from a runway, obviously is fine with a truck to get it there. And only when actually above the the area of Ops the benefit of that tactical ground unit getting anywhere where it would need to be will be felt

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is Viking2 , with its better protection level, amphibious like BV206?

Yes in their standard form. Start adding all the additional protect kit used in Afghanistan and you might have a few issues.

I like the photo that Armchair Soldier put onto the BALTOPS thread

and it is more than clear that the TAG has been maxed out on HMS Ocean (one Chinook is 'away, on other business')
and wonder which shape (flat top or San Antonio -like) should be favoured for any future amph. shipping?
- pros and cons?

If the Future Commando Concept is based around smaller Multirole ships, the Fassmer MPV70
Mk II (for the Ecuadorean Navy) is an interesting ship. Could operate close to shore with a combination Rhibs / Landing Craft and USVs. Can imagine 2-3 operating with a Bay + T31 Frigate + Support Ship (providing aviation support) providing a significant Littoral Support Group.

https://www.fassmer.de/en/news/2020/fas ... orian-navy

On Littoral Strike there were no specifics about platforms but Burns said there would be a transition away from current amphibious force model, including its structure and force generation to be more “scaleable and agile”. The Future Commando Force will have a sea base, surface and aviation manoeuvre, tactical precision strike, comms and ISR capabilities. Autonomous or uncrewed systems will support pre-landing insertion and extraction operations, provide resupply, act as interception swarms, conduct ISR, carry cyber payloads, together with an urban ‘find and strike’ capability.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy- ... formation/

Well the 1SL has definitely set the bar high when it comes to aspirations for the future Royal Navy, I just hope the bit in the middle between then and now is still going to be properly managed and funded.

Looking at the article listed above one of the links is for part 2 of another article looking at how the Mission bays on the T-26 and T-31? could be used. It is quite an interesting read, and the ability for the T-26 to carry two Merlins is one I was not aware of.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-26 ... -contents/

Like his speeches; all msgs delivered, no fillers

Let me be the Devil's Advocate:
- with the double-crewing, some T-23s will never come back to the UK... rather head straight from the Gulf to the breaker's yard in S. India
... and the T-26 seemed to have reverted back to the 'Global Cruiser' - and even more

The way he mentions amph. shipping makes it sound like (!) they are part of the future build prgrm.

The core of a Future Littoral Response Group?

Boat Transporter for modern USV variants of MGBs and “robot” landing craft.



A control mothership with Royal Marines operating OTH.



Supported by an Aviation Support Ship.

Interesting film from Forces TV on the development of the Royal Marines and 47 Commando in particular.

I was in two minds about the re-roling of some of the Cdos (only two retain their heavy weapons ans thereby can be considered - off the blocks - as manoeuver units.

However, as per the vid linked above, experts need to be experts in their field. And sometimes the field can be v narrow and specialised. Take the example of the very heavily exposed (in the int'l press)
" Freedom Flotilla-incident [that] involved the following situtaion: while in international waters, the six vessels of so called Freedom Flotillawere hailed and warned by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) not to sail any further as they would breach the Israeli blockade of Gaza. When the vessels did proceed, the IDF boarded the vessels in order to take control over them. During their boarding of the vessels, one of which was the Mavi Marmara, they were met with resistance by the persons on board."
- the boarding unit was v expert, but not trained in the kind of boarding (expect hostiles that you can shoot, passive resistance, or a medley of the two kinds)

No need to say it went badly (details of course withheld).

So, it is not a bad idea to specialise more. Indeed, there is now a NATO School for practising resisted boardings... not an easy thing to practice. We have used our Waves (resemble non-navy vessels) to do that repeatedly, after every step, until every scenario has been tried and tested
- those teams don't stay together, forever
= rinse, and repeat

Apologies if this is old news, but I have been reading up on Project Vahana, which relates to the delivery of 38 Sea Class (<20m) work boats by Atlas Elektronik and includes HMS Magpie. Good overview of the workboats here: https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/soluti ... craft.html

One thing I missed is that of the 38 boats, 10 are 11m workboats which can also be transferred by air.

What caught my eye is the bit in bold -“The craft is designed to be ship-deployed and is able to carry heavy payloads at high speeds. Fitted with a hydraulic crane or davit and deck cargo rails, the craft is ideal for ship-to-ship and littoral logistics operations.”

Reference is also made to RMs using them. With speeds of 40kts they could be a key part of the Future Commando Force concept working from small ships. Interestingly, these workboats are the same size as the Army work boats, one of which we saw on the back of a B2 River Class.

Repulse wrote:littoral logistics operations

Interesting, was not aware of this type of asset (a work boat does not bring that function immediately to mind)

A boat with a crane... or drive straight to where the 'stuff' is needed
= a boat with wheels https://www.army-technology.com/wp-cont ... 4thFeb.jpg

When the BVs wear out (=soon), I think we will go for the latter. As they will need to be bigger than what can be handled from davits that will then leave room for these work boats serving the same function, too
- and the list what else they can do seems to be 'endless'

I completely missed this - has anyone else seen it?

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... the-future

Who cares about landing craft if you “shoot” RMs to land via a Rail Gun!

Nice video of the Sea Class 11m workboat;

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roya ... -832sw9tfs

Small groups of Royal Marine commandos will be deployed on covert missions overseas to operate in the “grey zone” between peace and war where they can disrupt enemy activity.

Lieutenant Colonel Simon Rogers, commanding officer of 40 Commando, said that they would carry out “special operations” in sensitive places where a conventional deployment would increase political risk.

Commandos will take on the role of special forces so that the “highest end troops” are free to focus on the most demanding operations, he said.