tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.comments2023-09-14T09:05:28.328+01:00Naval RequirementsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-67795503283871511202016-06-18T15:11:36.701+01:002016-06-18T15:11:36.701+01:00cheaper, faster to build,multi flexible, designs w...cheaper, faster to build,multi flexible, designs which could be the basis for the proposed type 31 for the royal navy, light frigates like many, the royal navy has become 'tech blinkered' which has spirraled ship costs, hence the decline in fleet size.mission dedicated designed asw or escort within a carrier group(maybe) could see a rebirth in the kind of ship design almost extinct. perhaps we could bring back the sloop!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-46915651640679926272016-06-18T15:01:47.722+01:002016-06-18T15:01:47.722+01:00excellentexcellentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-85348102909495987552016-06-18T14:47:41.332+01:002016-06-18T14:47:41.332+01:00i have submitednumerous letters to the ministry of...i have submitednumerous letters to the ministry of defence along the lines of employing the modern corvette designs as a stopgap for the ever worsening state of the royal navy and its shortage of ships. the reply i have recieved is the obvious politicians blurb best value for money while employing the best systems, the proposal of a new lightweight frigate, the type 31 lends itself towards a corvette / frigate hybrid perhaps. one of the best reasons for the place of corvettes in today's navy's is, that they are, cheaper, quicker to buil and get into service, multi functional, and easily able to operate as a blue water warship.your informative and well written synopsis of the corvette of today, is a credit, thank you for the effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-69142703223923492082014-10-28T18:14:52.255+00:002014-10-28T18:14:52.255+00:00What is required is a ship of around 3000 tonnes c...What is required is a ship of around 3000 tonnes capable of the full spectrum of mine warfare via uuvs and uavs, with a flight deck and hanger capable of handling a wildcat asw helicopter. A sophisticated bow mounted sonar is required for the amw work and an artisan 3d search radar for aaw, this would enable the inclusion of 12-24 camm sams. A 76 mm deck gun and a couple of miniguns would complete the equipment load. A flexible mission space for the inclusion of 2 x 20 iso containers or a pair of rigid inflatables for special operations. 12 ships like this would be sufficient to replace the Hunt and Sandown classes but would also compliment the escort fleet in time of conflict. The ships would be capable of convoy escort, mine countermeasure, hydrography, anti-piracy, fisheries protection, and anti-smuggling operations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-63408379046398689972014-02-28T16:36:35.060+00:002014-02-28T16:36:35.060+00:00Dear Gareth,
thank you, that's really intere...Dear Gareth, <br /><br />thank you, that's really interesting, and strangely enough, from my own past http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/is-there-possibility-for-amphibiosity.html<br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-53104329859316180052014-02-28T16:32:32.644+00:002014-02-28T16:32:32.644+00:00I came across this alternative history and model r...I came across this alternative history and model recently; I thought you might be interested.<br /><br />http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=177&t=37053Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940535661399125656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-66915316174691649102014-02-28T13:31:54.082+00:002014-02-28T13:31:54.082+00:00Dear Gareth
The trouble with that is that your s...Dear Gareth <br /><br />The trouble with that is that your still mobilising a deterrent instead of it being there - so instead of a constant it becomes a variable which may exacerbate the situation... its better to have it in the 'water' at sea than to try to be fancy with it as you add greater danger/complexity to a situation which is already most likely (considering your talking about strategic deterrent) volatile. <br /><br />My view is that we should either have the deterrent and do it properly - i.e. enough vessels to keep at sea, and in the case proposed here have an extra capability for when we need it... or we don't have it and declare ourselves a nuclear free zone and hope that no one decides to hit us anyway... <br /><br />My reading of the international situation with the rearming that is openly going on, the profusion of the disputes and the increasing number of nations and other organisations seeking such weapons or their equivalents means that a deterrent is a functioning need for the UK. We are too interconnected in the world (one of the thoughts behind this http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/october-2013-thoughts-extended-thoughts.html) to ever be able to stick our collective head in the sand and cross our fingers it will get better - that means we will act, any action will by its nature make enemies (and of course friends - it's often forgotten but is just as important to our strategic position), added to this our repeated defence cuts since 1991 in the belief that somehow with the end of the Cold War the world was going to get more peaceful (it actually arguably has got less safe and more problematic) and we need the strategic deterrent. <br /><br />However should Anti-Ballistic-Missile Systems get to the point they are an effective national (not just theatre as the SM-3 is aiming to be) defence then we would be in a different scenario. <br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-22624148436066962602014-02-28T12:40:37.377+00:002014-02-28T12:40:37.377+00:00Very interesting. I reached a similar conclusion ...Very interesting. I reached a similar conclusion awhile back, except with an emphasis on storing Trident and equipping with cruise, as laid out in this article; <br /><br />http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a-submarine-for-all-seasons-30657.html<br /><br /><br />I didn't mention numbers but I had in mind 5 new subs, which with the 7 Astutes would give us 12 Nuclear submarines, 7 with minor cruise missile capability, 5 with major cruise capability and the potential to reequip as SSBN's if required. A reverse of your "then the vessels would be easily converted to SSGN and therefore would still be of use for the remainder of their career".<br /><br />A similar conclusion was suggested here:<br /><br />http://jedibeeftrix.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/thoughts-on-the-successor-deterrent-cmc-is-in/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940535661399125656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-5494982141390420722014-02-28T11:14:18.502+00:002014-02-28T11:14:18.502+00:00Dear Gareth
I followed the link, its an interesti...Dear Gareth<br /><br />I followed the link, its an interesting article...there are some excellent ideas in our past, I just wish we were more open as a nation to using them. <br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-7375167220541647932014-02-28T09:59:16.628+00:002014-02-28T09:59:16.628+00:00I have come across your blog a few times while doi...I have come across your blog a few times while doing research but haven't commented before. I wrote something for the Think Defence site about modern auxiliary cruisers which overlaps with this article. I hope it will be of interest.<br /><br />http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/03/a-ship-for-all-seasons-or-the-return-of-the-auxiliary-cruiser/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10940535661399125656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-28830694671207476672014-01-01T18:05:32.067+00:002014-01-01T18:05:32.067+00:00Hi Karl, happy new year and thank you for comments...Hi Karl, happy new year and thank you for comments<br /><br />That certainly is a problem; myself I'd have thought a bank of Sea Ceptor VLS would not have been that much of an engineering problem to put in, other navies do so - even the American's, who have far more escorts, do; they fit Sea Sparrow, Rolling Air Frame and CIWS to the Ford Class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier)...it's just good practice, these are important assets which will have to go into harms way to do their job, just as every part of the armed forces does it seems silly to not protect them properly. <br /><br />The obsession with just in time logistics and modern business economics might make sense in accountancy land but make for a poor strategic situation. <br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-24573936050385277012014-01-01T07:00:38.333+00:002014-01-01T07:00:38.333+00:00Can't agree more with your article, The royal ...Can't agree more with your article, The royal navy really needs a third deck as a "just in'case measure". really cant believe the navy is not arming it Queen Elizabeth class carriers with short range SAMS. They are way to valuable to risk. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12628348295655328655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-81200505901944193422013-12-12T01:01:30.776+00:002013-12-12T01:01:30.776+00:00Dear TwentyTwenty
attempt to reply number two, co...Dear TwentyTwenty<br /><br />attempt to reply number two, computer crashed... I agree on catamarans strength, but I will admit my visual was more james bond probably than it sounded, i.e. there being doors that it's loaded in and out of. Also not something the size of LCU, but bigger than an LCVP, something along the lines of LCT. In my mind it would carry one-two, four ocean raiding craft, a medium helicopter, three-four rotary UAVs capable of acting as a gunship or aew (http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/august-2013-notes-uavs-cruise-missiles.html and http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/august-2013-notes-possibilities-of_1.html) and carrying an enhanced company sized formation for raiding... <br /><br />However, if I had to choose between 3 of them or 3 extra bay class, it'd be the bays... but on the cost I would point out it's not ship which is expensive most often, it's what goes in them - the electronics, the coding of the software, as it is with aircraft and vehicles. <br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-10207080271573169272013-12-11T17:39:39.269+00:002013-12-11T17:39:39.269+00:00Almost forgot the most important 'no-no' h...Almost forgot the most important 'no-no' here:<br />- The height of the space between the hulls is operationally and structurally imperative as indispensable 'suspension-travel' to reach that speed across uneven surfaces (waves) with taking serious structural damage from the connecting structure hitting hard water at 35kts. - which they would anyway unless operators slow down to match increasing sea-states. <br /><br />Thus, nothing to be slung under that connecting structure !<br /><br />Left and right outside of the hulls possibly, assuming balanced weights and the (again) unavoidable structural weight of massive davits and their mechanisms.<br /><br />Another serious reality. Of course, any craft/vessel/ship has certain limitations... TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-40901422414180237982013-12-11T17:25:34.638+00:002013-12-11T17:25:34.638+00:00Catamarans are always inherently disadvantaged by ...Catamarans are always inherently disadvantaged by the unavoidable weight of the connecting structures and the perpetual struggle between <br />- overall cargo-carrying-capacity as % of displacement <br />- hull-shape 'fineness', <br />- interference drag,<br />- accessibility of propulsion in lean hulls,<br />- combat-vulnerability with one hull drowning ruining the whole craft,<br />- etc. <br /><br />Case in point is JHSV SPEARHEAD:<br />- on 2400-tons max. displacement it carries only about 600 tons of 'cargo',<br />- requiring 48,800hp Diesels to do 35 kts max. for 1200nm max,<br />- with 12.5 feet of draft not suitable to go close inshore unless a conveniently-located peaceful harbor happens to be nearby,<br /> - and structurally not set up to carry 600-tons of loaded LCU-X types of whatever configuration in whatever location aboard.<br /><br />Go-fast seems attractive for selected purposes but gets expensive and logistically challenging really quickly. Per Fiscal Year 2012 numbers each appears to cost about US $ 208 million. And that without much of sophisticated self-defenses (4x .50-cal MGs) never-mind any offensive capability. <br /><br />Did not Norway buy a full-capability frigate for the price of two of these light go-fast ferries ? There seem to be distinct limits to that approach as well.<br /><br />For additional context, designed and built as (optimistic) commercial projects in the early 1970s, the 8-vessel "Fast Sealift' class (T-AKR 287-294) have been clocked at <br />- 33 WOT (light at around 30,000tons) and <br />- 30 fully loaded at a displacement of 55,500tons, <br />- hauling over 25,000tons of cargo,<br />- burning 120,000 geared steam-turbine HP,<br />- for a range of 12,000+ nm at 27kts.<br /><br />So, at 2.46x the power of JSHV SPEARHEAD, T-AKR 287 hauls 41x the JHSV's cargo at about 86% of JSHV's speed.<br /><br />Even with the worse efficiency of steam-turbines over diesels, these numbers give one pause about relative progress. However while JHSV needs around 12 feet of water for her port-berth under the inherently thin-skinned hulls, T-AKR needs 38 feet of water to come alongside a pier somewhere... Both need port-facilities or a sea-base to be effective.<br /> TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-19215171730053916092013-12-11T16:27:43.839+00:002013-12-11T16:27:43.839+00:00Dear Twenty Twenty
unfortunately I've finishe...Dear Twenty Twenty<br /><br />unfortunately I've finished my thesis, it was on 1920s naval aviation - I enjoyed and am hoping to get it made into a book; lots of lessons from then for now, invasive treaties, financial stringency and emergent/nascent technologies in a time of transition. <br /><br />Definitely, the APC's are more than likely a good base of development; the Viking has characteristics I would like to be able to copy (i.e. the ability to take wider tracks and being light enough to be used in arctic terrain - this idea is for a vehicle which can be used world over) - the double cab system might be copied to the extent the 8x8 in logistic form could well have a trailer attached but I wouldn't think that the vehicles should be articulated as normal. They might well be divided up by the modules into self-contained compartments - i.e. the driver position could be standardised, then there would perhaps be a central compartment and after compartment: which for example in the case of the APC the central being the one which would take the turret and more than likely the power packs, with the aft compartment being for troops or ammunition or whatever else is required. <br /><br />I would probably favour something along the lines of the Super AV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superav) fuse with the CV90 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90); with the concept sort of being pinched from the Stryker which has wheeled and tracked versions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker & http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2012-gdls-introduces-tracked-stryker-concept/) ... with the modular concept as well as the track/wheels to an extent coming from the SEP program (http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/). So I would say CV90 as a sort of grandparent (it's range of variants and flexibility), whilst Super AV and SEP are parents and Stryker is a sort of Uncle/distant cousin? if that family tree makes sense, the length would probably be about 7-7.5m, width 3-3.5m, the height of course would depend upon whether it was a turreted, remote weapon station or turreted but probably with turrets a maximum of 2.7m...but a crane could well take it to 3m.<br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-47974851119600571132013-12-11T16:03:40.264+00:002013-12-11T16:03:40.264+00:00Dear Twenty Twenty
I'm actually waiting for s...Dear Twenty Twenty<br /><br />I'm actually waiting for someone to combine this http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653379.pdf#page=88 with some landing craft... I don't think it's going to take that long as they are already almost hangar equipped (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/USNS_Spearhead_with_helicopter_during_sea_trials.jpg - look at this picture, there is a 'shelter' space for a helicopter! all it needs is a cover) - why not some low form landing craft or hover craft that can be stowed underneath in gap between the hulls?<br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-13512570284296743312013-12-11T14:32:34.205+00:002013-12-11T14:32:34.205+00:00In your ruminations about ship-to-shore Connectors...In your ruminations about ship-to-shore Connectors, do not discount self-deployment-options, assuming crew and Marines could stand that longer ride: <br />- On LCU-F taking one 70-tons MBT out (of 3) and replacing it with a temporary 'fuel-bladder-farm' would open up about trans-Atlantic range.<br />- One LCU-F with a full 200-tons of fuel (55,000 US Gals) as a 'milch-cow', could feed 4 other combat-vehicle-laden LCU-Fs to do almost the same distance at likely 15-16kts, meaning arrival of 4x combat-ready LCU-F, plus a fifth empty 'tanker'.<br />- Fifth unit would either accept another refueling to serve as a forward-most helo-refueling-pad (approx. 180 refuels per AH-1/UH-1 helo or 22x refuelings of 8 such helos).<br />- Or, upon the rapid removal of the 1500lbs of many small-volume-elements tank-farm gear, it would be able to engage as a combat-reserve pumping in more vehicles from a sea-base.<br />- Or rapidly reconfigured internally - like your proposal - it could haul, say 300 troops in seated positions or 100 in sleeper formation, to then run its own 1500nm.<br /><br />War-Gaming with this multi-mission-module LCU-F proposal gets quite intriguing... About as engaging as doing this with the APC-proposal. Both seem more rational 'futures' than past approaches.TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-830083074733240012013-12-11T14:10:51.517+00:002013-12-11T14:10:51.517+00:00'Roger that' on the last 4 paragraphs.
I ...'Roger that' on the last 4 paragraphs.<br /><br />I think what is teaching sober (constructive ?) lessons all around - perhaps for the first time in recent institutional memory - are serious fiscal constraints all around well into the future. Reviewing what went wrong in ill-fated efforts at collaboration, along with positive examples of such efforts ought to be a fine Thesis in some military degree-granting academic setting either side of the Atlantic (preferable one Thesis per...) and thus offer lessons on which approaches might seem more promising - assuming any patterns are discernible at all.<br /><br />One very promising element in all this is the fact that APC-types bought in batches of 100 would add up to single copies of ships etc. which suggests that we may indeed see more plausibility in collaborating on such vehicle than on the big-ticket-items.<br /><br />VIKING has distinct characteristics. How many of those would you propose to need in your proposal ?<br /><br />Better put perhaps - as in here-&-now - amongst the competing offerings by APC-builders, which one would seem the most promising 'backbone' for your system of mission-specific add-ons ? I assume that there are certain geometries that you might favor ? And why ?<br /><br />Let's do this like wine-tasting and pretend we would not know the given vehicle's origin...<br /> TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-12141340539488177812013-12-11T10:10:44.668+00:002013-12-11T10:10:44.668+00:00Dear Jed
I will admit there is a reason this post...Dear Jed<br /><br />I will admit there is a reason this post is entitled some ideas, it's not a complete (- this explains the titles of the blogs, its very boring, very very boring, but if you are interested http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-little-explanation.html), but some ideas for the next generation of vehicles, there ones that come after the Viking, the warrior, the challenger II...and I know a decade is a long way away, but I honest think that we need to start thinking about these things now to work our what we need them to do.<br /><br />I would personally think it should go to the Armoured Support Group, the Command Group, the Commando Engineers, the Commando Artillery, the Commando Logistics - it would replace every vehicle in the brigade, would be replaced by either a wheeled or tracked chassis. I would also like to see such a system used for the Army's Adaptable force - simply because that is what the purpose of this system is, adaptability. <br /><br />I am not saying the Viking isn't ok at the moment, but I honestly don't think when it comes to replace that we should go for the same again, Bandvangn 202, then Bandvagn 206 and now the Bandvagn 10 (or BvS 10 Viking). Every time they were originally procured they were looked at in a Cold War Northern Front context, and that arguably was right (where they needed to be light in order to be operated on frozen lakes - another reason for modularity to be able to reduce the weight when that is necessary for operations - as with the Vikings this will undoubtedly come at the expense of armour, that's logical, but refitting that armour when weight isn't such a factor is also critical), then - for the future, I don't think their enough. I think the remote weapon stations, javelin launchers and mortars are ok for now, not great, but ok - what I'm worried about is the future, and as you so rightly point out it often comes down to Treasury and Budget rather than strategy or doctrine (especially agree on the absurd selling of 4th Bay class, as I've said before I would have stuck it in reserve http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/july-2013-notes-could-rnr-provide.html). That is why this vehicle idea is orientated not just on fulfilling domestic needs but export needs as well; the thing that is guaranteed at the moment to make the Treasury interested in something is it's exportability; which is another reason we need to start thinking about it now, because we might want to get partners involved. <br /><br />My reasoning for it being modular, is because of the adaptability it will allow: it will give a small force the ability to transition it's capabilities itself at distance from the home nation; so therefore be quickly redeployed should the situation require it. For example they could be rolled for an amphibious exercise, then there be a humanitarian crisis and have to go need that - in amphibious operation they'd need 'tanks', but for a humanitarian crisis, they'd need more flatbed/logistics units and then afterwards they could quickly transition back to amphibious for a continuation of the exercise or another crisis. <br /><br />Personally I think a PASCAT type is the likely choice for the UK amphibious force, and enough Vikings for the current requirements would be excellent, hovercraft I would like to see more of as an addition to the flexibility that the LCUs/LCU(R)s give the UK (in fact I think more ships should be a capable of operating them http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/november-2013-notes-auxiliary-aviation.html) - this piece is about putting down some ideas for the future, for looking beyond the current generation of vehicles and hopefully laying down some markers but maybe just the starting the debate. <br /><br />anyway, thank you for commenting and I hope I have answered your queries <br /><br />yours sincerely<br /><br />AlexanderAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-84812675522843126952013-12-11T03:15:18.218+00:002013-12-11T03:15:18.218+00:00Interesting article and set of comments. If you wa...Interesting article and set of comments. If you want modular army to support the RM, is it going t be deployed by an "armoured support group" of 3 Cdo Brigade, or is it going to be the lead Squadron / Company of the lead battalion of the Reaction Force armoured brigade ?<br /><br />For some river crossing once ashore why is the Viking not good enough for the job ? Why do we need an USMC style MPC ? Why does it need to be modular ? I don't think you have fully answered the questions. <br /><br />"Protected Mobility" is indeed important and only going to get more so. Does a Viking with an dual weapon RWS, and a Javelin launcher cut the mustard as a recce asset ? Does a Viking with a manually loaded 81mm mortar fit the bill as far support ?<br /><br />As ever with the UK it comes down to budget rather than strategy or doctrine. We would not have the money for more amphibs (having just sold a Bay class that was actually rather cheap to run....). <br /><br />Personally I would like to see a PASCAT derivative to replace the LCU, and enough Viking's to fully support the 3 Cdo Brigade - command vehicles, logistic support versions, ambulances etc. Of course some off-the-shelf Griffon Hoverworks 8100TD would be nice too, but we would have to lease the shipping required to get them to the action.... :-)<br /><br />JedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-5904755292497749592013-12-10T17:54:17.801+00:002013-12-10T17:54:17.801+00:00Dear TwentyTwenty
I think myself the interesting ...Dear TwentyTwenty<br /><br />I think myself the interesting line on the PASCAT is that the manned unit in testing is termed a "scale model" - so I wonder how big the real one would be and is it that or the scaled model for which the stats are given?<br /><br />in reply to:<br />1) they will certainly see us well into the 2020s, but I think that means we need to start thinking about it now - the time it takes to develop these things is becoming slightly absurd, and more than likely an opener would need to be in the 2015 SDSR<br />2) thank you, <br /><br />I always find the COBRA/APACHE situation interesting, as the Cobra/Viper makes a lot of sense logistically for the USMC with the combination of the Huey, and could be just as good for the Army... I certainly think that the UK might be more sensible to go Viper for longterm rather than repeat with Apache - especially if we are going to be sea basing gunships more often in the future. <br /><br />Different marine forces have different terms, consider the two closest allies US & UK: the RM's are organised in Commando's the USMC in Regiments - the USMC has all its own armour, engineers, artillery, aircraft and member of the chiefs of staff, whilst the RMs (baring the support group) get their engineers (http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/units/28645.aspx) and artillery (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/The-Royal-Marines/3-Commando-Brigade/Attached-Army-Units/29-Commando-Regiment-Royal-Artillery) from specialist permanently assigned Army units, armour is assigned almost adhoc (for example Scimitars in Al Faw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Al_Faw_(2003)) - this all leads to a very different approach. <br /><br />I first started writing about current amphibious armour problems after reading about the USMC's MPC program and thinking that would be great for the RMs and the French - the smaller amphibious forces which don't really want the big squad lift vehicles as it puts 'too many eggs in a single basket', but do need firepower and protected manoeuvre - especially in modern raiding/rapid insertions where in all likelihood, the troops are going to have to go in with what they have with them, rather than getting stuff brought out.<br /><br />A cross balancing like that relationship would be great, under such circumstances I wouldn't be surprised if the Australians and Japanese wanted to join in as well and who knows what might come out of such a combination. <br /><br />Unfortunately the UK has been burned so many times, Horizon Frigate being a case in point, by multi-national work; and the F-35/Eurofighter are neither shining examples of the benefits of international co-operation, the Eurofighter is only just starting to get a strike capability and the F-35 is delayed and facing cost increases (hence my earlier post http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/june-2013-notes-possibilities-of.html) - however, the similarities of situation that marines face and commonality of threat might well add conviction as well as provide common ground to build it from.<br /><br />I have no answers to the final questions, just hope...Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-61991873788836355522013-12-10T15:08:40.652+00:002013-12-10T15:08:40.652+00:00Thank you for the effort, Alex.
That's about w...Thank you for the effort, Alex.<br />That's about what I was able to find.<br />Of course, a CHALLENGER-2 is way heavier than that.<br />And smaller/lighter IED-correct vehicles add up fairly quickly as well. <br />Planing hulls and catamarans lose a lot of top-speed with a full-load.<br />I had assumed that post-launch a good while back we'd by now have a good understanding of that PASCAT performance-profile.<br /><br />On your multi-purpose land vehicle project two things are true:<br />- 1. 'We' have the wheeled and tracked vehicles we have for a good while longer yet.<br />- 2. Your proposal should be pursued.<br /><br />On the latter however, your perspective on well-deck formats already suggests the difficulties involved in any cost-effective shared system around such a vehicle. In the US the Army is supported by APACHE attack-helos while USMC prefers COBRA-types, making for significantly enlarged logistics. And when friendly nations do not coordinate their amphibious ship-building around at least a shared well-deck format, then the odds of 'rationality' around other shared standards appear to remain limited indeed...just as Austerity would suggest the opposite and thus steadfast pursuit of maximization of investments for 'force/fiscal-line-item multiplying' effectiveness.<br /><br />It would seem that Marines across the board would do what Marines do. But if national self-definitions of what it is that 'their' Marines do differ, then the already inherently limited chances towards economies of scale shrink further.<br /><br />With the future of likely warfare probably seeing more amphibious operations than large-armies-based land-wars, the first objective towards Marines effectiveness should be a formulation of shared architecture/dimensions that will guide future systems-development and then acquisition, whether it will be amphibious ship-design, ship-to-shore connectors or your proposed combat-vehicle system.<br /><br />Raising this issue far and wide is the first step.<br />Second would be a balancing of resulting distribution of burdens and gains across collaborating Marines. If RN accepts US well-deck standards for future designs and construction, then USMC and Dutch Marines should boost your vehicle-system development, incl. with desert-testing at 29 Palms and lobbying on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.<br /><br />However it would seem that priorities continue to distinctly reflect personal/national preferences, often based on quite elusive reasons, incl. proud perpetuations of errors made in past acquisitions. The self-definitions of USMC, RM and RDM for instance should be mostly overlapping, but apparently are not quite...<br /><br />One would hope that the Age of Fiscal Austerity would teach greater rationality with am eye on both institutional self-preservation (!) and tax-payers' much broader interests.<br /><br />So, when is the next Marines Hardware-Collaboration Committee Meeting ?<br />And where ? <br /><br />Do we have enough shared interests in 'the cause' to help make that happen ? <br /><br /> <br />TwentyTwentyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935410307831357488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-60429631325461638572013-12-10T09:23:59.135+00:002013-12-10T09:23:59.135+00:00Dear Keith
I concur those are the very best vehi...Dear Keith <br /><br />I concur those are the very best vehicles, but they are growing older and need to be replaced, in the case of Challenger it's an excellent vehicle unless your fighting in terrain which can't support it's bulk - then you don't have a tank. They make perfect sense for an armoured brigade, for fighting on the plains and urban warfare - where there is solid ground for them to move.<br /><br />I also agree COIN gets a disproportionate amount of focus, these vehicles though are designed for more than that... Although I was tempted to say one of the armour attachments might be a V-shaped hull, but I thought that would be obvious, and would also have made the Idea into a COIN idea when that wasn't it's aim.<br /><br />This idea is about marines, about amphibious armour - especially for nations which don't have the large fleet of amphibious warfare vessels to carry a vast array of vehicles: for these nations such a concept would be extremely useful as it would mean they could deploy forces in emergency with very little notice and without having to restock them. <br /><br />More landing craft would be useful, as would the more ships required to move them and the more forces that they could - all would be excellent, but that doesn't change the fact that we have a force for which the global armour unit that take everywhere with it is the Viking (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/The-Royal-Marines/3-Commando-Brigade/539-Assault-Squadron/Armoured-Support-Group, http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/October/03/121003-Vikings and http://amphibiousnecessity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/what-should-future-of-british-ship-to.html) - that is the sort of vehicle this idea replaces, the fact that it could be used as a tank, a scout and all the rest is an advantage as it would enable that force to rely upon it's own constituents wherever it goes. Something it can not really do at the moment. <br /><br />D-day was possibly the last peer-on-peer opposed amphibious operation, if we'd have precision munitions, its highly likely that the Germans would have as well (after all they developed the Glide bomb first (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X); which I rather think would have meant that it would have been just as messy if not more so, just in a higher tech fashion. <br /><br />90% is a very high number, but is doable and again it will depend upon what style of amphibious assault is chosen, Indirect or Direct - I have a feeling that the former will become more common. This will make armour, especially when usable as transport even more important than it is now, whatever the terrain. That is something which this idea is built for, need more APCs/Scouts and Logistics, simply re-assign the chasses... <br /><br />There is no point in my trying to claim they will be perfect or best vehicle in all these roles, but the idea would be the best fit for the strategic and geo-tactical requirements of these forces as they would not be tied to any specific environments to work, they would be a fairly universal capability. Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7874352492088086371.post-26041746582296918312013-12-10T09:02:48.521+00:002013-12-10T09:02:48.521+00:00all they give details for here http://www.qinetiq....all they give details for here http://www.qinetiq.com/news/pressreleases/Pages/pascat-launched.aspx is that the demonstrator can carry 55tones and go significantly faster... so not really that helpful, although it is roughly the size of a LCU 10 so that would mean 4 each could be carried on HMS Albion/Bulwark and two on each of the of Bay Class... Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06849041144795952276noreply@blogger.com