In January 2023 the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) launched the Novel Amphibious Craft competition as a prelude to replacing the Royal Marines’ small landing craft. Here we look at one of the potential solutions – Steller Systems’ Offshore Insertion Craft concept.
Making it to the beach
For some time it has been obvious that traditional amphibious vessels and slow landing craft were no longer a viable option for landing troops or supplies in a contested environment. The proliferation of cheap weaponised drones and guided weapons makes it increasingly easier even for non-peer adversaries to defend a coastline. It is clear that the assault ship cannot safely loiter close to the shoreline and will have to launch ship-to-shore connectors potentially up to 100 miles or more away from the coast. This demands landing craft with greater speed, range, stealth and the ability to operate in high sea states.
The trusty LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle / Personnel) Mk V currently operated by the Royal Marines entered service in 1996 but other than waterjet propulsion and better navigational equipment, is little different from its Second World War-era predecessors. It has a capacity of up to 35 fully-equipped troops but can be reconfigured to carry a vehicle or stores up to 6 tonnes. It can achieve up to 24 knots but only in calm conditions. The large bow ramp and hull design does not cope well with higher sea states and for longer transits, is tiring and uncomfortable which does not deliver troops in the best condition to fight.
The RMs are looking to replace the LVCP around 2027 with a new Commando Insertion Craft (CIC). The DASA competition aims to stimulate industry and then trial and de-risk potentially radical new proposals before selecting a design as the basis for a production CIC. The Commando Force wants a low-signature CIC that can carry troops, small vehicles or other payloads for at least 150 miles at 25 knots and land them on the beach. Passenger fatigue and comfort must be considered and the vessel must provide appropriate protection, whether operating in the Arctic or the tropics. There is believed to be a budget of about £191M to procure up to 20 of the craft.
They may operate from Bay Class RFAs, The Albion class LPDs (if they ever return to service) or eventually the Multi Role Support Ships. (A recent report in the FT suggested the MRSS programme may be launched before the election). The future of the RN’s large Littoral Strike ships may be uncertain but even without them, the CIC would remain useful for embarking in warship mission bays or on other vessels of opportunity. Whether to support small-scale raiding, special forces missions or participate in a larger assault operation these would be versatile maritime strike craft. The CIC may also be seen as part of a wider new system of systems that will employed by the Commando Force in future for transport and logistics, ISR and combat operations.
Demonstrator
Steller Systems is an independent naval architecture and marine engineering consultancy based in Gloucestershire. The company works with UK primes and foreign customers providing initial concepts, detailed design and in-service technical support for a wide variety of naval vessels. As one of several industry competitors, in April 2023 Steller Systems was awarded a contract by DASA to construct a 6-metre (one-third size) technology demonstrator of their 19-metre Offshore Insertion Craft concept.
The craft was built by the company with assistance from Golden Arrow Marine, SR Structures, GSD Technologies and EMS Engineered Marine Systems. The craft is propelled by twin Rotax 1630 ACE 170hp engines with an integrated water jet propulsion system. Trials of the OIC demonstrator were conducted during winter 2023-24 in and around Poole Harbour, landing on a variety of beach gradients and compositions. These trials vindicated the underlying concepts and proved its seakeeping performance.
-
The stern ramp is lowered to allow egress onto the beach. On completion of the offload, the powered wheels can be used to pull the craft up the beach or push it off. -
The wheels are raised and fully retract into the stern. -
The large plough anchor can be fully retracted into the bow storage during long transits. -
A powerful windlass can be used to winch the craft off the beach using the anchor and cable. -
Instep in the tunnel provides lift at speed reducing drag. The intakes are offset at each side to avoid air being taken into the waterjets. The triangular hull form also reduces drag and wake.
Design
Steller Systems OIC design has been developed using their HullTune software which uses deep learning technology. The instep hull form features a central tunnel with a narrow bow and wide transom. This maximises deadrise (V shape) to create a wave-piercing bow for better seakeeping whilst minimising overall draft. This allows extended transits in high sea states while having a low wading depth when exiting the craft. The hull is constructed of strong, but lightweight GRP and composites with minimal radar signature.
At the stern is a fully enclosed mission bay with shock-absorbing seats, heating and air conditioning and good views of the horizon to minimise motion sickness for occupants over longer transits. The pilot and 2 crew sit in the cockpit at the front with troops and equipment accommodated in the bay behind them. On reaching the shore, the craft slows and turns round, dropping a bow anchor before going astern to approach the beach. A wide stern ramp is used to embark or disembark personnel, vehicles and equipment quickly.
If beached, existing landing craft require the services of a specialist Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle (BARV) to get it back into the water. The OIC has three methods to ensure it can get off the beach itself without assistance. Besides the waterjets, there are also two powered wheels at the stern that can be lowered and drive the vessel into deeper water. Alternatively, the craft can drag itself off the beach using a winch to haul on the anchor dropped before landing. The IOC will have installed power of about 2,000 hp (almost double that of the LCVP Mk V) and will conform to Tier 3 IMO emissions standards.
The DASA competition will conclude in the second quarter of 2024. Steller Systems is the sole competitor to go public with details of their concept so far but it is believed other well-known companies are submitting proposals. Should the Steller Systems concept be chosen as the basis for the production craft, then they will act as the design authority working with a prime and other subcontractors. The design is modular and could be built in kit form by multiple boatyards across the UK before being handed over to a specialist company for mission systems integration. The design also has export potential with several other navies looking to address the same challenge.
20 years between contract to produce a demonstrator and trials? Surely they have been trialling it and tweaking it for a while now.
Looks good to me. I assume it has a similar footprint to an lcvp. Order 20 now with optional rws, and flog loads as export orders.
Appears to be more versatile than a convential lcvp in that it can be used as a “boat” per se. Patrolling, scouting and so on.
OR…faff around for years and let someone else develop something similar which pinches all the possible export orders.
AA (sorry for the resigned wave of negativity there)
Typo now fixed – contract awarded 2023
I think the April 2003 is a typo – makes more sense to have been April 2023…
Any plans to replace LCU? Then again if you want to move something like a tank to shore its probably going to have to be a large boxy and slow craft.
We did have a plan with PACSCAT. Hopefully we’ll return to it in the future.
Why do we need to move a tank from ship to shore? Current doctrine suggests that capability is no longer required.
Not tanks but the other tracked or similar
Arguably still not in line with the new doctrine.
FWIW the new doctrine isn’t worth the paper it is written. A couple of elderly RFA’s paddling about with a minimal amount of equipment and stores aren’t worth sending to sea.
The Australians, Japanese, and Italians are investing heavily in amphibious warfare. Even the Germans are doing more.
These ‘strike groups’ are a joke.
And how long will this current ‘doctrine’ last?
It’s all rubbish.
In your not very expert opinion.
In whose expert opinion is it right to use two large unsupported RFAs to insert a few dozen commandos and some small vehicles? And as Irate points out, over a 6 hour journey using insertion craft quoted to Sea State 3 when even a Pac 24 is quoted to Sea State 4.
I’d rather go on an OPV and use the insertion craft for the last 15 miles. BTW, I have no expertise at all.
Ah, That’s the spirit!
I guess from your ‘Whale island’ moniker, you obviously have your finger firmly on the pulse on all things maritime..
Yet Marines took BV’s to Norway last year………..
You would think if they were no longer needed they would be sitting in a disposal yard somewhere in the UK. Yet there they are in Norway.
I think what we are seeing in this thread are posts by two different groups. First group have romantic images of Royal in green lids paddling ashore in his canoe or rubber dinghy ready to bash them their evil Ruskies with Fairbairn-Sykes dagger clenched firmly in their teeth.
Or the second group who seem to realise that this it the 21st century and vehicles and supplies will probably have to go ashore. That raids say in Norway or Africa in remote regions may need to happen away from the immediate coast. And may last a number of days so need logistical support.
We are also seeing some who don’t know the difference between infantry and special forces.
Yes. I had a laugh at the Special
ForcesOperations catering platoonI think the reality of the situation is the Royal Marine Raider proposal was actually triggered by a desire to get rid of Brigade level operations.
You can colour this any way you like, but in reality, it was treasury led mission to get rid of Albion and Bulwark.
After witnessing the drone assaults in the Gulf of Aden we do have to perhaps admit that traditional beach landings are becoming obsolete….
Helo born over the horizon insertion is perhaps the only way pushing forward, that means Chinooks and HC4’s launched from a QE class.
Future Amphibious ships need a large flight deck and hanger, they need to be able to carry and support additional helicopters of their own, have an access ramp from the vehicle / equipment deck to the flight deck to facilitate smooth cross decking or insertion of troops and gear.
They would go in with future persistent UAV’s, AH64E and F35 support.
The Chinook is capable of carrying just about all the equipment the RM’s need bar the MBT, but considering the Army is shifting that to a niche capability with 148 tanks in only two regiments, I doubt there’s any appetite to do this anyway.
The reality is, if we thought that a landing was going to require the firepower of an MTB, we wouldn’t likely consider it.
So Raider model for counter terrorism type ops, and larger operations requiring a whole commando or larger, over the horizon Helo bone assault.
John
You need to read the string of posts, under “UK Littoral Response Group South”, that were published here on Navy Lookout about two weeks ago (10th April).
You will find that many agree with you!
There I was arguing that:
Thus, in my humble option, the Albion class is already redundant. Indeed one can argue they were “probably redundant” when first ordered 30 years ago
One can only hope (and pray) that the RN’s MRSS programme managers and engineers are thinking this all through properly: however (somehow) I doubt it!
————————–
I would add the observation that what makes the chinook very difficult to use in any marine environment is just one thing: its lack of a folding rotor head. That means the “open wide” blades take up far to much space in any ship’s hanger. That particular one really ought to be a high-priority MOD procurement project.
However, as you have rightly said, the Chinook is well-proven piece of kit, that is exceptionally usefully for logistics (note 1) on any modern battlefield.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1 Please note the word “logistics” = rather than “assault”.
Thank goodness you do eh????
I hadn’t realised they were based so close to me. BTW, I hope that wasn’t Studland Bay they were dropping anchor in, there are rare sea grasses there that the seahorses mate in and they don’t want to go upsetting the environmentalist.
I thought that looked like Studland. I remember seeing craft similar this in the 90’s in my boatbuilding days.
Hello, never posted before but have read the articles for years, and thanks for the work in putting them together. My son will put his application to join the Royal Marines next Jan so this is of major interest to me. I watched the video and was dumbfounded.
If you read the spec it meets all of it but fails in one major unsaid aspect, they will all be dead just before it gets to the beach. After evading drones and missiles due to its speed etc it then stops, turns around, puts in an anchor and slowly backs up to the beach. If they survive this 5 minutes of faffing around during which at least 20 RPGs will hit them they then have to get up the beach with no momentum, so they either wade in from a distance, or wait even longer whilst the wheels go down and slowly pull them up the beach far enough. At which point the ramp goes down and the machine gunner who has had enough time to finish his tea kills them all.
Notes to the project team; use a bow ramp, get them on the beach quickly, then sort out how to get the LC off of it. A stern ramp might give some initial shelter but you have to get the whole craft up the beach, which means tracks and they are slow. What you don’t do is turn around and give the enemy the easiest target they have ever had.
Apologies for the length of the post.
Problem with bow ramps is that it means the boat has a terrible forward hull form and therefore cannot go fast or take bad weather. But I see what you mean about the huge slow down once reaching the beach
Water jets can swivel on a pin so should be easy to reverse out. The anchor would only be if they thought it was needed I expect
We won’t be ‘doing D-Day’ ever again, due to the high casualty cost in men and material. The RM will be doing raids instead, and if they are facing that degree of opposition before they even reach the beach then the chances of a successful raid and exfil are low.
The anchor idea feels bad, in a large landing, probably at night, I can see cables from different vessels crossing/entangling. They should have the power to get off the beach without using these.
There’s nothing nuch other than a hovercraft which answers all these questions. Fast in. Up on the beach quick. Off the beach quick. Very noisy. Not very stealthy. Not much use for anything else..but worth having as a capability
They are testing a small one in the video and taking their time over it. Likelihood is the anchor/,reversing would be done at speed. In theory the cables could get tangled but they would not be that close together and I doubt if dozens would land all.at once.
Front ramp would seem to be desirable but puts major design constraints on the craft. The cb90 assault boat was trialled by the RM, and they found the forward ramp exit was too narrow, and the jet system liked to suck up rocks and gravel that close to shore, bearing in mind that the bow would be on the beach and the propulsion off the beach Hence the anchor. No water propulsion system has the power to drive off the shore in such shallow water. I really like the wheel thing. This and the anchor show some serious thought has been put into the design.
Would it even be of utility as a drone carrier or something? Fast, seaworthy. Ramp (hopefully rear hatch above the waterline….)
AA
In the last photo you can see the hatch is above the waterline.
TAPS boat anyone?
The famous Combat Boat 90 (CB90H) and the WaterCat M12 are examples of fast landing craft that go bow first onto the beach, but they have the capacity to disembark personnel only by a narrow bow ramp, these are both smaller than the specs for the new OIC, the WaterCat M18 is closer in size and range, but still cannot carry small vehicles. And that is the “problem” the requirement for that larger, multipurpose cargo bay in the rear, with the rear door. If we wanted to land just troops the existing solutions would be good enough, if we want the flexibility to land small vehicles, including UGV’s or use that space as a launch spot for loitering munitions etc, then we need a new design solution.
Seems a little novel and fragile to me? Lots of moving parts and exposes the propulsion system towards the beach…what about wave dump, let alone potential nature barriers. Show me it working in swell and the wave breaks. Anchor snag is a huge risk also, that is if the anchors grabs at all.
I agree Elliot. It’s a great idea in principle, much akin to many of the products brought by MOD over the years, but in reality i believe it’ll fail drastically.
It’s picking your place along the spectrum from logistics support to SF operations.
If you are wanting to put a multiple (or fewer) ashore you are better off with a helicopter perhaps using e-bikes for transport. But with cabs the size of Merlin you can soon shift a lot of men with not insignificant logistics.
If you ‘own’ the beach then there is nothing wrong with LC’s as we know them.
It is the tricky middle ground that is the problem.
Royal Marines aren’t special forces and there is need for mass to cross the beach.
Royal Marines are now designed special operations- capable though and so the missions sets will be completely in line with NATO SOF going forward.
They are not special forces. Are you telling me a nod straight out of Lympstone is the equivalent of a man in the SBS? Even those in Mountain Leader and ISTAR Company don’t see themselves as SF.
EVG did not say Royal Marines are “special forces”. Mountain Leaders, Pathfinder Platoon, etc, are classified as “special operations-capable”, as EVG correctly said.
In addition, the Royal Marines contribute to Special Forces Support Group (SFSG), which is part of the UKSF directorate.
All
I had seriously considered not commenting on this article…
My reticence was for the very simple reason we were were one of the very-many company’s initially asked by MOD / DASA to look into, and then apply for, their research funding last year. We looked at this one very carefully, then very-politely declined to go for it…
However I think it best that I do now reply…… …before any more taxpayers cash gets wasted……….and NL is anonymous….
——————————-
Firstly, it has to be said that the images produced by Stellar Systems, (i.e. published here on NL) look exactly like the scientific boffins at DASA “ideally” wanted their really cutting-edge 21st century commando insertion craft to look like……they must be cock-a-hoop with getting this particular bid submitted……………
Thus it has an very-innovative cutting edge hull; futurist image (always looks good on a Powerpoint) and also a very-low profile for stealth (sorry, I must get into the habit of calling it “low observable” in the 21st century).
It also precisely matches the MOD/DASA specification requirements: so it is modular (obviously to be trendy); it can (only just) carry a 35 commandos – or alternatively – a fewer number of bootnecks and either a small rib or 2no MZR vehicles (Or “beach buggies” as the well-known Californian singer Brian Wilson used to call them, back in the 1960’s) .
——————————
N-a-B has, both directly above and also (interesting) in one of his much-earlier posts (last year on NL) given a very big hint as to what is going very-wrong here with this scientifically led DASA development programme.
The key word is “doctrine” (or rather, the lack of one…………..)
I reckon that N-a-B has been far too polite to say what he is really thinking about that little word “doctrine” ………..so, let me explain…..
The “doctrine” specified by DASA was for a small craft capable of transiting 150 mile sea crossing – and then delivering these commandos onto the beach in fighting-fit condition (i.e. all very-correctly reported here on NL).
Now, lets be clear about this key operational requirement (doctrine) = that is a distance of very-approximately Poole to Cherbourg return trip.
For a very simple comparison, even a big ship in reasonable weather – let me call it a Condor Ferry – takes several hours.
Thus not even the people smugglers use the Cherbourg to Poole route for their covert insertions: not even travelling one-way!
Overall, this conceptual design for a small craft lacks all five of the vitally-important things needed to make it an “effective weapon system”:
That is “probably why” this “very innovative craft” has been tested on what appears to me to be a remarkably calm day (even for the west end of the Solent!)
——————————-
Before they embarked on this “little escapade”, aka a taxpayer-funded research project, somebody really ought to have pointed out to DASA’s scientific boffins that there is a very big different in “Wave Heights” between Inshore, Coastal and Oceanic sea conditions.
Any naval architect – key hint in the first word – could have told them that!
Fundamentally there are only two possible choices when engineering / designing a beach landing craft with a relatively-shallow draft:
This CIC – like several other “concepts” which have been developed by UK industry working to the very-same DASA specification – might ultimately end up becoming very useful as the Sandbank’s ferry. Given how expensive that very short hop is charged at, by carrying two Chelsea Tractor SUV’s at a time, this CIC might even repay its full development costs “to date”.
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Of course, the very-obvious alternative is to arrange fight an enemy only when the weather on their pleasure beach’s is “exceptionally calm”: so a nice, flat calm and also sunny day throughout the entire 150 mile “high speed yet also covert” approach run…………..
Note 2.
Low observable nappies, those suitable to be worn below the very latest models of FCF camouflage gear (i.e. the all-in-one suits now being developed by the UK Future Solider programme), are ones that do not produce a VPL (Visible Panty Line) in the commando’s trousers. This programme is another ongoing DASA project………..obviously one I am not allowed to speak about here on NL….. on the grounds I might potentially jeopardise the UK’s national security…..
Royal Marines have always carried out special operations. There was no need to state it. That he did say it says to me he thinks Royal Marines are SF. So yes Simple Sean he did say it.
Marines belonging to SFSG aren’t SF forces either.
Another non-post that says nothing. Just looking for anyway to have a go aren’t you? It wouldn’t surprise me if Evg wasn’t your sock puppet.
Your first post in this thread once again reveals you know next to nothing about the topic. Kedge anchors have been in use for barges for centuries. Never be any real problems with them.
EVG’s post is there in black and white, at no point does he say the RM are special forces, which is what you claim.
It’s pathetic lying about what someone has said in an attempt to cover-up that you don’t know the difference between “special forces” and “special operations-capable”. But it’s incredibly stupid to state that lie when the proof against it is directly above.
Conspiracy theorists all exhibit paranoia, so I’m not surprised that you make the unfounded allegation that EVG is a “sock-puppet”. A simple comparison of writing styles disproves that, and I’m sure Navy Lookout would delete if the IP Address used were the same.
Oh dear oh dear… how did WW3 suddenly erupt
So we are all paranoid , except yourself ?
The remote weapon system, will that be fitted for but not with?
It doesn’t always need one so probably
Whereas I might have agreed in the past about needing an RWS, with the advent of the drone menace, I would like to think that they DO need them, for that eventuality alone. AA
The Turks have floated the idea of a ‘landing craft submarine’ to carry 60 pax to the shore.
LCSUB Specifications:
Whale Island Zookeeper
Interestingly, this very modern Turkish Submersible is, in terms of its length, beam, draught and especially its very low profile = all very similar in its overall size to a WW2-era German S-Boat / Schnell Boat.
These S-Boats were excellent sea-boats, especially for their small size!
(Note. These were often called E-Boats by WW2 era Brexiteers and by the famous elite unit of the, now very sadly disbanded, Warmington-on-Sea Home Guard).
The German’s used a few of them in the English Channel and North Sea. However most of their S- Boats were deployed in the Baltic, mostly to cause havoc amongst Soviet shipping.
After 1945, the best of those few remining S-Boats (i.e. those which were found to be still useable) were requisitioned by the RN: then used by Matelots in the Baltic Sea: mainly for reconnaissance and covert insertions into, guess what, along that very-hostile coastline of Soviet territory!
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Wrong way round wrt to S-boat numbers, by far the greatest numbers were deployed along the channel ports and North Sea to disrupt English coastal shipping (they were based from Norway down to the bottom of France, in the Baltic, Black Sea and Med).
As the war progressed, numbers of S-boats were transferred from the Baltic to the Med via the European waterways.
The Italians and Yugoslavians operated their own versions of the S-boats.
Deep32
A fair cop!
Frankly, I should have proof-read it properly, before pressing the button with “post comment”.
My offending paragraph should have read:
“The German’s used many S-Boats in the English Channel and North Sea. However later in the war, some of their S-Boats were deployed in the Baltic and Black Sea, to cause havoc amongst Soviet shipping”.
However, my key point, made at the end is still 100% correct. They proved to be very useful for several years after WW2; for covert insertions along the Baltic coastline into enemy-held territory.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS The moral of this tale: I must remember that quite a few experts read NL….
No worries, very interesting that they used captured S-boats for those post war activities instead of our own MTBs. They had a very good range/speed for the day, highly reliable, obviously a better option then our own offerings?
something to do with the bow design, so I read. would need to dig the book out again
Deep32
Firstly: I am very pleased that you have accepted my ever-so-humble and grovelling apology…..
Secondly. You are quite correct (again!). Post WW2, the RN preferred using several “recently-captured” German built S-boats over their own purpose-built British MTB/MGB’s for their covert work in the Baltic Sea.
The captured S-boats were stripped out of most of their interiors; then the boat’s engine’s were tuned and modified (by German boatbuilders Lurssen).
In summary, the five key issues for that choice were better low observability (2no) and also much-better engines (3no), so, in no particular order, the advantages of the S-boats were:
If you want to read a bit more about this topic, the best source is a very unusual one: a best selling paperback (now out of print) from the 1980’s.
The RN officer who ran these covert trips into Russia was John Harvey Jones (later Sir), who – obviously after he had left the Navy – later became chairman of Britain’s largest and most-profitable company ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) in the 1970’s (note 2). Later, in the mid 1980’s, he became the presenter of a very popular, much-loved and long-running BBC 1 TV series called “Troubleshooter”.
One of John H-J’s books in the Troubleshooter series is the autobiography “Getting it Together: Memoirs of a Trouble-shooter”
This has excellent account of how he worked with the original German S-Boat boatbuilders (Lursseen Brothers in Hamburg and Wilhelmshaven) just after the end of the war: to modify those boats for “Interesting Ops” against the Russian’s. The biggest issue they faced was that, as war reparations, the Russians had taken all of the Germans’ dockyard equipment back to Mother Russia: right down to the well-made German paperclips! (However no details are given of the actual ops themselves: which appear to be landing MI6 spies on the coast).
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1. The TLA of an NBC diet means “Nothing But Carrots”
Note 2. Can you image if – for Britain’s’ largest and most-profitable company’s – that one of these new-fangled creative branding agencies came with a name like Imperial Chemical Industries today”!
Covert program , deniability by using non western allies equipment
If the assumption is correct that any landing on a defended shore is now simply too hazardous, I don’t see how this design could overcome that danger. For insertion of a small unit, something much less observable like the USN Seals Sealion or even, as someone has mentioned, a proper submersible would be needed. Travelling at maximum speed from a mothership 100 miles offshore would mean a journey of approx 4 hours, followed by a slow reversing manoeuvre to offload troops. How is this going to avoid detection and countermeasures?
For landing on an undefended shoreline, existing platforms are probably adequate.
This picture was taken during a raid on Taliban IED factory. Note the amount of equipment carried. Note there are two Chinooks in the picture which suggests at least a company sized force was landed. Numbers are needed. A stop line will be established on one side of the objective to kettle the enemy in. There will be fire support group. A reserve and FP element. And finally a force to assault on to the objective. Plus TAC HQ, FAC’s and miscellaneous others. This is is a raid not a SF operation. The latter would have been be there before to collect intelligence.
That is a really excellent concept. I’m very impressed by the speed and maneuverability, the way it lands on a beach and goes back out to see again using the wheels and the anchor/haul method. Really promising. I know this is a demonstrator, but I can certainly see how the upscaled 19 metre production version could be very useful and versatile.
The US Army – note not USMC- has this as its next ‘light’ Manoeuvre Support vessel (MSV)
Designed in conjunction with UKs BMT ! Its 117ft/35m
much higher capability than the RM requirement which seems to be too small, even when scaling up the 1/3 size prototype
Another lost opportunity was the USMC aborted Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle which was to replace the venerable AAV. It was too much vehicle to replace the AAV, though the Chinese seem to have a vehicle that sits between the slow AAV and the much more complicated EFV. To me the EFV could have offered a range alternatives for landing teams for raids beyond traditional slow traditional LC and the fast but fragile helicopter. One vehicle could carry marines ashore and then continue on for an extended period before returning back to mother. No need to load or off load vehicles. No need to watch your way home fly off for a future RV; too fragile and complicated to land to be concealed easily. A troop of 4 EFV carry one troop would have plenty of space for stores and perhaps e-bikes. Easy to camouflage during the day. Significant organic fire support. Better comms. Better conditions in the field than a bivvy! They could go either be used in the raid itself or a base or a jumping off point for raid on foot (or bike).
Japan and Korea continue to invest in development of similar vehicles, armoured amphibious assault type “personnel carriers” that can do 30 kts and have the required range. It is a very difficult requirements set, range, speed, protection and amphibiosity!
Ekranoplans would be just too noisy. Though you wouldn’t need as an amphib.
The answer is already here and was invented in the UK years ago.
It is called the hovercraft.
You can find them on the equivalent US amphibious force units.
Jeff
Sorry: wrong!
No hovercraft in currently existence meets the DASA requirements for their commando insertion craft CIC (i.e. published last year).
The current USMC hovercraft (LCAC) would fail to meet their very detailed specification on no fewer than three key points: too noisy; too short a range; too large.
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
If it good enough for the US it is good enough
Noise- it depends on the mission. You want quiet, use RIBs with quiet engines.
You want an invasion (Falklands) it will not matter. The amphibs launch below the horizon and the hovercraft are not only exposed for a shorter period but can land on steeper gradients and keep going and not sit on the beach waiting for a mission to complete.
No BARVs required.
Range- Long range is a liability in any small vessel. You are not going to move long distances unless everyone has very resistent stomachs-and it is dead calm like on a lake
Hovercraft have a better ride.
Size-you can build them large or small. You want to carry a Challenger you want a big one. A platoon of troops -go smaller. No difference in concept from LCMs/LCVP
The only real drawback is the operating cost particularly the cost of fuel
That is probably the reason it does not meet specifications. If you want cheap you draw the specification for cheap
Jeff
My original post was written six day ago. I started off with these words:
“I had seriously considered not commenting on this article…”
I made exactly the same key points as you have just repeated here – about the key design considerations should have been those of payload; effective combat range; anticipated sea conditions and especially the need to avoid for copious quantities of sick-bags.
Those key issues should all have been considered right at the very start of the R&D process…….
So, before you reply, I suggest you reread it!
(mainly because I believe that both you and me are in 100% agreement !!!)
—————-
—————
Accordingly, as I clearly spelt out in my original post, I believe (i.e. like you!) that the commando insertion craft (i.e. as described here on NL) is being developed to a “very-flawed” concept of operations.
That one key issue was spelt out in my original post, which is repeated verbatim here:
“The “doctrine” specified by DASA was for a small craft capable of transiting 150 mile sea crossing – and then delivering these commandos onto the beach in fighting-fit condition”.
My key point: the DASA doctrine is wrong!
None of the key design issues have been properly considered by the scientific boffins at DASA (=Buffoons).
Thus, in my ever-so-humble humble opinion, DASA are spending large sums of taxpayer’s money on developing a small assault boat that is, inherently, very-flawed in its entire intent.
In short, DASA’s CIC will not be suitable for its intended purpose: not even at an asking price of just under £10M a unit!
regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Definitely an improvement on the LCVP for assault work but how often are LCVPs used for that? Do we need a cheap commercial LCVP to land aid/supplies or evacuate British citizens from beaches? This thing can’t land a 3-ton truck. I think we need a high-end assault boat like this and a second LCM-style cheap commercial option.
Well the LCVPs are purely personnel carriers from what I can tell, we do have the old LCUs though which can carry a whole challenger, or fill any of the other roles you mentioned. Hope we either replace, or at least retain them
Hugo
Like yourself, I personally think that there will definitely be need to retain both the LCVP and also LCU’s in UK military service: even if the “near future” doctrine / concepts of operations now being developed by the RN/RMC means that these small ships are not to be used during any first-wave assault against an enemy shore/beaches.
Firstly, as you quite-rightly say, these two types of craft both have considerable utility to land heavy loads over the beaches.
Secondly is a point that nobody has yet mentioned during their these postings on Navy Lookout: that the LCU’s and LCVP’s might be very useful in fresh water….
Now I know that going “off-topic” here on NL is going to be “a bit contentious, especially because:
However many of the (fresh water) rivers in eastern Europe are exceptionally wide, often a mile or more.
Therefore, in the recent war in Ukraine, whenever traditional military engineers have launched either traditional steel ribbon or floating bridges over those wide rivers, those fixed installations have quickly proved to be exceptionally vulnerable to heavy enemy artillery fire (often spotted by drones).
According, even if the LCU’s LCVP are retired from “front-line” RN service, they will still be very useful for deployment by the UK military, both for logistics-over-the-shore and also during wide-river crossings in support of the British Army.
We should not forget that wars are, ultimately, won by logistics (note 1).
As a British Army general said recently: “one cannot cyber your way across a river”
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1,. Apparently this comment about the importance of logistics in all wars was first said by the Frenchman Napoleon. His words were first spoken just before he lost to Nelson at Trafalgar and, a decade later, just before he lost to Wellington = i.e. when Boney finally met his Waterloo.
The M3 Alligators can form ferries to do this.
The LCUs are restricted to the Bays and Bulwarks – having something a bit larger than the LCVPs (which could carry 2 landrovers) which could be carried on the deck of almost any reasonably sized ship with a suitable crane would be a big benefit to flexibility.
cant we just get a license to use CB-90 and have a modified version of it that can carry light vehicles as shown in the OIC concept?