But what happens when we marry the idea of a Marine Personnel Carrier with the idea of distributed operations.
We come up with a whole different set of requirements...
1. A vehicle that is air transportable by CH-53 or even the MV-22.
2. A vehicle that is amphibious ... across rivers and lakes is awesome but in sea state 1 or 2 from a ship would be fantastic (even if its in an adhoc situation).
3. A RWS is still desirable.
So where does that lead us? It leads to the BVS-10 or a modified Marine Corps version of it anyway. Why the BVS-10? Because its in production....because it has already been tested with numerous weapons/mounts...because its amphibious and lastly because BAE has production facilities rolling in the US which would mean that we could get the vehicle to our forces now, not 10 years from now.
Pic is courtesy of THINK DEFENCE.
Neat kitbash! Essentially the options available for the modular BV are endless (too bad the NLOS-LS was cancelled).
ReplyDeleteThe US did operate the earlier BV206 SUSVEE, primarily for winter ops, so it isn't a strange vehicle either.
Is that a Patria NEMO 120mm mortar photoshoped on the after vehicle? kudos to Think Defence and for this proposal!
ReplyDeleteThats not Photoshop Leesea, yes is a NEMO 120mm mortar although you could replace that with anything up to a point I suppose
ReplyDeleteThe issue with the BVS-10 is it is relatively unarmoured and very vulnerable to IEDs.
ReplyDeleteWith the UK Royal Marines (who commissioned the BVS-10 in the first place) the BVS-10 garnered a reputation as a death trap and they have now abandoned its use in favour of the (cosmetically similar) Bronco ATTC - a much more powerful and capabile machine.
If the USMC were to go for an articulated carrier, the Bronco ATTC would be a far superior choice.
Viking was designed to provide protected mobility not be an MRAP but its high mobility does allow it to avoid vulnerable points.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as you say, it has proven vulnerable to IED's simply because it was not designed to be resistant to them, hence the Bronco/Warthog which although has the same configuration is larger/more powerful so can be fitted with greater protection.
Not sure if the RM's have abandoned Viking, the Mk2 only recently finished its manufacturing run and I think they will use them as first intended.
Warthog is an Urgent operational requirement for the Army so its not clear what will happen to them after Afghanistan. They could be absorbed into the main equipment programme, stored or simply disposed of.
Its a good illustration of the never ending struggle between mobility and protection
We at Warboats.org want to put the NEMO mortar on a combat boat for NECC units. But the Navy just can't see the value in that?~ There were many mortars on Brownwater Navy and greenwater too during Vietnam war. I wonder why they Navy does not get its own history?
ReplyDeleteTD send me an email I will reply with detailed proposals. Or read on Warboats forum
hmmm....so if it could handle a nemo 120mm mortar then i imagine that it could take the 30mm turret from the EFV or even the 25mm turret from the LAV-25...
ReplyDeleteok, done dreaming.
Ah, leesea, are you behind warboats.org
ReplyDeleteIts a brilliant site, fascinating stuff. I have often wondered why western forces seem to keep forgetting lessons that have been paid for in previous conflicts.
Simple things like gun shields, RPG slats or V shaped hulls, all fielded as a result of actual combat experience, discarded in peacetime only to be fitted again in wartime at great expense in both blood and treasure.
Perhaps there is a post in there somewhere
Will send you an email seperately
I think what happens to both the Viking and the Warthog will in part depend on the length of British deployment in Afghan. Ultimately the articulated carrier design will never be IED proof as V-hulls just aren't readily applicable to tracked vehicles. Still if the RM are wedded to this vehicle type atleast the Bronco is a step in the right direction for Afghan operational conditions.
ReplyDeleteA mortar system sounds great, but personally I can't see anyone sticking a 30mm or 25mm cannon onto the BVS-10 or the Bronco - what utility would it have? You'd lose your troop carrying capability and you'd be sticking a direct fire weapon on a platform not designed to cope with receiving direct fire of that calibre in return. Unless you in a situation with deep snow restricting one from deploying a true IFV you've basically just created yourself a panzershciffe/battlecruiser on land - a design I'd argue which ultimately wasn't successful.
leesea, no doubt you are already aware, but the NEMO mortar system is currently set to be deployed on the UAE's new patrol boats and the Finns have been considering doing the same as well. It will be interesting to see how this system performs with the UAE navy and if other navies subsequently adopt the NEMO system.
The issue as I see it is more of a political one - that the mortar's main utility in a naval setting is for shore bombardment, conjuring unwanted images of gunboat diplomacy.
Solomon, my view of a mortar on a boat is this: IF one is to use say a CB90 nee RCB to put a landing party ashore, then you want to attack the enemy's rear (other side of our friendlies). One cannot do that with a direct fire weapon. The mortar can lob its rounds onto the enemy over our heads. So that is why most direct fire weapons won't work from and inshore boat. The 120mm round also has enough weight to make a good impact LOL
ReplyDeletedelarn the problem is not political, its our freeking system. A former NECC cdr told me that they cannot introduce any new weapons untile some other service has them. Well now the US Army has Patria 120mm so maybe the USN will get them. IF a light bulb goes on over someone's head?~
Yes we are aware of what other navies are doing for gunboats. The USN agains shows its lack of historical persepctive. The CB90 new RCB are in essence inshore i.e. flat water raiding craft. They can be used to land Marines or the new riverines who have been trained as naval infantry. I am not talking amphib assualt just raids.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately NECC somehow figures the RCB is an offshore boat - they will learn the hard way when sailor start coming back all banged up from an hard ride.
TD yes this thread has gotten far a field. How about one like: What will the USN do with its NECC untis next?