Jet propulsion is great for landing craft because most vulnerable propulsion parts are behind, not under the craft. Let's completely throw that away and go backwards into an unknown beach and use a god damn anchor to get out!
The anchor is a pretty good idea because if an LCVP gets beached, you need a Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle, or a couple of other craft with tow lines, to get it off, again, which means if you don't own the beach or don't plan to stay long, you may lose the LCVP, or may not want to risk the insertion in the first place. I'd rather it didn't have to spin around but haven't seen this manoeuvre in real time, so it may not cause much delay. And it does mean that the hull form can be better optimised for shallow draft at the back while having good high speed sea keeping with good crew comfort (which is a requirement) and placing the pilot and commander at the front for improved visibility.
@@lukedogwalker It will either have to stop to retrieve the anchor, or jettison it after every troop drop. No chance of safely retrieving it at 25 knots.
@@sarkybugger5009 when would it ever approach the beach at 25 knots? 🤯 Transit speed is 25. That's for travelling the hundred plus miles from the LPD which stays out in open water. But you don't ram the shoreline at 25 knots! Not if you want to keep your teeth in your head!
Absolutely. Ditch the anchor, and replace it with a fold out 3rd wheel. Then the craft can drive up the beach, allow the crew to exit via the rear hatch with the craft as cover, then simply reverse back into the water. SeaLeg boats have been doing just that for decades.
@@lukedogwalker It will be wanting to leave the beach at high speed, not just arrive quickly.. The video shows it pulling itself into the sea, then speeding off, whereas in reality, it would have to stop to drop and retrieve the anchor, as I said originally. It's a f'ing stupid idea, and won't be adopted by anyone.
People in the comments watched too much Saving Private Ryan... this is designed to stealthily deliver forces, not under fire, which becomes clear when looking at the requirements
@@ppahpppYou have two basic options: 1. Announce your presence, and go in slightly better prepared against an enemy that knows you are coming. This is now so dangerous the US marines refuse to do opposed landings. Low cost anti ship missiles were the last straw. 2. Go in stealthy, but less prepared to fight if you are noticed. Since in practical terms opposed landings are too dangerous to try anyway, stealth has a lot more utility.
@@liamjohnson2474 I meant stealth not in the term of quiet, but stealth in the term of not having an enemy force on the beach that can either observe or hear you. Not a native speaker so maybe I misused words. What I wanted to say: This boat is used in situations where there is no enemies around but for insertions of special forces. So it is also not a big deal to take a few minutes to take the boat around
Something like that with caterpillar tracks mounted on hydraulic rams on the side. Lifted for high speed cruising, lowered in shallow water to crawl up various beach types, then once back in water raised.
The US developed something like this a while ago however found the increased moving parts, requirements for a larger or second engine reduced carrying weight and increased holes in the hull was a nightmare for maintenance and seaworthiness. Totally agree it would be the best of both worlds just giving some context for why it's a tricky ask
Adding tracks to this would needlessly add weight. If tracks are needed or wanted, amphibious assault vehicles do exist. The Bradley once had an amphibious option, but when it was up-armored from Level 4 to 6 it became too heavy for that possibility.
the reqs often are. The WW2 landing craft back in the day were complex compared to their row boat predecessors. At least it's achievable with off the shelf componentry.
If your an Atheist okay cool whatever the irony is a non believe in God is a Godly thought links to freewill etc. However my point is why have a crossed Christian and not all religions? Thought you guys always portray yourselves as the clever ones with your materialistic scentific dogma. And no it is not a tad over-complicated if these where the requirements for the vessel in order for them to make it. As they said its not final if they get the contract. ☮️
@@pseudovibes98 - My symbol is purely for aesthetic reasons. I tried one with several different religious symbols on it but it was far too small, particularly when viewed on a phone screen.
If only somebody could invent something that could travel on both the water and land, at a decent speed on both, and seamlessly transition from one to the other. Oh, wait..
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 The hovercraft. Looking at footage of the US Marines operating their hovercraft militarily it seems that 'announcing their presence' to the enemy is part of the attraction. Not something the modern Royal Marines Commandos would want to do, I suspect.
My point is it's unnecessarily over complicated, i'm sure nobody wants to deal with problems like that when they may be under fire, it also means a repair in the field which could hamper further landings.
@@Brookspiritanchor doesn’t get stuck. Maybe you mean the motor to pull it. Then you hand winch it. If it really is stuck in some rock, just drop it. By then you’re at sea, return, attach new anchor.
@@Brookspirittoo complicated when under fire? Have you seen helicopters? Fast jets? MBTs? If complicated things can't be handled while under fire, then the only weapon we can rely on is the bayonet. And maybe a piece of 2x4 with a nail in it 🙄
The CB90 only has a range of 250 nm at 20 knots and only carries 18 troops. The new craft must replace the carrying capacity of the LCVP which carries up to 35 troops, and can also carry light vehicles or cargo. CB90 can only carry troops, no vehicles, and can only disembark them through one narrow opening, whereas an LCVP allows troops to disembark rapidly two or three abreast down that big ramp. So, short range, too small, tight exit. Not a good fit for this job 👍
I wonder how it would have worked in Crimea 1853, Gallipoli 1915, Dunkirk 1940, Singapore 1941, Tobruk 1941, Dieppe 1942, Anzio 1943, Salerno 1943, the Suez Canal 1956, and Fitzroy Bay 1982 ?
that anchor thing will be detrimental, too complicated and an unecessary working part especially considering the variety of scenarios the vehicle could find itself in
I suppose this is more of a stealth oriented insertion craft. I'm not sure about the D-Day landing boats and how they turned around if they were ever even able to, but I presume that this is being used under the assumption that the enemy doesn't know you're landing
'No need for time consuming turn around...' It still does the turn around, only BEFORE it has landed its valuable cargo, making them / it vulnerable for longer. mmm.
With enough armor (and maybe a pair of REMOTELY controlled miniguns) on the stern, I can see this having a place in certain tactical situations. I may be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like a practical "All Purpose" Landing Craft in general... to me, IMHO.
While US marines are getting new APCs that can deliver troops directly on to a beach quickly and under protection. The British MOD are gonna put our boys in a glorified speedboat that has to turn and reverse up the beach to unload our lads...
Agreed but the Royal Marines want their literal strike capability to be more stealthy. This prototype is a starter that will produce a better option; hopefully!
@@seasoldier3902 There will surely still be a requirement for the LCT and LCVP if this thing can only carry personnel, unless the Marines just want to Yomp everywhere with zero armour or mobility/supply support?
@@nickmaclachlan5178 That role remains withe current stock. This is about raising. My initial comment was about how the role has changed and advancing technology From my days in service!
I see this is only an applicant for the contract, but for stealthy work (ie presumably the enemy doesn't know there's anything happening on that beach that night) surely the new US SEAL craft is a better bet?🤔
I see the benefit of the anchor meaning it's less likely to get stuck on the beach. Regarding troops safety. Honestly Ukraine has shown us an amphibious landing like this is suicide... So really this should only be being done on areas already fairly safe otherwise it will be a bloodbath.
Tires are too small, they will sink into the sand, boat itself seems too small, it looks fine in calm weather like the one they filmed but that is not the usual weather.
Seems a long winded way of delivering what should be a fast insertion? Especially on a hostile beach head. Think the Yank marines have a slightly better idea with their amphibious personnel carriers that just swim in and drive up the beach, protecting their payload all the way. Not ideal for covert insertion maybe, but it's unlikely there's a one solution fits all scenarios for this requirement.
Time consuming turn arounds? proceeds to drop anchor followed by a "time consuming turn around" then drops a pair of wheels then drops back door... yeah I can see you've sorted out the original perceived issue then....
You always prepare for the previous war. NATO been waging anti-insurgency and asymmetric wars for thirty years. Now they are looking at Ukraine, but once the drone countermeasures have matured we’ll see the need for large force combat again, because the next peer or near peer war is not going to look like Ukraine. For example a war against China will be completely different than Ukraine. Even a direct war against Russia, instead of this proxy thing going on in Ukraine, would be a different ball game. Preparing and predicting the next war isn’t the same as preparing for the previous one. 30 years of neocolonialism and neoliberalism have destroyed the foundation of NATO’s cold war strength, it will take decades of systematic change on an economic level to revert. The real problem, where to get the funding, because after decades of upward transition of wealth there is not much left with the tax payers. The sanctions on Russia have shown that buying western debt is a poor investment, so the days of printing free USD are nearing an end. Decoupling from China is like decoupling from Russia, it comes at a high economic cost and with China the effect is both wide and deep.
Anchoring itself in high intensity zone is a recipe for disaster. One other boat goes over that line and that's two boats out of the fight. You know the MOD staff are idiots for even showing off such a flawed design!
No they wanted real world people to give them real feedback whilst they still had their noses in the trough and slurping the G&Ts at the MoD. Get that at squad size and it's a complete joke. You might as well make it coffin shaped, saves on the work later. I feel sorry for our troops.
Hmmm...lag time under fire as it positions itself arse-backwards...Either designed to never attempt an opposed landing, or by someone who does not understand IMT.
Um, did you guys even watch Saving Private Ryan? A group of Nazis from WW2 could easily wipe out the people exiting this brand new 2024 concept. Doesn't the AAVP solve this problem? Also, do countries even try to do amphibious assaults anymore? The last one was in Iraq 1, for show, and the reporters met the Marines on the beach. Lol
Um, are you really in 2024? You're not storming a bunkered beach like this is D-Day anymore today. (Well, maybe the russian or chinese would...) You choose the entry which is not defended, that's the whole purpose of the stealth approach. That's more like a river crossing operation. Either it is uncontested, then stealth and surprise are key factors for the infiltration. Or it is contested, then you need a LOT of support to undertake it. Recon, indirect fire, direct fire, you name it. Maybe you just do it like the russians and do it without preparation and then you wonder about the heaps of trash metal afterwards. What no western army can afford today is just storming a beach head-on like 1945 and letting thousands of men wade into MG fire. That would be incredibly stupid and costly. We have other tools at hand. Just look how Ukrainian Marines operate on Crimea in the last year.
Hand on right at the end of this video the commenter said "up to twenty"... So the British military is panning to have just 20 small landing craft, how small a war is the MOD tooling up for? Perhaps if the UK went to war against Monaco or Liechtenstein then 20 might be enough but probably not, even Monaco and Liechtenstein would have thousands of personal ready to fight whoever step off of one of those things. Look at the numbers of soldiers that Britain sent out to the Falklands War, it was thousands of men. How many of those would the MOD have needed if the MOD had used them in the Falklands War?
You don't land an army using LCVPs. You land the Royal Marines. They're specialist light infantry that operate in the commando role. They are not arriving to occupy a country. For that you still need a port and Ro-Ro vessels.
lol,ok….the mod will buy the most expensive,unreliable,delayed version they can…incompetence at senior level in s as l most every department in the uk.,
lmao for god sake please employ people who know how to read the concept of a landing transport dropping anchors to winch themselves off the beach goes back to WW2 and LST,s the concept of having to do a three point turn and reverse on to the beach whilst under a sustained bombardment is criminally insane they will even have time for a tea break then set up new MG position to target the ramp (best solution to a bad job the US marines over came this problem by fitting tracks and having ramp at the back behind armour plating known as LVT to stop the front ramp kill zone) do people not read any more there are thousands and thousands of books out there read them before google as them all burnt
Turns broadsides into line of fire while carrying a full complement. Not sure!
Not to mention slowing down to turn and presumably slowing down to drop the winch anchor too 🤷♂️
Jet propulsion is great for landing craft because most vulnerable propulsion parts are behind, not under the craft. Let's completely throw that away and go backwards into an unknown beach and use a god damn anchor to get out!
the line of fire is in the sky with drones now and you can bet any landing we will have complete air superiority.
Seems vulnerable anchoring then turning around to deploy the ramp.
The anchor is a pretty good idea because if an LCVP gets beached, you need a Beach Armoured Recovery Vehicle, or a couple of other craft with tow lines, to get it off, again, which means if you don't own the beach or don't plan to stay long, you may lose the LCVP, or may not want to risk the insertion in the first place.
I'd rather it didn't have to spin around but haven't seen this manoeuvre in real time, so it may not cause much delay. And it does mean that the hull form can be better optimised for shallow draft at the back while having good high speed sea keeping with good crew comfort (which is a requirement) and placing the pilot and commander at the front for improved visibility.
@@lukedogwalker It will either have to stop to retrieve the anchor, or jettison it after every troop drop. No chance of safely retrieving it at 25 knots.
@@sarkybugger5009 when would it ever approach the beach at 25 knots? 🤯
Transit speed is 25. That's for travelling the hundred plus miles from the LPD which stays out in open water. But you don't ram the shoreline at 25 knots! Not if you want to keep your teeth in your head!
Absolutely. Ditch the anchor, and replace it with a fold out 3rd wheel. Then the craft can drive up the beach, allow the crew to exit via the rear hatch with the craft as cover, then simply reverse back into the water. SeaLeg boats have been doing just that for decades.
@@lukedogwalker It will be wanting to leave the beach at high speed, not just arrive quickly.. The video shows it pulling itself into the sea, then speeding off, whereas in reality, it would have to stop to drop and retrieve the anchor, as I said originally. It's a f'ing stupid idea, and won't be adopted by anyone.
Surely it's better for the slow "turn around" stage once personel and cargo have been unloaded. Instead of the other way around
People in the comments watched too much Saving Private Ryan... this is designed to stealthily deliver forces, not under fire, which becomes clear when looking at the requirements
Can't anywhere have an unseen threat. Why take some of the unnecessary risks of slowing to turn or anchor or present a side target to the land?
@@ppahpppYou have two basic options:
1. Announce your presence, and go in slightly better prepared against an enemy that knows you are coming. This is now so dangerous the US marines refuse to do opposed landings. Low cost anti ship missiles were the last straw.
2. Go in stealthy, but less prepared to fight if you are noticed.
Since in practical terms opposed landings are too dangerous to try anyway, stealth has a lot more utility.
dropping an anchor is NOT stealthy. have you even ever been on a boat?
@@liamjohnson2474 I meant stealth not in the term of quiet, but stealth in the term of not having an enemy force on the beach that can either observe or hear you. Not a native speaker so maybe I misused words.
What I wanted to say: This boat is used in situations where there is no enemies around but for insertions of special forces. So it is also not a big deal to take a few minutes to take the boat around
Something like that with caterpillar tracks mounted on hydraulic rams on the side. Lifted for high speed cruising, lowered in shallow water to crawl up various beach types, then once back in water raised.
Great idea! Low signature too
We have had hover crafts for ages.
The US developed something like this a while ago however found the increased moving parts, requirements for a larger or second engine reduced carrying weight and increased holes in the hull was a nightmare for maintenance and seaworthiness. Totally agree it would be the best of both worlds just giving some context for why it's a tricky ask
Snowmobile tech would suffice.
Adding tracks to this would needlessly add weight. If tracks are needed or wanted, amphibious assault vehicles do exist. The Bradley once had an amphibious option, but when it was up-armored from Level 4 to 6 it became too heavy for that possibility.
Sweet ride
To quote the younger generation, this craft is sick af!
@@alanboyd9013 I put a quote on a generation, I didn't quote a time. Your reply is so lit bruv.
@@alanboyd9013 If I tried any harder your brain would explode. I'm at a canter at the moment.
@@alanboyd9013As a young person gonna have to say you’re wrong on this one Alan mate people do still say sick
@@alanboyd9013Really? I hear them say it all the time, sadly.
Looks great but perhaps a tad over-complex?
the reqs often are. The WW2 landing craft back in the day were complex compared to their row boat predecessors. At least it's achievable with off the shelf componentry.
If your an Atheist okay cool whatever the irony is a non believe in God is a Godly thought links to freewill etc. However my point is why have a crossed Christian and not all religions? Thought you guys always portray yourselves as the clever ones with your materialistic scentific dogma. And no it is not a tad over-complicated if these where the requirements for the vessel in order for them to make it. As they said its not final if they get the contract. ☮️
@@pseudovibes98 - My symbol is purely for aesthetic reasons. I tried one with several different religious symbols on it but it was far too small, particularly when viewed on a phone screen.
@@AtheistOrphan Your profile pic is the Bad Religion logo.
Bad Religion rocks!!! Seen them many times. Old school punk rock never dies.
So you turn around initially instead? When potentially under fire and still loaded?
That's needed for river crossing landings, cross current... like the Dnieper
This boat is a waste of money as seen in ukraine any boat trying cross is seen and destroyed
Cracking idea, Cheers
Hey you guys, just give us a second to back up, then we can start fighting... OK?
If only somebody could invent something that could travel on both the water and land, at a decent speed on both, and seamlessly transition from one to the other.
Oh, wait..
Hovercraft? If only we had allies who use them in large numbers.
Oh, wait…😂
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 And they have the added benefits of being fantastically quiet and stealthy...
...hmmmm?
@@jackethangs5570 These or the hovercraft?
@@TypicalBritishperson4972 The hovercraft. Looking at footage of the US Marines operating their hovercraft militarily it seems that 'announcing their presence' to the enemy is part of the attraction. Not something the modern Royal Marines Commandos would want to do, I suspect.
Nothing stealthy about them though.
Forces News, You're the best! I subscribed because I love your content!
Hmm boat vs Javelin anti tank missile no contest.
Didn't see any LCVPs hit last time I attended an amphibios assault.
Wouldn't it be better if they had a separate jet nozzle at the front that deploys and Reverse the craft instead?
Soon to replace the dinghies in the channel, get them across quicker.
Anything with a front opening is a non starter !
looks like someone has a new toy to move product with. 😂
doing a burnout and throwing mud at the enemy = tactical advantage
Kayaks (like the Cockleshell Heroes) are really stealthy.
They are, but they only carry 1 or 2 people
Does it have emergency tea-time
facilities?
Looks like the Pink Panther car!!
What if the anchor gets stuck?
You cut it off...
@@SloppySaladjust like on any naval ship
My point is it's unnecessarily over complicated, i'm sure nobody wants to deal with problems like that when they may be under fire, it also means a repair in the field which could hamper further landings.
@@Brookspiritanchor doesn’t get stuck. Maybe you mean the motor to pull it. Then you hand winch it. If it really is stuck in some rock, just drop it. By then you’re at sea, return, attach new anchor.
@@Brookspirittoo complicated when under fire? Have you seen helicopters? Fast jets? MBTs? If complicated things can't be handled while under fire, then the only weapon we can rely on is the bayonet. And maybe a piece of 2x4 with a nail in it 🙄
Why not just buy a Swedish Dockstavarvet Combat Boat 90?
The CB90 only has a range of 250 nm at 20 knots and only carries 18 troops. The new craft must replace the carrying capacity of the LCVP which carries up to 35 troops, and can also carry light vehicles or cargo. CB90 can only carry troops, no vehicles, and can only disembark them through one narrow opening, whereas an LCVP allows troops to disembark rapidly two or three abreast down that big ramp.
So, short range, too small, tight exit. Not a good fit for this job 👍
@@lukedogwalker By the time they build it, will we have enough booties to fill it?
I wonder how it would have worked in Crimea 1853, Gallipoli 1915, Dunkirk 1940, Singapore 1941, Tobruk 1941, Dieppe 1942, Anzio 1943, Salerno 1943, the Suez Canal 1956, and Fitzroy Bay 1982 ?
Up to 20? That's enough to take how many beaches?
that anchor thing will be detrimental, too complicated and an unecessary working part especially considering the variety of scenarios the vehicle could find itself in
I can't really see it working.
Think River crossings
While it complicates the loading/unloading, it greatly simplifies the ship design though allowing for a much faster and more stealthy vessel.
I suppose this is more of a stealth oriented insertion craft. I'm not sure about the D-Day landing boats and how they turned around if they were ever even able to, but I presume that this is being used under the assumption that the enemy doesn't know you're landing
give all the personnel jetskis!
Thank You
'No need for time consuming turn around...' It still does the turn around, only BEFORE it has landed its valuable cargo, making them / it vulnerable for longer. mmm.
" Private Ryan style". You do know D Day really happened don't you
Fpv go bzzzz 💥
Exactly.
Looking forward to seeing these in the Black Sea!
I served in the he Royal Marines SAS in the 1960s .
No such thing, stick to playing COD in your Mum's basement, there's a good boy.
Nobody is going to notice that wake then!!!
Just what I was thinking.
An LCVP isn't exactly a ninja, either! 😂
With enough armor (and maybe a pair of REMOTELY controlled miniguns) on the stern, I can see this having a place in certain tactical situations.
I may be wrong, but it just doesn't seem like a practical "All Purpose" Landing Craft in general... to me, IMHO.
They invented, a large speedboat?
While US marines are getting new APCs that can deliver troops directly on to a beach quickly and under protection. The British MOD are gonna put our boys in a glorified speedboat that has to turn and reverse up the beach to unload our lads...
Agreed but the Royal Marines want their literal strike capability to be more stealthy. This prototype is a starter that will produce a better option; hopefully!
@@seasoldier3902 There will surely still be a requirement for the LCT and LCVP if this thing can only carry personnel, unless the Marines just want to Yomp everywhere with zero armour or mobility/supply support?
The speed boat from the "Thunder in Paradise" tv show that had a pop-up gatling gun, mortar launcher, and missiles seems practical now years later.
@@nickmaclachlan5178 That role remains withe current stock.
This is about raising. My initial comment was about how the role has changed and advancing technology From my days in service!
my suggestion would be investing in Gondolas.
A BOAT WITH RETRACTABLE TRACKS
20 units?
I know it's a but of industry of a manufacturer, but not alot for the effort
Nothing a $50 drone can't take care of.
Must be nice for the MiC...
Chinese watching this give their thanks, they will have one by next week.
Enemy could fly a drone or missile into the cabin through the open door facing the beach taking out everyone inside the craft.
But you could say that about any thing
I see this is only an applicant for the contract, but for stealthy work (ie presumably the enemy doesn't know there's anything happening on that beach that night) surely the new US SEAL craft is a better bet?🤔
One day I will hear "vulnerable" pronounced correctly.
I mean...
It does still need to turn around
I see the benefit of the anchor meaning it's less likely to get stuck on the beach.
Regarding troops safety. Honestly Ukraine has shown us an amphibious landing like this is suicide... So really this should only be being done on areas already fairly safe otherwise it will be a bloodbath.
Thats a scale model right......right?
1/3 the size of the full thing, listen to 1:53
...yes. they said it twice in the video.
still seems slow with today's defenses/droness
Tires are too small, they will sink into the sand, boat itself seems too small, it looks fine in calm weather like the one they filmed but that is not the usual weather.
(The voiceover said it was a small-scale prototype.)
You need an underwater craft of some sort, as soon as you hit the beach though your fvcked with drones ect.
Could we not just arty the hell out of the beach and then bimble-up unopposed?
Anchoring and going broad side to the surf and fire. Yeaaa no
As usual started thinking 10 years to late
No that would be too dangerous to use just the time it takes to turn around and open that rear door will put our marines at risk
this comment section makes my head hurt
You lost me when you said “spectrums”. That’s not a word, the plural is “spectra”.
I wonder if Russia reports on its development / future developments.. seems like a lack in security
Seems a long winded way of delivering what should be a fast insertion? Especially on a hostile beach head.
Think the Yank marines have a slightly better idea with their amphibious personnel carriers that just swim in and drive up the beach, protecting their payload all the way. Not ideal for covert insertion maybe, but it's unlikely there's a one solution fits all scenarios for this requirement.
Time consuming turn arounds? proceeds to drop anchor followed by a "time consuming turn around" then drops a pair of wheels then drops back door... yeah I can see you've sorted out the original perceived issue then....
You always prepare for the previous war.
NATO been waging anti-insurgency and asymmetric wars for thirty years.
Now they are looking at Ukraine, but once the drone countermeasures have matured we’ll see the need for large force combat again, because the next peer or near peer war is not going to look like Ukraine. For example a war against China will be completely different than Ukraine. Even a direct war against Russia, instead of this proxy thing going on in Ukraine, would be a different ball game. Preparing and predicting the next war isn’t the same as preparing for the previous one. 30 years of neocolonialism and neoliberalism have destroyed the foundation of NATO’s cold war strength, it will take decades of systematic change on an economic level to revert. The real problem, where to get the funding, because after decades of upward transition of wealth there is not much left with the tax payers. The sanctions on Russia have shown that buying western debt is a poor investment, so the days of printing free USD are nearing an end. Decoupling from China is like decoupling from Russia, it comes at a high economic cost and with China the effect is both wide and deep.
How is this superior to the vessels used by the Colombian cartels ?
Im pretty doubtful we will see this design implemented. Its impressive but seems far from practical in its current state
can we get some money for all the starving children pls
Anchoring itself in high intensity zone is a recipe for disaster. One other boat goes over that line and that's two boats out of the fight. You know the MOD staff are idiots for even showing off such a flawed design!
Boats wouldn’t cross each other. Might as well worry about boats colliding. You English are such worry nellys.
No they wanted real world people to give them real feedback whilst they still had their noses in the trough and slurping the G&Ts at the MoD. Get that at squad size and it's a complete joke. You might as well make it coffin shaped, saves on the work later. I feel sorry for our troops.
damn why you guys need it if you ain`t invading anybody huh,
Hmmm...lag time under fire as it positions itself arse-backwards...Either designed to never attempt an opposed landing, or by someone who does not understand IMT.
Stick phalanx on the roof of an LC and now you have drone proof landing craft that can also cover the beach.
Probably
Its this a joke? jajajajaajaja
That is a horrible design......turn around before landing should have scrapped this idea before it got off the drawing board......just rubbish.
There must be a reason?
Ahh you're so smort. If only DSTL employed you!
@@kael13 they have very obviously done a lot worse......
Fpv drones dont care...
congrats on inventing a boat
Um, did you guys even watch Saving Private Ryan? A group of Nazis from WW2 could easily wipe out the people exiting this brand new 2024 concept. Doesn't the AAVP solve this problem? Also, do countries even try to do amphibious assaults anymore? The last one was in Iraq 1, for show, and the reporters met the Marines on the beach. Lol
Um, are you really in 2024? You're not storming a bunkered beach like this is D-Day anymore today. (Well, maybe the russian or chinese would...)
You choose the entry which is not defended, that's the whole purpose of the stealth approach.
That's more like a river crossing operation. Either it is uncontested, then stealth and surprise are key factors for the infiltration.
Or it is contested, then you need a LOT of support to undertake it. Recon, indirect fire, direct fire, you name it. Maybe you just do it like the russians and do it without preparation and then you wonder about the heaps of trash metal afterwards.
What no western army can afford today is just storming a beach head-on like 1945 and letting thousands of men wade into MG fire. That would be incredibly stupid and costly. We have other tools at hand.
Just look how Ukrainian Marines operate on Crimea in the last year.
This is already out dated, Modern warfare isnt afghanistan
The keyboard Einsteins are at it again! if you guys are so clever, why don't you submit your ideas and designs to the MOD!
LCVP / Danube + Dniester + Bug + Dnieper = Odessa Ukraine War²
Thats not really how it works, you cant just submit your ideas to the MOD
Hand on right at the end of this video the commenter said "up to twenty"...
So the British military is panning to have just 20 small landing craft, how small a war is the MOD tooling up for? Perhaps if the UK went to war against Monaco or Liechtenstein then 20 might be enough but probably not, even Monaco and Liechtenstein would have thousands of personal ready to fight whoever step off of one of those things.
Look at the numbers of soldiers that Britain sent out to the Falklands War, it was thousands of men. How many of those would the MOD have needed if the MOD had used them in the Falklands War?
You don't land an army using LCVPs. You land the Royal Marines. They're specialist light infantry that operate in the commando role. They are not arriving to occupy a country. For that you still need a port and Ro-Ro vessels.
looks silly
Ridiculous
So impressive - but absolutely none of our forces are of any use to us if we can't say that our national borders are secure.
Why?
lol,ok….the mod will buy the most expensive,unreliable,delayed version they can…incompetence at senior level in s as l most every department in the uk.,
This is stupid.
dropping an anchor is NOT stealthy at all
So it's not even completed and you have a one third scale model. Build the thing then show off 😂
lmao for god sake please employ people who know how to read the concept of a landing transport dropping anchors to winch themselves off the beach goes back to WW2 and LST,s the concept of having to do a three point turn and reverse on to the beach whilst under a sustained bombardment is criminally insane they will even have time for a tea break then set up new MG position to target the ramp (best solution to a bad job the US marines over came this problem by fitting tracks and having ramp at the back behind armour plating known as LVT to stop the front ramp kill zone) do people not read any more there are thousands and thousands of books out there read them before google as them all burnt