Reply With QuoteI'm hearing from my friends down there that they're getting some Tornado's coming in tomorrow.
A couple of bits about the capability drawdown in Gib:
I'm hearing from my friends down there that they're getting some Tornado's coming in tomorrow.
Not just Tonkas. Here's HMS Diamond arriving at the Rock.Originally Posted by SDL
(perhaps we're preparing a special reception for the next Guardia Civil incursion)
Yeah, saw a few twitpics from people of Diamond arriving...
(The GC are apparently saying the Tornados are down there to deal with the fishermen and the GC *Facepalm*)
More on Gib:
(BFBS are obviously keen to get their money's worth out of reporters' air fares!)
A quick question as a friend just told me something dubious and I wanted to verify it.
Has there been any information on the future of the Warthog vehicles (Bronco ATTC) in the British Army, post Afghanistan withdrawal?
I know the futures of all UOR purchases has been in doubt due to government reluctance to fund them, but is anyone in the know about whether they'll be retained in circulation, left in Afghanistan or returned to the UK then declared surplus to requirements?
A question was asked in parliamentary defence questions last week, re the Vikings that had been returned to the UK on being replaced by Warthog.
Apparently the Vikings are suffering from structural and mechanical failures due to the workload they have been under whilst in Afghanistan,so much so that they cannot be put back into service until they have been 'regraded' and the money found to carry this work out.
As we are due to pull out of Afghanistan in 2014 and being the eternal pessimist,I cannot see this happening under the current financial constraints. Therefore as Warthog is far newer,bigger and will hopefully have taken the strain better than Viking,I can see it replacing Viking all together on its return to the UK.
I cannot reasonably see a major piece of equipment such as it is being left in theatre,then again when have our politicians ever been reasonable/sensible,so who knows.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...lands-18692532
Two missing after two RAF Tornados crash in Moray Firth
Tornado GR4s from RAF Lossiemouth took part in the Waddington air show
Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories
Two people have been picked up by helicopter after two RAF Tornado jets crashed in the Moray Firth.
Hope they're okay.
Thanks for the response and I hope that's what happens. I was told they were being donated to the ANA, but I couldn't believe that to be credible information.
And I totally agree, Warthog is a more capable and newer piece of equipment than Viking. If only one of these vehicle types is retained post Afganistan then I believe the choice should be obvious. Sounds like it's questionable to spent a lot of money maintaining and modernising Viking when it's been proved vulnerable in operations where there is any kind of bomb threat. Conversely I could imagine many future roles that Warthog would be useful for, like a detachment would be very useful based in the Falklands for example, as it's one of the few armoured vehicles with the required off-road mobility to be useful in that terrain.
I can't for the life of me remember where I read/heard this, but apparently the problem with doing a 1-1 swap of warthogs for vikings is that the UK fleet of warthogs are not fully amphibious due to the changes/additional kit, and therefore it doesn't quite fill the remit of the viking, especially as far as RM is concerned. Whether or not its just a case of simply removing the additional protection et al to return them to their original state, to allow them to be more water friendly, is another question.
I'll see if I can pester someone better in the know, but I find it telling that the Army's site is careful not to call it amphibious, as they do with the viking.
You raise a good point as the Warthog comes in at 20t as opposed to Viking 15t,like you I have just spent a good amount of time trying to find any remarks on whether this cancels Warthogs amphibious capability,and like you I can find no direct answer.
Yes the original vehicle was amphibious but the UK demanded extra armour to counter IED's bringing the weight up. Still I wonder if a complete amphibious capability is critical or just a bonus to have.When looking at the RM's putting them ashore from landing craft they always seem to be beached anyway. Do they use the amphibious capability as a norm,or only out of sheer necessity.
Hope you can find out,it would be interesting to know,and would go a long way to the decision to keep the Vikings solely for RM use and the Warthogs for the Army.
Fair point, and like you I've noticed it seems to be the norm to deploy them via landing craft, or wade deeper waters, which one assumes a Warthog is still capable of doing (water ingress and electronics wise), however I've definitely seen them doing landings where they've spent considerable time in the water:
I'm pestering my resident expert right now, as I believe it was him who noted the lack of amphib to me before.
Ok, his comments were along the same lines as yourself, they're too heavy with all the additional armour, weapons and comms, and I guess it revolves around what you call amphibious. It will ford water, get wet, cross bogs, mud, etc, and be quite happy. Stick it anything deep enough, it will sink:
http://www.qdg.org.uk/documents/AFGH...ember_2011.pdf
(Page 9)
RM's vikings were meant to be returned to them post Afghanistan, but they've been royally beasted and boken by operations, terrain, environment and additional kit/weight it wasn't designed for and are withdrawn as of now. Whether the MoD will fund a refurb or new Vikings, or even try the Warthog with less kit/bolt ons, is unknown. Word down his end is that the Warthog's aren't all that great either, so whether they'll be kept by the Army, given to RM, or sold off is another avenue of thought.
All in all, if they were to remove the additional weight, I guess it makes a fine 1-1 replacement, assuming it can be done.
Thanks for that,although the removal of the extra armour to counter IED's would mean they were back to the same protection as Vikings,not really what is needed.
as far as the Vikings returned from Afghanistan,here is a statement made by Peter Luff on 21st june during Parliamentary written answers.
Amphibious Vehicles
Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the BvS Viking armoured
all-terrain tracked vehicles have been withdrawn from frontline use by the Royal Marines. [111949]
Peter Luff: The Viking protected all-terrain vehicle was deployed successfully on Operation Herrick in Afghanistan. Viking was gradually withdrawn from frontline use and replaced by the Warthog vehicle which was designed specifically for use in Afghanistan.
Subsequent removal of the upgrades fitted for Op Herrick and close inspection of the vehicles identified that, as a result of the demanding deployment in Afghanistan, which required payloads in excess of the original design parameters, the vehicles have experienced accelerated mechanical fatigue compromising the structural integrity and safe operation of the vehicle.
At present, they cannot be operated in a manner which complies with the Department's legislative safety obligations and have been withdrawn from use by the Royal Marines until such a time as the vehicles have been regenerated.
NB. nice photo of it swimming.
True in terms of protection, but as an interim system for the RM to operate back home until a solution can be found? No need for IED protection to conduct training. Anyway, I'm just musing - seems daft to leave these behind in Afghanistan, but it does seem they're high up on the list of expendable equipment come withdrawal time.
Posting Permissions
