CTruk’s THOR Demonstrator

CTruk (based in Brightlingsea, Essex) has recently unveiled it’s THOR demonstrator which seems to be competing with the CB90. It is a great example, where commercial platforms can be extended to provide interesting military capabilities.


What is particularly interesting is the portability of the platform, it fits inside a A400M, slung under a Chinook and what I find exciting is that it is expected that the T26 could carry two of them in it’s mission bay.

It can be configured for Force Protection, Troop Transport and Riverine roles.

[browser-shot width=”550″ url=”http://www.ctruk.com/products-and-systems/ctruk-thor”]

More information on Janes:

[browser-shot width=”550″ url=”http://www.janes.com/article/25413/thor-demonstrator-vessel-unveiled-by-ctruk”]

As I’ve stated on other posts I think as part of the SDSR 2015 the UK should review it’s amphibious assault / littoral sea control requirements and approach – I see equipment such as this being key to delivering future capabilities.




C-Truck get a nod in this post

[browser-shot width=”600″ url=”https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/08/innovation-in-the-littoral/”]


Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pete Arundel
Pete Arundel
August 4, 2013 7:47 am

Ravine roles? :-)

Best typo I’ve seen in ages, TD!

August 4, 2013 9:08 am

i’d like to see these on the T26, particularly the GP variants if we must have them without the full kit.

August 4, 2013 10:58 am

Would we see these? If T45 is anything to go by with the ‘fitted for but not with’ mantra :(

Makes sense though, another niche Brit defense industry.

August 4, 2013 1:22 pm

mike, it’s not that bad. can see some countries in the Nile delta region or Mekong delta region running them. Maybe Philipines or Indonesia too.

The problem would be the price. China’s knockoffs are very cheap and local construction can give vehicles that are similar if of lower quality. Can the UK match their prices or offer something the Chinese or locals can’t?

August 4, 2013 1:32 pm

As Sheryl once sang: “..the brochure looks nice.”

“While THOR has not been built to address any specific requirement, CTruk executives explained that it addresses a niche currently served by RHIBs and hovercraft at its lower end …” – Well done to a commercial company sticking it’s neck out without the crutch of public funding. If there’s any justice in the world we’ll order a couple of dozen, deploy them around the world, and CTruk will coin it in from overseas orders.

I’m currently on painkillers, y’know.

August 4, 2013 3:30 pm

I thought the Gov were daft for ignoring the original C-Truck as a ship to shore UTE, No doubt they will manage to do the same with this superb looking machine…
I can see these doing mine clearance, insertion, Gunboat duties, Light landings, pretty much anything really as long as the seastate didn’t get too leary, everything afloat should have two of em!

August 4, 2013 5:57 pm

TD, you like speedboats almost as much as ISO containers…

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
August 4, 2013 7:06 pm

Looks OK. Whatever the executives say, that craft is aimed squarely at the Force Protection Craft (FPC) requirement, which was aimed at replacing the LCVP Mk5 with something less landing craft and more combatant.

That requirement is currently moribund as a large part of it is dependent on having “fast” LCU – a requirement which is also currently “too difficult”.

Dimensions look right, draft might be interesting.

August 4, 2013 8:34 pm

Can we get a hell yeah for Brightlingsea!!!


No? Fuck you guys then ;)

40 degrees south
40 degrees south
August 4, 2013 11:30 pm

This looks remarkably like a down-market down-under cousin.

9.2 m long (30 feet, in the old money)
2.7m beam
7.6 tonne dispacement

Looks like some ingenious compromises needed to meet design specs, which included road legal trailoring and the ability to airlift in a C130.



Best of all, it was sketched out by a jobbing designer, and appears to have been build by a couple of blokes in the spare shed of their mate Terry. Interesting how much innovation and flexibility there is at the bottom end of the supply chain, compared to the blown time lines and bloated budgets of the big suppliers.