Jdam wrote: ↑23 Jul 2022, 21:24 I think we are kidding ourselves if we think we are going to get any more than 6 Type 83 Destroyers.

You are probably right, and if it does turn out to be the case, better to build a second batch of T26s with enhanced AAW capabilities, than waste money on a small number in a new class.

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches. Indeed, If the Rn can get 13-15 T83 it would be the best outcome, but i am just afraid the tragedy of T45 will happen once again. The first thing the...

The best thing the RN can do is trying to establish a drumbeat of classes with double digit vessels and stop wasting money building in small batches.

SW1 wrote: ↑23 Jul 2022, 10:11 Rimpac 22 is currently on what of the above list from the U.K. is taking part?

Zilch, though I’m surprised HMS Tamar hasn’t gone.

- In landing operations, the MCSVs can also work as a ship-to-shore connector mother ship with 4 LCVP (or 2 LCVP and 2 CB90-like). - In HADR operation, MCSV can perfectly work well, with up to 4 LCVPs and a helicopter. - If "patrol" is needed, CB-90s and Patrol-USVs will be carried. If mo...

Interesting…

Oh, well, what is there to add? Just that HMS Ocean received the above, called-for kit... so some of it must be somewhere; in a 'shed' to be plugged and screwed 'in'. It’s a good point especially as I’m sure we are doing similar sized SF + Company sized operations today as those that must be expect...

Feels about right, though I think there is the potential to reduce the ops crew further with automation / AI and also remote (UK based) teams.

What sort of ships would the JSBLs been? What capabilities were they to have provided? I've tried googling, but not found anything of detail. Thanks The best overview of the JSBL requirement I’ve seen is in Nick Childs book Britain’s Future Navy, pages 132-133. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...

We should note that all other Enforcer classes have a crew of between 140 & 190 and that a Bay class when on operations has a mixed RFA & RN crew of 150+ and the RAN Bay has a crew of 158 this dose not include a command team Also simply moving the command team to another ship will not help ...

So, it all depends on what is the aim. Also, your proposal to disband two Albions and send three Bays to RN lacks commanding capability. Adding "command" on Bay will require certain amount of resources and larger crew, or "out sourced". BUT, I agree "out-sourcing" coul...

True, but you have to start somewhere (and Argus can be part of the early journey, helping to 'mature' the concept). Perhaps, but what is clear is that something needs to give, especially in the area of crewing. It’s not ideal, but cutting now and focusing everything on getting the future capabilit...

Can we simply… We could, but the reality is that a converted Albion will never be as effective as RFA Argus in the Aviation Support role so why incur the cost? The argument that there isn’t enough RFA personnel isn’t a good one when the Albions already require the crew of two frigates. Better as I ...

Also, the deck of a CVF melts at a higher temperature than any RAF airfield

Anything that replaces the Echo's and B1,s will be to small for MRSS Sorry, my mistake (I blame it on auto correct :D) I meant MRoSS not MRSS (which as outlined should be cancelled and replaced with 3 LPDs and 2 JBLSs). MRoSS is likely to be @80-90m a similar size as HMS Protector or SD Northern Ri...

One down in the Gulf... how do we take it from there? LPDs/LSDs cannot be used as the primary substitutes for proper USV/UUV MCM and Survey motherships. My view on that is that MRSS should be the initial phase of a total fleet of 6 similar motherships with a secondary Patrol Ship role, ultimately r...

It’s not ideal I agree, but a CVF plus two Bays could deliver a single Cdo OTH with vehicles / logical follow up. I’ve argued for the two LPDs in the past, but am at the point something big is going to have to give to move forwards. Longer term, three RN LPDs with less manning requirements than the ...

Well we are short of crew whether RN or RFA. So depends on which would be easier to recruit for. Given thar RN early retired 1 Frigate (Monmouth),2 subs and Echo, with another precious Frigate to be retired next year, I would be nervous about RN crewing 3 Bays. Both the RN & RFA, and there aren...

the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics! As we have become accustomed to buying from remanufacture/ special edition limited-run queues (Apache/ Chinook SF), so why don't we tap into a "nearly new, but to be decommissioned" plans, likewise... at a good price! http...

For what we should be allocated (frozen) to the geographical areas we are interested in I would say logistics! Having a tanker/stores vessel (most are weak in these areas) in situ to me offers many options from low level support to allies (and the carriage of some containerised capabilities for sec...

Both Albions ideal, BUT - would 2 Bays be a substitute for one of those - especially as an Albion is easier to convert for "high endurance" which clearly is a rqrmnt for LRG(S)? If the Bays had larger well docks for say 2 LCUs rather than one, then in reality perhaps both Albions could be...

SW1 wrote: ↑15 Jul 2022, 14:25 Or u could argue we provide the vertical lift to their over the shore lift…

Possibly, but a CVF is only really designed for 250 RMs so would say it needs to be paired with a LPD/LSD.

The discussion around the UK partnering on a new amphibious platform is starting to make more sense to me.

JEF(M) is focused on an adaptable structure based around a flexible pool of assets with the UK as a lead. From an amphibious standpoint you’d argue that the minimum would be to match what the Netherlands contributes - namely two Cdos, two LPDs and a JSBL. This would mean allocating: - 40 & 45 Cd...