RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Looks like a good baseline for a future replacement. PIF the aviation training elsewhere and focus on hospital and disaster relief functions. Is HMNZS Canterbury a good template for those low intensity roles?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
expand / upgrade either Albion or Bulwark into this role while still retaining amphib capability . This could lead to better utilisation of these ships and release some much needed RFA manpower.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
But far to small to fulfil the force multiplier roles argus doesshark bait wrote:
Looks like a good baseline for a future replacement. PIF the aviation training elsewhere and focus on hospital and disaster relief functions. Is HMNZS Canterbury a good template for those low intensity roles?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
PAUL MARSAY wrote:expand / upgrade either Albion or Bulwark into this role while still retaining amphib capability . This could lead to better utilisation of these ships and release some much needed RFA manpower.
problem is now the ARG will be more reliant on Argus again with the loss of Ocean. Its more its medical role its additional stores and aircraft capacity that is required the LPD's will have enough on their plates with the landing force. in the Amphib role but would agree use the LPD's more in various roles outside directly landing marines.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
They both have command facilities, so upgrades would be modest. Would the result be on par with what goes onto both QE carriers... doubt it and the replication probably would not be good value for money (sure, would improve resilience, and even closer synchronisation when the CTF and ARG are operating at some distance from each other)PAUL MARSAY wrote:expand / upgrade either Albion or Bulwark into this role while still retaining amphib capability
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Such as?marktigger wrote:But far to small to fulfil the force multiplier roles argus does
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
transporting additional aircraft, Vehicles, supplies etc and having PCRS aboard
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Vehicles, supplies, and having PCRS aboard are very well suited to a HMNZS Canterbury type.
transporting additional aircraft, perhaps not, and Argus is not suited to this either, space for 6 helos, and helicopter carrier is a role she is know to be crap at.
transporting additional aircraft, perhaps not, and Argus is not suited to this either, space for 6 helos, and helicopter carrier is a role she is know to be crap at.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
A ship of the size and type of capabilities of HMNZS Canterbury might be a candidate for a dedicated maritime Role 3 medical ship. But I don't think anybody would be eager to use the actual design of HMNZS Canterbury. In her early operational life she was found to have a number of issues including stability - a 28° role in sea state 6 was reported. This would make helicopter operations difficult to say the least and I don't like to think about surgery in such conditions. I think some of these issues have now been mitigated but fundamentally I don't think anybody will be rushing to use this hull design.
However this does highlight an underlying issue. A dedicated Role 3 medical ship is always going to be much smaller than an amphibious ship (e.g. Bay class) with a Role 3 facility on board. Smaller ship means less stable.
However this does highlight an underlying issue. A dedicated Role 3 medical ship is always going to be much smaller than an amphibious ship (e.g. Bay class) with a Role 3 facility on board. Smaller ship means less stable.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Let's not forget Argus is not a high performance platform, which is fine because PCRS and HDAR do not demand high performance.
Sure we could spend lots of cash and create a high performance platform, but what would be the value in that?
Another civilian conversion is the only reasonable choice.
NZ clearly haven't delivered a high performance platform, but they have a ship that delivers excellent value within a narrower operational range, a model we should try to follow.
Sure we could spend lots of cash and create a high performance platform, but what would be the value in that?
Another civilian conversion is the only reasonable choice.
NZ clearly haven't delivered a high performance platform, but they have a ship that delivers excellent value within a narrower operational range, a model we should try to follow.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
The size argument is a valid one
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... j8pjpg.jpg
but I think we should look at cruise liner and polar expedition designs of about frigate size and four stabiliser fins (the captain can try to change course for pitch reasons at times of critical operations).
- why frigate size?
- can't do bad weather/ high sea state helo ops safely on smaller platforms
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... j8pjpg.jpg
but I think we should look at cruise liner and polar expedition designs of about frigate size and four stabiliser fins (the captain can try to change course for pitch reasons at times of critical operations).
- why frigate size?
- can't do bad weather/ high sea state helo ops safely on smaller platforms
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Option-1, if based on one of the 2 Points-class RORO vessel "lost", will not be a singleton vessel, I guess.Aethulwulf wrote:The options appear to be:
1. Conversion of a merchant vessel (much like the existing Argus)
....Options 1 and 2 will end up with a singleton ship.
I do NOT think LHD will come (too much resource intensive. Sorry I am a bit pessimistic). Canberra is 1.5B A$ = 0.9G GBP (assuming 1.7A$ = 1GBP). If RN builds it, it will eat almost all Bays, I'm afraid. Thus, I think helicopter support role of Argus is important. If the 2nd CV is available as LPH, good. If not, Argus-replacement shall provide the "2ndary helicopter hangar". I think it must have a size of 12 Merlin or so.shark bait wrote:Looks like a good baseline for a future replacement. PIF the aviation training elsewhere and focus on hospital and disaster relief functions. Is HMNZS Canterbury a good template for those low intensity roles?
Just say, "like-for-like replacements". Fate of the LPD replacement (LHD?) must be "up to the economy at ~2025".
- Engaging Strategy
- Member
- Posts: 775
- Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
- Contact:
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Obviously Argus, as presently configured, covers two distinct primary roles: PCRS and helicopter training. Although she's a poor substitute for a "real" LPH she definitely provides a useful capability in a pinch, a bit better than what we expect from a Bay with tent hangar.
Some of the comments on here have set me thinking, I think the argument about stability issues for a small ship like Canterbury is important; and could compromise the PCRS role.
Equally I'm opposed to farming out the helicopter training role to a private firm (AKA Serco Marine Services) because we'd, frankly, end up paying for a (relatively) big new aviation training ship and it's crew anyway through the contract. As it stands none of their existing ships could cover that role, not even by reconfiguring Northern River or Victoria. So that's pretty much out. Equally, moving aviation training to other RFA or RN platforms would impose yet another task on a rather stretched force. IMO trying to do it with the spare CV would be impractical.
If we want to keep the PCRS (and I think we do) then I think there's a real opportunity here to kill several birds with one stone.
How? By building or converting a big ship (yes, i'm a fan of big, efficient, multirole platforms) and rolling Diligence's capabilities into the mix.
So what you'd end up with would be something on the scale of the solid support ship with the necessary medical facilities, a nice big flat deck and hangar (although not a through-deck) for aviation support and training and the workshops/cranes etc that Diligence used to provide. A sort of multi-purpose "task force support ship".
A crazy idea? Maybe, but at least it's thinking outside the box. With the current oversupply of large container ships it shouldn't be too difficult to purchase one nearly new, or buy a new one, for conversion.
Some of the comments on here have set me thinking, I think the argument about stability issues for a small ship like Canterbury is important; and could compromise the PCRS role.
Equally I'm opposed to farming out the helicopter training role to a private firm (AKA Serco Marine Services) because we'd, frankly, end up paying for a (relatively) big new aviation training ship and it's crew anyway through the contract. As it stands none of their existing ships could cover that role, not even by reconfiguring Northern River or Victoria. So that's pretty much out. Equally, moving aviation training to other RFA or RN platforms would impose yet another task on a rather stretched force. IMO trying to do it with the spare CV would be impractical.
If we want to keep the PCRS (and I think we do) then I think there's a real opportunity here to kill several birds with one stone.
How? By building or converting a big ship (yes, i'm a fan of big, efficient, multirole platforms) and rolling Diligence's capabilities into the mix.
So what you'd end up with would be something on the scale of the solid support ship with the necessary medical facilities, a nice big flat deck and hangar (although not a through-deck) for aviation support and training and the workshops/cranes etc that Diligence used to provide. A sort of multi-purpose "task force support ship".
A crazy idea? Maybe, but at least it's thinking outside the box. With the current oversupply of large container ships it shouldn't be too difficult to purchase one nearly new, or buy a new one, for conversion.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
If France with a smaller budget can manage a nuclear carrier and 3 LHD's we can manage 2 conventional carriers and 2 helicopter carriers. Within the current structure the Royal Navy will operate 2 carriers and 2 amphibious platforms. Your pessimism is not justified.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do NOT think LHD will come (too much resource intensive. Sorry I am a bit pessimistic)
Argus is crap at supporting helicopters. If we want something that is good at supporting helicopters we want a HMS Oceandonald_of_tokyo wrote:Thus, I think helicopter support role of Argus is important
Like HMS Ocean?donald_of_tokyo wrote:If not, Argus-replacement shall provide the "2ndary helicopter hangar". I think it must have a size of 12 Merlin or so.
This proposal is full of holes, first not enough resources for a helicopter carrier, then solved by building a helicopter?
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Howabout something like 15 000 nm range, 4 000 cubic m for a hospital plus lots of labs, amphiteatre, stablisers and
" S. A. Agulhas II is the first ship of her kind to be allowed to carry both passengers and fuel, such as polar diesel, Jet A helicopter fuel and petrol, as cargo"
- self sufficient, does not add to RASsing burden, especially if sailing in a "box" separated by some distance from the CTF/ ARG
2 Puma -sized helos, too
http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s ... I&uid=1575
" S. A. Agulhas II is the first ship of her kind to be allowed to carry both passengers and fuel, such as polar diesel, Jet A helicopter fuel and petrol, as cargo"
- self sufficient, does not add to RASsing burden, especially if sailing in a "box" separated by some distance from the CTF/ ARG
2 Puma -sized helos, too
http://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s ... I&uid=1575
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Not agree. We all agree even a 5 T26GP cannot be built, and we need 5 T31 in place. We also see "stealth cut" of Digilence. Why can you be so optimistic ONLY on LPD replacements?shark bait wrote: If France with a smaller budget can manage a nuclear carrier and 3 LHD's we can manage 2 conventional carriers and 2 helicopter carriers. Within the current structure the Royal Navy will operate 2 carriers and 2 amphibious platforms. Your pessimism is not justified.
Is it really crap? I heard the RM soildiers had bad experiense (low habitability?) on Bosnia operation (which was the main driver for building HMS Ocean), but not about the helicopter operation itself.Argus is crap at supporting helicopters. If we want something that is good at supporting helicopters we want a HMS Ocean
No. Not like Ocean. Ocean do provide large numbers of RM carried, and also 12 Merlins to be carried/operated with 6 landing spots. It is the "sole" helicopter carrier dedicated for amphibious operation. Since Invinsible-class were small, it was needed. Now with your large large CVF, Chinook can be operated even from the air-strike tasked CV. Argus-replacement as a support helicopter hangar is much like those Atlantic Convayer did in Falklands war.Like HMS Ocean?donald_of_tokyo wrote:If not, Argus-replacement shall provide the "2ndary helicopter hangar". I think it must have a size of 12 Merlin or so.
No and no. I am not proposing LPH here, so I do not need a resource as much as an LPH needs. I am proposing a ship like Argus, as in 1990.This proposal is full of holes, first not enough resources for a helicopter carrier, then solved by building a helicopter?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
I do agree that trying to spec to much into the hull is a sure guarantee for nothing at all happening. The transporting of helos that in the end will not be operating off decks can be done in a combination ofdonald_of_tokyo wrote: Argus-replacement as a support helicopter hangar is much like those Atlantic Convayer did in Falklands war.
-CVF hangars
- SSSs and tankers
- STUFT (the conversion to decks open enough for a vertical take off will have to be preplanned)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Its over a decade away, the problem with the frigate built is the short term availability of cash, partly because of the £6 billion carrier build still on going.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Not agree. We all agree even a 5 T26GP cannot be built, and we need 5 T31 in place. We also see "stealth cut" of Digilence. Why can you be so optimistic ONLY on LPD replacements?
Our structure currently accommodates 2 large amphibious platforms, I see no reason why that is going to change at any point.
yep, poor habitability, stability, survivability and ammunition handling. It was crap at the job, that's why we built Ocean and turned Argus into a PCRS.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is it really crap? I heard the RM soildiers had bad experiense (low habitability?) on Bosnia operation (which was the main driver for building HMS Ocean), but not about the helicopter operation itself.
To make Argus good enough for our armed forces it would consume as many resources as a new LPH would.donald_of_tokyo wrote:No and no. I am not proposing LPH here, so I do not need a resource as much as an LPH needs. I am proposing a ship like Argus, as in 1990.
Quite simply to do that job properly an LPH is needed, is a high intensity role that a low performance container ship is never going to be suited to. A ship like Argus is totally inadequate for providing helicopter support to our amphibious force. That's why we built Ocean in the 90's.
History has proved that is a bad idea, why repeat the bad idea?
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Container ships have extremely limited ship's services built in, so be the cargo green devils, aviation assets (the whole package, not just choppers shrink-wrapped in plastic) or a containerised field hospital... you will always find that there is hardly anything there in the way of services (and more services need more, or different kind, of installed power etcshark bait wrote:habitability, stability, survivability and ammunition handling
- to me a conversion is a non-starter (or convert before the launch; they did turn Ford Escorts into successful rally cars, you know, but with that method)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Replacing 1+1 LPDs and 3 LPD(A)s with 2 LHDs and 4 LPD(A) is clearly requiring large additional resource. Saying it "optimistic" is quite natural for me. You do remember what happened with the large large CVF. Optimistic RN was, and they lost MANY escorts in place, as well as 10 (or more) years-long gap in air strike (in commercial world, it will not be called "gap". It is "scrap, forget, and build another one from the scratch".).shark bait wrote:Its over a decade away, the problem with the frigate built is the short term availability of cash, partly because of the £6 billion carrier build still on going.Our structure currently accommodates 2 large amphibious platforms, I see no reason why that is going to change at any point.
Habitability is not needed. It is a hangar and only a small (or short time) RM will be onboard. Survivability is important, but, I think "2 LHD and 4 LPDA" cannot even born. Ammunition handling is not needed for Merlin HC3 carrier. If your air strike carrier is there, why you need Apache? As I said, it is NOT intended to be an Ocean replacement. It is a moving helicopter hanger to provide helicopters to operate from LPD's de (2 spots), and LPD(A)'s (1 spot), as well as T26 "Chinook capable large deck" as well as Tankers and SSSs. (Of course, 2-3 spot on the Argus-replacement will also be used). And, again, 4-6 Chinooks from CVF will be a big big part of the initial landing.yep, poor habitability, stability, survivability and ammunition handling. It was crap at the job, that's why we built Ocean and turned it into a PCRS.
By the way, I heard that the Argus has excellent stability. Which is true?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Operationally it wouldn't, replacing the Albions with Mistrals would require no more resources than what we have now.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Replacing 1+1 LPDs and 3 LPD(A)s with 2 LHDs and 4 LPD(A) is clearly requiring large additional resource
So you are suggesting building and maintaining an entire platform just to taxi commando helicopters from A to B once every decade? That sounds incredibly wasteful, what is the point?donald_of_tokyo wrote: Ammunition handling is not needed for Merlin HC3 carrier. If your air strike carrier is there, why you need Apache? As I said, it is NOT intended to be an Ocean replacement. It is a moving helicopter hanger.
We are both well aware the RN is tight on resources. This seems like a very efficient way to waste what little we have.
I dont think there is anything wrong with civilian conversions, but for the reasons you stated it needs to be acknowledged that these are low performance platforms and must be used as such. There is no way we can expect them to be a pivotal part of our amphibious assault.ArmChairCivvy wrote:to me a conversion is a non-starter (or convert before the launch; they did turn Ford Escorts into successful rally cars, you know, but with that method)
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
If you think "replacing Albions with UK-standard-built Mistral 1-by-1 with the same resource" is doable, I am sure you do not need Argus replacement. I think it is impossible. I wonder it will either, kill ALL Bays, or cut another 2 escorts or so (although there is not much escorts to be cut anymore). That's why I am proposing sub-optimal solution. No other reason is there. Basic standpoint differs so the conclusion differs naturally.
I do not think it is a waste, because there will be no LHD in future.So you are suggesting building and maintaining an entire platform just to taxi commando helicopters from A to B once every decade? That sounds incredibly wasteful, what is the point?
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
I think we would still need to replace the PCRF and HADR elements of Argus, but its helicopter support functions are all but useless now.
I am almost certain there will be an LHD in the future because aviation is clearly pivotal to an amphibious manoeuvre. Your solution puts a hangar on a separate ship next to the amphibious platform. An LHD puts the hangar on the amphibious platform. It is 2 ships and 2 crews VS 1 ship and 1 crew. Which will be cheaper? the latter, that why the other big European navys are doing it that way.
It seems to me like you are following the Japanese model, with your many LPH's providing helicopters to your LSD's?
I dont think its a bad model to follow, but it needs to be done properly with purpose built LPH's and LSD's. Its just not possible to get the required performance out of a civilian conversion.
I am almost certain there will be an LHD in the future because aviation is clearly pivotal to an amphibious manoeuvre. Your solution puts a hangar on a separate ship next to the amphibious platform. An LHD puts the hangar on the amphibious platform. It is 2 ships and 2 crews VS 1 ship and 1 crew. Which will be cheaper? the latter, that why the other big European navys are doing it that way.
It seems to me like you are following the Japanese model, with your many LPH's providing helicopters to your LSD's?
I dont think its a bad model to follow, but it needs to be done properly with purpose built LPH's and LSD's. Its just not possible to get the required performance out of a civilian conversion.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5603
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
My point is that,
- the 2nd CV must be used as LPH, because it is Ocean replacement
- but at some point it will be docked, so you need "another" LPH. But, budget-wise it will not happen. So, Argus replacement.
On LHD issue, I'm afraid by the fact that French navy, went with 3 Mistral classes and "nothing else", other than the B3M PSVs (to replace BATRAL LSTs). RN has 2 CVFs, as opposed to French navies only 1. Its nuclear plant is clearly offset by its size. And, only 3 LHD (with very low standard, as rumored) they have.
As you know, a CVF is much expensive and powerful (as LPH) than a LHD. So if you have 2 LHDs, I'm very afraid there will be nothing else. Actually, 2 JC LHDs and 2 Canterbury-like (non-well-dock 8000t FL ship) will be the "most" I can expect, as I stated already. But, anyway, there are so many assumption here (e.g. economy around ~2030), and I think my point and your point is clear (no miss-understanding any more), I think it is OK for now. "Lest's see".
- the 2nd CV must be used as LPH, because it is Ocean replacement
- but at some point it will be docked, so you need "another" LPH. But, budget-wise it will not happen. So, Argus replacement.
On LHD issue, I'm afraid by the fact that French navy, went with 3 Mistral classes and "nothing else", other than the B3M PSVs (to replace BATRAL LSTs). RN has 2 CVFs, as opposed to French navies only 1. Its nuclear plant is clearly offset by its size. And, only 3 LHD (with very low standard, as rumored) they have.
As you know, a CVF is much expensive and powerful (as LPH) than a LHD. So if you have 2 LHDs, I'm very afraid there will be nothing else. Actually, 2 JC LHDs and 2 Canterbury-like (non-well-dock 8000t FL ship) will be the "most" I can expect, as I stated already. But, anyway, there are so many assumption here (e.g. economy around ~2030), and I think my point and your point is clear (no miss-understanding any more), I think it is OK for now. "Lest's see".
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: RFA Argus (Casualty Receiving Ship / Aviation Training Ship) (RFA)
Agreed.shark bait wrote:I think we would still need to replace the PCRF and HADR elements of Argus, but its helicopter support functions are all but useless now.
It should be remembered that casualty care is a critical enabler to high end military operations. These days, "kinetic" operations do not go ahead unless there are adequate facilities for the recovery and treatment of the injured.