marktigger wrote:these are extremely flexible vessels and shame we sold one to the Aussies. Wonder if we should have bought the full blown LPD version instead of Bulwark & Albion
It's HNLMS Rotterdam, which is quite a lot like a mini San Antonio, a much more modern design that isn't limited by its lack of a hangar.R686 wrote:what additions do the " full blown LPD version instead of Bulwark & Albion" resemble, a mini San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock?
I suspected it was in relation to the hanger, so the original requirment for the bay and not the Albion's was the larger Rotterdam?shark bait wrote:It's HNLMS Rotterdam, which is quite a lot like a mini San Antonio, a much more modern design that isn't limited by its lack of a hangar.R686 wrote:what additions do the " full blown LPD version instead of Bulwark & Albion" resemble, a mini San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock?
Yep the bays are based on the Dutch design.R686 wrote: I suspected it was in relation to the hanger, so the original requirment for the bay and not the Albion's was the larger Rotterdam?
Are you suggesting the Mistral's are built to a lesser standard to our LPD? I dont see why a Mistral or Juan Carlos class, slightly modified to suite the RN wouldn't be a credible platform.donald_of_tokyo wrote: But, if you build a "Mistral-like LHD with Albion standard", how it will look like? Crew of 500? Displacement of 30000t FL? I am afraid it will be quite expensive.
Yes, all modern vessels should have extensive aviation capabilities. Especially a LPD whose role is projecting power ashore, air power is a critical part of thst task.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do you really need helicopter hanger in LPDs?
Probably being a Dutch design and built with minimal changes is probably why they work so well. But them having to fit them with Tented hangers to operate over seas shown whoever thought they didn't need one was wrong.shark bait wrote:Yep the bays are based on the Dutch design.R686 wrote: I suspected it was in relation to the hanger, so the original requirment for the bay and not the Albion's was the larger Rotterdam?
The Spanish also have a platform based on the Rotterdam, and the Dutch have another improved Rotterdam, its a design that has been chucked around a lot.
Don't know why the hangar was removed though, they would now be useful. Guess it was for saving penny's, which is OK because the bays are great value for money. It's a shame we sold you Ozzie's one
You may want to look at the build & design history (constant changes, no freeze, change of contractor, massive budget overrun) and that will overturn the "probably"marktigger wrote: Probably being a Dutch design and built with minimal change
That is the question I have.shark bait wrote: Are you suggesting the Mistral's are built to a lesser standard to our LPD? I dont see why a Mistral or Juan Carlos class, slightly modified to suite the RN wouldn't be a credible platform.
The Mistral class is a completely different type to the America class, which in the hands if every other navy would be classed as a full blown aircraft carrier.donald_of_tokyo wrote:From where this difference comes from?
Yes. I agree.shark bait wrote: A little googling confirms the Mistral's are also built to a commercial specification.
So I guess the difference comes from the Americas being huge, built to military specification and the USN doesnt have the same lean manning as us in Europe.
Mistrals and USN LHDs are incomparable really.
It potentially is. Our current amphibious assault ship is built to the same cheaper standards as the Mistral's, so its clearly acceptable. I suppose another question, is HMS ocean a success?donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is Mistral credible vessel good as a replacement for Albions?
Much, more expensive. Is it worth it for the extra survivability? I don't know.donald_of_tokyo wrote:If you build Mistral like ship with Albion standard, how large and expensive it will be?
Is it true? I "thought" Albions are more military standard than Mistral. Bay-class will be similarly merchant standard as Mistrals. I though I've read it somewhere, but I cannot find the source, so I may be wrong though...shark bait wrote:Our current amphibious assault ship is built to the same cheaper standards as the Mistral's, so its clearly acceptable. I suppose another question, is HMS ocean a success?
I don't know either. For me, this issue is related to the "credibility", on which you were so much interested in at the lighter frigate thread. BUT, credibility required for landing ship may differ from those for escorts."If you build Mistral like ship with Albion standard, how large and expensive it will be?"
Much, more expensive. Is it worth it for the extra survivability? I don't know.
I was referring to HMS Ocean, which like the Bays and Mistral's, is built to a cheaper specification.donald_of_tokyo wrote: Is it true?
I think it does differ. Your escorts need to be highly survivable to protect the less survivable capitol ships and merchant vessels.donald_of_tokyo wrote:BUT, credibility required for landing ship may differ from those for escorts.
I think yes. (although I assume I am a minority ...)shark bait wrote:I suppose another question, is HMS ocean a success?
Albions were indeed built to the military standards of the early '90s. That's why they're manpower intensive, about twice the crew of a Mistral. I believe they're more expensive as well, although it's hard to find accurate cost conversions for these things.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Is it true? I "thought" Albions are more military standard than Mistral. Bay-class will be similarly merchant standard as Mistrals. I though I've read it somewhere, but I cannot find the source, so I may be wrong though...
In my opinion credibility and survivability for front line amphibious shipping is at least as important as it is for escorts. In any conflict against a serious opponent these ships, along with the carriers, will be very high priority targets. The carriers can "get away with it" to a degree because they will be over the horizon protected by a deep layered defence at all times. This may not always be the case with the amphibs when they move into the littoral, the defensive screen may be much shallower. Ensuring they're survivable enough to protect themselves, and in certain circumstances take some hits and remain operationally effective, should be high priorities in my opinion. The American San Antonio LPDs have 16 Mk.41 VLS cells for ESSM for just this reason. Even with all their enormously well equipped escorts they recognise the need for self-defence capabilities on these ships. Any future UK front line amphibious shipping should also be armed in this manner. In this regard we're lucky, CAMM is a small system that doesn't require the space or cost of the big US VLS cells. We could easily include them in the design for the Albion replacement.I don't know either. For me, this issue is related to the "credibility", on which you were so much interested in at the lighter frigate thread. BUT, credibility required for landing ship may differ from those for escorts.
Except having nearly double the crew will make a very significant difference if you have to do damage control while simultaneously continuing to fight the ship or conduct other operations.If the ship is filled up with many army equipments (all flammable), small difference in fire-fighting capability will have marginal difference, I guess.
A good discussion here.Engaging Strategy wrote:Albions were indeed built to the military standards of the early '90s. That's why they're manpower intensive, about twice the crew of a Mistral. I believe they're more expensive as well, although it's hard to find accurate cost conversions for these things.
I think that deciding whether Ocean was a success might be a bit subjective, but we can probably work out whether Ocean was worth the cost effective by multiplying it's cost by 1.5 and working out it's theoretical operational costs out to thirty years and then comparing them to the build and operational costs military grade built LPH of a similar size.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I think yes. (although I assume I am a minority ...)shark bait wrote:I suppose another question, is HMS ocean a success?
Because it was so cheap, RN managed to build it. Without, RN would have NO LPH. This is my opinion.
Current discussion of it being too short-lifed is requiring too much to a ship originally built as a "huge hanger with flat top, and nothing else". The ship was not designed to be a landing operation HQ. Not designed as a flag ship. And not designed to serve RN longer than 20 years. No problem.
Disbanding Illustrious in place of Ocean was the wrong question, to my point of view.
#Ops, this shall be written in Ocean thread?
They should do. They can't do a very good job without those magic beans.arfah wrote:I doubt a matelot or bootneck cares about how many magic beans she's worth to the treasury?
