donald_of_tokyo wrote:?? Your "20 multi mission ships" are high end? At least for MHC, what we need is low end, I guess.
Lord Jim wrote:This should make it a platform with sales potential.
I think it all depends on how this programme now proceeds. The crucial question appears to be, is the patrol capability still a major requirement or not? The perceived wisdom is that the RB2's are effectively the patrol element and we now have an MHC programme rather than a MHPC programme. This may be true but could this be effected by Brexit? Will at least 4 of the RB2's now be required to police the EEZ? Personally I think the minimum number required will be more like 6, hence the retained RB1's. A lot depends on the Brexit deal so time will tell.donald_of_tokyo wrote: I really think MHC must adopt bulky hull. Large deck space, more flexibility to future MCM drones. I think we must omit "high speed" requirement, which will significantly degrade the effectiveness as MHC ship, by requiring more slender hull. I think, 18 knot is max. Even 16 knots is doable.
Tempest414 wrote:I for one can't see how the patrol part can be left out as all of the MCM and the Echo class have a patrol role second to there main role always have had . I would still like to see a Venari-95/100 with a wildcat capable hangar and a 20 knot top speed. as i said in the past we need to take this opportunity to build a multi-mission sloop that can carry out MCM , Littoral ASW , Hydrograthic , Patrol and will help balance out the fleet . Also as said before I feel it should have
Scanter 4100 radar
hull mounted sonar
wildcat capable hangar
Phalanx mount on hangar roof ( weapon to come from RN stock when needed )
armament as seen fit ( as said I would like to see a 57mm )
Off board systems
Jake1992 wrote:My concern is the numbers, to do MCM, survay work, patrol and costal ASW a good amount will be needed.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Jake1992 wrote:My concern is the numbers, to do MCM, survay work, patrol and costal ASW a good amount will be needed.
Most of tasks have no imperative for being contemporaneous
=> modularity is "the" answer
Tempest414 wrote:I have always said I would like 12 to 15 of this type of ship I don't see them carrying all the tasks all the time however I would put a 3 ship squadron in the gulf 2 active and 1 in port at the new base for MCM we could also keep a ASW and Hydrograthic kit to use as needed
Sorry, the number "8" is only my personal proposal. (MHPC --> MHC is official, as I understand).Lord Jim wrote:Here we go again, halving the MCN fleet leaves us with too few platforms. The threat of mines is increasing and we in out own brand of stupidity cut yet another area where we were looked upon as global leaders in capability. It is amazing how effective the MoD and Government are at getting information out about topics like this under the radar. Many must be thanking God for BREXIT and the attention it attracts daily from the media, even though this was announced prior to this event.
Very powerful fleet I agree but,Lord Jim wrote:Ok that makes more sense. I would still like 12 larger MHC vessels that are able to carry out multiple roles through "Modules", six of which would be the high end MCM sets, and day up to four sets for hydro graphics and other survey work. That would mean you could have >six operating as MCM platforms, >2 as Survey and >2 for patrol, but able to mix things up and cover maintenance cycles. I still like the idea of being able to mount a single three cell ExLS if needed, taken from the T-31 stockpile in my world and space to bolt on a Phalanx so they can operate in higher threat environments if needed. The former being able to fire NLOS as well as Sea Ceptor would significantly boost their defence against swarm attacks. These vessels are a golden opportunity for the UK to generate a platform that be a real force multiplier and be of interest to other nations.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Sorry, the number "8" is only my personal proposal. (MHPC --> MHC is official, as I understand).
donald_of_tokyo wrote:And, my "6 for MCM" is based on replacements for 12 MCMVs and I intend no cut. Sorry if I mislead you.
Lord Jim wrote:These vessels are a golden opportunity for the UK to generate a platform that be a real force multiplier and be of interest to other nations.
I’m pretty much afraid, it will either cost a lot to even cutting 1 or 2 T26s, the whole T31, or capability of each vessel will be very low.Tempest414 wrote:For me when we talk about replacing hulls 2 for 1 it makes me very worried indeed yes I get the fact that with the new systems lets say 1 Venari -95 could do the job of 2 MCMVs and maybe there Bay Mother ship. But I would see this as opportunity to increase the fleets capability so in this case I would be looking to replace the 15 ships ( 13 MCMV & 2 Echos ) with 12 ships it still means the RN would lose 3 ships from the fleet however it would increase its capability with said kit
7 x Unmanned MCM kits = 14 current MCMVs
4 x Littoral ASW kits = A 4 x uplift in capability
3 x Hydrograthic kits = 3 current Echo class
? Sorry, I am talking about total cost. "Coming on line" will contribute to make it cheap how?Tempest414 wrote:I disagree if the first 4 ships come on line with 3 MCM kits and 1 ASW kit with the next batch of 4 doing the same and the last batch of 4 coming on line with with 2 hyrograthic kits and 2 ASW kits the whole program can be spread out
I would go for the latterLord Jim wrote: and of course two to four MGs ranging from the M2HB to the 7.62 Gatling.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:? Sorry, I am talking about total cost. "Coming on line" will contribute to make it cheap how?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Poiuytrewq and 15 guests