Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
As Iv mentioned a few times on here we could have a very nice set up by using the proposed DFID money to replace the waves and argus with 2 x karldoorman vessels with the role 2 upgraded to role 3 medical.
Then replaced the 2 LPDs with LPDs varients of the karldoorman and the 3 bays with 3 enforcer class.
Or 2 x LPD and 3 x LSD varrients of the SSS concept design going round.
Either way with 2 x large 6 helo hanger and 3 x 2-3 helo hanger we might get away with out needing a 3rd flat top ( I personal my would like to see a 3rd flat top ) but at max we could be able to deploy 21 helos between 5 vessels, more than we could be ocean and more flexible over all.
We add to this the 2 karldoormans with role 3 medical and we end up keeping the waves tanker role, increasing over medical by always having a role 3 avalible and another increase in helos and vehicle transport with another set of 6 helo vessels
Then replaced the 2 LPDs with LPDs varients of the karldoorman and the 3 bays with 3 enforcer class.
Or 2 x LPD and 3 x LSD varrients of the SSS concept design going round.
Either way with 2 x large 6 helo hanger and 3 x 2-3 helo hanger we might get away with out needing a 3rd flat top ( I personal my would like to see a 3rd flat top ) but at max we could be able to deploy 21 helos between 5 vessels, more than we could be ocean and more flexible over all.
We add to this the 2 karldoormans with role 3 medical and we end up keeping the waves tanker role, increasing over medical by always having a role 3 avalible and another increase in helos and vehicle transport with another set of 6 helo vessels
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Mistral classPoiuytrewq wrote:I am still trying to find an Amphibious vessel with a well dock and a role 3 medical facility. No luck so far...
@LandSharkUK
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
there we have it a role 3 hospital on a LHD I would say the Wasp class with there 6 operating tables are close to role 3 as well
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The “role” of a hospital is not dependant on size it is on the specialties that is offered. There is a question mark if the uk has the medical personnel to deploy a full role 3 facility on its own.
The US facilities on there amphibious vessels are bigger than what’s available on Argus.
The US facilities on there amphibious vessels are bigger than what’s available on Argus.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It is actually both, combined.SW1 wrote:The “role” of a hospital is not dependant on size it is on the specialties that is offered
Someone fighting for his/ her life can't be thrown about in seastate X, or more exactly: that can happen , but on a bigger ship (and that ward being appropriately located), can make all the difference.
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)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5634
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think it is safe to say that a 200 meter long by 28 meter beam Enforcer Hull with a well dock can take a role 2/3 medical unit on par with Argus
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Easily.Tempest414 wrote:I think it is safe to say that a 200 meter long by 28 meter beam Enforcer Hull with a well dock can take a role 2/3 medical unit on par with Argus
The Mistral example is interesting.
The entire medical facility appears to fit into 700-800sqm. This can be augmented by a containerised system on the vehicle deck. This seems very compact and unobtrusive when compared to the size of the vessels discussed.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
What is the going rate for a Mistral?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Around €450m in 2012Lord Jim wrote:What is the going rate for a Mistral?
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Stirring the pot, but why don't we cancel the T-31e, buy one of these and spend what left on other important items for the Navy like a new AShM for example.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I can't see us ever buying a mistral off the French, the idea that such I high profiel vessel for the RN would be built outside the uk would never get traction, I doubt we'd even use a Forgain design for a vessel like this.
You have to think any LHD a pair or just one will be second only to the carriers for the RN in public eyes so much be uk design and build.
You have to think any LHD a pair or just one will be second only to the carriers for the RN in public eyes so much be uk design and build.
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships? 80% availability would give 4 available, one WIGS plus one EoS plus two with or available for the CSG - coupled the Bays gives the possibility of surging 3 LPDs plus 2 LSDs plus a LHA, gives a lift capability not seen since before 2010.shark bait wrote:big flexible platform such as the above would be a fine outcome to the T31, but no way is it reasonable to use that to cut the assault platforms without replacement. A best there would be two platforms available, which doesn't provide much capacity.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
going by 60 mtrs, the most critical dimension, that is only 13.3 sideways... if containerised, there would need to be a wide corridor in between?Poiuytrewq wrote: The entire medical facility appears to fit into 700-800sqm
- 3 mtrs height... loadsa 'ship's services' to run anything like that needed
Don't be fooled like that. The Italian carrier did not come for a mere e 1 bn; nor did the Mistral (avg) costPoiuytrewq wrote:Around €450m in 2012
- other ministries chipped in (whatever the allowable EU emoluments are)
- used to refer to payment to a miller for grinding corn – derived from the word emolere, meaning “to grind up,”
- in the EU vocabulary (not Merriam Webster ) to keep the wheels turning... no subsidies... of course NOT
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)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
1.1 BLN € was the definitive final price for the Trieste...
853mln for Fincantieri
273mln for Leonardo.
853mln for Fincantieri
273mln for Leonardo.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
When you are looking too close up... the trees do not look like a forestMeriv9 wrote:1.1 BLN € was the definitive final price for the Trieste...
853mln for Fincantieri
273mln for Leonardo.
- look again
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)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
The price hike there has already been from 844 to 1126 mln. From the initial parlament budget to the Fincantieri Budget.
For now the ship is at this stage, no bad news yet.
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 0368_n.jpg
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 7568_o.jpg
(Photos from Forum difesa)
So please show some proof of things going badly.
For now the ship is at this stage, no bad news yet.
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 0368_n.jpg
https://upload.forumfree.net/i/ff403149 ... 7568_o.jpg
(Photos from Forum difesa)
So please show some proof of things going badly.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sorry, I overlooked the fact that you were talking about the future
I was talking about the past... I think what is translated as the Dept of 'Works' chipped in to the the tune of a third of a bln towards the carrier?
- the French figures are better documented, as they relate to discrete 'builds'
I was talking about the past... I think what is translated as the Dept of 'Works' chipped in to the the tune of a third of a bln towards the carrier?
- the French figures are better documented, as they relate to discrete 'builds'
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)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Understood, yes if i remember correctly the Development Ministry chipped in for 880 for the fleet renovations.
On medical level, i would go for a level 2/2+, why? because i think the most easy financeable and acceptable project for the EU would be Hospital ships, 2-3 of them, would make happy shipyards and a lot of civilian industries around the continent. Plus it is an easy to use soft power tool and one that has big returns (IMHO) specially thinking all the cooperation money that flows towards Africa from Europe.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Totally separate from your contribution, we do need to keep the African dictators attired in their original croc-leather shoesMeriv9 wrote:specially thinking all the cooperation money that flows towards Africa from Europe.
... not just their bullet-proof Mercs
Lots of money has been sent...
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: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
They would have to be equipped to self escort, since the proposal trades in 5 escorts for for 5 assault platforms. That makes the ship much more complex, and makes the survey fleet model much more difficult. How would you get around that?Repulse wrote:Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships?
@LandSharkUK
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
But the T31e is not a real escort - it is supposed to operate solo only in lower threat environments. If it’s equipped with a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms and 1-2 Phalanx with either a Artisan or Terma Scanter 4100 then it’s sufficient for the requirements. I see little chance the T31e getting CAMM tbh in the price range.shark bait wrote:They would have to be equipped to self escort, since the proposal trades in 5 escorts for for 5 assault platforms. That makes the ship much more complex, and makes the survey fleet model much more difficult. How would you get around that?Repulse wrote:Why only 2? Relatively simple craft should allow a much higher availability rate than 1:3, any reason why we couldn’t operate like the Survey ships?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Why are weapons that are not part of the RN arsenal being bandied around?Repulse wrote:a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms
- e.g. Goalkeeper was perfectly good, and still it was withdrawn for logs reasons. Phalanx 1B antisurface capability is a poor substitute, but we have 'enough' of them (and as self-contained, they can easily be rotated through the fleet, according to mission rqrmnt)
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)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
Sorry typo on 40mm should have been 30mm. On the 57mm I’d see this as the right future gun for MHC and OPV replacements.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Why are weapons that are not part of the RN arsenal being bandied around?Repulse wrote:a self contained medium calibre gun (e.g 57mm) plus a couple of 40mms
- e.g. Goalkeeper was perfectly good, and still it was withdrawn for logs reasons. Phalanx 1B antisurface capability is a poor substitute, but we have 'enough' of them (and as self-contained, they can easily be rotated through the fleet, according to mission rqrmnt)
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
It would be the best choice, but I see it being added to the inventory to be unlikely.Repulse wrote:the 57mm I’d see [this] as the right future gun for MHC and OPV replacements.
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)
Re: Current & Future Amphibious Capability - General Discussion
I think what ends up being installed on the T-31e will have an impact on what options are available for future platforms. I think the 5" is both too expensive and too much gun for the T-31e, and using old Mk8s would be a mistake, so an intermediate calibre will be looked at.
Anyhow, this is supposed to be the Amphibious thread not one for discussing Escorts and Patrol/Survey vessels.
Anyhow, this is supposed to be the Amphibious thread not one for discussing Escorts and Patrol/Survey vessels.