Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • swerve
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2005
    • 13612

    Originally posted by Sintra View Post
    Swerve

    The Portuguese Navy requirement for the "Navio Polivalente logistico" is for a 10500 tons classic LPD with a complement of 150 officers and enlisted personel capable of carrying 495 marines for 30 days, equiped with four heavy (EH101) helicopters and six landing crafts.
    The TCD Foudre is awfully close to the specifications for the NPL.

    http://ema.marinha.pt/PT/actividade/...C3%ADstico.pdf

    Good grief! You're right. Remarkably close.

    Originally posted by RacingMonk View Post
    Jeepers...hasn't this thread got somewhat off topic?
    Yeah, afraid it has.

    Does anyone have anything on-topic to say.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

    Comment

    • Nicolas10
      Senior Member
      • May 2005
      • 4523

      Originally posted by swerve View Post
      Retiring both Foudre & Siroco would leave France with three ships to cover amphibious operations, training (including helicopters), & a hospital ship. That would be disastrous.
      Well selling both Foudre & Sirocco & procuring a fourth BPC would make a lot of sense, especially if 1 or 2 more Mistral class BPCs are built for Russia, then the MN would benefit from good economies of scale while selling Foudre and Sirocco when they still have quite a lot of value.

      Nic

      Comment

      • verbatim
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Aug 2010
        • 261

        I won't derail this topic anymore, but I would point out the a Foudre, being a LSD a-la-"Widbey Island", make little sense as a LPD, lacking any provision to sustain any troop or vehicle it can deploy ashore.

        It's a worst choice, IMHO.

        It's a huge force multiplier for the Mistrals, providing a huge first amphibious landing force, even well motorized or mechanized, but it makes little or no sense at all if take it alone.

        By the french point of view, I suspect the only real rational behind the disposal of the Foudre class for a fourth Mistral is to provide a big and rather needed help to french yards.

        Comment

        • H_K
          H_K
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Dec 2007
          • 630

          Originally posted by verbatim View Post
          I won't derail this topic anymore, but I would point out the a Foudre, being a LSD a-la-"Widbey Island", make little sense as a LPD, lacking any provision to sustain any troop or vehicle it can deploy ashore.

          It's a worst choice, IMHO.
          You must be confusing with another ship. The Foudre class are 100% LPDs, very much in the same class as the Rotterdam/Johann de Witt and Albions, as can be seen below:

          - Dock for simultaneous storage of LCMs & heavy vehicles (1,700m2)
          - Light/medium vehicle storage (mostly topsides - 1,000m2)
          - Hangar for 4 helos (400m2), two-spot helo platform (1,100m2), and aviation fuel for ~120 sorties (215m3)
          - 50-bed hospital (500m2)
          - Command facilities - these are very cramped and old-fashioned by modern standards, but they do exist. Provision for additional containerized HQ facilities.
          - Accommodation for ~400 troops (long-term)

          Comment

          • swerve
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jun 2005
            • 13612

            Originally posted by verbatim View Post
            I won't derail this topic anymore, but I would point out the a Foudre, being a LSD a-la-"Widbey Island", make little sense as a LPD, lacking any provision to sustain any troop or vehicle it can deploy ashore..
            The differences between an LSD (e.g. Whidbey Island or Bay class) & an LPD are a little fuzzy, but AFAIK are generally reckoned to be in the aviation facilities, & the mix between troops & vehicles, not in the ability to sustain whatever it lands. LSDs generally lack hangars or aviation support & are oriented towards troops rather than heavy equipment. Foudre is typical of LPDs in having a hangar, & the ability to support sustained helicopter operations.

            Of course, the French have their own classifications. Foudre is a TCD - transport de chalands de dbarquement, & Mistral is a BPC - btiment de projection et de commandement.

            Agree on the rest of your post, though. That big dock, & the first wave capability it gives, is very useful.
            Last edited by swerve; 28th September 2010, 08:40.
            Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
            Justinian

            Comment

            • verbatim
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Aug 2010
              • 261

              @H_K

              No, I'm not confusing ships and calissifications.

              I base my own on U.S. Navy standards, it could be questionable if they are the best or most appropriate, but there is intrinsic logical coherence with them.

              By U.S. Navy standards, an LSD is a ship with most of its hull devoted to a very large dock, able to transport and deploy ashore large amounts of landing crafts.

              By the same standards, what you save of your LSD's hull from the dock is part deck space for motorized or mechanized assets, or berthing facilities.

              There is almost no room at all for storing facilities, either dry or liquid.

              And at the present time, U.S. Navy LSDs are the Widbey Island class ones, whose cutaway is really close to Foudre class cutaway, and related facilities as well.

              By the aforementioned standards, is LPD's standard (Austin class and now San Antonio class) to provide facilities for logistic support, i.e. mainly stores.

              This is the rationale dictating a dock's depth of less than 30 meters for San Antonio class vs. around 100 meters for Widbey Island class

              Of course you can sort out of an LSD something resembling an LPD, e.g. you can turn out with sometinhg like an Harpers Ferry, an iteration of Widbey Island with only 30 meters depth dock and plenty of stores builded on the saved room.

              But it is something I would think of for a new built ship, like if Marine National discovered their amphibious fleet is severely impaired by the lack of a logistic amphibious ship (and they actually lack that asset) and like to keep R&D costs low modifying the Foudre project the same way U.S. did with Widbey Island, but ways too expensive to refit in an already built ship.

              Comment

              • H_K
                H_K
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2007
                • 630

                Verbatim,

                Well in that case, it's the USN standards that are rather overly simplistic, because they focus on form (size of well deck) rather than function. By contrast, I believe most NATO navies would agree to a classification based on function:

                LPDs: Cover the tactical side of ship-to-shore - this requires an ability to embark and sustain troops, a mix of landing craft and helicopters, some vehicles, a command element, and medical facilities.
                LSDs: Cover the logistic side of ship-to-shore , i.e. supporting other amphibs - this focuses much more on cargo, vehicle and/or (especially in the USN) landing craft stowage.

                To me this kind of functional classification is much clearer and generally applicable. For example, both the Whidbey Island and Bay class are clearly LSDs, even though the former have a huge dock and the latter have a poststamp-sized one. Similarly, the Albion and Foudre class are both LPDs, even though the former have no hangar (but still can sustain helos, so they're LPDs) and the latter's dock is "too big" for a traditional LPD...
                Last edited by H_K; 28th September 2010, 14:27.

                Comment

                • RVFHarrier
                  Rank 3 Registered User
                  • May 2010
                  • 105

                  I was always confused about LPD vs LSD, now I'm even more so.

                  I was also under the impression the main difference was in the size of the well dock, LSDs having a smaller well dock but large storage while the LPDs have large well docks but at the expense of storage capacity.

                  This is how it is in the RN atleast, IIRC the well dock of the Albion able to store up to four LCU Mk 10s while the Bay class's dock can only support one + a couple of LCVP Mk 5s, but the Bays able to carry far more vehicles than the Albions. I thought this was due to the Albions landing the first wave, so focusing on getting what they have onto the beaches as soon as possible while the Bays simply trickle reinforcments onto the captured beachhead at a much slower rate, but ultimately delivering more equipment.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    This is how it is in the RN atleast, IIRC the well dock of the Albion able to store up to four LCU Mk 10s while the Bay class's dock can only support one + a couple of LCVP Mk 5s, but the Bays able to carry far more vehicles than the Albions. I thought this was due to the Albions landing the first wave, so focusing on getting what they have onto the beaches as soon as possible while the Bays simply trickle reinforcments onto the captured beachhead at a much slower rate, but ultimately delivering more equipment.
                    That's the idea behind the Albion (+Ocean) + Bay couple indeed. Original plans to complete this excellent amphibious capability called for the MARS-included 3 Joint Sea Based Logistic ships, which should have been able to support troops ashore with fuel, food, spare parts and offer extensive medical facilities as well, and provide support for quite a long time. They would have been awesome to support the 2 planned Fleet Solid Replenishers, and they would have made for excellent vessels to use to help populations struck by disaster.
                    Joint sea-based logistics (JSBL) support and sustainment to be provided to land forces from the sea to locations potentially well inland from the beachhead and then sustain their operations.
                    The most significant driver for the MARS programme at the moment is the need for early replacement of the remaining single hulled Rover and Leaf-class tankers - which bulk supply RN warships with fuel. In November 2007 the MARS IPT published details of a project class of 6 fleet tankers, and again in 2009 there was a tender directed to shipbuilding industry that included Italian Fincantieri and South Korean Daewoo, but that once more died for lack of funding.
                    in early 2007 MARS was envisaged as a fleet of:

                    1. Five fleet tankers for delivery between 2011 and 2016.
                    2. Three joint sea-based logistics vessels for delivery in 2018, 2020 and 2021.
                    3. Two fleet solid-support ships for delivery in 2017 and 2019.
                    4. A single fleet tanker (CVF/carrier strike) for delivery in 2016
                    The need is still there and even more urgent as time passes by. If the navy is lucky, a new fleet of (possibly only 4...?) civilian oil tankers will be leased/bought and equipped for RAS and hopefully to take an helicopter and some stores on board. Maybe the SDSR will give us an hint about what will be of this requirement.

                    The next phase of MARS will be to replace the four "Fort" RFA’s with a new class of two supply and replenishment ships, optimised to support the future aircraft carriers. The requirements are still evolving, but good aviation and repair facilities are known to be included, and a capability to operate and support about 6 Merlin size helicopters and possibly unmanned air vehicles is expected; also offering 'second line' aviation maintenance/repair services as well as providing for rapid vertical embarkation and transfer of people and stores. Timescales are very uncertain, and will be affected by other factors such as funding availability and the viability of a service life extension for the existing Series II ships (Fort George and Fort Victoria). However, one schedule suggests an order for the lead ship being placed in 2012, with entry in to service in 2017. It is considered almost certain that these ships will be built in UK shipyards - but the MOD is keeping its options open.
                    Now we risk instead seeing the existing capability lost, now that it was perfectly complete and operative (last modifications to 3 Commando Brigade were carried out in 2008...). And the navy risks losing most of the RFA capabilities as well, with MARS disappearing almost entirely from the radars, very likely.

                    Folly...
                    Last edited by Liger30; 28th September 2010, 14:54.
                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                    Comment

                    • verbatim
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Aug 2010
                      • 261

                      Could we open a brand new thread devoted to amphibious ships?

                      I mean, if somebody else see it as an interesting matter.

                      Comment

                      • RVFHarrier
                        Rank 3 Registered User
                        • May 2010
                        • 105

                        That's a point. Speaking of MARS, we haven't even heard this being mentioned as a possibility for areas in which to make cuts, I assume this is evidence that the plan went out the window years ago?

                        Shame, losing the RFA would be a huge blow to the Royal Navy, the RFA is always overlooked in terms of importance and never really given the credit it deserves. Other than the Waves, the fleet tankers are all single hulled and so by law require replacing unless I'm mistaken, never mind their ever increasing age. I really hope this doesn't spell the end for the RFA.

                        Edit:

                        Assuming the SDSR leaves the RFA alone but also scraps MARS, how long does the RFA have left?

                        -Argus is set to go through to 2020
                        -Diligence went into refit recently, not sure about decommissioning date.
                        -Orangeleaf is set to go through to 2017, Bayleaf was set to decommission this year wasn't she?
                        -Both Rovers should have been decommissioned by now, maybe their still being in service is a clear sign that MARS has been delayed/cancelled.
                        -Fort Is have a few years left in them, 2015 I seem to remember is their decommissioning date.
                        -Fort IIs are also due to go through to 2020.
                        -Bays are all new, don't you dare touch them SDSR. *shakes fist at SDSR*

                        If all the above is true, the RFA has until 2020 before it loses almost all capability and MARS or some replacement programme becomes immediately necessary, else losing all of the above capabilities and not being able to sustain a task force away from our shores for an extended period of time without assistance. Quite a bleak prospect.
                        Last edited by RVFHarrier; 28th September 2010, 15:05.

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          This is the most recent item of news that came out about the MARS, and we were back in May: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4608941

                          This articles ends with this:
                          Inside the MoD, they reckon elements of MARS will be protected from a defense review, but that's not the opinion of many outside the ministry.

                          "The timeline for this puts it right into the sights of the strategic defense review," one executive said. "People are looking at this program with raised eyebrows. Anything without a contractual obligation to proceed is going to be among the first targets when the new government comes to cutting equipment programs to balance the books. The first thing the Navy will sacrifice will be at least part of this program."

                          Alderwick reckons that MARS in some shape or form will continue. "Will it survive untouched? Probably not," he added.

                          Much could hinge on the demands of the upcoming Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers and their F-35 strike force, he said. Reduced numbers of aircraft - and hence, lower-than-envisaged sortie rates - could see MARS ambitions reduced as well, he said.

                          To cloud the picture further, the government is reviewing the future of the RFA to see if the 16-strong fleet, which is manned by civilians but owned by the MoD, can be run more cost effectively. Privatization is said to be one option being looked at.

                          At this stage, there is no formal connection between the RFA study and a future theater maritime sustainment program that includes MARS. The outcome of the wide-ranging review will be used to inform future capability delivery plans, including the current tanker project, ministry insiders said.
                          The article says the MOD was going to receive answers for its request for tender for the oil tankers on May 13. Nothing ever followed, which means that for the third time the programme ran aground and died.

                          Meanwhile the RFA is losing tankers at alarming pace, with NO replacements in sight. All what's left are the Bayleaf, the Orangeleaf, the Gold Rover and Black Rover plus the Wave class.
                          With an ever shrinking fleet, i guess six fleet tankers would be overkill, but i think we can all agree that the RFA needs to get 3/4 new 18.000 tons Fleet Tankers to replace the Leafs and Rovers, plus a larger ship optimized to support CVF operations, to come around if not in 2016, then for 2018, but anyway in time to actually serve with the carriers it should support and resupply.
                          I think in 2015 single hulled replenishers will be illegal because they do not comply with MARPOL regulation, and anyway the current Leafs and Rovers are old and worn and need replacement anyway.

                          The Fort class instead could undergo a major refit and get double-hulled somehow, if it is cost-effective. It certainly should be feasible, and the Forts are still excellent ships with life left in them, so this can be valued, i guess.
                          Quite possibly only Fort George and Fort Victoria would need double-hulling since they are oil replenishers.
                          Fort Austin and Fort Rosalie are solid replenishers and probably aren't required to have double hull. Fort Austin anyway was mothballed in 2009, just because the Royal Navy was in too good shape and needed to lose some more pieces.

                          But indeed, the RFA must preserved: the RFA represents 37% of Europe's capability in this vital field of operations, and it is 100% of what keeps the Royal Navy a true ocean-capable fleet that can deploy abroad.
                          Without the RFA, the RN will suffer a monstrous setback in capability, arguably worse than losing frigates themselves.

                          I hope the SDSR does not happily neclect to take heed of the urgent need for action in this field.
                          Potentially, some news about a bunch of new Replenishers and the lease/acquisition of the new norwegian icebreaker to replace HMS Endurance could be two little "nice news" for the long term to repay the navy a bit for all it loses.


                          Unless, of course, all procurement save for Light Patrol Protected Vehicle, FRES SV and 12 Chinooks get shredded altogether. You never know what's "relevant to today's threats and needs" in the mind of politicians...!

                          Because the Cold War is over, you know.
                          Because BAE's CEOs and workers are evil guys with blood on their hands and vaults bursting with money.
                          Because everyone now is good and nice.
                          There are no enemies anymore.
                          War is just a bad word. It won't happen anymore!
                          We need boots on the ground, we cut all the rest for them, and cut on soldiers as well after we're done with the rest, in an example of masterful planning!
                          Ships can run without fuel and carrier-borne planes can make missions without bombs.
                          We'll release irresistible Propaganda Pamplets in place of weapons! Or nothing at all perhaps, better yet.

                          Because this is the wonderland of the world without Cold War, and LibDems will remind it to us all! Cheer and smile!
                          Last edited by Liger30; 28th September 2010, 15:32.
                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                          Comment

                          • flanker30
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 517

                            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                            Ships can run without fuel ......

                            Because this is the wonderland of the world without Cold War, and LibDems will remind it to us all! Cheer and smile!
                            A ship to please the Lib Dems:




                            Now if only they could land aircraft on that upper deck....

                            Comment

                            • swerve
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2005
                              • 13612

                              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                              I think in 2015 single hulled replenishers will be illegal because they do not comply with MARPOL regulation,
                              IIRC governments can choose to exempt military vessels, but the last British govt. announced that it would not exercise that option.
                              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                              Justinian

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                IIRC governments can choose to exempt military vessels, but the last British govt. announced that it would not exercise that option.
                                Exempt temporarily, i think i did read. Not for an indefinite time. I guess they can ask a few more years of time, i dunno how much.

                                However, from 2015 onwards your "legal" single-hulled oil tankers could start being prohibited to dock in certain ports as governments take strict security measures and don't risk allowing unsafe, old single-hull tankers into their ports.
                                So, there are still many good reasons for thinking about the need for new tankers anyway.
                                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                Comment

                                • nocutstoRAF
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • May 2010
                                  • 954

                                  Does anyone know the ball park figure for a new double hulled tanker to military spec?
                                  If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                  Comment

                                  • kev 99
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2008
                                    • 1535

                                    Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                    Does anyone know the ball park figure for a new double hulled tanker to military spec?
                                    Have a look at the cost of the Wave class and adjust for inflation would be a good place to start, but then there's a good chance that whatever eventually surfaces from the wreckage of the MARS programme would be built abroad, so unfortunately may not be relevant.

                                    Comment

                                    • Lindermyer
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2009
                                      • 408

                                      Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                                      Does anyone know the ball park figure for a new double hulled tanker to military spec?
                                      why mil spec?
                                      For the general tanker role a couple of small comercial vessels (with the necassery replenishment at sea rework) would suffice

                                      If required im sure a helipad and dry stores facilities could be grafted on.

                                      Obviously this would not apply to the replacement for the forts
                                      DACT Proves nothing.

                                      Comment

                                      • kev 99
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2008
                                        • 1535

                                        Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
                                        why mil spec?
                                        For the general tanker role a couple of small comercial vessels (with the necassery replenishment at sea rework) would suffice

                                        If required im sure a helipad and dry stores facilities could be grafted on.

                                        Obviously this would not apply to the replacement for the forts
                                        Which is basically what the Leaf class is anyway.

                                        Comment

                                        • nocutstoRAF
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2010
                                          • 954

                                          Originally posted by Lindermyer View Post
                                          why mil spec?
                                          I was likely using the wrong terminology, but I was assuming any new tanker would have mil spec comms, its fire suppressants/damage control systems would be more robust than a normal tanker, and that beyond the replenishment at sea system they would also fitted with a more sophisticated radar system, and possibly with a CIWS.
                                          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X