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
  • pjhydro
    Rank 4 Registered User
    • Apr 2009
    • 886

    We are skating around territory we have navigated before...effects based warfare.

    The main point of all this is that the actual platform in many ways doesn't matter, its what "effect" can be achieved with various tools at your disposal. People get very obsessed with this particular frigate/aeroplane/tank etc without looking at what is the result required.

    Frankly the current frigates in the RN are pretty naff for most tasks really - what does a Type 23 actually do? Looking at it objectively its a huge cost in manpower (180 tars) and treasure to take to sea an updated WW2 gun, 8 subsonic last gen SSMs and some sonars. The SAMs it carries are purely for its own defence. It best contribution is the helicopter by far, which actually points towards a platform that carries more of them.

    I would suggest that RFA Fort Vic is a good choice for the role in order to achieve the effect you want. Long range, self sustaining, has a smaller crew than a frigate but much larger and more sustainable flying facilities. Can provide much greater assitance to civilian ships in trouble AND makes a great base for SF if you required it during the mission.

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      There's still flaws in the reasoning. RFA Fort Victoria is slower and relatively more vulnerable. Also, it has a smaller crew, but i'm really not sure it is that cheaper than a frigate to send down there doing the work.
      As to offering greater assistance to civilian ships in trouble... How would it...??? What can it do that a Type 23 couldn't in this regard?

      As to the Type 23, it is an excellent multimission frigate and i don't think it can be contested. She's the finest sub-hunter in the world, and that's what she was built for in the first place, so we can say it is a most succesful design.
      As to Sea Wolf being self-defence only, it was a choice. Actually, it could have been worse: original plan was that the Type 23 would have no SAMs, but would have operated in small groups supported each by a Fort class replenisher armed with Sea Wolf providing aircraft facility, support and supplies and air cover.
      6 Forts were planned back then.

      Then, luckily, the decision was reversed, and Sea Wolf never got on the Fort (even if there is the possibility to fit it).

      If in place of Sea Wolf a longer range missile had been chosen and fitted, the Type 23 would have had broader capabilities. With CAMM, it will be already better, but still we are going for a self-defence only missile system. It is a choice, based on money as well. CAMM will be endlessly cheaper than ASTER 15 and won't even need a real VLS silo. (explanation: it WILL need a silo were to fit, but won't need a complex silo-launcher like Sylver or MK41, since CAMM is "cold-ejected" by compressed gas contained in its launcher/container and its rocket engine ignites AFTER launch, a bit like shoulder-launcher anti-tank missiles like the Javelin.
      This means there's no need to manage the exhaust and flame and shock of the rocket launch from the silo, and the CAMM launches from its container-tube, which could be pretty much put everywhere, even on top of a flatbed truck. Which is, after all, what is envisaged for replacing Rapier in the army)
      Italy had planned only Aster 15 for the FREMM, but then decided to fit longer Sylver launchers and now there's the possibility to use Aster 30 as well, even if the ship itself lacks the indipendent ability to target enemies at the maximum range offered by the Aster 30. For that, a CEC data-link is the solution. However, from point defence there's already a jump to area defence. Not as wide an area as a Horizon can do, but close enough.
      As for the SSMs, subsonic SSMs are what we get in the West. I have my doubts on how a Harpoon would fare against a modern ship with CIWSs and SAMs, but so far only the US have in study a future, supersonic anti-ship missile in the west. Teseo, Exocet and such are all high subsonic. 8 is also a standard number for SSMs in the west.
      The main gun, hopefully, will be a 155/39 on the future frigates, firing the same ammo of the army AS90, and that would be a major step forwards.
      As to the crew, it is high because the Type 23 was designed in an age when automation was at its starts.
      The Type 26 will surely have a smaller complement. I'm also the greatest supporter of the idea of giving Type 26 larger aircraft facilities, allowing to take on board up to two helos or helos plus UAVs (UAVs that will have to be bought, however: at the moment, the RN has nothing to field in that regard... even if the Boeing ScanEagle was launched and tested and recovered on board a Type 23 frigate already)

      Besides, the point about it being only another one demonstration of how underfunded and in difficulty the RN is, the RFA Fort carries ONE Merlin.
      It could carry and service 3 of them, and maybe even 4. THEN it would make sense.

      With one Merlin alone, it does what does a Type 23 with its own Merlin in terms of piracy contrast. With the difference that the Type 23 can move faster towards a call for help.
      "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

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13612

        Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
        Frankly the current frigates in the RN are pretty naff for most tasks really - what does a Type 23 actually do? Looking at it objectively its a huge cost in manpower (180 tars) and treasure to take to sea an updated WW2 gun, 8 subsonic last gen SSMs and some sonars. The SAMs it carries are purely for its own defence. It best contribution is the helicopter by far, which actually points towards a platform that carries more of them..
        'Some sonars', eh? So how would you deploy a Type 2087 sonar from an RFA? Having done so, what do you do about the tremendous noise the ship makes, not having the quieting of a T23? What about processing the information from the sonar? Are you going to refit all your RFAs with ASW torpedoes? How are the helicopters on them going to know where to look for subs, without a decent shipboard sonar? What about when they're refuelling, or in transit? How will they detect a sub?

        Horses for courses. A T23 is useless for replenishment, & a Fort is a lousy ASW platform, & unable to defend itself.
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • Liger30
          Armed Forces supporter
          • Jul 2010
          • 901

          'Some sonars' is also a bit reductive to say the least. The 2087 in exercise AURIGA proved to be TRULY the greatest sonar around when it allowed HMS Sutherland to beat in the exercise both a US Los Angeles and a French SSNs.
          With the Merlin and its own dipping sonar, it is a formidable couple.

          Had i to hunt a SSN down, i wouldn't want another ship or another helo. Type 23 and Merlin are the right choice.

          http://www.shephard.co.uk/news/rotor...f-auriga/6637/
          "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

          • pjhydro
            Rank 4 Registered User
            • Apr 2009
            • 886

            Thought that might stir things up a bit....

            Yes 2087 is a great sonar and no its not fitted to an RFA, i'm not suggesting it is or should be, but I am saying that a type t23 is not a great "multirole frigate". I'm sorry it really isn't, frigates are the obsession of navies and they bring so little for costing so much. A t23 relys on its helicopter because if its down to using its own torpedos against a sub then frankly its screwed. Its a very expensive platform for a single helicopter. Seawolf is for defending itself so brings little to the fight, it carries 8 harpoons which can't be effectively used without airborne support and the less said about the Mk8 the better.

            Also saying a 2087 is a great hull mounted sonar is comparing the best of a bad job, hull mounted sonars on surface ships are not the best way to hunt subs, totally reliant on favourable conditions while a sub or helicopter mounted sonar can just move to a better position or depth. In the end most hull mounted sonars essentially provide self defence for the ship itself, ie lastditch defence to protect the precious helicopter facilities.

            Frankly the best way to hunt subs is aircraft, helicopters, satilites and OTHER submarines, definately not frigates.

            As for the use of Fort Vic on anti-piracy, of course it offers better assitance to civil ships. It carries more boats, more SAR equipment, has more capacity, carries more transferable food and supplies and fuel....all in far greater quantities that a frigate and with the ability to not effect the ships own supplies. It can also tow a much much larger ship for a greater distance in more safety.

            Comment

            • Liger30
              Armed Forces supporter
              • Jul 2010
              • 901

              I think the real problem is people obsessed with frigates being poor value for a fleet. I don't think it is a realistic view.

              It carries 8 harpoons which can't be effectively used without airborne support and the less said about the Mk8 the better.
              That is valid for every ship firing missiles at other targets at sea. Blame the curve of Earth and the effect it has on both visual and radar horizon.
              That's why hydroplanes got on ships already when main weapon was the big ass gun.

              If its down to using its own torpedos against a sub then frankly its screwed
              That's because light torpedoes lack range. They are a snap-shot capability and yes, in many times they'd be fired when a enemy torpedo is already running against your ship (hopefully to be lured away by the towed decoy or other systems).
              It would be worse if there weren't and you had no chances to reply to attack while your helo is in the hangar or getting refuelled or unavailable in any way.
              That's why two choppers would be better, but, again, then we get to the money issue.
              That's also why US Navy got the ASROC, the russians got their SSN 14 missiles and Italy has the Milas: to bring the torpedo at a greater distance and hit the submarines well far away from your own hull.
              The RN never got the money to follow that path, but it is not the navy you should blame.

              2087 is a great hull mounted sonar
              It is a variable depth, towed active and passive sonar system which performs in conjunction with Sonar 2050 bow-mounted active sonar on UK's Type 23 frigates.
              The Towed 2087 can dive below the thermal layers in the waters of the ocean and listen to enemy subs hiding in the depth, where the 2050 can't get them. It is a heresy to express it in these terms, but i will all the same to make it easier: the 2087 is a HUGE and far more powerful variant of helicopter mounted dipping sonars, and by far it is the best mean to search enemy contacts at distance, listening stealthily for them. Once a contact is acquired, the helo is vectored in the area to chase.
              Was ASROC available, the frigate could fire it in the area, and the rocket would bring the torpedo there so it could go on a chase in circles, listening for subs or using its own active sonar to get the contact.

              Satellites capable to find a submarine DIVED do not exist. They can track Diesel Electric snorkeling and SSNs surfaced, but once they go down, a sensor capable to pierce in the ocean's depths STILL DOES NOT EXIST. That's why the SSBN is the ultimate mean to ensure you have a survivable nuclear deterrent.
              So true it is, that even communicating with a dived submarine is a major problem: only Extremely Low Frequency pierce the water, but it takes 10 MINUTES to send a couple of letters.
              In fact, these letters are a code that identifies a submarine and calls it to periscope quote, so it can deploy an antenna over the surface and download messages from airplanes of satellites.
              Qinetiq is experimenting a Blue-Laser mean to communicate from airplanes to submarines just under the surface at extremely high speed, but it is doing so with US funds, and it is still just in development phase.
              There are many times when even the first sea lord does not know where Astute is. Once a SSN is dived, no one knows where it is until it comes back up to periscope height and receives its messages.

              As to SSNs being the best way to chase other SSNs, that's certainly true. But you can't do everything with SSNs, however good the british SSNs are. Britain was the first fielding a 60+ knots torpedo, the Spearfish still in service today, developed to get the 40 knots+ Alfa URSS submarines.
              Britain beat even the US in timing before they rolled out their own MK48 ADCAP.
              But with 7 Astutes already overloaded with tasks, you obviously can't do everything.

              But what we get from your intervention is another confirmation to my point, to mr. Fox's point, and to the point in so many we made on these forums:
              1) The UK needs flat tops and needs to deploy aircrafts and helos at sea. Regardless of what Dannatt says about "desirable but not indispensable" carriers.
              2) The UK needs the Nimrods as well.

              Yes, it is that simple.
              Last edited by Liger30; 7th October 2010, 15:20.
              "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
                .....
                It would be worse if there weren't and you had no chances to reply to attack while your helo is in the hangar or getting refuelled or unavailable in any way.
                That's why two choppers would be better, but, again, then we get to the money issue....
                Agreed, and three would be better again....

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                ..... That's also why US Navy got the ASROC, the russians got their SSN 14 missiles and Italy has the Milas: to bring the torpedo at a greater distance and hit the submarines well far away from your own hull.
                The RN never got the money to follow that path, but it is not the navy you should blame....
                Ikara?

                Comment

                • swerve
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2005
                  • 13612

                  Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                  ... I am saying that a type t23 is not a great "multirole frigate". ....
                  Since it was designed as an all-out ASW ship, with everything else being secondary, that's hardly surprising. It's superb at what it was designed for. It can also do other things well enough to be useful when its main role is not needed. What's wrong with that?

                  Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                  Frankly the best way to hunt subs is aircraft, helicopters, satilites and OTHER submarines, definately not frigates.
                  But a helicopter needs a platform to operate from, & some way of finding subs which is better than its own dipping sonar. That's what a T23 does. It has a superb sonar which can find a sub much further away, & deeper, than any sensor you can carry in a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft, or even in a submarine. It has something no flying object has: persistence. It can sit on the surface for days or weeks, if it has to, being quiet & listening. And when it gets a sniff of a target, it sends a helicopter to kill it, without (unlike another sub) having to get within range of the target's weapons. It's a system, of which the helicopter is part.

                  What else can do that?
                  Last edited by swerve; 7th October 2010, 16:04.
                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                  Justinian

                  Comment

                  • Jonesy
                    Neo-conversative
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 5097

                    but I am saying that a type t23 is not a great "multirole frigate". I'm sorry it really isn't, frigates are the obsession of navies and they bring so little for costing so much.
                    Wrong on every point. A frigate is not a 'multirole' platform its either a specialist or 'general purpose' design. Its role is either ASW or patrol. There have been AAW frigates but they are rare and modest in capability and the current crop of European APAR/SPY-1 hulls are DDG's in everything but name. T23, far from costing 'so much', ran in at roughly 110-120mn per unit which is fantastically good value for the capability set offered.

                    A t23 relys on its helicopter because if its down to using its own torpedos against a sub then frankly its screwed. Its a very expensive platform for a single helicopter. Seawolf is for defending itself so brings little to the fight, it carries 8 harpoons which can't be effectively used without airborne support and the less said about the Mk8 the better.
                    Also wrong on every salient point. T23 is one of the few hulls that could venture into the littoral to dig out SSK's in their environment. This is because of its CODLAG propulsion and acoustic quieting. Poor acoustics hamper SSK sonar as well as those of a surface vessel. You would certainly push a T23 into SSK patrolled waters far more readily than a big COGAG multirole destroyer!.

                    It is not an expensive hull and its 'one helicopter' could be a Merlin HM1 equipped with a FLASH dipping set. The self same aircraft type that gave an RN T-class SSN such a bad time on the AUTEC ranges that the skipper was on record expressing the view that he was glad the Merlins were on our side!.

                    Also saying a 2087 is a great hull mounted sonar is comparing the best of a bad job, hull mounted sonars on surface ships are not the best way to hunt subs, totally reliant on favourable conditions while a sub or helicopter mounted sonar can just move to a better position or depth.
                    You might need to do some reading on 2087. The hull mount set on T23 is a very good unit too. Both sets work in conjunction in optimal environments. T23's ASW suite is, in my view, yet to be bettered on an escort of any size.

                    VL Seawolf is a point defence missile. Same as SM-1MR, same as ESSM, same as Shtil etc, etc. Current active short range weapons like VL MICA and Aster15 may offer a 'local' area capability, but, that is a very new capability in the field. Against peer frigate AAW weapons - notably ALL point defence weapons and not area ones - GWS26 is easily competetive.

                    Frankly the best way to hunt subs is aircraft, helicopters, satilites and OTHER submarines, definately not frigates.
                    A frigate is part of the sub hunting TEAM. The best way to hunt submarines is with a TEAM. The frigate provides persistence in theatre and allows for the deployement of heavier sensors, like the LFA SONAR2087, than could be deployed by aircraft. Moving forward non-specialised ASW ships with ASW UUV's may offer more than T23, but, thats not here yet. T23 is therefore credible and valuable as a key part of the ASW plot.
                    Last edited by Jonesy; 7th October 2010, 16:01.

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      Ikara?
                      IKARA was the last system the RN got in this kind of specialty that the RN itself invented with the Squid and other mortar-depth charges launchers.

                      It is not operative anymore, and from a lot of time. It was installed on Leander class frigates.

                      Now, the only options which would make sense would be ASROC or Milas, but there's no money for either system.
                      Not that it is the most urgently needed feature for the next frigates of course, but, you know, it wouldn't be bad to get that capability back one day.

                      One reason more to have MK41 VLS silos on Type 26.

                      VL Seawolf is a point defence missile. Same as SM-1MR, same as ESSM, same as Shtil etc, etc. Current active short range weapons like VL MICA and Aster15 may offer a 'local' area capability, but, that is a very new capability in the field. Against peer frigate AAW weapons - notably ALL point defence weapons and not area ones - GWS26 is easily competetive.
                      True. And anyway, the Sea Wolf is the only one missile in the category that can vaunt active service and quite a good success against wartime targets. In the Falklands, when it still was in its early days besides, it worked very well.
                      And Sea Wolf ships back then did not just defend themselves, but escorted Sea Dart equipped ships to provide close and low-altitude defence while Sea Dart made high altitude a "suicide area" for argentinian planes, forcing them to either fly low or be destroyed.

                      All in all, one has to hope that the Type 26 and CAMM are just as succesful as the Type 23/Sea Wolf couple! That would be great, actually!
                      Last edited by Liger30; 7th October 2010, 16:06.
                      "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

                        Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                        We are skating around territory we have navigated before...effects based warfare.
                        I going to jump here as it seems to me that my limited understanding of naval design is a lot less of hindrance to having a vaguely useful opinion than say may lack of knowledge on aircraft design would have of discussing fighter design.

                        Presuming that the ideal platform for discussion of effect based design should be able to provide a single hull design capable of major warfighting (anti-surface, anti-submarine, self-defence from multiple threats, shore bombardment), capable of deploying in the littoral and in blue seas, capable of supporting non-warfighting roles, such as routine patrols, evacuation, marine lift and disaster relief then IMO the ideal ship would be a large trimaran like design, likely with a CODAG power system, with an open systems architecture to allow plug and play of weapons and sensor systems, with lots of spare electrical power, and processing power, with a large control room with lots of multi-function displays, and loads of space for missions modules, a large re-configurable roll on/roll of capacity, divets for two large boats and aviation facilities.

                        Then I would basically have the ship go into port before any deployment for a week or two to integrate plug and play weapon and sensors, and load on the correct mission systems in ISO containers.

                        For example say the RN has commissioned a new multi-role Cruiser, HMS Neptune, and the ship has just come in from 3 month patrol in Gulf, where she was configured to deal with missile corvettes and small boats, and now she is being deployed as an escort to HMS Ocean for a major amphibious exercise. They lay HMS Neptune up in dock, and then in a couple of weeks, using specialist cranes they remove the Harpoon launchers, the large number of remote controlled 20 mm gun turrets, and unload Aster 15 from the VLS system and then they reconfigure Neptune to carry NMRLS system, and load Tomahawks into the VLS system, add a CAMM module, and reconfigure the RO/RO facilities to house a company of marines.

                        Is this a valid example of effects based design, you look at what you want it to do, decide how to do it, and then build the ship?
                        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                        Comment

                        • pjhydro
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Apr 2009
                          • 886

                          Love it, throw in a heresey and watch the fireworks!

                          To answer many comments.

                          I never said Frigates were multirole (i think Liger did?) I said they are poor at that. The discussion was about whether Fort Vic was a good choice for anti-piracy, everyone seems set on sending a frigate, I was suggesting it was actually a good, if not better choice, one that would create a better effect at lower cost.

                          Yes I agree you need a team to hunt subs, if i was standing on the school field picking my team I would grab other things before frigates, but they would be on the team. My point is everyone (especially senior officers) dribble over frigates and they are not neccesarily the best tool.

                          2087/2050 both are attached to a hull, they move slowly and have a predictable and fixed search range. An area covered by a T23 in an hour search will be covered by two or three helicopters in minutes, who will then move on to search another area. Yes you need persistence and a base for the helicopters, but when you consider that a vessel the size of Ocean has a frigate sized crew can carry a heap of helicopters and cost 154 Million to build and by its size and volume is infinately more flexible across a range of roles then you see where I am going. (yes before you all bleat I am aware of oceans designs etc, I said an Ocean sized vessel).

                          The story of sub hunting since the begining has been one dominated by aircraft. Profesor John Buckley's ( http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=11516 ) many articles and books on trade defence show quite clearly that when aircraft are present ships are safer, in fact in WW1 no convoy escorted by aircraft/airships was ever succesfully attacked. In WW2 the RAF damaged and sank more ships than the RN and the U-boat war was turned when the air-gap was closed. Cold war the best sub-hunters were those that carried multiple aircraft. There is a strong argument that the Invincible class was one of the finest anti-sub platforms built in the period (I said one of).

                          Frigates are useful, but their day as the primary weapon of a navy should be up. Nelson no longer applies.

                          Comment

                          • Stryker73
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 274

                            Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                            Frigates are useful, but their day as the primary weapon of a navy should be up. Nelson no longer applies.
                            I never knew Lewis Page contributed on the forum!

                            Comment

                            • pjhydro
                              Rank 4 Registered User
                              • Apr 2009
                              • 886

                              Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                              Is this a valid example of effects based design, you look at what you want it to do, decide how to do it, and then build the ship?
                              In many ways the design is secondary. What do you want to achieve? What is the most cost (not necessarily just money) effective way to get there?

                              A real heresey on this web site would be to suggest that true effects based warfare would include spending money on aid and development i.e. buying off a potential problem and preventing a fight even occuring. It is very expensive and wasteful to send troops into battle. You have to do it sometimes but you might have acheived a better effect by spending smaller amounts of money on less obvious things. Had the world not abandoned Somalia to its fate would we have the current piracy issue we are now dealing with at great expense to our comerce?

                              In terms of warfare itself effects based ideas are about looking at the simplist way to achieve your goal with the least treasure/blood/damage.

                              Comment

                              • pjhydro
                                Rank 4 Registered User
                                • Apr 2009
                                • 886

                                Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                                I never knew Lewis Page contributed on the forum!
                                Hey Max Hastings likes him! so lewis page tells us...

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Ocean is "cheap".

                                  But who the hell would fund all the helicopters and crews and fuel and stuff you'd need to go on a fleet of "motherships"/through-deck cruisers...?
                                  I think you need to check your math on such proposals.

                                  You are depicting things far simpler than they are in reality. I'm starting to suppose you've been contaminated by those blog on which a guy with the obsession for motherships wasted no time in calling the Type 26 "pointless" and advocate for his solution to everything: merchant ships magically "converted" with a flat top and a wing of helicopters on top.
                                  1) Such a hasty conversion barely worked in WW2 to make escort carriers, but today it won't work.
                                  2) Helicopters COST a lot. Where you'd get all that money, personnel and stuff is a mystery.
                                  3) How poorly merchant ships would fare in a shooting war is easy guess.
                                  4) Helicopters aren't magic. They have to pull the sonar up to move from point to point, so there's gaps in coverage.
                                  A towed sonar is there all the time, gets the first contact, and tells the choppers WHERE TO SEARCH.
                                  The ocean, you know, is pretty damn big even if you have a ****load of choppers on board.

                                  I won't waste more time pointing out other flaws, i think these ones are already enough.

                                  I think he should get real, and his readers should follow.
                                  "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

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    A real heresey on this web site would be to suggest that true effects based warfare would include spending money on aid and development i.e. buying off a potential problem and preventing a fight even occuring.
                                    Had it ever worked, we could suggest it! Shame it is a utopy that will never work!
                                    It is a cheap dream.
                                    So far, the only thing that worked preventing men from going to major war on one another has been the Mutually Assured Destruction principle that granted 70 years of otherwise impossible peace between Russia and NATO.

                                    "Abandoned Somalia to his fate" You know, it is not like they welcomed help. Or, as they say, "western intrusions in our country!"
                                    When Italy and US tried to fix things up a bit... well. We all know how it went. Checkpoint Pasta for us Italians is not a great memory.
                                    Oh Jesus! What next...? Ill-thought rambling about colonialism...? But you really BELIEVE in what you say, i wonder, or are you kidding???

                                    Because for a thing you could make a search and discoverer that:
                                    A) Most african countries (if not all) went through civil wars, disasters, and destruction of their economy AFTER they got their indipendence. AKA, they were better off under that colonialism they wanted to see ended and that they now often miss.
                                    B) Some countries (most notably Yemen) recently all but admitted "we regret asking for indipendence). Seek on the internet and you'll find that very interesting news pretty easily.

                                    We are drifting into totally unsustainable assumptions.
                                    "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

                                    • pjhydro
                                      Rank 4 Registered User
                                      • Apr 2009
                                      • 886

                                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                      Ocean is "cheap".

                                      But who the hell would fund all the helicopters and crews and fuel and stuff you'd need to go on a fleet of "motherships"/through-deck cruisers...?
                                      I think you need to check your math on such proposals.

                                      You are depicting things far simpler than they are in reality. I'm starting to suppose you've been contaminated by those blog on which a guy with the obsession for motherships wasted no time in calling the Type 26 "pointless" and advocate for his solution to everything: merchant ships magically "converted" with a flat top and a wing of helicopters on top.
                                      1) Such a hasty conversion barely worked in WW2 to make escort carriers, but today it won't work.
                                      2) Helicopters COST a lot. Where you'd get all that money, personnel and stuff is a mystery.
                                      3) How poorly merchant ships would fare in a shooting war is easy guess.
                                      4) Helicopters aren't magic. They have to pull the sonar up to move from point to point, so there's gaps in coverage.
                                      A towed sonar is there all the time, gets the first contact, and tells the choppers WHERE TO SEARCH.
                                      The ocean, you know, is pretty damn big even if you have a ****load of choppers on board.

                                      I won't waste more time pointing out other flaws, i think these ones are already enough.

                                      I think he should get real, and his readers should follow.
                                      You get so passionate, must be the exuberance of youth, debate is healthy and you don't need to take it so personally!

                                      I am not advocating a fleet of TDCs I am mearily pointing out that we never question if what we hold dear (in this case frigates) are always the best solution. I have agreed with much of what you have said above (if you read my reply carefully) but as I am often fond of doing, challenging the conservative position can highlight long standing fallacies or dogma.

                                      The idea that Frigates should be the primary weapon of the RN has gone unchallenged for a very long time, are we sure that is a strategic truism or is just catholic dogma?

                                      In your challenge to maths I would say this, the most expensive component in any force is the personnel. Yes Helicopters are expensive but men are more so, are we sure a dozen frigates manned by over 2000 men are the most cost effective way to acheive many of the things the navy asks of them, or are they just shiny, good looking command opportunities for ambitious captains?

                                      Comment

                                      • pjhydro
                                        Rank 4 Registered User
                                        • Apr 2009
                                        • 886

                                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                        Had it ever worked, we could suggest it! Shame it is a utopy that will never work!
                                        It is a cheap dream.
                                        So far, the only thing that worked preventing men from going to major war on one another has been the Mutually Assured Destruction principle that granted 70 years of otherwise impossible peace between Russia and NATO.

                                        "Abandoned Somalia to his fate" You know, it is not like they welcomed help. Or, as they say, "western intrusions in our country!"
                                        When Italy and US tried to fix things up a bit... well. We all know how it went. Checkpoint Pasta for us Italians is not a great memory.
                                        Oh Jesus! What next...? Ill-thought rambling about colonialism...? But you really BELIEVE in what you say, i wonder, or are you kidding???

                                        Because for a thing you could make a search and discoverer that:
                                        A) Most african countries (if not all) went through civil wars, disasters, and destruction of their economy AFTER they got their indipendence. AKA, they were better off under that colonialism they wanted to see ended and that they now often miss.
                                        B) Some countries (most notably Yemen) recently all but admitted "we regret asking for indipendence). Seek on the internet and you'll find that very interesting news pretty easily.

                                        We are drifting into totally unsustainable assumptions.
                                        I'm really not going to get into this debate here, lets say we will never agree on this point and leave it at that. (if you want to debate it over e-mail so we don't bore everyone silly that is fine)

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          You know how much men a helicopter requires to work, yes...? It is not just about pilots, but ground personnel as well, support, training, mainteinance.
                                          HMS Ocean's complement rises fast when helicopters are on board.
                                          And those are utility choppers!
                                          ASW ones require even more support.
                                          "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

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X