Russia to Buy French Helo Carrier

It would indeed, i would like to see it be able to operate 8 Missiles though and i dont think it would be too much hassle to do. A couple of these would give some un-suspecting small boats a very nasty shock if they tried the USS Cole style attack. I especially like how the Starstreak can pack one hell of a punch for a shoulder launched SAM.

It’s a good weapon. And it would make for a very useful system, especially if they upped the number to 8 missiles. You’re right, it shouldn’t be too hard.

It would indeed, i would like to see it be able to operate 8 Missiles though and i dont think it would be too much hassle to do. A couple of these would give some un-suspecting small boats a very nasty shock if they tried the USS Cole style attack. I especially like how the Starstreak can pack one hell of a punch for a shoulder launched SAM.

Yup agreed on that a Venator would be overkill for some roles but excellent for most. If you’ve read the PDF’s that are on the BMT website you get an idea why the Venator is as large as it is. Mainly for the deployabilty that the MoD demands and Ocean handling when transiting.

Anyhoo thats a bit off this threads topic there is a C3 thread if you want to carry on over there.

Sorry, was watching the video. That Thor system would be excellent in place of the Mistral Launchers, similar size too. Would make an excellent point defence system with Starstreak/LMM.

Yup agreed on that a Venator would be overkill for some roles but excellent for most. If you’ve read the PDF’s that are on the BMT website you get an idea why the Venator is as large as it is. Mainly for the deployabilty that the MoD demands and Ocean handling when transiting.

Anyhoo thats a bit off this threads topic there is a C3 thread if you want to carry on over there.

Hey, Thats using too much common sense for the MoD.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7-VvFn4iE) Thats the video im on about enjoy. Handy thing is it’s British as well:)

I really like the Venator design the CAMM could be removed and a proper hangar put in it’s place. I would really like the proper hangar.

Yeah I forgot to mention that, a proper hangar instead of the retractable one and you’ve got yourself a damn fine C3. A bit on the pricey side though. You’d probably have to separate the minor war vessel fleet into blue water high end stuff (Venators) and some small cheap patrol vessels for home tasks (something more to fill the roles of the <1000t vessels we have atm.)

Hey, Thats using too much common sense for the MoD.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln7-VvFn4iE) Thats the video im on about enjoy. Handy thing is it’s British as well:)

I really like the Venator design the CAMM could be removed and a proper hangar put in it’s place. I would really like the proper hangar.

Grim we are having a wee game of ping pong between threads atm 🙂 Nice talking to you.

I just thought of that as it’s the same interface etc as starstreak and the Thor system (Nice video on youtube btw you’ve probs seen it) would be able to use it without too many problems. It has the added bonuses of being cheap and already developed.

I originally thought of using the Thor for the C3 bolt one on the Hangar with 8 starstreak just in case any helo’s came looking. It should be cheap to do i never really mentioned it as i thought people would just sink it.

The Lightweight Modular Missile is Similar i think it’s a single warhead though not the three darts. It uses the same rocket motor and many other systems though. It will also be in the Navy inventory for use on FLynx.

Ahh! you have a gd point with the one in each corner back and front. A35 should fit easily as it’s quite a small launcher. As you’ve said even if it couldnt it could be placed in another launch system.

I think if we done that the French might be thinking woops we should have thought of that.

Hmm yeh, shame we haven’t heard any plans of LMM being used aboard ships except on Wildcats. Seems like a chance to gain some more commonality by using that system.

And no, I haven’t seen the video, care to link me to it?

As for C3, my favourite design is the BMT Venator, which actually has 16 CAMM missiles as part of the design, but if we could get Venators but not afford the CAMM VLS for them all, then the LMM alternative would be good for self defence at least.

Grim we are having a wee game of ping pong between threads atm 🙂 Nice talking to you.

I just thought of that as it’s the same interface etc as starstreak and the Thor system (Nice video on youtube btw you’ve probs seen it) would be able to use it without too many problems. It has the added bonuses of being cheap and already developed.

I originally thought of using the Thor for the C3 bolt one on the Hangar with 8 starstreak just in case any helo’s came looking. It should be cheap to do i never really mentioned it as i thought people would just sink it.

The Lightweight Modular Missile is Similar i think it’s a single warhead though not the three darts. It uses the same rocket motor and many other systems though. It will also be in the Navy inventory for use on FLynx.

Ahh! you have a gd point with the one in each corner back and front. A35 should fit easily as it’s quite a small launcher. As you’ve said even if it couldnt it could be placed in another launch system.

I think if we done that the French might be thinking woops we should have thought of that.

Grim i’m outta my depth with shipbuilding rules as well.

You are thinking exactly the same as me where the 30mm guns would be placed i would pop in A35 launcher at each corner on the bow. The French are currently studying their options to upgrade self defense capabilities of the class. The most likely and cheapest would be to replace the twin manual mistral launchers with quad automatic sadral launchers.

If it were equipped with CAMM in the UK it would have a far more robust self defence capability. For surface self defense i would like to see something like the Thales thor system with the LMM instead of starstreak. This could be part of some sort of Automatic SSDS (ship self defense system)

Hmm intersting, I hadn’t thought of LMM in a SSDS role before. I suppose it could work well in a similar role to RAM. LMM is effectively a more versatile Starstreak right?

If I were kitting out the Mistral, I’d have a CIWS in 2 corners (1 front, 1 rear) where the mistral missiles currently are (either a current CIWS or a LMM based launcher) and some sort of CAMM launcher in the 2 corners where the 30mm are supposed to go. Not sure if A35’s could be put in there, but CAMM can theoretically be box launched anyway. That would be a pretty formidable defence package against most threats out to 15-20km or so. It’d stop the risk of the odd anti-ship missile or small boat packed with TNT for sure.

Grim i’m outta my depth with shipbuilding rules as well.

You are thinking exactly the same as me where the 30mm guns would be placed i would pop in A35 launcher at each corner on the bow. The French are currently studying their options to upgrade self defense capabilities of the class. The most likely and cheapest would be to replace the twin manual mistral launchers with quad automatic sadral launchers.

If it were equipped with CAMM in the UK it would have a far more robust self defence capability. For surface self defense i would like to see something like the Thales thor system with the LMM instead of starstreak. This could be part of some sort of Automatic SSDS (ship self defense system)

I stand corrected. I’m a Fawlty Towers fan, so I’ll have another look.
It has though been used post 2003 by others not knowing the fawlty Towers reference, with the 1940 time frame being used to imply that the French have always been as such. Those who know a little more realise the political undercurrents and externally sponsored labour unrest that hamstrung the French in that year. Either way, thanks for the reference.

I can’t remember exactly which episode it was in, but I have a feeling it was “The Germans”. I also have a feeling that episode was never aired in Germany (for obvious reasons if you’ve seen it) so if you are german you may not have seen it.

Swerve, i’m pretty useless with ship building rules, I just assumed that civilian construction, while cheaper, would have a reason for being cheap and called “civilian”.

I’m also worried by the lack of self defence available onboard. They actually say that the class can’t currently enter hostile waters without considerable escorts, which both the French and British are short of). I suppose a British derivative could replace Mistral with CAMM and where the proposed 30mm turrets go, could be replaced with CIWS systems.

Hmm! thanks Swerve i knew they had things like NBC protection. A few things im sure they have as well are water mist fire-fighting systems that are automated and redundant i would imagine this would help with survivabilty quite a bit. An integrated fire, flood warning system which is apparently now a commercial requirment anyhow. They also have an integrated damage managment system. Also all the interior walls and doors are fire rated for 60mins but thats another commercial requirment.

To me what has always seperated true naval vessels form hybrids etc is the fact that true naval vessels have lots of solid steel, keel to structural deck, bulkheads to contain fires and flooding it also helps reduce blast damage. They also have damage control stations throughout the ship and multiple redundant fire-mains and pumps. Wheras hybrid or commercial designs have less of the bulkheads and they generally dont go all the way to the structural deck. The bulkheads are usually not made of such thick high grade steel as naval vessels and dont have any special blast features.

I know where i can find someone that could tell me everything i wanted to know. He is a draughtsman that worked on the T45 design. Im sure he still does but it would be bloody random asking him a load of stuff.

Edit: One thing that spoils it for us curious people is that that sort of info is’nt gonna be available online as i would imagine it’s some pretty sensitive stuff.

…I admit i know very little of shipping rules. So does Mistral and Tonnerre have a survivable design that would be ok in a threat situation? …

I don’t know. I know they have NBC protection & some other purely military features, but I don’t know anything at all about how well they’d survive missile or shell hits.

Wilhelm my best Christmas was in 2006 when we went to South Africa the Frenchies came and so did the Australian arm of the family. We had a big BBQ and needless to say it was a barrel of laughs.

In regards to the Mistral you asked the right Question. Mistral was originally meant to be larger about 25-26k tons the design was made smaller to save money. There is a family of them the Mistral was meant to be the BPC 250 the 250 gives the idea of tonnage i dont know if they still have the whole family idea running but that is how it was originally meant to be IIRC.

Swerve, Big Hug to you. The US shipbuilding industry is not that great as there is very little competition and they will always get orders to survive as there is the whole Buy American idea that is very strong. Even when it goes to and past the point of lunacy. Also the Influence senators and the shipyards can have is huge so they will buy overpriced kit.

I admit i know very little of shipping rules. So does Mistral and Tonnerre have a survivable design that would be ok in a threat situation? AFAIK the front portion of the design is built like a cruise ship in regards to accomodation etc. As you’ve so kindly pointed out that would not extend to hull design and other areas such as shipboard systems.

…
There is a reason why the San Antonio’s cost so much more than Mistral’s. I think it comes down to the fact that the US tends to use these as the tip of the spear so to speak, they get into harms way a lot so need to have the best kit and strictest military build standards.

Higher build standards (or, rather, I think it would be more accurate to say designed to withstand more damage – by all accounts the actual build standards so far have not been very good, with a lot of remedial work needed) certainly account for much of the higher cost, but I think the very high costs of US shipbuilders also account for a great deal. The US shipbuilding industry is primarily a military industry, supplying the USN. It is not subject to competition, or cost pressure, & it shows.

BTW, Mistral & Tonnerre aren’t built to the same standards as cruise liners, as sometimes stated, but to a hybrid standard. They were classed by Bureau Veritas as being compliant with civil standards (note that this meant exceeding traditional military standards in some respects), but they were also required to be compliant with existing military standards in some areas. BV developed its naval ship class rules (now being applied to warships) in parallel with the building & classification. Those rules are now being applied to all-out warships. Don’t confuse Bureau Veritas (or det Norske Veritas, or Lloyd’s Register, or RINA) warship rules with civil standards, or assume that all ships built to warship rules are built to the same standard. There are different levels.

.. a very big family compared to most modern families. But it makes for some Intresting get togethers as you would imagine. Diffrent mentalities:) Where abouts are you from? I myself am British (Scottish)

I’m one of 10 children, from a mother and father still very much in love after 55 years of marriage, so I know what you’re talking about. Christmas is an interesting time of the year.;)

I’m your typical New World mix of a few European nationalities with a strong German strain complemented by a smaller Croatian, Dutch, and Scottish mix.:dev2:

Does the Mistral class have any stretched or larger derivatives on the drawing boards? Something perhaps to bulk up into an effective F-35 platform? Mistral also makes an interesting comparison to HMS Ocean.

Woah, calm, Cheese eating surrender monkey is actually a British term (See Fawlty Towers), I don’t think it is meant to disrespect the French fallen, more the actions of the French government during a few years in the mid 20th century.

I stand corrected. I’m a Fawlty Towers fan, so I’ll have another look.
It has though been used post 2003 by others not knowing the fawlty Towers reference, with the 1940 time frame being used to imply that the French have always been as such. Those who know a little more realise the political undercurrents and externally sponsored labour unrest that hamstrung the French in that year. Either way, thanks for the reference.

Grim it would indeed be nice to Strike a balance. I like the Mistral class as they would be ideal replacments for HMS Ocean, RFA Argus and HMS Ark Royal which has a secondary LPH role.

The mistral class are fine ships they are however built to civvy standards to quite an extent. However the lower part of the ship upto about 2 decks up from the water line have water ballast tanks that provide protection to a degree. Further deisgn modifications could be done to maximise survivabilty. However for 99% of the time the Mistral class would be fine. In higher threat areas the Mistral would be part of a task group providing robust defense the thing that is missing from the Mistral in my eyes is some sort of CIWS in British service i would fit them with CAMM as the radar on them would no doubt be the ubiquitous Artisan radar.

Also the basic concept of LPH operations is to be far offshore to minimise the threat. But yes i see your point but the same could be said of most naval vessels in Europe only the yanks have the money to go full out.

http://bpcmistral.free.fr/

regards

X

Merci.

And the term was instigated on the internet after the invasion of Iraq by Americans to view their displeasure at the French who, rightly as it has turned out IMHO, thought the evidence against Iraqi involvement in 9/11 was rot. The insult clearly has no long term historical veracity and is a short term political one. It is insulting to The Fallen and therefor has to apply to the fallen at Verdun. It is distasteful.

Woah, calm, Cheese eating surrender monkey is actually a British term (See Fawlty Towers), I don’t think it is meant to disrespect the French fallen, more the actions of the French government during a few years in the mid 20th century.

I don’t see any of that as having anything to do with “hate”. The EU block had many reasons, & I don’t think fear of US influence was a major one, if it was a reason at all. Remember that when the EU was formed, the French were all in favour of us joining, & we said no, & even tried to keep others out. By the time we’d changed our minds (only a few years later, & with the Prime Minister condemning the organisation up to immediately before asking to join), so had they, not least because they suspected that after our previous performance, we might be planning to join it in order to disrupt it from inside, an impression reinforced by the terms we wanted to join under. And what has their reaction to the 2003 war to do with hatred? Remember 1990-1 & 2001. How did they react then?

Why construe a foreign policy disagreement as hatred? You seem to incline towards the common US view that anything short of slavish obedience to the USA is enmity, which I find rather depressing. There should be room for friends to disagree. I wish we disagreed with the USA more.

But we digress.

Crikey, calm down, it was tongue in cheek to begin with. I was trying to convey that ever since De Gaulle came along there has been “distrust” in France about American influence. It was a very real reason behind blocking the UK in the EU and NATO. It has only been recently that De Gaulle’s legacy has waned (thankfully, he was an ingrate).

Thanks i’ve been looking closely at the Mistral class mainly as i would like some for the RN so i’ve a fair idea about costs and capabilities.

Swerve, I agree that we should disagree with the US more as it would make for a healthier relationship. Im personally not a big fan of blindly following Europe or the US i would rather see a balance between the two. I think the UK would get further and have more influence if we were a strong and independant nation.

It would be nice to strike a balance. In the procurement system up until recently we had that balance, it meant we bought, US, European or British more or less as we saw fit, it worked. Now we seem to be thrust into EU projects that cost a lot and do little that we could easily have avoided by keeping the balance.

There is a reason why the San Antonio’s cost so much more than Mistral’s. I think it comes down to the fact that the US tends to use these as the tip of the spear so to speak, they get into harms way a lot so need to have the best kit and strictest military build standards. I think that is a similar role to what we’d use our Assault ships for. The French however, have, as pointed out earlier, gone for a commercial build in civilian yards. That might mean that they get a cheaper platform, but I worry what would happen when it got in harms way compared to a similar ship of military standards.

I know that we would not go for San Antonio’s, they are too expensive for Britain and we don’t need all the fancy stuff aboard, but I think that when it comes down to it with LHD’s/LPH’s, we really shouldn’t be trying to build these cheap for numbers but well so they don’t sink under fire. Maybe a little over dramatic but you get the idea.