TurbiniaRFA Argus is just a converted Ro-Ro container vessel. Originally the UK hope she would act as a cheap alternative to a true LPH but eventually admitted defeat and bought HMS Ocean.
TurbiniaMy own view, and it is just my view, is that the world would be a better place if we all accepted we have 60,70,80 or whatever years on this earth and then we’re worm food, and just enjoyed this life without seeing it as some transient phase we have to endure before getting into paradise. How many people would turn themselves into suicide weapons if they accepted that all they are doing is accelerating their journey to oblivion, with no paradise and heaven?
TurbiniaMy own view, and it is just my view, is that the world would be a better place if we all accepted we have 60,70,80 or whatever years on this earth and then we’re worm food, and just enjoyed this life without seeing it as some transient phase we have to endure before getting into paradise. How many people would turn themselves into suicide weapons if they accepted that all they are doing is accelerating their journey to oblivion, with no paradise and heaven?
TurbiniaA container Ro-Ro (of the type operated by lines like ACL, Grimaldi, Transroll etc.) would be better for several reasons, like continuous intermediate decks, often they have a single weather deck rather than a mass of lift on/off hatch covers and they already have quite a lot of flexibility, often they have geared drive/CPP propulsion which is more suited to a military vessel than the slow speed fixed pitch slow turning prop of large fully cellular vessels too. The good thing about a container ship hull is that as it’s structural strengh/rigidity comes from the longitudinal box girders you can cut holes in it and make changes without very expensive hull strenghening. With regards speed, many modern container vessels can cruise at 23knots+, some at 25knots+, with excellent endurance at that speed and they can sustain it much better in heavy weather than most warships. The problem tends to be low end manouvering, the sort of large high efficiency slow speed engines they use need a steady load ramp for accelerating and slowing down, try and go from stop to full away in a hurry like you can with a gas turbine, geared medium speeds with CPP or a steam turbine and you’ll just seize the engine and then you’re screwed. Self defence is easy, CIWS can be dropped on and there are enough plans for containerised point defence SAM systems. One thing I will say, this is something widely considered and reviewed with an awful lot of proposals and plans lying around the records of various companies and admiralties.
TurbiniaI would take issue with the concept of buying an overly large, underarmed “platform” in hopes of acquiring additional weapons and sensor at a later date – the infamous “mid-life update,” which never seems to materialize in full.
In most cases, there is little point in “leaving room for future growth” because it is rare to see truly substantial – and expensive – upgrades.
The modular approach to capabilities only works if there is the money and will to purchase the applicable modules.
Unused growth potential is better than a design with zero growth potential. You don’t want designs like the Type 21 and Type 42 which were not exactly cheap and offered very little room for upgrades and growth (excepting the batch 3 42’s) without trading off existing equipment, or worse still, the Israeli corvettes that can’t even carry their intended weapons and systems fit. A warship is an investment for 20-30 years, in that time there is usually some form of need for growth, be it sensor upgrades or additional equipment. A situation like the Type 21 where the decision that it wasn’t worth mid life upgrades was taken when the class were still new doesn’t make a great deal of economic sense. Better to have the option and not use it than to have the choice too, and it’s amazing what sort of upgrade can be done in an emergency when it is really needed.
Plus this is not just about “fitted for but not with”, it’s about what sort of sensor and weapons fit a hull of a given size can take and operate effectively, and what the hulls stability and strength can accommodate without risk of failure. History is full of warships with weapons they couldn’t work effectively, or hulls that suffered heavy structural damage from over loading, or stability taken too near the margins, all of which are not especially desirable.
TurbiniaFair comment, as opposed to Germany being up front that they couldn’t afford five on their budget. However, it is also true the selling point of the Nansen was the Aegis/SPY system, not the actual vessel design.
TurbiniaThe Sea King is still a superb machine for all weather ops in hostile environments, OK it’s fallen behind a few newcomers in finesse and technology, but in a North Sea winter they can fly SAR missions that few other helicopters would attempt. They have a rugged durability and toughness that’s still hard to beat.
TurbiniaWorth remembering there are limits to what can usefully be accomodated in a hull of given size. A vessel is a compromise between speed, endurance, sea keeping qualities and stability, fire power and sensor fit, the problem with a lot of the ideas for high capability corvettes is they overload the hull, leave zero room for future growth and end up almost as expensive as a larger frigate offering much better long term capabilities. Somebody say Sa’ar V.
TurbiniaThe Absalon is an excellent design, tailored to Denmark’s own needs and explodes the myth that smaller countries have to buy from the big international ship design houses and builders. Now they’re going for destroyers. Denmark has done the sensible thing, they’re using off the shelf products for the high investment items that they can’t afford to develop (missiles, radar, battlefield management system etc.) but going their own way for the hulls, vessel overall design and building a ship that Denmark needs/wants, not what a foreign shipyard wants to sell them. And lets be honest, the only reason Norway went for the Nansen was it offered a “cheap” way into the SPY/Aegis/Mk.41 club, it wasn’t for any great love for the vessel design. Respect to Denmark.
TurbiniaI can’t help but feel that if Norway really wanted modern frigates (which is fair enough) then a version of the Meko family or a Norwegianised F124/LCF would have made more sense. Either that or go it alone for the hulls, Denmark has shown it is possible for smaller navies to go their own way and design ships optimised for their own needs, the Absalon class is a very interesting design (and IMO much more worthy of discussion than a lot of the other warships discussed on this board) and now they’re going for a high capability destroyer/frigate. If Denmark can do it then norway probably has a more developed maritime industry than Denmark and would be capable of doing it, at least the hulls and marine systems.
TurbiniaThe Aegis Frigates do seem to be an object lesson in how not to buy weapons systems, particularly as it seems that the way the operating budget was costed and resources allocated bear no relation to reality. I’m no expert, but one of the reasons German builders lost out was because they gave a reasonably honest assessment of what Norway could afford whereas the Spanish offered them anything to get the contract and Norway swallowed it and ended up buying more than they could afford. Although I’m no expert and that’s just the impression I have from following the project from far away.
TurbiniaReductions in force numbers is just a sad reality for most European (and indeed non European) defence forces, I’m guessing quite a few of the countries onboard for the F35 will end up with less than they announced in their initial plans.
TurbiniaI agree, it’s all a huge conn trick to keep government borrowing off the balance sheet so Dick Turpin (and no, I don’t think any other parties would be much better) can bang on about keeping to his golden rules on finance in the knowledge that when the crash comes and people realise just how much the country is in hock for he’ll be long gone and somebody else will get the blame 😡
TurbiniaEventually we’ll need new SAR helicopters, and the nature of the North and Irish Seas, plus the sort of conditions common in large areas of Northern England, Wales and Scotland means they need a highly capable machine capable of operating day/night in all weathers. Old as they are the Sea Kings can do this and do it very well. So can an EH101, possibly an S92 and an NH90, then it falls off badly. Realistically we’ll probably see a commercial contractor get a PFI contract similar to the S61N’s operated for Coastguard SAR ops (yep, the UK Coastguard choppers are privately owned and flown) but over the life of the contract it’s usually cheaper just to buy.
TurbiniaIn the offshore oil industry a lot of people still consider the S61N the best machine there is, old as they are. I always felt more comfortable on them than the other machines we used, there is a solidity to them lacking in other machines that does inspire confidence. The UK SAR requirement is becoming a bit of a joke, the RN and RAF want to hive it off to other people (not that unreasonable given that a very high proportion of the missions are for the benefit of civilians and the health service), nobody else wants to pay for it and the government is looking at one of those dumbass PFI projects where we get ripped off for a couple of decades to keep the borrowing off Dick Turpin Browns balance sheet. Joke 😡 I’d like to see RN/RAF SAR EH101’s but I don’t think we’ll see it.
Sign In
