Any more information come out about the collision on 22 April?
For instance: Why did the vessel carry a crew of 71 when designed for a complement of 41 (though last two modified units from INS Prabal are closer to higher figure)? Not sure whether that time (~2 hours) could be termed quick or slow in this instance, a vessel of this size may be more prone to water ingress that larger units, but as example of RSS Courageous (2003) shows a small vessel can stay afloat in some circumstances even when the stern of the ship has been sheared off.

Is there a recent status report on INS Trishul after her collision in December 05? Is the damage (hit side-on by merchant) rectified, or as lack of news reporting on activity hints at, is the ship tied up awaiting work?

Ja Worsely:
AFAIK the MH-60S AMCM birds are due to replace the MH-53 from aroung 2007, though the transition will be gradual. In fact the whole OAMCM mission kit won’t be completely operational until 2010 at the earliest. The MH-53 will be retained for longer range/endurance operations but requires more space and logistical train so deployability may be an issue. With the new range of equipment (no longer heavy sleds only the bigger MH-53 can handle) the level of capability should be increased overall if you take the endurance out of the picture.

RN is likely right up there, however you may be forgetting the Scandinavian countries mentioned before in this thread, the Netherlands, Germany (a supplier of fair number of designs like Italy). Not sure about what capability South Africa can still get out of their ancient Lindau class boats and the River class unless upgrades are initiated at some point. USN isn’t exactly making much use of their MHC fleet. The Osprey class is fairly new and there appear to be plans to sell a few to Egypt and Greece.

Israel canned the Saar 5+ a while back and was then looking at the USCG Deepwater Offshore Patrol Cutter. In 2005 there have been some developments and another new design is being studied. Let’s say it is not entirely true that the US is not developing a FFG (sized) warship at this time…

Fedaykin:

Possibility 4:
She is being repainted and workers regularly scurry across the deck doing minor repair work here and there that will be noticed internationally but essentially confuse people, keep them guessing and second-guessing and divert attention from other projects.

The article you cite pretty much contains all the information I remembered. The details and sketch in the article refer to a custom variant based one of the many variants on offer by Schelde (see http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/ ).

What makes this interesting though, and I got the timeline of events the wrong way round way here, is the comment in the Armada article relating to the fact that the agreement that would allow HDW to use the above design may have lapsed and an original design based on their own Superfast ferries will now be pursued. For some reason I placed that article much earlier. That said, there has been no news on how progress and ENVC has not yet started building. Assuming the programme will continue even though the agreed/contracted design is no longer available, and an assumed delivery target around 2010 we may find out within the next year if building starts.

With a F-35B planned the BPE would indeed appear a more logical solution though Mistral may be equally attractive as long as the price is right and it fits the bill requirement wise. As of mid-2005 both designs affered to the RAN did not have a ski jump btw…

That said, I remain somewhat sceptical about the F-35B… With so many expensive procurement projects ongoing and coming up over the next couple years will there be the (extra) resources to get a mixed JSF fleet (of what, 55-75 aircraft?)? Although more can be fitted for transport purposes actual operation and support of aircraft is probably limited to around 12 even on the BPE design (compared to LHA(R)s planned 23).

From what I recall the main requirement for these ships will be to deploy, support and bring back 900 troops each. To do this there will be up to four landing craft (also being bought new I believe) and landing spots for six medium (or four heavy) helicopters which is supposed to give the desired single-lift capability for a reinforced company (~200 soldiers). Although ability to operate JSF in future is probably a requirement it should not be the overriding one since they are likely to be a platform of convenience for STOVL ops.

In terms of designs both as they stand now should fill requirements and possibly there is a balance of drawbacks and risk seeing as BPE is new and untested while Mistral(BPC) exists and is near service but was then subject to substantial redesign to get troop berth numbers up for RAN. I recall a comment from Navantia saying that their design was less advanced/sophisticated than DCNs approach but thus cheaper (never mind larger in the first place). To what extent this extends into areas of survivability and commercial rather than naval standards I do not know, however the thought of having to carry extra fuel and armaments for JSF safely with these designs makes me wonder.