Forget the essex’s, if we had gotten a replacement for the melbourne it should have been either a modified Invincible or a modified tarawa.

Ref: Retirement of TARAWA

Folks,

I can not understand this. If anything the US needs every amphibious warship it has. And the TARAWA is still one of the most modern in the world for its mission. I have a feeling this is because 20,000 sailors were dragooned for basically infantry jobs in Afghanistan (mainly convoy escort and bomb disposable).

If anything offer it to one of our NATO allies who state they want to be able to deploy forces better in UN missions, etc. HELL give it to the Brits. It is a far better carrier than the Invincible class could ever dream of.

Jack E. Hammond

.

Why would the brits want it? Its much older then the two Invincible class ships still in commission, it requires a much larger crew, it utilises steam propulsion which the RN has phased out (last ships with it were Fearless and Intrepid IIRC), it is much slower then the Invincibles (24kt versus 28kt) and due to its origins as an LHA it is *NOT* a better carrier then the invincibles. I’d rather the much younger Illustrious and Ark Royal thanks.

C3:8 (with a Catamaran GRP vessel to replace sanddowns

Catamaran Mine Hunters are a No-No. Australian government had some built for the RAN (in the 1990’s), they were all decommissioned within 5 years and replaced by derivatives of an Italian GRP MCM craft.

@Al.

Absalon is too slow, it can only do 25knots, it would also cost a lot more then it cost the dane’s by the time you integrate the UK combat systems and weapons into the design.

For C1 i would suggest using the base T45 design, replacing Sampson with Artisan and removing the aft search radar (you can receive the radar picture from the T45’s and CVF’s via datalink). You boost the number of VLS up to the number the ship is designed to carry (64 or 72 IIRC) with the VLS cells being the A70 varient of the sylver launcher and modify the area under the flight deck so a Towed Array can be fitted (maybe a minor hull extension).

For C2 you could use the current T23 design, give it a new stealthier superstructure and fit it with IEP.

For C3, lets say you stretch the current River design, you keep the forward DS30 of the Rivers, however you add a a hanger for a lynx/Seahawk/NFH-90 aft (so if its exported the customer has a choice). You have two sets of davits on each side of the superstructure, one set on each side would hold a large RHIB for boarding operations, the other two sets would hold a USV each. The USV would be constructed of GRP, have mine hunting sonar’s and probably something along the lines of a mini-typhoon mounting so you can also use it to provide support to boarding operations.

If however, the DS30 was replaced by a surplus 114mm gun forward, you would need to have DS30’s or Typhoons as well, with one each side of the superstructure, simply because a medium caliber gun is going to be overkill most of the time. Possibly strengthen the ‘A’ position so a heavier gun could be fitted later but maintain the DS30 to start with.

Medvedev did not mentioned numbers AKAIK , just mentioned that new SSBN and SSN were high priority.

The plan is to have 7 SSBN by 2016 , they have not put any number for Yasen ,so far media puts it as 2 SSN by 2015 , which is very low number.

They need to make up their mind to put into production for the next gen of SSN.

The Nerpa deal is a done deal and it will be leased to IN for a period of 10 years period

Thats one sub commissioned per year, from the one yard. That is not a low number, that is competitive to what the USN or RN could put out.

Dear Member,

The reason is the French BPC (LHD) Mistral and built it indigeneously is a great design/concept for navies other than a super power like the US. The MISTRAL is designed to operate at long distances and for long periods of time without basing. And with a good comfort level for the crew and any troops on board to keep mutinies to down.

It is something the USN in fact should look into so it does not have to use the more expensive TARAWA and WASP class to have a presence in areas like Somalia, etc.

Finally, imagine the Russians decide to get “really” serious about the pirates in Somalia. What amphibious ship could they send which would not need basing support at some port. If you get a chance read about the MISTRAL and you will understand as to why it would be perfect in protecting Russian trade and other interest overseas. Why design one from scratch when they can just pay a fee and get the blue prints?

Jack E. Hammond, USA

.

The Mistral is also a flawed design, as i believe the RAN found out when DCN tendered for the Australian LHD program. As i understand it, in order to keep the price down, the ship was constructed in two blocks, with all the accommodation forward and all the vehicle stuff kept aft, which made them slower and more difficult to arrange for Amphibious ops then other LHD’s such as the spanish BPE which was chosen in the end.

How much do you think a minimally navalised version of this with .50 cal would cost? They can operate with a crew of either 1 or 2 and in a passenger config they have 8 seats.

http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/AW119Ke_brochure.pdf

Add on to that either a Decommissioned helo capable OPV or some sort of minimal patrol ship. Any guesses?

Have enjoyed reading the thread so I hope you don’t mind me adding my two pence worth.

I think that although the cost and manpower issues during the 70 were very real they would not have prevented the RN running fleet carriers during that time. I have a naval review dated from the end of the 70s that lists the RN as 67,770 regular service personnel with 29,100 regular reserve and 6,500 volunteer reserve. If the 7,770 were to say man 3 fleet carriers that still leaves 60,000 to do the rest of the work, which must surely be possible if sensible decisions are made.

In fact more realistic decision making really is at the heart of avoiding the carrier crisis. If in the early 60s consideration had been given to value for money and sustainability rather than trying and failing to keep up with the USN then a different chain of event could have emerged.

The Phantom is the biggest problem as it could not fly from any existing carrier, even the biggest and most recently refitted Eagle, without major modification of the aircraft and the carriers. Some of which such as the relatively new Hermes would never be able to operate it. At the same time the buy of the Sea Vixen continued till 1966! How can this be value for money? How can such waste be sustainable? If the sea Vixen by dint of necessity is the fighter for the 70s the updates that were offered for it, new engines and a new radar becomes sensible spending and will keep it basically viable.

The deadly necessity to urgently replace the current carriers is deferred and limited investment in the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer is all that is necessary during the financial crisis of the late sixties. It allows a breathing space to react to the fact that the age of empire is over and a new NATO centric defence situation is arising.

If the carrier force stays at the heart of the navy then they draw in money and manpower and get allocated roles within NATO, North Atlantic, Arctic and the reinforcement of Norway. Expensive manpower intensive frigates like Type 22 don’t get built as the need for lower manning lower cost ships more more akin to Type 23 is required. Replace the Counties hull for hull with an 8 ship programme with something in between the Type 82 and 42. Perhaps rather like the later Type 43 with all gas turbines.

Also when trying to work out what was possible it is perhaps sensible to remember what was actually maintained during this period. Air stations like Lossiemouth and Yeovilton stayed on the MOD books and maritime attack Buccaneer squadrons were also maintained, albeit light blue manned. The RAF also probably had funding for fighters with which they claimed to be defending the fleet! Funding that in an alternate history could have been RN.

The Type 22 did not, and does not require a larger crew to run then the Leander and Rothsay class’s. Ships that the RN still owned 35 of by 1980.

Not to mention the 12 type 19’s, and 8 Type 21’s. That is 55 Frigates without counting the heavily crewed County class destroyers and HMS Bristol.

Really, I am starting to wonder if Russia wants it for itself or promised it to China in exchange for more Flankers. (i.e. Su-33’s)…………Something is up!:confused:

China already have two or three Kiev class carriers sitting around as amusement parks, for the price of the ex-Gorshkov they’d either refit those, refit Varyag or build their own from scratch.