Through Deck C1?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Sunk at Narvik	Through Deck C1?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 2235 ( 9-Apr-2008 11:25:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I saw a very natty looking Royal Schelde Enforcer graphic in this months "Warships IFR" which was essentially there standard LPD with a stealthy forward superstructure and a 76mm gun. Whilst googling for a graphic I came across one of MConrads excellent drawings: I can't help thinking that this has to be the way forward for an ASW biased "C1". (oops- I compressed the pic!) Ok, the graphic and the "Enforcer" designs contain a significant EMF and dock etc plus (presumably vehicle lanes) which I suspect would not be needed, but the essence of the idea- a sensibly sized mini helicopter carrier/"DDH" remains sound- just add in a 76mm gun on the bow and some sort of self defense VLS pack (on the stern?) and you have something very similar to DK Browns "6000 ton Destroyer", only larger and more useful. More thought provoking images: (not sure who posted this first)
Jim WH		#1	[-]
Posts: 868 ( 9-Apr-2008 12:43:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I think it is important that at all costs the 'mini-carrier"/"escort carrier" tag is avoided. First and foremost C1 needs to be an escort, which is to say that it is there to aid the screen of a larger ship rather than being in need of an escort itself! Ergo, I think that the armament of C1 needs to be somewhat more substantial: it needs to have reasonable self defence AAW, I'd suggest a cut down version of PAAMS (half-Sampson, HSR, Aster 15 and CAAM). I'd also submit that the aviation facilities also don't need to be too huge (3-4 Merlin a couple of ScanEagle class VTOL-TUAV is just fine), since you're always planning to have at least a couple of C1 in each escort formation, and each Merlin is effectively an autonomous ASW platform (also, there aren't all that many to go around). Finally, if C1 ever attracts an "escort carrier" moniker, you can bet your eye teeth that some bright spark in Westminster will wonder out loud why the RN needs so many carriers (i.e. "CVF and CVE are the same, right?") and it'll go downhill from there. Somewhat arbitarily, I'd argue for a cap of 10,000tons, and a designation of Destroyer, to emphasize the role of C1 and decrease the risk of political interference. IMHO "Submarine Destroyer" is as valid as "Torpedo Boat Destroyer".
BenRoethig		#2	[-]
Posts: 1745 ( 9-Apr-2008 14:31:55) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Interesting design, but its really one thats prepared for the return of the cold war. The RN needs something that has land attack capability as well as ASW.
Scouse		#3	[-]
Posts: 242 ( 9-Apr-2008 16:24:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Have to agree with Jim here. The answer to the littoral ASW problem is the autonomous hunting chopper and Merlin is the current top of the pack - to not leverage that platform/capability is absurd. It is also true that they are in short supply!. I recall reading something recently to the effect that there were currently 22 HM1 airframes operationally deployable in the RN. This is, for me, the answer to the question as to whether C1 should be a through-deck design. Realistically, with other detachments, raising even a 3 Merlin airgroup for 5 escorts is going to be a challenge. The simple logic therefore is that there is no necessity for a vessel capable of embarking half a dozen choppers etc cs simply we wont have the airframes to embark. A likely airgroup for C1 may be a pair of Merlins and perhaps a couple of A-160T/Firescout class ISTAR UAV's and for that a T45-DDH variant is going to be plenty big enough and if we push for the maximum commonality between T45 and C1 we keep costs well in hand so we can actually afford to deploy the things!!!.
Sunk at Narvik		#4	[-]
Posts: 2237 ( 9-Apr-2008 16:53:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Doesn't that call into question the validity of a dedicated ASW platform (oops...ship)? If the number of Merlins is the driver, why not build the C2 and C3's in greater numbers and do as present- operate Merlins off anything with a flight deck and hanger - including the RFA?
Scouse		#5	[-]
Posts: 243 ( 9-Apr-2008 17:34:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Not really if you look at the operational environment. If we have a taskgroup on station in the opponents littoral with half a dozen escorts of various flavours do we really want the aviation department of, say, four out of six vessels chasing down one SSK?. Thats if all ships are embarking Merlin. Isnt it better to have a pair of more specialist, 2087 equipped, ASW DDH with perhaps 5 Merlins between them undertaking ASW ops - leaving the majority of the remaining screen vessels, embarking FLynx or whatever, to undertake force protection/ASuW etc Edit It may be worth just underscoring that 'only' the aviation capability to sustain air ops for a maximum group of 3 Merlins, or even 2 Merlins and 2 reasonable proportioned rotary-UAV's, is significantly greater than you'd find on most destroyer-sized escorts. The DDH layout would therefore be more than warranted. Last Edited By: Scouse 9-Apr-2008 18:04:17. Edited 1 times.
used to be remf		#6	[-]
Posts: 458 ( 9-Apr-2008 18:24:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	eight C1's each equipped with two Merlins and room to operate three. through-deck may make sense.
Scouse		#7	[-]
Posts: 244 ( 9-Apr-2008 18:55:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why would you need a through deck to operate 3 Merlins though?. The JMSDF used to operate 3 SH-3's off their sub 7k ton Shirane's. In essence the T45-DDH would be the same concept of vessel just probably a bit larger. Give the vessel 2087 array, Scalp-N in an A70 VLS and an organic airborne ISTAR capability such as A-160T and you have a very powerful warfighter capable of forced entry into SSK infested littorals and the ability to project force ashore. All generated off a hull/machinery fit that is largely developed and the yards are building - the modular approach even helping this further as essentially you could build the forward hull blocks identical to the current T45s with only a change to the foremast and have BAE redesign the aft modules for the expanded aviation dep and for towed array handling gear astern. The support advantages of a T45 mod for C1 are also manifestly clear. No brainer this one!.
Nathan		#8	[-]
Posts: 2246 ( 9-Apr-2008 21:28:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Scouse wrote: Why would you need a through deck to operate 3 Merlins though?. The JMSDF used to operate 3 SH-3's off their sub 7k ton Shirane's. In essence the T45-DDH would be the same concept of vessel just probably a bit larger. Give the vessel 2087 array, Scalp-N in an A70 VLS and an organic airborne ISTAR capability such as A-160T and you have a very powerful warfighter capable of forced entry into SSK infested littorals and the ability to project force ashore. All generated off a hull/machinery fit that is largely developed and the yards are building - the modular approach even helping this further as essentially you could build the forward hull blocks identical to the current T45s with only a change to the foremast and have BAE redesign the aft modules for the expanded aviation dep and for towed array handling gear astern. The support advantages of a T45 mod for C1 are also manifestly clear. No brainer this one!. I agree with Scouse on this; a T45 with less AAW, more aviation, quiet machinery and a TAS: For once, the most logical and the most likely solution seem to coincide.
Jim WH		#9	[-]
Posts: 870 ( 9-Apr-2008 23:51:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why a through decK? Answer is very simple: a through deck gives you the ability to fly off more than one aircraft at any one time. Similarly, more than one aircraft can land at one time, and you can have mixed take off/laniding events. Makes a airgroup far more effective. And there really isn't any way a stretched Type 45 can pull-off this trick (nor could the Shirane either, it could only do 'nearly simultaneous' with two helicopters, also note that the JMSDF has gone to a through deck design, if all be it a far larger ship than the one I'm describing). Better to go with a bespoke platform using components and systems of the Type 45 in a different hull. As to Merlin numbers, let's not get too worked up here. Out of a fleet of 8 C1, we'd realistically only ever have four on operations (remainder on training or in refit). That means that the FAA only has to find a dozen Merlin to equip the C1, plus another 4-6 for CVF, still leaving half a dozen for other ships (assuming that only 22 are available for operations at any time, which seems bloody odd given that the RN still has 42 in the fleet).
Redimp1		#10	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 1 (10-Apr-2008 02:42:07) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	While a Type 45 derivative makes sense, wouldn't they still be pretty expensive, they're not cheap to start with £374m if PAAMS is deleted, whilst there are economies of scale to be had we could still be looking at about £300m+ each, which although this is based on guesswork and a few rumours, would be a lot more than one of the 'commercialized' LPD/LPH's that are around. For example Portugal were rumoured to be buying a Enforcer 1300 (whatever model that now corresponds to), for about £140m and a Mistral is about £250m, so it should be possible to do something in that sort of area, smaller but better equipped. Of course it'd be nice to use Type 45 components, but I reckon it'd run the risk of another procurement headache.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Through Deck C1?

Through Deck C1?

Quick Reply