HMS Ocean deckspace

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 9:21:26 AM

In order to square off the deck, you would need to build up the forecastle, to form a support like on the Wasp class. The idea is not a bad one, but in practice, it would probably never happen, since Ocean is a one off. In my opinion, the Invincible is a perfect example of how to waste deck space. If you look at the design, a huge amount of the bow section is wasted, with the ski-jump a long way back from the bow, and the (now removed) Sea Dart launcher space. In addition, the island is too large, which takes up valuable deck space. If the Invincible class had been completed with the flight deck extending all the way to the bow, with space to the side for aircraft parking, and a small island (similar to the old Colossus class carriers perhaps), then they would be much more potent ships. If the design had been done right, they would probably have been capable of carrying a much larger airwing, with potentially: 24 x Sea Harrier 4 x Sea King AEW 8 x Sea King ASW This would have given the UK a decent carrier capability, though obviously still limited compared with American, and arguably French carriers. An interesting idea though, but the best bet would be to build a version of the Royal Schelde LHD30000 design, which could be built very cheaply, along the same lines as the Bay Class, which was also based on a Dutch design.

Quote Reply

Iano RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 9:46:35 AM

I understand what you say about Invincibles deckspace, but if you take facilities out of the island to make it smaller, then surely they must be put below-decks, which does not help with the hangar space. I'm not sure we would ever get 24 Sea Harriers on them, (considering that we embarked a total of 24 Harriers on all 3 Invincibles) without increasing their size and going for considerably more capable (and expensive) carriers, nothing like the original "through deck cruiser" ASW platform concept. I believe the best that can be done for the CVSs now is to give them refit to enable them to stay on in service, endeavour our best to fly JSF from them, and fit a VLS missile system either peripherally or forward next to the Goalkeeper. You now see that Sea Dart has been removed to allow RAF Harriers space to operate from. A lot of people hate the idea of missiles on a carrier, but I can somewhat see the rationale behind it, particularly in a small carrier with a small air group, and especially when we were facing up to powerful Soviet SSMs. After a big ASUW strike, should you have nothing in the air, or your CAP is not in the right position at the right time, it would be very useful to at least be able to try and intercept the incoming missile/s with Sea Dart. I do think extending Oceans deck, whilst not as simple as simply bolting it on, would be worthwhile. Supports would be needed, but the increase in deckspace and the added capacity for flying stations should come in quite handy...

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 11:14:52 AM

I agree about displacing equipment from the island, but this does not mean sacrificing hangar space. The Invincible class were designed with a number of flaws, in part due to the origin of the design, i.e. as a through-deck cruiser. In terms of the 24 Sea Harriers, the reason is less to do with capacity, and more to do with a lack of aircraft in service! The government has never seemed to take the RN seriously, continually cutting ships from the fleet, under the excuse of a 'reduced threat', despite the reality being quite different. The government has cut the numbers of Nimrod MRA-4s on the basis of a decreased submarine threat, depite countries like Iran increasing their submarine fleets. If the UK finds itself needing to fight against a well equipped enemy, it will have a very hard job. I do agree with the idea of carrying SAMs on board carriers, though I feel they should be short range systems, as the US does with the Sea Sparrow. I dislike the Aster/PAAMS system, due to its lack of flexibility - it holds one missile per cell, regardless of size. A good example: 1) DDG with 48 VLS cells - 24 Aster 30 + 24 Aster 15 or 32 SM-2ER + 64 ESSM 2) CV with 16 VLS cells (like on the CDG) 16 Aster 15 (or 30) or 64 ESSM You see the point, flexibility can be quite handy when under attack!

Quote Reply

Iano RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 12:12:42 PM

Thats a very enlightening comparison - I always did wonder how AEGIS equipped DDGs/CGs could pack nigh-on 200 Standards or ESSMs or whatever high number of missile armament they do! Surely the weak link in the PAAMS chain though isn't Aster or Sampson, but the Sylver VLS. If a different, more modular launcher was used then I cant see why PAAMS wouldnt be able to pack as many missiles as that? (Mk41 isnt it?) Perhaps if Rule Britannia is around he could show us why Sylver was chosen... I agree with you about the government and defence spending - it is ironic that Blair is more ready than any other PM to commit the armed forces, yet without the funding and increases needed. It was only a few years ago (5-10?) when it was assessed we needed at least 50 escorts, now we have 25. What you've got to remember about the Invincibles, is that they were designed and ordered at a time when it was VERY difficult for the RN to justify any new kit that wasnt directly and solely geared towards our role in NATO. And at a time when the government was determined to rid itself of the cost of operating large-deck CTOL carriers. Aircraft carriers, although extremely useful, were not particularly required for patrolling the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, which they would rather leave to RAF Nimrods (interservice politics for you), so they were hard to justify. Hence the name through-deck cruisers, and the stated role of a base for ASW - it was justifiable. Although as you've said they are not perfect, I feel lucky that the Admiralty Board (and Mountbatten) got what they did for the RN (the same with justifying SSNs as the best ASW platform) - we could have ended up with an SSBN or 2, and a flotilla of OPVs if they hadnt been imaginative! Its not the same as America, people are reluctant to spend even the small (for the commitments we have and the stance we take in global affairs) amount we do on defence. Of course what I'd like to see is more of everything, and the best available too, all manned by the best trained and led sailors possible.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 1:22:07 PM

The main reason PAAMS was selected was simple: it was a partly UK project, as part of the Horizon destroyer/frigate program. The problem, in terms of using a different launcher to carry more weapons is simple: it is the missile that is large, and thus you could not just pack more missiles in a different launcher. The Mk41 was designed to provide flexibility, with enough space to carry large missiles, like the Standard, and Tomahawk, and thus there was more than enough space to pack in four ESSM missiles. In terms of defence spending, I do find it quite troubling that the government have consistently cut the military, while calling for 'increased' capabilities. I think the UK needs to reverse its years of decline, and accept that the UK needs to spend more on defence. I do disagree slightly with the interpretation that the UK citizenry are unwilling to pay for the military, I think the problem is actually that the politicians would rather spend the money on 'vote buyers' like health. The problem is that health spending is more glamorous, but when the proverbial hits the fan, having a gold-plated bed pan is not going to help win a war!

Quote Reply

Iano RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 2:42:18 PM

You've got to keep in mind Op Telic was and is vastly unpopular with a large amount of the UK population. Now defence spending and a "war chest" for operations are different, but to the layman the distinction might not be so clear. I think the citizenry is behind those who serve and the forces - just not this particular campaign. But thats still going to hurt the defence cause by association.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 4:08:59 PM

I am unconvinced of the unpopularity of the war, I agree most people now feel the war was not fought for the right reason, but I am not sure people are as anti-war as some might feel. I think it is more that the anti-war movement is very vocal, and like to make themselves seem like a majority. I think most people would rather see the defence budget increase to 3%, than see more money wasted on health spending, which just goes down the pan. I think that a lot of people would support a 3% of GDP defence budget, if they could see value for money, which is something that they just do not see now! If the government showed real results of investment, then people would be a lot happier. It is the constant cost overruns on projects like Eurofighter and Nimrod that destroy peoples faith in the MoD. I have a shopping list for the Navy: 3 x CVF 24 x Type 45 24 x FSC (scaled down Type 45 ideally) 24 x OPV(H) (basically small corvettes, with limited armament though) 3 x LHD (Schelde LHD30000 design, modified) 6 x LPD 12 x LSD (Bay class, but with hangar) In addition, they should buy a further 12 Schelde 30000 ships, with: 3 assigned as the JCTS (casualty treatment ship) 3 assigned as the OMAR (repair ship) 6 assigned a swing-role, capable of mine countermeasures command, spare deck, extra JCTS or OMAR and possibly also the MARS role. I know that this is a little optimistic, but then, if you do not ask, you do not get...

Quote Reply

Iano Future naval forces 5/31/2005 5:51:16 PM

My own personal shopping list would be: 2x Nuclear Aircraft Carriers (large like the American ones, although I suppose this will never happen so this will have to be filled by whatever the CVF program delivers us) each with auxiliary, 2 hunter killer submarines, 2 guided missile destroyers, and 4 general purpose frigates. 2x STOVL Helicopter Carriers (Invincibles with service extension and small VLS cells installed) and 2x Sea Control Cruisers (fulfilling similar role to Ticonderoga class), each pair with an RFA, SSN, 2x DDGs and 4x FFs. 2x Landing Platform Vertical (Ocean and one other Invincible re-roled) and 2x Landing Platform Dock (Albion class), each pair with an RFA, SSN, 2x DDGs and 4x FFs. This would give us a total of: 2x CVN (in reality the CVFs) 2x CVS (already in service) 2x LPH (Ocean and one Invincible) 2x LPD (already in service) 2x CG (perhaps an expanded T45?) 12x DDG (type 45) 24x FF (FSC/Global corvette?) 8x SSN (additional Astutes would be built for independent ops) 6x RFA (in the task group replenishment role alone) Also you're going to have your SSBNs, OPVHs (capable of working as an ASW escort using that helo), Bay class LSDAs, LSLs, Point class Ro-Ros (and STUFT in an actual war), P2000s, a fast attack corvette class (think Visby), survey ships, MCMVs, your naval aviation (FAA) and commando forces (RM), and all the RFA and RMAS auxiliaries filling specialist niche roles to make it work. I would also like to see the possibility of conventional attack submarines reconsidered using AIP such as Sterling engine, and also submarines that are tailorable to the mission (SF transport, cable tapping, all sorts of unconventional facilities) and the possibility of submarine fuel cell powerplants considered (the Germans are doing it). Also studies into improving versatility and armament/equipment of hardware. For example can F35/Harrier be configured to drop lightweight torpedoes? Implementation of UK CEC. All manner of other innovations should be experimented with. There should be a permanent organisation established to expand the capabilities of our maritime forces. Thats maritime, not just naval, so for instance the RAF need to be armed with Sea Eagle or some other ASUW ASM, and need to bring the Nimrod MRA4 fleet into service as timely and efficiently as possible. What do you think? Ian

Quote Reply

Iano RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 6:19:29 PM

Do you have a link to the Schelde 30000 class? Is it the "Johan de Wit" class? I know we previously bought from them - the "Bay" class LSDAs are Rotterdams. Do you not think that all those T45s, OPVHs, amphibious shipping and Scheldes may be stretching it a bit? Although I see the rationale for more T45s and OPVHs - as escorts for the added capital ships! ;p Regards Ian

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:Future naval forces 5/31/2005 6:21:09 PM

I prefer to work in multiples of three, as you may have guessed. Three carriers, means that when we really need to, we can have two ships deployed on operations, e.g. another Falklands mission. In terms of the nuclear carriers, I am not so sure they are a good idea, for instance, you still need to have a visit from the fleet oiler every few days, for aviation fuel (and food for the crew), and the sheer cost of a nuclear carrier. I do like the new AIP SSKs, though I fear they would be bought instead of SSNs, not to supplement them. I think they have a valuable role to play in patrol, especially the larger ones like the Aussie Collins class (not AIP, but a good size). I am not so keen on the idea of torpedoes dropped from fast jets, since helicopters and MPAs are more suited to the role. I think it is better to look into using a version of the Predator B, i.e. the carrier-capable Mariner. UAVs have the endurance, and the Mariner will have the payload necessary to carry out a similar role to the S-3 Viking in its original form. They also pack away, thus taking up far less deck space, which is always a good thing on a carrier. In terms of an ASM, I suspect the Storm Shadow may be adapted to fill this role, particularly given its good range, and decent warhead. In the form of the Scalp Naval, ship-launched/sub-launched, it may even be able to replace the Harpoon giving a useful boost in capability, even though I deeply dislike the launcher... I do think 24 Type 45s would be best, supplemented by 24 FSCs, allowing carrier and amphibious task forces to each have 4 destroyers and 4 frigates. It would certainly be welcome when we face a nation that has good fighter capability...

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 7:03:55 PM

Sorry, did not spot your second reply. The link: link The page is a little basic, since the vessel is only a design, not built. I am not so sure that it would be stretching it too far to buy that many, on the simple basis that the ships are relatively cheap to build, due to the commercial shipbuilding standards used, as with Ocean. The idea was to build in flexibility overall, with enough ships to allow for many roles to be filled. The design is simple, and should be big enough to be capable, but not too expensive to build, especially if bought in large numbers. As the number bought goes up, the unit cost goes down, quite dramatically, hence my support for buying 24 Type 45s. If the UK were to buy the numbers of ships I mentioned, I suspect the shipbuilding industry would be very happy, but also, the Navy would finally have a genuine fleet to be proud of! Perhaps for the 210th anniversary of Trafalgar, we could actually send more than a rowing boat with a shotgun...

Quote Reply

ShinyTop RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 5/31/2005 9:41:28 PM

With regards to the size of the island on the Invincibles, it was largely due to the choice of powerplant. The jet engine turbines require a huge amount of trunking for both intake and exhaust, thus the size of the island.

Quote Reply

Lawman RE:HMS Ocean deckspace 6/1/2005 1:19:03 PM

I see the point, but it is not truly necessary to have the island as large as it is on the Invincible. I think the future could be quite bright for the Royal Navy, but not as long as we have a string of governments who resent the military. Over and over again, the UK has had governments that seem to grudge any military spending at all, and I am not even just talking of Labour governments. I would like to see the UK rebuild the force numbers to at least the levels of the '91 SDR's Options for Change. I do think there is mileage in the idea of peacekeeping missions being handled by a separate force, preferably under NATO, if only to avoid needing to use the army for the job. It would be cheaper than the expensive private security forces in Iraq!

Quote Reply

Iano RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 1:23:27 PM

Multiples of three would be best as you point out, but can we really expect 3 LPHs? 6 LPDs? 3 JCTS when we have managed with one (which was also aviation training support primarily) for so long (so flexible it was used as a commando carrier off Sierra Leone)? Dont get me wrong, it would be great to see those available. But I dont think we can really expect it. Not from the Treasury. Especially whilst the War on Terror is primarily an Army (and even within that service primarily an Infantry) task. And also, I feel sure we would not have enough sailors to man all those ships. That either means we put to sea with incomplete and not-fully-trained crews, or we cant put to sea. Or we lower the standards to get in, and to get through training. And to make the money stretch to cover the increased number of sailors, pay and conditions will have to be slashed. All of this would hurt our manpower quality - the RNs greatest asset. Perhaps it might be worked up to, but I think if you intend this sort of expansion, it must be done graduated, in stages, and consolidated, rather than one big leap and overreach ourselves. I think nuclear power is the way forward in capital ships. Its very odd that we employ nuclear reactors on vessels of 5000 tons, yet we do not plan to on vessels of 60 000 tons! Especially considering they would need much less logistical support in fuel and water - you would have more space (read endurance and new capabilities) in both the CVF and the RFAs then, in aviation fuel, air ordnance, food, other supplies, whatever! There is a Russian naval fighter, a Sukhoi perhaps, I was told about a while back, but I forget, that can dispense sonobuoys, trail a MAD, and drop torpedoes. I think we should investigate all possible additions to our capability, however unconventional. This particular one could have its uses, given the MPA procurement is being cut, and you cant always rely on them far from home anyway. I agree UAVs are definitely useful though. Short of a weapons-carrying one, consider a sensor picket UAV, with sonobuoys, MAD, IR systems and cameras, air and surface search radar, and the ability to update missile guidance mid-course for OTH engagements. It could keep an eye on targets, with its long long endurance, then the helo (or even fast jet) could be directed in for the actual attack. Storm Shadow, even Scalp Naval, will still be for land attack, even when mounted on JSF or on ships or submarines. The guidance would have to be re-jigged. I wonder why we pursue this route when Tomahawk Anti Ship Missile has already been developed, and would probably take much less time effort and money to improve?

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:Future naval forces 6/1/2005 1:53:28 PM

I like the Schelde Enforcer 30000(tons). Three of those would do nicely. They really should come equipped with an LCAC(2?)though. This would increase the coastline that you can use. Light hovercraft minehunters/transports (instead of 4 LCAV) would be handy in this context (on davits). 6 Merlin + 14 Apache Three CVF 65000t is a must for me too. Conventional (electric) power to 32 knots cruising at 15 for up to 9000nm. CTOL deck with four lifts and four EM catapaults. Each one should hold 48 F-35c plus Hawkeye AEW and UAVs. If you can't move it abroad then the army is too big or the navy too small. Three Albion class (LCAC not LCU) 2-3 Merlin Six Bay class with Chinook or a new 'EH202' Two RFA (Enforcer 30000) air/repair/casualty ships Nine double hulled Fort class supply/oiler ships Three smaller double hulled supply/oilers 12 SSN(+G/B) (4 Astute SSN, 4 Astute SSGN, 4 Astute SSBN) 12 Daring DDG 24 OPV(helo) 18 Sandown MH This must assume a larger budget, well spent. I don't think any more than 2.75% is needed though.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - February 9, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us