Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
100m River IIs http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=7473 |
Page 2 of 3 |
Author: | erik_t [ January 23rd, 2017, 9:56 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
The drawing is attractive and well-executed, but I pity the fool who has to navigate the ship in harbor or other congested waters... I don't know how much topweight is added by a mostly-empty-air pilothouse, but another deck level would seem necessary. |
Author: | JSB [ January 23rd, 2017, 10:05 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs | |
The drawing is attractive and well-executed, but I pity the fool who has to navigate the ship in harbor or other congested waters... Agree but cant think where better to fit the CAMM VLS and don't think fitting it down into the original deck will be easy?
Thanks for the feedback.
I don't know how much topweight is added by a mostly-empty-air pilothouse, but another deck level would seem necessary. Would just moving it a bit forward work? My thought was the wings would help and it has a camera on top would it be that bad? |
Author: | Hood [ January 24th, 2017, 8:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
Do you need CAMM? I think the first version with the 30mm was fine if patrolling is the main function. If not, maybe a beefier gun might still be more useful than CAMM. |
Author: | JSB [ January 24th, 2017, 10:16 am ] | |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs | |
Do you need CAMM?
My issue was want to put on a more warlike River, I did not want any none RN systems as that defeats the point of saving money. This cuts out the obvious 76mm or 57mm guns so its 20mm(CIWS only) 30mm (bit small) or 5" (big and heavy on such a small ship).I think the first version with the 30mm was fine if patrolling is the main function. If not, maybe a beefier gun might still be more useful than CAMM. My thinking was that CAMM (and Sea Spear) would be better than a 5", what does anybody think? My thinking was for a limited corvette/frigate for export and so that it did not look like a frigate to the number counters in HMT? |
Author: | Blackbuck [ January 24th, 2017, 2:46 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
You can't escape that 5 inch shells are cheap relatively speaking when compared to missiles. A 5 inch gun and a couple of 30mm weapon stations with attached LMM / HVM or maybe even Sea Spear (the Brimstone one, not the actual SPEAR 3 derivative) would seem like the best compromise. |
Author: | JSB [ January 24th, 2017, 3:54 pm ] | |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs | |
You can't escape that 5 inch shells are cheap relatively speaking when compared to missiles. A 5 inch gun and a couple of 30mm weapon stations with attached LMM / HVM or maybe even Sea Spear (the Brimstone one, not the actual SPEAR 3 derivative) would seem like the best compromise.
My thinking was that 5" also gives you much less, ie its a shore bombardment gun only.30mm is really a close small boats only gun (unless it can be used a CIWS what's its anti aircraft or missile targeting like?) So you realistically need CAMM to survive any realistic air attack, if you cant close to a hostile shore to use the 5" due to SSM risk what does it give you? At least the CAMM/30mm only ship can act as an extra escort and heliport? |
Author: | Blackbuck [ January 24th, 2017, 4:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
You've gotta decide what they actually are then. IF they are to remain patrol vessels albeit more 'warlike' then they're still meant to be cheap things to show the flag and defend themselves in low-threat areas however if they are actually intended more as light frigates to supplement the existing Type 23 and future Type 26 force then build them as such. OPVs shouldn't be having to deploy to high-threat areas, they should be releasing 'real' warships to do that. |
Author: | Hood [ January 25th, 2017, 8:54 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
Something tells me the same conversation is probably taking place in Whitehall. I don't think you can blur the lines between OPV/corvette and light frigate and still have something battleworthy and capable of adequate self-defence, let alone offensive action. Maybe focus on special forces insertion or UUV deployment as a patrol asset? Self-defence is a thorny issue, CAMM might be overkill and most CIWS would be too expensive and large to fit adequately. It's a pity the RN has never made use of the 76mm OTO because it feels a good enough match for this hull. 127mm would be overkill and I agree its worthless having it if you can't defend from the range of shore-based threats and land-based aircraft threats. That's the principle reason I dislike the Type 31 concept. |
Author: | JSB [ January 25th, 2017, 12:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
Ok have expanded to the Avenger sized hull to get more in, shouldn't add that much to the OPV cost as its not got any more systems fitted or more crew. The idea is a OPV for the RN that can be sold as an export corvette and potentially unarmed if needed at shorter notice than building new frigates. |
Author: | Navybrat85 [ March 29th, 2017, 8:24 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: 100m River IIs |
Something tells me the same conversation is probably taking place in Whitehall.
Perhaps I'm wrong..I've been away for a bit..but isn't that what the LCS was supposed to be?
I don't think you can blur the lines between OPV/corvette and light frigate and still have something battleworthy and capable of adequate self-defence, let alone offensive action. Maybe focus on special forces insertion or UUV deployment as a patrol asset? Self-defence is a thorny issue, CAMM might be overkill and most CIWS would be too expensive and large to fit adequately. It's a pity the RN has never made use of the 76mm OTO because it feels a good enough match for this hull. 127mm would be overkill and I agree its worthless having it if you can't defend from the range of shore-based threats and land-based aircraft threats. That's the principle reason I dislike the Type 31 concept. |
Page 2 of 3 | All times are UTC |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |