Shipbucket

Hi, in this project I decided to model series of ships, all based on Austal's Independence-class. Hope you like them

Independence-class LCS2-18 4k image

• Commissioned in 2010

• Standard Independence-class LCS hull

Independence-class FF20-30 4k image

• Commissioned in 2019+

• Added 8 Harpoon missiles

• Added remote USA 25 mm/87 Mark 38 machine guns

• added Nulka countermeasures

• added AN/SLQ-32 Electronic Warfare Suite

• Based on Small Surface Combatant program

Ernest E. Evans-class FFG62-? 4k image

• Commissioned in 2023+

• Added 16 Harpoon missiles

• Added 16 VLS

• Above-Waterline hull shortened

• Enlarged RHIB bay, and moved from Port to Starboard

• Based on FFG(X) program

• Austal's original proposal

If you have any criticism and or comments, I would love to hear them. Thanks for your time and have a great day

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull

Proposed designs and general (hopefully) interesting tidbits


Solace-class T-AH-21 4k image

• Commissioned in 2025

• Modified Independence-class LCS hull

• Fast hospital ship, intended to augment USNS Mercy and Comfort, until replacement program ships become available

Ernest E. Evans-class without integrated mast 2k image






Ernest E. Evans-class with IMHO more logical weapons placement 2k image






Independence-class with digital camo 2k image





Ernest E. Evans-class with WW2 Measure 22 camo 2k image

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull

These are very nice and make a good set of variants. Great work.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Interesting, but the hospital ship should not have any weapons, not even SeaRAM.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Yeah, that's something I was considering as well. But what is considered as defensive weapons tho? For this specific ship I actually read upon the Hague Peace Conference of 1907 and as far as I understand, the 1907 Hague Convention for Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention states:

"The fact of the staff of the said ships and sick wards being armed
for maintaining order and for defending the sick and wounded, and
the presence of wireless telegraphy apparatus on board, is not a
sufficient reason for withdrawing protection. "

The protection being, the fact that you cannot open fire on those ships. Now, the question is, what exactly is "being armed for maintaining order and for defending the sick". It's important to remember that its year 1907 when this convention is written. Back then, this probably only applied to small arms. Mercy and Comfort both carry small arms and crew-served machine guns:

"The ESTs defend against terrorists and pirates by using automatic weapons, such as this M-240 light machine gun mounted on the rail of MSC hospital ship USNS Mercy while she was underway in support of Operation Unified Assistance."

Now, its exactly 111 years since the Hague Convention, back then a guided missile would be just a science fiction. Is it too much to presume that SeaRAM ,anti-missile defense system, does not violate the spirit of the convention? Specifically the part about "defending the sick"?

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull

Having a few rifles and M240s aboard is way different than having SeaRAM mounted on the ship lmao

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Thanks for the contribution to the debate.

When you stop laughing your ass off, give it a thought and think about where do you draw the line between "weapons for defending the sick" and offensive weapons.

I'm not necessarily stating that all Hospital ships should be armed with CIWS, but considering the paper-nature of LCS hull, I don't think its that absurd. And this is not an idea of some Internet shitposter. The idea of giving Hospital Ships a CIWS was brought up by Professor Richard J. Grunawalt in Naval War College Review's article "Hospital Ships in the War on Terror: Sanctuaries or Targets?" , so clearly, there is a merit to it, especially if we are talking about uses in War on Terror. If you want, you can read the article here.

Also, how would you react to, for example KRI Dr. Soeharso, that does appear, in some photos, carry 40mm Bofors?

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull

... that ship is not a hospital ship per the Geneva convention (with an all-white hull with green bands and obvious red crosses).
Clearly the line has been drawn at "small arms".

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Well, Wikipedia quotes it as a Hospital ship, even though it disqualifies RFA Argus for carrying weapons.

If we wanna be technical and follow Geneva convention to the letter (without any room for interpretation or innovation), what about Article 5 of Convention (X) for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention?

"Military hospital ships shall be distinguished by being painted white outside with a horizontal band of green about a meter and a half in breadth."

Technically, USNS Mercy nor USNS Comfort follow this painting scheme.

But to wrap this up, I think this discussion is pointless. Following the convention to the letter, means you are obviously right. But I don't think the convention took into account a defensive system that won't even be invented for over 100 years. So In short, I agree with Professor Grunawalt. This doesn't even incorporate the fact that Hague Convention on Hospital Ships was ratified by only 30 countries from about 125+ Navies. I mean, its possible that they ratified different treaties, concerning this topic, but I can't find any.

_________________
My projects:

Arleigh Burke Flight III
Independence-class hull