Discussion in 'Strategic Defence & Spending Review (SDSR)' started by alfred_the_great, May 21, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Surely an Arsenal ship would look really pretty with lots of African cruise missiles on board but ultimately bottle every conflict it ever gets close to?
and probably be controlled by the french
Where I think Alex's proposal falls apart is with the addition of SAMPSON, 2 x 4.5" and a space analogous to OCEANs. Basically you're trying to do it all, using a MV and some ISO containers.
I would question when we would ever need that amount of TLAM (or afford to buy them); smacks of fantasy fleet to my mind.
Re-do in own time. Start with the capability gap you want to fill....
ps - the "Leander" article, seriously?!
Aren't 'mission modules' coming of age within Squid circles?
LCS 2 (USS Freedom?) (the Trimaran) has the capability, as do several other designs) of having iso like containers loaded with various bits and bobs. If new vessels (ie the new frigates) were designed in such a way as a 'mision module' iso or two could be put on deck then such massive increases in TLAM capability (or other) could be a reality.
Failing that a 'hardened' RFA could pootle about shipping stores most of the time, but with the option of ramping up to a 'arsenal ship'/CV.
People are quickly realising that coming into port and "just" swapping out a module and sticking a new one in is a non-starter. It took us about 3 months to complete the tests and trials on several weapon systems post-refit to ensure that where we thought we were pointing the gun/radar/missile system was actually where it was pointing.
Again, where is the requirement for masses of TLAM or deep strike? Have we suddenly developed a need for stand alone, "Day 1" type operations?
Smells like atlantic conveyor mk 2 to me. I can see possibly a few problems arising.
Whist the container prinpicle is all good in theory, surely some degree of armoured magazine is needed with all the fail safes that would also be needed, which will cut down space by a fair margin.
How practical would It be to change these containers and how quickly. Say if you are in the busy process of bombarding the enemy with your cruise missiles and they send in a determined attack which will surely overwhelm the phalanx systems and deny airspace to your onboard wockas?.
Not forgetting the onboard fleet of wockas which will need a hanger, fuel pods, crew billets, maintenance, command and control and munitions store. Theres more space gone.
The article states going against enemys with competent air defenses , This will probably include enemy aircraft in co-ordination with ground forces possibly using anti missle weaponry( I'm thinking how this may develop over the vessels lifetime). so how would this vessel fit into that? how can it maintain air superiority for instance.
I'm sure theres more but i'm thick
Not as thick as Alex, I'd wager.
I agree with ATGs point regarding the need (or lack thereof) for a vast array of TLAM waiting to be unleashed. I think Alex has been lying awake alone in bed at night fantasising about this, though I must admit, I stopped reading when he said SSGNs were no deterrent if the 'opposition' (I think he meant 'enemy', and considering it was used in the same sentence as 'Government', 'opposition' is a very poor choice of wording) did not know it's whereabouts, which is patently bollocks, as it's worked with SSNs and the Argies for a good while now.
Let's call them the Gunners and put a Frenchman in charge of the crew. Nevertheless, all the big strategic decisions will still be made by the Yank owner.
Probably find a good home with an Arabic sounding name.
They'll ponce around with bags of flair, looking good with snazy haircuts and imported crew members from around the globe, but never make the top spot when it comes to the day of reakoning. Always make room for a couple of fags in the back 4 too.
I think he stole it from a book, invasion, by Eric l Harry.
"Arsenal ships Almunia, Lehmann, Squillaci, Diaby, Denilson, Rosicky, Bendtner", would be a better headline. Would make this gooner a bit happier.
Sails with full fanfare from the Thames in July, completes sea trials - all looks promising, enters active service in August with positive results, dive bombed near Newcastle in early Feb, berthed in London for repair late Feb, but imported Brummie workers botch the job, set sail again, but torpedoed off the Spanish coast in March, limps back to Blighty only to be assaulted by Midlands Navy based in Brum and Stoke. Heavily listing, scrapes into port for major overhaul and refit in the summer.
Have you ever heard the term 'OpFor'?
3 months? Could this not be done quicker?
Following the RAF's procurement lead for the A330 tankers, thse vessels could also be used as cruise ships for SAGA holidays too.
In a land where several people have to make the same decision no.
IIRC this is an old idea rehashed. A bit like the old USN ARAPAHO? Project for a containerised aircraft carrier. Don't think they were to be called Arsenal ships then but think they were touted as being unmanned with an escort.
Then their is the Ruskies CLUB-K containerised aircraft carrier killer. Missile in a box concept.
All ideas for doing things on the cheap. When you need to use the stuff it either doesn't work or it's hard to intergrate effectively.
Separate names with a comma.