Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
... even a small fast patrol boat with the beam and length is too tall to fit in the well ... a patrol boat mothership/tender would not have a hanger deck above its well.

And of course rather than try to fit a patrol boat into the procrustean bed of a landing craft envelope, it is more frugal in the end to design the patrol boat mothership/tender around the patrol boats a country has.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 04:54:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, that's not really what I meant. My mothership concept would indeed have a hangar deck (for helicopters, and maybe strike fighters), but it wouldn't have a dock at all, or if it did it would only be used to resupply one of the many standard boats at a time. They would no be transported in the mothership but go by their own power.

And you'd need to build new small boats. The ones used today are built for some specific purpose while these would be preconfigured to carry a modular mission package.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 05:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Lots of capacity to retrofit the amphibious assault ship as a small boat tender, at the sacrifice of the space to carry 450 Amphibious Assault troops.

Looking back on it after sleeping on it, it seems like the kind of boat that would most benefit from an internal well-dock would be the small, very fast type of patrol boat, and I can see that something like a missile boat would neither need nor substantially benefit from that, though it would benefit from a mothership.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Thu Oct 16th, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, the ships I've had in mind when pondering this is something like the Finnish Hamina class fast attack craft (250 tons), the Swedish Göteborg class corvette (380/425 tons) and, maybe a bit unrealistically, the Finnish Turunmaa class gunboat. The last because I'd love to have the ability to slot in a big gun instead of missiles or whatever. The Turunmaa class (700 tons (+100 with later modifications) 1,350 tons (full load)) had the wonderful Bofors 120 mm/46 SAK DP (80(!) 120 mm shells a minute!).

Now, I wouldn't use that gun as it's not made anymore and because there is a much better one: the Otobreda 127/64. 127 mm, 25 rounds a minute (good enough!) and a massive 84 km range with standard shells! Even better, the new guided Vulcano shells will reach 120 km, better than many anti-ship missiles!

The only orders for that gun has been from the Italian and German navies for their new "frigates" (read: destroyers) which are both in the 6000 ton range. I wonder how small a ship you could mount it on, if the ship was only supposed to carry the gun (or some other mission module) and nothing else? It is after all dseigned to be a 127/54 but with lighter weight, for corvettes and the Turunmaa class were much smaller than these destroyers will be. Maybe you could even put it on something like the Göteborg class?

   
The Bofors 120 mm autogun on the Turunmaa class
   
Hamina class fast attack craft.
   
Four Göteborg class
   
The new Otobreda 127/64 lightweight gun
     

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Fri Oct 17th, 2008 at 11:07:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series