Outside the box thinking to be sure. The ships have many interesting features, and would be better thought of as multi-role combat support platforms. The flex deck, modular approach and large aviation spaces are a great boon in asymetrical operations, anti-piracy, peace(giggle)keeping. The 57 mm popgun- eh. I watched one of our Halibag class FF's put hundreds of 57mikemike rounds into Huron in '07 with pretty dismal results. The RAM is a good system, but I would question its magazine size(11 rounds) vis a viz saturation attacks on multiple axis. Ditto decoy capacity. No MR-LR SAM system. AGM-175 is a very expensive camel-buster, too small for anything but COIN. Dumb. ASUW capability-Pinguins on Seahawks. Great in a low threat environment, though even the most grabasstic ragbags are getting more and more sophisticated weapons all the time. Who would have thought hezbolah would have been able to take a good chunk out of a SAAR-V frigate. It can ship modular weapons, but no word on what or how many. ASW is given a vague handwave- but thats normal every where since the fall of the USSR, and I would have thought that loosing 2 out of 3 carriers to a submarine 2 years back on exercise would have been a reminder. Not all PLAN SSN/SSK skippers are going to be dumb-asses.
The QA issues with new ship construction are pretty appalling, though. Admittedly, the procurement and budget nabobs must shoulder the blame on that. Not budgeting for or installing cathodic corrosion protection beggars belief!( the waterjets were falling off the hull, which disolved under the stainless steel housings) Like the DDX, a lot of the capabilites designed into the ship were abandoned as the cost spiraled out of control, and the first ship was 220% over budget with 2000+ discrepancies, 39 rated 'grave to serious'. Mission requirements are vague, and change too often, politically driven; yes, but much of that is internal politicking and careerisim- same north of the line, though. Maybe worse, as our procurement nabobs( all appointies from the civil service and ; almost without exception, all without any military service) will spend 500 billion dollars and 30 years studying and project defining, without ever buying a single nut or bolt-witness the ongoing Seaking replacement fiasco.(Oh! Cyclone, where art thou?) Small crew-418 ft ship with a basic crew of 30 raises questions about survivability (damage control) and combat persistence. Ships with small crews have been shown in the past to have significant disadvantages in readiness, deployability, and persistence. You have a 418 ft ship doing the jobs of a Frigate, LST, small aircraft carrier, Assault transport, ect, ect, with 30 bodies to do the skutwork, stand watch, maintain the ship, and fight the ship. This then means a nackered crew, low persistence, low efficancy, and a disproportionate amount of shipyard support- all factors run into with and responsible for the demise of the Pegasus class of PHM's, and a chronic problem with any small crew combatant.
I was just reading the text of a speech by made by Sec Nav Don Winter in 2006.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...y-and-us-naval-shipbuilding-challenges-02136/
which was pretty critical of navy and industry practices. Can't say much has changed.
Enough of the real world. Its still a great looking ship, and I've wanted one for the sim for a while, so. The major thingie for me was coaxing a landable deck out of the exporter, which is being put to good use now on a whole range of projects. Strikehawk, while a Mk.V boat may not happen- no aviation facilities- would a larger ship with a hard deck and ramp be of use? I've also decked the IJN Attack transport, though the boat ramp is taken up with the load of Dihatsu's, there is room for a 'Zode
View attachment 76721View attachment 76722View attachment 76723
Oh no it's still going on up there. Get the RCN brass on the horn and tell them to procure some MH65C's and Jayhawks. We have the CCG, RCN down here with two crews learning the MH65C and Jayhawk.
