Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Multi-Role Capital Ship

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles

the MRCS (pronounced like merks) 
is similar to the BB/LPD mash-up idea i had a while back, but down sized significantly, mixed with the absalon class.
also it should be noted that Hunington Ingalls had a similar idea as i did of basing a surface combatant off of the LPD hull.

start at 2:04 

i edited post because i forgot the video and it deleted almost the entire post :/

too annoyed to retype everything so summary

2x mk71, 2x mk110, 96x mk41, 3x mk38, 2-4x SeaRAM, traditional hangar, flight deck capable of operating a single chinook or osprey at a time. elevator on the flight deck. 

Flex deck, configurable to hangar deck w/ temporary berthing for a marine contingent, hospital bay, refugee quarters, cargo/sea lift

 

naming convention if used by USN, name them after major geographical features in the US, ex. each great lake, rocky mountains, grand canyon, etc.

 

Edited by JohnPJones
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
429
[WOLF9]
Members
3,241 posts

  Sounds interesting.  I like the version from your post- 2 8" guns!   The dual radar setup and in-flight deck elevator setup I like as well.

  I've been kicking around the idea of using a similar elevator, and putting the hangar below decks on larger ships to free up deck space.   My only concern is with battle damage- a hit to the elevator could strand all your aircraft below decks.  A more penetrating hit could cause an explosion or massive fire and deal severe damage to the hull, steering and propulsion systems.  (thinking of the fuel and munitions getting cooked off down there)

  It is a cool concept- sort of a next gen LPD- with teeth!   With those 2 MK71's it could provide it's own NGFS.   With over the horizon radar and aircraft, they could also be used to good effect vs enemy ships.  AND the VLS capacity of a Burke.  Considering it would almost certainly be escorted, that's a LOT of SAMs to deal with missile swarms.   Plus the Mk110's and SEARAMS to deal with any that get through all that.  ( and any coastal patrols/ fast attacks that might object to your landing a bunch of Marines.  Spoil sports... lol)

  I wonder if the Navy brass would even consider it?

 

  Also from the video, I liked the 30mm cannon from BAE.  Sounds like there's already a programmable fuse round being manufactured for it, and with the Israeli remote control surface mount you could retrofit it to a lot of different hulls.  I wonder how it compares to the Bushmaster?  They make that in a 30 mm version as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
5 hours ago, hoom said:

HMS_Dragon_with_Kirov_Class_'Pyotr_Velik

Not even close to the same thing.

almost no flexibility its just a big nuclear powered cruiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,699 battles

It has area air defense, saturation air defense, anti-ship, asw & 3 choppers, doesn't get much more multi-role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
56 minutes ago, hoom said:

It has area air defense, saturation air defense, anti-ship, asw & 3 choppers, doesn't get much more multi-role.

Troop transport, amphibious warfare...again yes it like all modern cruisers and destroyers are all multi-role but this design would be much more flexible.

 

honestly the Moskva class heli-carrier is probably closer.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_helicopter_carrier_Moskva

 

the Kirov class is a surface combatant designed to kill other surface ships, and defend itself.

 

my design idea goes much beyond that.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,699 battles

Pretty sure the BMD LPD gives up on the LPD capability, its just using the hull because its big enough for the radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[LTNY]
Members
335 posts
4,079 battles
4 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Not even close to the same thing.

almost no flexibility its just a big nuclear powered cruiser

 

Not to mention the staggering difference in costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
3 hours ago, hoom said:

Pretty sure the BMD LPD gives up on the LPD capability, its just using the hull because its big enough for the radar.

Ya, I'm not looking for it to have LPD capabilities, if you re-read my post you'll see I said nothing about a well deck, and watch the video you'll see an elevator on the flight deck implying a hangar deck below. The biggest change to the aviation set up is adding a traditional hangar to make room for larger helps on the hanger deck.

 

and considering the absolon class is tiny by comparison I see no reason 40-50 marines can't be transported and helo'ed into the combat zone.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_support_ship

 

a chinook can carry 33 troops, so 40 marines in a go between a chinook and 2 Seahawks is no problem.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,105
[SPTR]
Members
3,474 posts
5,733 battles

Very interesting! This would be a very valuable addition to the US Navy, very befitting of its need for flexible, asymmetrical warfare and limited, but precise delivery.

The DDG-esque superstructure, vertical launch cells coupled with the rear hanger and launch pad give me a vibe of weird IJN hybrid warships like Ise-class and aviation-focused Ōyodo-class light cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles

Basically, like I said the general purpose/multi role part of it was inspired by the absolon class on a larger scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,092 posts

 

The F125 has a bigger displacement than the Absalom.  They still call it a frigate but in reality its a multipurpose ship.

 

The F125 and the Absalom are further extensions of what in Europe has innovated as the post Cold War frigate.  

 

To explain, during the Cold War, and its mission requirements, we have the three predominant frigate classes of that era: the Oliver Hazard Perry class, the Krivak class and the Type 23 class.  These ships are strongly meant for ASW and to hunt down submarines.  

 

Comes after the Cold War, and noting that the mission roles for the Post Cold War is changing, moving from a hard battle, highly violent mission role  to broader roles that includes surveillance, showing the flag, freedom of navigation, search and rescue, humanitarian, anti-piracy, diplomacy, naval law enforcement, and evacuation.   The French particularly viewed their mission roles in support of their overseas territories.   The first of such post Cold War frigate was the Floreal class, which is then followed by the La Fayette class, which really sparked the modern, post Cold War frigate trend.  Other than the RN, which was late with their Type 26, the concept quickly spread to the other European nations, but not only that, further morphed into variations that includes a type more for hard battle, and another more for support and soft power.  The Absalom/Iver Huitfeld and the German F124/F125 class illustrates that duality.

 

The influence of the La Fayette spreads to the Far East, Taiwan buying the class as the Kang Ding class, the concept so threatened and yet impressed and inspired the PRC at the same time, that the PRC responded with the Type 054, which later evolved to the Type 054A.  In fact, no ship works harder on the PLAN than the Type 054A frigate, and the ship itself represents a major shift away from the Soviet and Cold War influences..  

 

All these marks the departure from the "modernized" Cold War navy, which the USN, RN, and Russian Navy clings to but gradually moving away, to a true post Cold War navy.

 

The Gulf of Aden and Libya were the turn points, or we can say, the crucible of test for these post Cold War concepts, which certainly helped to cement and at the same time, refine the mission requirements.   The evolution is by no means an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
6 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

The F125 has a bigger displacement than the Absalom.  They still call it a frigate but in reality its a multipurpose ship.

 

The F125 and the Absalom are further extensions of what in Europe has innovated as the post Cold War frigate.  

 

To explain, during the Cold War, and its mission requirements, we have the three predominant frigate classes of that era: the Oliver Hazard Perry class, the Krivak class and the Type 23 class.  These ships are strongly meant for ASW and to hunt down submarines.  

 

Comes after the Cold War, and noting that the mission roles for the Post Cold War is changing, moving from a hard battle, highly violent mission role  to broader roles that includes surveillance, showing the flag, freedom of navigation, search and rescue, humanitarian, anti-piracy, diplomacy, naval law enforcement, and evacuation.   The French particularly viewed their mission roles in support of their overseas territories.   The first of such post Cold War frigate was the Floreal class, which is then followed by the La Fayette class, which really sparked the modern, post Cold War frigate trend.  Other than the RN, which was late with their Type 26, the concept quickly spread to the other European nations, but not only that, further morphed into variations that includes a type more for hard battle, and another more for support and soft power.  The Absalom/Iver Huitfeld and the German F124/F125 class illustrates that duality.

 

The influence of the La Fayette spreads to the Far East, Taiwan buying the class as the Kang Ding class, the concept so threatened and yet impressed and inspired the PRC at the same time, that the PRC responded with the Type 054, which later evolved to the Type 054A.  In fact, no ship works harder on the PLAN than the Type 054A frigate, and the ship itself represents a major shift away from the Soviet and Cold War influences..  

 

All these marks the departure from the "modernized" Cold War navy, which the USN, RN, and Russian Navy clings to but gradually moving away, to a true post Cold War navy.

 

The Gulf of Aden and Libya were the turn points, or we can say, the crucible of test for these post Cold War concepts, which certainly helped to cement and at the same time, refine the mission requirements.   The evolution is by no means an end.

It would seem that a capital ship that can protect itself, while fitting into that post Cold War evolution would be useful.  The navy used floating bases that were basically just barges in the gulf, it would be able to fill a similar role especially as a leader of TF151. 4 total helos the ship can have its own patrol box with 2 helos airborne north and south of it with their own boxes, and either have a SEAL or marine squad onboard during patrols or on standby with on of the other helos, especially if a boarding becomes a non-compliant boarding, or in general it can provide C&C for special warfare operations, while being able to provide some air support,TLAM, and effective gun support if necessary, all while being able to protect itself without significant escort. It would be significantly smaller than an LHD or CVN, it's a lesser loss of life and materials if something happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles

So here's my idea. The MRCS would indeed be best suited for smaller budget navies.

mixed with some other classes it would work well.

 

1x MRCS(amphibious set up)

2x NGB FFGs

http://www.navygeneralboard.com/united-states-modern-frigate-design/

3x absolon class(amphib/troop transport set up)

 

3 groups like this would be able to land a fairly significant number of troops if necessary with out a huge LHD being necessary.

 

MRCS and absolon classes could all be reconfigured for other missions if needed.  And you could have 1/3 of your ships deployable at all times with one in maintenance and one in a training period.

 

id think this type of fleet composition would be pretty useful for the smaller SCS claimants. Obviously China could overwhelm that fleet, but it could be able to flex the muscles that many of them don't currently have, while keeping procurement costs relatively low 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
302
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,022 posts

It's a great idea, but I'm not sure it would pass muster because of the Admirals invested into the San Antonio LPDs even though the MRCS is half the size and meant for a completely different level of combat intensity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
9,092 posts

 

The point defense missiles look more like the 21 cel launcher RAM, as opposed to SeaRAM which only has 10 missiles in exchange for the R2D2 radar on top.  

 

The VLS looks more like Mk 57 to me, as it is located to the side of the ship and not the center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, TornadoADV said:

It's a great idea, but I'm not sure it would pass muster because of the Admirals invested into the San Antonio LPDs even though the MRCS is half the size and meant for a completely different level of combat intensity.

The ship I proposed would be the same size or slightly larger. 680-700ft long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
9 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

The point defense missiles look more like the 21 cel launcher RAM, as opposed to SeaRAM which only has 10 missiles in exchange for the R2D2 radar on top.  

 

The VLS looks more like Mk 57 to me, as it is located to the side of the ship and not the center.

Ya they went with the PVLS mk41 mk57 either works as long as it has around 96 cells

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
429
[WOLF9]
Members
3,241 posts
7 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

So here's my idea. The MRCS would indeed be best suited for smaller budget navies.

mixed with some other classes it would work well.

 

1x MRCS(amphibious set up)

2x NGB FFGs

http://www.navygeneralboard.com/united-states-modern-frigate-design/

3x absolon class(amphib/troop transport set up)

 

3 groups like this would be able to land a fairly significant number of troops if necessary with out a huge LHD being necessary.

 

MRCS and absolon classes could all be reconfigured for other missions if needed.  And you could have 1/3 of your ships deployable at all times with one in maintenance and one in a training period.

 

id think this type of fleet composition would be pretty useful for the smaller SCS claimants. Obviously China could overwhelm that fleet, but it could be able to flex the muscles that many of them don't currently have, while keeping procurement costs relatively low 

  That looks like a nice little Amphibious task force.

Obviously, nobody is going to attempt a major invasion of a large, well armed and equipped country like China with just this.  But it looks ideal for smaller scale operations- not to mention:

 A) It's scalable.  Several units like this could be assembled with support vessels, and heavier escorts to make up a much more powerful amphibious group.  As is, it could be the base configuration/ unit and take care of the majority of jobs that don't require a massive force.  Heck, between typhoons, tsunamis, and earthquakes you'd get your money's worth just in rescue and humanitarian missions.

and

B) Allowing a smaller nation to join and make a meaningful contribution to a large combined operation.  If you brought this to the "party" I'm sure the brass could find all kinds of use for it.

 

  Earlier, I got a good chuckle imagining a particularly inept (read colossally dumb) group of pirates attempting an attack on the MRCS- only to find the group of 40 or so embarked- and likely starved for some action- Marines waiting for them.  " Commander, Sir!  Can we please allow my Marines to play with the toys just this once??"

  I'm currently looking into possibly changing my idea of the Des Moines class Amphibious fleet flag cruiser into something like this.  (rather than making it a variant of the Indianapolis class.)   That's a whole lot of support for an amphibious operation, and that radar would go good on a command ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Fletcher7_1944 said:

  That looks like a nice little Amphibious task force.

Obviously, nobody is going to attempt a major invasion of a large, well armed and equipped country like China with just this.  But it looks ideal for smaller scale operations- not to mention:

 A) It's scalable.  Several units like this could be assembled with support vessels, and heavier escorts to make up a much more powerful amphibious group.  As is, it could be the base configuration/ unit and take care of the majority of jobs that don't require a massive force.  Heck, between typhoons, tsunamis, and earthquakes you'd get your money's worth just in rescue and humanitarian missions.

and

B) Allowing a smaller nation to join and make a meaningful contribution to a large combined operation.  If you brought this to the "party" I'm sure the brass could find all kinds of use for it.

 

  Earlier, I got a good chuckle imagining a particularly inept (read colossally dumb) group of pirates attempting an attack on the MRCS- only to find the group of 40 or so embarked- and likely starved for some action- Marines waiting for them.  " Commander, Sir!  Can we please allow my Marines to play with the toys just this once??"

  I'm currently looking into possibly changing my idea of the Des Moines class Amphibious fleet flag cruiser into something like this.  (rather than making it a variant of the Indianapolis class.)   That's a whole lot of support for an amphibious operation, and that radar would go good on a command ship.

 

China no, but perfect for assaulting bases and airfields on contested 'reefs'.

approximately 600 marines preceded by TLAM strikes, and backed by 2 8" guns 3 5" guns and 2 76mm guns with Seahawks making runs with hellfires, rockets, and guns for support.

 

also, use the MRCS design if you'd like just give credit where credit is due 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,375 posts
958 battles

Alrighty JPjones, you piqued my interest.

 

Something larger and more capable than an Absalon class. But less expensive than the proposed Iowa class assault ship conversion. 

Absalon_class.jpg

Iowa_class_assault_shio.jpg

Now that I have the guest authors for the website squared away, I can devote some time to this. I can make a few designs for this. However, I have a few concerns. 

  1. The Iowa class conversion was shelved on the idea that using the weaponry would interfere with embarking and disembarking the marines onboard. 
  2. The Surface combatant ship proposed by Huntington Ingalls is really just an excuse to sell more hulls. The Navy needs a larger ship to mount its AMDR and Huntington proposed the ship simply for the fact that it was large enough. 

A ship intended to embark supplies, marines, evacuees, etc likely wont benefit from a radar designed for ballistic missile defense. 

It would probably be cheaper and more effective to utilize the same hull for two different ships. 

  • Ballistic missile defense ship with large radar
  • Assault landing ship with cargo capacity. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
10 minutes ago, Jracule said:

Alrighty JPjones, you piqued my interest.

 

Something larger and more capable than an Absalon class. But less expensive than the proposed Iowa class assault ship conversion. 

Absalon_class.jpg

Iowa_class_assault_shio.jpg

Now that I have the guest authors for the website squared away, I can devote some time to this. I can make a few designs for this. However, I have a few concerns. 

  1. The Iowa class conversion was shelved on the idea that using the weaponry would interfere with embarking and disembarking the marines onboard. 
  2. The Surface combatant ship proposed by Huntington Ingalls is really just an excuse to sell more hulls. The Navy needs a larger ship to mount its AMDR and Huntington proposed the ship simply for the fact that it was large enough. 

A ship intended to embark supplies, marines, evacuees, etc likely wont benefit from a radar designed for ballistic missile defense. 

It would probably be cheaper and more effective to utilize the same hull for two different ships. 

  • Ballistic missile defense ship with large radar
  • Assault landing ship with cargo capacity. 

 

 

As to the fires/flight ops issue that's mostly why I wanted to keep the air wing fairly limited, and 4 Seahawks or 2 Seahawks and 1chinook.

 

the Seahawks can loiter and give rocket and MG support while the chinook boogies back to the ship.

 

once the troops are landed the Seahawks can be deconflicted in the same manner as aircraft from a carrier or LHD until landing.

as said before I'm thinking it would perform best for smaller navies not necessarily a first class, world class navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,375 posts
958 battles

Leningrad underway in 1990.

Something like a Moskva class then? An aircraft carrying cruiser, but with the additional flexibility of a welldeck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,257 posts
6,734 battles
20 minutes ago, Jracule said:

Leningrad underway in 1990.

Something like a Moskva class then? An aircraft carrying cruiser, but with the additional flexibility of a welldeck.

No well deck, but ya something like a Moskva but much broader spectrum of potential missions, depending on flex deck configuration and helicopters onboard 

 

everything from seahawks, to chinook, to sea dragon, to cobras or apaches, little birds, or fire scout.

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×