# Multi Role Ships



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2010)

I came across this 2008 comparison  of the Absalon, LCS1, LCS2 and the F-125.  The author, an amateur like myself, asks if the US wouldn't be better off acquiring Absalons rather than catamarans and other exotics.  He has some very good and interesting graphics to bolster his case.  Although personally I would think that they would want to up-engine the ship to at least the Iver Huitfeldt standard of 32 MW vs Absalon's 16 MW.   That aside Absalon seems to cover much of what the US Navy was looking for in the LCS in the first place - cost and flexibility foremost - with the ability to handle blue water and defend herself.


Absalon 
Iver Huitfeldt

The above are courtesy of www.navalhistory.dk   It also has an interesting series of photographs  on docking an LCP in a Knud Rasmussen stern ramp at dockside..

Here's a photograph of the Absalon conducting the same evolution with one of her LCPs.

Do the professionals have opinions on the best way to get boats into  and out of the water?  And would that impact on whether including half a dozen Absalon type ships in the CSC mix would be a good adjunct to the fleet and if they would obviate the need for a dedicated platform like the LSDAs?

It also seems that most of the newer designed vessels are uprating their helo decks to handle 20 tonne helos like the Chinook even if their hangars can't handle them.  should that be the standard for the AOPS and the CSC?

(And speaking of increasing power isn't the AOPS, another 6000 tonne ship, designed plant of 9 MW a little on the light side? Even Svalbard is rated at 13 MW?)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2010)

If you start trying to replace dedicated surface combatants with combat support vessels then the Navy will lose. I say build the CSC and have a couple of Absalons as _ combat support_


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2010)

Further to this discussion:

I don't know if anyone else has referenced this review



> Modular Capabilities for the Canadian
> Navy’s Single Class Surface Combatant
> A Perspective on Flexibility
> Scott C. MacKenzie and Rohit Tuteja
> ...



As can be seen it from 2006 and so probably well known to the professionals in the field, but this amateur found it interesting nonetheless

This quote from the Background statement of the 43 page report is particularly interesting:



> ...The single surface combatant design will utilize a common hull form, engineering plant,
> common core equipment fit and will use open-concept engineering and modularity
> wherever feasible. As a result, the flexibility of the CF and the Navy will be increased
> with respect to tailoring the capabilities and capacity of a naval Task Group (or single
> ...



The report discusses the pros and cons of both the MEKO and StanFlex modularity concepts.



There are also useful links to a variety of online references including this one that details the StanFlex concept in Danish naval service. Naval Team Denmark


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Nov 2010)

I don't know a whole lot about navy ships (I have only spent some time on USS Pensacola) and visited CF ships in dock. However from what I have been reading that Abalson seems to have alot of weapons, not a whole lot of crew but room for a Coy size unit.

How would this fit into a naval task force? I did read a quick blurb about it being used in anti-piracy ops in Somalia. Any navy types want to educate us Ground pounders (potential passengers on a CSS/JSS?)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Nov 2010)

Abalson is talked about in other threads. 

One thing of note....while it does have pretty much a multi role frigates weapon suite the Absalon is not a frigate, its a combat support vessel with a a very nice lift capability.


----------

