# Another Option for Arctic Patrol?



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Nov 2008)

Found this while surfing and thought it may be an option for our Arctic patrol needs:

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsc-pre2005.htm

Mother/Daughter Ship Design
   A concept under consideration as part of the “package” to meet the FSC requirement is that of the “Mother/Daughter ship”.  This involves the use of a large vessel that is capable of carrying one or more smaller craft. This offers the potential to employ small assets, optimised for the littoral environment, at the full extent of reach provided by a world-wide deployment capability.
For the smaller surface assets, likely to operate in numbers, the ability to harness Networked Enabled Capability (NEC - identified as key requirement by the MOD since 2003)  offers significant advantages, allowing them to work together and overcome their own limited military capability. The Daughter ships are likely to be re-configurable platforms, able to change role as required: before deploying, en-route or even in theatre. This involves using modularity to provide additional fuel pods, accommodation for embarked special forces, weapon and sensor fits for specific tasks, or whatever the required military capability. 
   In March 2003 BMT Defence Services Limited was awarded a two month 'quick-look' study contract by the UK Ministry of Defence to explore the fundamental feasibility of 'mother/ daughter' ship concepts as a potential solution for the Royal Navy's projected Future Surface Combatant capability requirement.  BMT DSL led a team including University College London and BM Consulting for the Concept Design.
   The BMT team was asked to consider the potential for the rapid deployment, from larger vessels optimised for ocean-going passage, of small flexible, stealthy, surface and sub-surface craft, which are optimised for littoral warfare.  These Mother-ships may be able to reach the theatre of operations in a shorter time than existing small craft can currently achieve.  The BMT team looked at how multiple “Deployable Assets” could be transported from the UK to overseas theatres of operation and compared this to conventional transit times, costs and limitations.  The “Deployable Assets” (possibly manned or unmanned platforms) could then be launched and recovered from the Mothership to meet a number of military scenarios set by the customer.
   The study developed a mix of outline concept designs for mother-ships and deployable assets.  These were "visualised" and their costs and military capabilities quantified.  These were then compared to determine which, if any, are worthy of more detailed investigation as potential solutions to meet future capability requirements.
   The team assumed that surface vessels and submarines above 1500 tonnes displacement should have a reasonable ocean going capability and would not need to be carried by a Mothership, albeit they may need support in-theatre from conventional auxiliary vessels (stores, fuel, ammunition etc). Craft below about 100 tonnes are likely to be small enough that they don’t need a dedicated Mothership, being carried by existing ships.
   A total of eight Mothership and nine Daughtership designs were produced during the two month study period.
The study report concluded that small, fast and stealthy craft are most suited to littoral operations but suffer from limited endurance and are often unable to deploy beyond coastal waters due to their poor sea-keeping qualities.  A Mothership of 40,000-50,000 tones and capable of 25 knots could give these vessels a worldwide deployment capability. Possible solutions included; heavy lift ships, dock ships, crane ships and a variety of more novel solutions. Some of these are illustrated below. The study presented the performance, cost and technology readiness scores for the new options against conventional solutions and has gone some way toward defining the direction for more detailed studies by the MoD’s Future Business Group and the DPA.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Nov 2008)

A picture from shipbucket of what this type of ship may look like:
http://s90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Never%20build%20designs/?action=view&current=GBAKFastMothershipConcept1AU.gif


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Nov 2008)

Is it me or is it one big mother f**ker?


----------



## Rodders (11 Nov 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Is it me or is it one big mother f**ker?



I'll say ... it's HUGE!!!


----------



## YZT580 (11 Nov 2008)

I would suggest that the concept is totally useless in the Artic which is where the article proposes it be stationed.  The hull would have to be hardened.  Any daughter hulls would also require hardening.  It would seem more likely the type of vessel that would be sent to an area (such as Somalia) to provide both single site power and the ability to project your strength over a larger area using well-armed smaller craft.  Much like an old Fishing schooner and her fleet of dories or, a modern whaling ship.  It would seem more that the artic needs an ice capable vessel equiped for rescue, salvage, some defense, and the ability to re-supply romote bases.  More of an armed icebreaker than a conventional warship.  My 2 schekkels.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Nov 2008)

The article did not propose it to be stationed there I did. As for hardening the daughter and mother ship hulls, I agree, I would have thought with Arctic operations as I am suggesting that would have been assumed.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Nov 2008)

You know, I actually like this idea.  This mother ship thing could actually work in the Arctic (assuming it was not too big and both Mother/Daughters were appropriately hardened).  It is a bit like a ship carrying helos- except that you might send the daughters off for a few days or a week, instead of a few hours.


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Nov 2008)

Kind of like the Enterprise and shuttlecraft in star trek...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Nov 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Is it me or is it one big mother f**ker?



Well we don't necessary have to build it as big.



			
				popnfresh said:
			
		

> Kind of like the Enterprise and shuttlecraft in star trek...



ummm, yeah...


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Nov 2008)

The British used the Fearless and Intrepid LPDs (Landing Platform Dock) in arctic Norway in the winter all the time. I flew/ floated off them several times. They were outstanding. Other countries operate similar ships.

I'm not sure how ice hardened they were though. The biggest landing craft they carried was a 'Black Pig' LCU - large enough for 4 x BV206s and a couple of troops, or a full rifle company, and fully prepared for arctic operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Utility#UK_LCUs. Again, not sure how well they were set up for protection from ice as this was not apparently a big issue around Narvik and Tromso.

"HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid

The government commissioned the Landing Platform Docks HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid in the mid 1960s specifically for Cold War Amphibious Warfare, raising the capabilities of the Corps considerably. 

HMS Fearless was the Royal Navy’s first purpose-built amphibious assault ship. Along with sister ship HMS Intrepid, it provided the Royal Navy with the ability to carry out amphibious operations and to act as a command and control centre during the landing phase. 

The ships are classed as Landing Platform Docks (LPDs) and are used as a kind floating dock. They are especially useful to the Royal Navy following the fall of the British Empire and the closure of so many of its naval bases around the world. 

The LPDs carry four large Landing Craft Utility (LCU) and four smaller Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP). In addition, the ships can carry land vehicles, 15 tanks, seven 3-ton and 20 quarter-ton trucks. 

Strategists recognised the success of the first heliborne amphibious attack at Suez in 1956. As a consequence the upper open tank deck was converted to take on the role of helicopter landing deck during the design stage. 

HMS Fearless could provide accommodation for up to 700 Commandos. The space could also be utilised to hold rescued civilians during disaster relief operations."


http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/482/635/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_class_landing_platform_dock


----------



## YZT580 (12 Nov 2008)

These are assault and long range support ships.  Are you envisioning having to land an assault team in the Arctic during early ice conditions?  I believe that the navy could use such a vessel, provided that we are going to continue our efforts in areas such as Afghanistan although having a greater airborne capability would be better for those places that are more accessible by water since it would give us a base of operations that does not depend upon a friendly neighbourhood environment.  But for the arctic?  The idea of riding to shore in an open-decked craft in any temperatures approaching or below zero as a normal means of transport really wouldn't appeal to me much.  But then again, I won't ever have to. Wouldn't a year 1 hardened vessel with an enclosed well-deck capable of carrying 2 aircushion vessels within and using the above deck as combined hangerage and landing pad make more sense?  Just asking so feel free to sink


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Nov 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The idea of riding to shore in an open-decked craft in any temperatures approaching or below zero as a normal means of transport really wouldn't appeal to me much.  But then again, I won't ever have to.



The LCUs and LCVPs operated by the Royal Marines have big, hardened covers over the decks that are heated. Quite plush actually. I've been out and about in 40 below on these things and they work fine.... as long as the water isn't too rough. I found out the hard way that flat bottomed craft make we landlubbers lose our latest meals in testy conditions!


----------



## Sailorwest (12 Nov 2008)

I think we are probably far better off with a ice capable vessel that has a helo embarked. If the ship becomes stuck in the ice, or significantly slowed down, and surviellance (or further) work could still be effectivley completed by the helicopter. Having a daughter ship in such circumstance would provide no benefit.


----------

