• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Continental Defence Corvette

He did and that's the capability we should be advocating for along with other options such as the CLD's which are complimentary to the type of MCM we do now and as a stand alone capability. I would like to see purpose built COTS MCM ships with a greater capability than the Kingston Class. for domestic and overseas work. I also think we should get back in the mining business for the storm that is coming.

So Heddle should be pitching OSVs and not corvettes?
 
So Heddle should be pitching OSVs and not corvettes?
No, they can peddle what they want. When the RFI is actually dropped and I suspect that won't be soon, there will plenty of designs to be peddled. I see no issue with a Corvette and I see no issue with a separate class of MCM specific vessels. I won't bring available crewing into it because even with the actual recapitalization of the fleet we will come up short on sailors anyways, unless we enact a major shift on how we recruit and train sailors.
 
No, they can peddle what they want. When the RFI is actually dropped and I suspect that won't be soon, there will plenty of designs to be peddled. I see no issue with a Corvette and I see no issue with a separate class of MCM specific vessels. I won't bring available crewing into it because even with the actual recapitalization of the fleet we will come up short on sailors anyways, unless we enact a major shift on how we recruit and train sailors.

At what point do we decide to do the other thing? Even the RN and the USN have bitten the bullet and come up with plans to reduce the ratio of sailors to hulls. I appreciate that there will be new risks but are the risks greater than not having hulls in position in the first place?
 
At what point do we decide to do the other thing? Even the RN and the USN have bitten the bullet and come up with plans to reduce the ratio of sailors to hulls. I appreciate that there will be new risks but are the risks greater than not having hulls in position in the first place?
Is a USN reduction strategy likely to be of any real interest, beyond curiosity, to the RCN, given how generous their starting point is?
 
Is a USN reduction strategy likely to be of any real interest, beyond curiosity, to the RCN, given how generous their starting point is?

I don't the starting point is germane to anything. The sense that I am getting is that everybody is having difficulty recruiting people to go to sea, and that includes merchant fleets and Coast Guards.
 

Hanwha's 61 meter (200 ft) uncrewed Missile Boat, water jet propelled.

Sensor package includes AESA radar, EO/IR, EOTS

Effects include

2x MASS decoy launchers
1x 20mm RCWS
1x 70mm launcher with 4x APKWS II
4x NSM/JSM/Harpoon type missiles
12x 130mm missiles
OWUAV launcher with something like 8x Hero 120

1768029993936.jpeg


Korean answer to the recruiting deficit.
 

Hanwha's 61 meter (200 ft) uncrewed Missile Boat, water jet propelled.

Sensor package includes AESA radar, EO/IR, EOTS

Effects include

2x MASS decoy launchers
1x 20mm RCWS
1x 70mm launcher with 4x APKWS II
4x NSM/JSM/Harpoon type missiles
12x 130mm missiles
OWUAV launcher with something like 8x Hero 120

View attachment 97694


Korean answer to the recruiting deficit.
Korean answer to the silliness of pretending USVs will replace combatants.

It's at best a technology demonstrator, because no serious nation is putting modern AESA radars and all of those weapons on a ship that some random fishermen can board.

I don't the starting point is germane to anything.
That's because you don't understand the differences in USN and other NATO navies crewing.... When a CPF conducts a RAS, line handling winches take the brunt of the work. When a USN AB conducts a RAS, they bring up all the off-watch crew to handle the lines, because line handling winches are not part of how they operate.

When the USN talks about introducing automation, they are talking about getting to where we were in the 90s.
 
Korean answer to the silliness of pretending USVs will replace combatants.

It's at best a technology demonstrator, because no serious nation is putting modern AESA radars and all of those weapons on a ship that some random fishermen can board.


That's because you don't understand the differences in USN and other NATO navies crewing.... When a CPF conducts a RAS, line handling winches take the brunt of the work. When a USN AB conducts a RAS, they bring up all the off-watch crew to handle the lines, because line handling winches are not part of how they operate.

When the USN talks about introducing automation, they are talking about getting to where we were in the 90s.

So you would pack a target full of line handlers that you can't recruit, pack them into bunks you don't have, supply them with water you have to make, galleys, messes and cooks who need more of the above, and sanitary systems rather than floatng a pump jockey across occasionally to fill 'er up, check the levels and wipe the windshield?

Glaikit.

Put half a dozen of those in the water along with a pair of Command and Support Ships and you have a functional force that supply mutual support and overwatch. And a lot more targets with a lot fewer crew.

As to the risk of technology transfer, given the rate at which both sides have been throwing technology at each other I doubt if there are many secrets left among those systems shown on that image.

It is not even as if the skipper is fighting her own ship these days. With Co-Operative Engagement it seems she is just as likely to be notified she needs to clear the decks because some of her missiles are about to be launched.

....

You are having trouble recruiting sailors.
So are the Yanks.
So are the Brits.
And, I suspect, so are the South Koreans.
And so is Maersk.
Which has driven them to build ships that can handle increasing loads with reducing crews.
They are building ships that can accommodate 30, but are crewed by 24 and can be handled by 13.
This has two knock on effects. You are competing with them for a diminishing pool of sailors and they are training fewer sailors that would historically have been available for naval reserves and auxiliaries.

....
 
And the UK and Norway arranging a swap. Clydeside Type 26s for Norwegian OSVs in the 100 to 130m range.

 
The necessary adjunct to the autonomous fleet.

Easy to use personal flight to get the pump-jockey on board.



A gallon of gas per minute?

How about 20 minutes on battery, $148,000, and partnered with Polish Mountain Rescue.

 
A gallon of gas per minute?

How about 20 minutes on battery, $148,000, and partnered with Polish Mountain Rescue.


I like the hoverboard for its very small footprint. It looks like you could land on the bridge wings.

I had been thinking that the personal transport sweet spot was somewhere between Frankie's Flyboard and this, the VBAT.


But that Jetson is a runner.
 
Back
Top