Olietanker ombouwen tot vliegdekschip

Gestart door Ace1, 14/06/2015 | 13:53 uur

Een olietanker of vrachtdekschip ombouwen tot vliegdekschip is een goede zaak?

Ja
7 (26.9%)
Nee
18 (69.2%)
Geen mening
1 (3.8%)

Totaal aantal stemmen: 25

Poll gesloten: 13/08/2015 | 13:53 uur

Ace1

Citaat van: Elzenga op 14/06/2015 | 16:40 uur
De Perzische Golf lijkt me geen regio met lage dreiging...daar is waar dit laatste platform gaat worden ingezet.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2825



Dit getuigt weer van een visie hebben.

Elzenga

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 14/06/2015 | 16:42 uur
Daar heb je dan ook weer een punt.
Maar daar ligt ook wel een hele vloot andere marineschepen...die het kunnen beschermen. Want gezien wat ze er mee gaan doen zal het wel een gewild doelwit zijn voor mogelijke agressors daar.

Blijft wel een interessante oplossing als je dus snel extra middelen of sea-base nodig hebt. Om een carrier te vervangen lijkt het me te beperkt.

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Elzenga op 14/06/2015 | 16:40 uur
De Perzische Golf lijkt me geen regio met lage dreiging...daar is waar dit laatste platform gaat worden ingezet.


Daar heb je dan ook weer een punt.

Elzenga

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 14/06/2015 | 15:53 uur
Dat denk ik niet... ik heb zo het idee dat ze dit soort schepen zal willen inzetten in een regio met een relatief lage geweldspiraal zodat de meer capabele platformen beschikbaar blijven voor regio waar het wel eens spannender zou kunnen worden.
De Perzische Golf lijkt me geen regio met lage dreiging...daar is waar dit laatste platform gaat worden ingezet.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2825


jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Ros op 14/06/2015 | 15:11 uur
Omdat zij (te) veel geld hebben en eerst bouwen en dan pas gaan denken. Dit zal niet het eerste project zijn die straks ergens weg ligt te roesten.

Dat denk ik niet... ik heb zo het idee dat ze dit soort schepen zal willen inzetten in een regio met een relatief lage geweldspiraal zodat de meer capabele platformen beschikbaar blijven voor regio waar het wel eens spannender zou kunnen worden.

Elzenga

Citaat van: jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter) op 14/06/2015 | 14:24 uur
Mee eens.

Als Mobile Landing Platform zeg ik ja en zie ik de voordelen, als carrier zie ik geen toekomst met een levensduur van 40-50 jaar.
+1

Ros

Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/06/2015 | 14:52 uur
Waarom bouwt de VS dan Mobile Landing Platforms ?

Omdat zij (te) veel geld hebben en eerst bouwen en dan pas gaan denken. Dit zal niet het eerste project zijn die straks ergens weg ligt te roesten.

Ace1

After the Aircraft Carrier: 3 Alternatives to the Navy's Vulnerable Flattops

THE U.S. NAVY'S huge, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers — capital ships that have long dominated military planning and budgeting — are slowly becoming obsolete, weighed down by escalating costs, inefficiency and vulnerability to the latest enemy weapons.

But if the supercarrier is sinking, what could rise to take its place? Smaller, cheaper flattops; modified tanker ships; and missile-hauling submarines are three cheaper, more efficient and arguably more resilient options.

Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix, a historian, analyst and futurist, caused a stir by making the case against the Navy's cherished supercarrier fleet. Hendrix's recent study "At What Cost a Carrier?" (.pdf), published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for a New American Security, urges the Navy to begin drawing down its 10-11 Nimitz-class flattops and follow-on Ford-class vessels.

A single new carrier costs $14 billion to build plus $7 million a day to operate. "Not a good use of U.S. taxpayer money," Hendrix asserts. Moreover, he contends that huge carriers with their five-acre flight decks and scores of warplanes are ill-suited to the American way of war, in which precision and avoiding civilian casualties are more important than overwhelming firepower. Worst, Hendrix warns, the carriers — major symbols of American military might — are increasingly big targets for China's DF-21D ship-killing ballistic missiles.

The Navy is unlikely to decommission its giant flattops, to say the least. But should it start taking Hendrix's advice, one or more of the following vessels could sail in their place.

FLATTOP LITE
Hendrix alludes to "light amphibious carriers" as possible replacements for the supercarriers, but fails to mention the specific vessel type best suited to this role. The future USS America, nearing completion at a shipyard in Mississippi, is roughly half the size of today's Nimitz class and less than a third the cost.

Though technically a transport for Marines and their helicopters, America also supports Harrier jump jets and the still-in-development F-35B model of the stealthy Joint Strike Fighter, which like the Harrier can land vertically on small flight decks. Hendrix also called for the development of a long-range, armed drone able to launch from ships such as America. The Pentagon has already taken steps toward that goal.

In theory, the Navy could acquire and operate dozens of America-class vessels for the price of the 10 current carriers — and therein lies the smaller ships' key advantage. According to one popular theory of naval warfare, it's better to deploy large numbers of smaller ships than small numbers of bigger ships.

The idea is that a more numerous and spread out "distributed" fleet is harder to disable with weapons such as the DF-21D. By this way of thinking, the supercarriers represent single points of failure, whereas a larger fleet of "flattop lites" means redundancy and resilience amid combat losses.

If there's a downside to the gas-powered America class, of which the Navy has ordered two, it's the type's limited speed and range compared to a nuclear-powered vessel — plus its lack of a steam catapult. It's the absence of a catapult that prevents America from launching F/A-18 Hornets, X-47B jet-powered drones and other high-performance aircraft and instead compels it to wait for the troubled F-35B and brand-new drone types.

EVERYTHING'S A CARRIER
Taking the notion of a distributed fleet even further, the Navy could potentially replace the aviation capability of today's supercarriers with ... most other ships in the fleet. Increasingly, all new warships — from the small Littoral Combat Ships to the latest Lewis and Clark-class supply vessels — come with extra-large flight decks. More and more, every ship is partially a carrier.

The Navy's latest support vessel stretches this concept to the extreme. The Montford Point, a modified oil tanker launched late last year, is primarily meant to transport hovercraft for beach assaults. But a future version of the $500-million ship will include a roughly 500-foot-long flight deck that could support helicopters, drones and potentially even F-35Bs.

But like the America class, the Montford Points will not have catapults. And as modified tanker ships, they lack armor and defensive systems, making them potentially more vulnerable to enemy attack once located. (Although again, a distributed fleet could have greater overall resilience.) Plus, they're slow, capable of just over half the speed of a supercarrier.

Still, as part of a widely distributed fleet of aviation-capable ships, future flight-deck-equipped Montford Points could support all but the biggest planes. And since they cost just 4 percent the price of a supercarrier, the Navy could afford lots of them.

UNDERWATER ARSENAL
One thing supercarriers do better than other ships is deliver tons of high explosives onto distant pinpoint targets fast. The means of delivering this firepower is, of course, the flattop's 40-plus fighter-bombers. But as Hendrix points out, the Navy possesses another method of blasting targets at long-range: precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles.

No vessel packs more Tomahawks than the sailing branch's four Ohio-class guided-missile submarines. Converted from their original role carrying nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, the so-called SSGNs each pack as many as 154 cruise missiles in vertical tubes and can fire them stealthily from underwater.

The SSGNs are getting on in years and could begin retiring in the mid-2020s. The cash-strapped Navy says it can't afford to build new submarines with an equivalent missile load, and instead is planning on slightly increasing the much more modest Tomahawk loadout on some of the smaller Virginia-class attack subs.

But if the pricey supercarriers go away, the Navy could find itself with money to spare for a new class of missile subs or more of the enhanced Virginias with extra cruise missiles. Compared to today's fleet balance, that would mean a radical shift in resources from the surface force to the subsurface force. But if the big flattops end up being replaced by smaller, cheaper aviation vessels — however numerous — more subs could be the best way to maintain the Navy's overall striking power.

In any event, the Navy has options. Sinking the supercarriers, as Hendrix advises, does not mean giving up on naval aviation or on the ability to strike targets at long range. Indeed, the hundreds of billions of dollars the sailing branch would save over a period of decades with the flattops' retirement could lead to new ships, new methods and new attitudes — and, effectively, a revolution in naval warfare.

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/replacing-aircraft-carriers/

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

#26
Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/06/2015 | 14:56 uur
Dat zou de US misschien ook wel niet moeten doen.
Maar in elk geval hebben ze er nog een hele berg militaire LHA/LPD/LHD/CV's  naast.

Het is een prima concept als je een dergelijk schip inzet bij voorbeeld in anti piraterij missies... je hebt een uit de kluitengewassen moederschip in de regio en een heel scala aan middelen om lokaal op te treden tegen een redelijk prijsstelling

Maar... je kan hiervoor elk bestaand groter amfibisch platform gebruiken... onze JSS of LPD's zouden het prima doen, het MPL is alleen een goedkoper concept.

Ace1

Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/06/2015 | 14:56 uur
Dat zou de US misschien ook wel niet moeten doen.
Maar in elk geval hebben ze er nog een hele berg militaire LHA/LPD/LHD/CV's  naast.

Oil Tanker-Turned-Aircraft Carrier Is Key to American Naval Expansion

Giant dock ship can carry jump jets, copters, hovercraft—and for cheap

On Oct. 11 the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, the largest warship ever built—and the most expensive—was floated for the first time at Huntington Ingalls' shipyard in Newport News, Virginia. The 1,100-foot-long Ford, under construction since 2009 at a cost of $14 billion, boasts a new electromagnetic catapult and facilities for more than 70 warplanes and helicopters, including next-generation drones and stealth fighters still in development.

The sheer awe attending Ford's progress towards front-line service, slated for 2016, has obscured a less visually impressive but arguably more important milestone for the world's leading maritime force. On Sept. 15, shipyard workers at General Dynamics' National Steel and Shipbuilding Company in San Diego floated the John Glenn, the second example of a new but little-known class of dock ship called a "mobile landing platform."

Few people appreciate it, but the innocuous-looking John Glenn is also a sort of aircraft carrier ... in everything but name. But she's a different kind of carrier than Ford. She's less specialized and much less heavily armed and armored—and greatly cheaper as a consequence: just $500 million. Her construction, starting in 2012, represents an important trend in the U.S. Navy.

Unheralded by many observers, the sailing branch is buying more copies of less expensive and more flexible vessels like John Glenn, rather than investing solely in the priciest, niche kinds of ships like Ford. The Navy thus has a chance at avoiding the dreaded budgetary "death spiral," in which more and more money buys less and less hardware, forcing a military branch to shrink into irrelevance.

In that way, the brute-simple John Glenn represents the future of U.S. naval power—even more so than the high-tech starship Ford. Cheaper ships can be more numerous. More numerous ships can maintain a wider presence. "Presence is our mandate," said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy's top officer.

The empty vessel
John Glenn, her predecessor Montford Point and two more planned platform ships are modified versions of an oil tanker, minus the oil tanks. The 840-foot ships are little more than vast empty storage and a sprawling deck. The Navy envisions buying various equipment kits that can be installed on the MLPs to help them perform different missions.

"One could easily envision this ship serving as a repair ship, a hospital ship, an aviation depot-support ship, or a dedicated [Littoral Combat Ship] mothership in the future — given the appropriate mission capability package was developed and fitted. It's 800 feet of 'use your imagination,'" Adm. Mark Buzby, head of Military Sealift Command, told Breaking Defense.

Even without a kit fitted, the baseline vessel has special features. By taking in seawater, John Glenn and the other MLPs can partially submerge, bringing their decks flush with the waves so that hovercraft can move on and off. In this way the MLPs are able to send troops and supplies ashore in the wake of a natural disaster or as part of an invasion or peacekeeping force.

Future kits could include a hangar with extra aviation facilities. The next two dock ships after John Glenn, known as Afloat Forward Staging Bases, are going to be built with the flying gear already installed. The MLPs' decks can support vertical-takeoff drones, helicopters, V-22 tiltrotors and Harrier and F-35B jump jets. Just two other U.S. ship types—carriers and big-deck assault ships—can launch fixed-wing planes.

With fewer repair and supply facilities than a full flattop like Ford, the MLPs can't support many aircraft or for very long. Nor can the platform ships, which are slow and lack heavy armor and self-defense missiles, survive in a stand-up fight against a determined foe. They're also crewed by a few dozen civilian mariners from Military Sealift Command rather than by thousands of combat-trained Navy sailors.

Combat is an option. The British Royal Navy similarly outfitted cargo ships crewed by civilians with flight decks to carry Harriers during the 1982 Falklands War. But the MLPs are best suited for operations short of full-scale war. They're the right size—and the right price.

John Glenn and her sister ships "more closely resonate with some of the missions of the future," Greenert said in an October speech. Those missions include "counter-piracy, maritime security and missions to protect and work with allies," according to Seapower magazine.

The affordable fleet
The four planned MLPs are part of a big push for cheaper ships that's tied to the Navy's longstanding plans to grow the fleet from today's roughly 280 vessels to more than 300 over the next decade or so—all without spending much more than Washington's usual $12 billion a year for shipbuilding.

The sailing branch is trying to acquire: 50 speedy, lightly armed Littoral Combat Ships, 10 fast catamaran transport vessels plus the four dock ships for a combined cost of around $35 billion. Most of these ships are already on contract or under construction.

All of the LCSs, catamarans and MLPs are based on civilian ship designs. With ample empty space, they can carry a wide range of cargoes and aircraft and, in the case of the LCSs, different light weapons.

The idea is for these cheaper vessels wherever possible to take the places of the Navy's front-line destroyers, cruisers, amphibious ships and aircraft carriers, maintaining American presence on routine patrols while freeing up the tougher, more expensive warships like the flattop Ford to prepare for what they do best: fight a full-on shooting war.

The Navy's ever-shifting mix of low-end and high-end ships is one of its defining institutional advantages in an era of constrained funding. The Air Force is quickly shedding all but its most expensive and high-tech warplanes, rapidly shrinking into a silver-bullet force optimized for an unlikely major war. The Army likewise is getting smaller and prioritizing sophisticated new ground vehicles.

Only the Navy is able to actually expand its force structure on a flat budget—all thanks to ships like John Glenn, the aircraft carrier by another name.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/oil-tanker-turned-aircraft-carrier-is-key-to-american-naval-expansion-dfad249c4dfc

dudge

Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/06/2015 | 14:52 uur
Waarom bouwt de VS dan Mobile Landing Platforms ?

Dat zou de US misschien ook wel niet moeten doen.
Maar in elk geval hebben ze er nog een hele berg militaire LHA/LPD/LHD/CV's  naast.

Ace1

Citaat van: Thomasen op 14/06/2015 | 14:50 uur
Bepaalde schepen (beperkte klassen) naar civiele standaarden bouwen is goedkoper en effectiever. Zolang ze maar niet met een echte vijand te maken krijgen.

Niemand zit te wachten op dit halfbakken miskleun idee, al helemaal niet in internationaal verband.

Waarom bouwt de VS dan Mobile Landing Platforms ?

jurrien visser (JuVi op Twitter)

Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/06/2015 | 14:49 uur
Klopt helemaal dit zou dan in Eu of Navo verband kunnen.

Dab blijft mijn antwoord:

Ja als Mobile Landing Platform
Nee als carrier

dudge

Citaat van: Ace1 op 14/06/2015 | 14:49 uur
Klopt helemaal dit zou dan in Eu of Navo verband kunnen.

Bepaalde schepen (beperkte klassen) naar civiele standaarden bouwen is goedkoper en effectiever. Zolang ze maar niet met een echte vijand te maken krijgen.

Niemand zit te wachten op dit halfbakken miskleun idee, al helemaal niet in internationaal verband.

Ace1

Citaat van: Ros op 14/06/2015 | 14:47 uur
Denk dat de poll niet gemaakt is met Nederland als beoogde klant maar meer het idee om zoiets te doen.

Klopt helemaal dit zou dan in Eu of Navo verband kunnen.