Ship Profiles

forums (forae?)

http://www.usingenglish.com/weblog/archives/000121.html


Thanks for the link Richard, I love that Tiger STOVL conversion with P.1154 Harrier. BTW, are that profiles draw with Photoshop only?
 
CMN Combattante IV-NG. A 56m FAC(M) offered to Qatar - but beaten by the VT design in that case. From drawings in "Navy International", Sept/Oct 1992.

fr_fac_combattante_ivng_au.png


RP1
 
Another design offered by CMN in the early 1990s - a 72m semi-planing monohull with a flight deck (but no hangar), Crotale-NG, Exocet and 76mm.

Fr_FAC_BR65_AU.png


RP1
 
The last of the CMN designs - an SES with 76mm, Exocet, Sadral SAM and a collapsible hangar.

Fr_FAC_NES300_AU_r.png


RP1
 
The Mobile Continuity Force (MCF), proposed by James T Sollers in the July 1984 edition of the USNI Proceedings. This concepts was that several large ships carrying tools, seeds, libraries etc would hide in the Southern polar oceans. Should a nuclear war then occur, they could return to the US to help rebuild.

usa_mcf.png


RP1
 
I haven’t been able to find any online links to the BMT/UCL mother-daughter littoral warfare combinations. Any chance Richard you could post some more information, perhaps in the unbuilt Naval projects thread?
 
Does anyone could provide me with profile nad datasheets of Combattante V FAC design being offered to Hellenic Navy in the late '90s?
 
The Mobile Continuity Force (MCF), proposed by James T Sollers in the July 1984 edition of the USNI Proceedings. This concepts was that several large ships carrying tools, seeds, libraries etc would hide in the Southern polar oceans. Should a nuclear war then occur, they could return to the US to help rebuild.

usa_mcf.png


RP1

Please excuse my ignorance, but was this Mobile Continuity Force (MCF) a serious study or fictional?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Please excuse my ignorance, but was this Mobile Continuity Force (MCF) a serious study or fictional?
In short, neither. It was a serious, but lightweight, proposal made in the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institude by a retired ship designer. Weirdly enough, a substantial proportion of the article is available at Atomic Rockets:

It's an interesting approach to survivable civil defence preparations. And a lot of the MCF capabilities would be very relevant to the modern HADR mission often carried out by navies after natural disasters.
 
It sounds like a terrible idea to a layman like myself. These ships would be targets for enemy forces, and the aid they could bring ashore would be a drop in the bucket compared to what could be dispersed in shelters and scavenged from the wreckage. They may prove useful nuclei around which a proper recovery can be organized, but I have trouble seeing how much good they could do vs land based installations and organizations in conjunction with fallout shelters.

A more thorough analysis may of course generate more robust conclusions.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom