Advanced Technology Frigate

Maybe but the carrier deck is much larger so moves much less. Im maybe making a bigger issue out of it but i still think it would be more challenging than a normal deck landing. One of the larger problems would be how the wind interacts with the superstructures which would need lots of planning and attention to ensure it does not cause a danger.

There must be more reasons why no naval force has ever designed and built ships with this arrangement. It could just be tradition/risk or it could be because it will not work well i dont know.

As long as they land the helicopters the same way they land the harriers on the carriers I don’t think there would be any problems.

Aka. Match speed with the carrier besides the landing deck and then slide the helicopter across and over the deck.

I think if you asked an RN pilot to land on the Mid-ships deck in the North Atlantic at night in the rain he would most likely say Fook Off. Yes the deck would be a wee bit smoother but i would say more difficult to land on. I think with some clever hull design and modern stabilisers you could get the deck to stop moving enough to operate Helo’s on without many problems. Furthermore having a helo deck in the middle is maybe one of the least efficient design choice’s that can be made, it’s better to have the deck at the back and still have the rest of the ship for other uses. The ATF would have been an odd design and maybe not that good. I think world powers would agree as nobody has ever built a ship like this afaik not even the USN has made a trial ship.

Some of the ideas were ok such as the idea of having VLS cells at both ends of the ship etc. The problem is that this ship was supposedly designed to ‘fight hurt’ (not disputing this) but it would go down quite fast when hit by a Torpedo or the massive AShM’s the Russians use. So to me the idea of fighting hurt is flawed when it would either get it’s keel broken with a Torpedo or get slammed with a 1ton plus AShM.

My preferred option for a new Frigate would have been something nice and cheap and simple like what the T23 was meant to be but in the end we did get an excellent ship the current T23 frigate so no problem there.

Type 43 destroyer

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2549.0.html

The flightdeck in the middle idea seems to have been seriously considered by the RN.

The T43 (putative double-ended T42 replacement) had a flightdeck for a SeaKing amidships with an elevator down to hangar between the two engine rooms.

Have to agree with the earlier post that IMO the reduced displacement by landing on most stable point would have been more than offset by trying to thread the helo into the gap between the two superstructure islands.

The T43 does at least look and mean and ugly this ATF just looks butt ugly to me.

Edit: I also applaud the sheer chutzpah of the T43 Design. Let us combine all of the weapons from a T42 and T22 on one hul, and then double the number of SAM launchers as well whilst we are at it.

Al

Some completely irrelevant points:

Those crusiers are ugly beasts. And why are the Harpoon launchers placed right behind the rear gun? Wouldn’t it open up the field offired if they just swapped the positions of the 2?

Anyway, found some pics of the ATF on Shipbucket. Odd looking idea. I have a feeling that the fact that 2 large superstructures are needed (fore and aft of flight deck) would mess radar coverage, mesaning you have to double the capability for full coverage. Inefficient to say the least. Obviously the weapons are an odd combo (and outdated now) too.

I’m pretty sure the deck in the middle would make takeoffs and landings way more difficult, specially with the ship in movement. The Ticonderoga may have helipad at amidships but it doesn’t have any mast or structure behind like the design above.

Not sure about most of design advantages but i know that positioning the flight deck in the centre of the ship means the helicopter can operate in rougher sea’s than a frigate with the helicopter on the back. When the helideck is right at the back of a ship this where you will get the most amount of movement from high sea states.
The design was probably done when the ships theatre of operation would be the North Atlantic. I can’t remember the exact figures but if the flight deck is in the centre of the ship the helicopter can operate in a couple higher sea states than if it’s if located at the rear.
I’m sure there is a class that has this set up a bit like this. The Ticonderoga Class cruisers that the US navy operates has a flight deck nearer the centre and has a gun and VLS cells or Launchers behind it. These ships were built from the 1980’s onwards.

The Ticonderoga class cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67) firing a cruise missile

Here is a picture of what the purposed updated version of the Ticonderoga Class. The flight deck and hangar are staying in the same place so i must have some advantages. I would imagine the larger the ship is the easier it is to position the flight deck in the centre. when you think how much a ships goes up and down in high sea’s you can imagine how much the deck will move about. I could be coming up and down over 10 feet every 10 seconds. This can make it really tricky for the pilot.

As for the rest of the ship design i will look at it in more detail when i get a chance. Do you have any idea’s of the dimensions or the size in tonnes. I presume it’s near enough a type 23 size. I don’t get what the Number 24 multi bunch rocket system is?