RN Type-8X Design Proposals Thread

thanks frank

Well, and this is exactly what will be done now. Either you discuss in a polite way, or the thread will be locked, and sanctions given.

it doesnt need to be put out of its misery it just needs to be guided back onto subject

Can someone please put this thread out of its misery before the warshot handbags start flying?.

anyway so what was the final outcome for the type-4x and the type-xx?

This whole concept crossed the line of absurdity at its moment of conception. The intention of the original posts seemed to be to turn the T45 into a bad ass Arleigh Burke design, fortunately the excellent posters on this forum soon pointed out how ridiculous that idea was.

However the worst is the premise of this thread. Firstly I have to point out that the T42 of the 21st century is not and would not be the T45, it would be a FREMM variant, an awkward, cramped design short on missiles and with a mediocre radar. T45 is what the T82 would have been if it had have gotten the Type-988 radar, in effect T45 is better than a Bristol.

Other than that this particular thread seems to have been concieved with the same purpose as the previous collection, to pointlessly list each others favorite naval weapon systems and then put them on a fantasy ship design. I am just glad that people like Jonesey and swerve have been able to keep some sort of sanity present.

Nice Trimaran design, can you give it a broader beam by any chance? not necessarily the width of the center hull, but can the secondary hulls be placed further out?

That way you get more internal volume with no increase in drag, would also mean you could give it a shorter Superstructure, possibly more VLS cells if you can go two wide anywhere, plus maybe 8-16 cells behind the gun.

Does your design program give predicted speeds and displacements etc by any chance?

What do the Britishers have a Queen for? Let Hers be the decisions what toys Her ships carry! 😀

.

Its the new Royal Yacht we have hear 😀

IF I’m reading the geometry correctly, having the 2 CWIS that far forward should give them more firing angle aft on each side, theoretically allowing 2 or even 3 guns to engage any given target, or three targets on the same vector. A brute force solution to saturation attacks, IMO. Probably a better solution would be a missle based system, either VLS or one launcher paired with each gun to start engaging further out, with one gun based system fore and aft to clean up stragglers.

Perhaps put a launcher in “A” position, Skyshield in “B”, move the other two positions center line with a launcher in “C”, superimposed over the other Skyshield in “D”

But, heh, what do I know… I’m as far away from the ocean as you can get in North America :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Matt

May i ask three questions?
1) why two forward CIWS and not one?
2) why so far forward of the bridge (lots of space lots)
3) what missile do you plan on equiping the ship with that requires illuminators?

same but with numerous refinements

5500 ton ASW & GP Destroyer

(upper-most layout has 50m flight deck at cost “strike length” VLS and internal volume)

Overall dimensions:
Length overall: 150m
Beam: 18m
Draught: 7m

Main features:
Hanger for two EH-101s
Sampson based sensor system
48 medium-length VLS in distributed peripheral layout forwards
24 Strike-length VLS in peripheral layout amidships
BAE Systems 155mm main gun
4 x Skyshield 35mm CIWS with full 2*360 coverage with two FC units (integrated with SAMPSON etc also)
2 x 12m launches
TAS + bow sonar
CODAG with rear exhaust, in all-electric drive to two RR waterjets
completely enclosed bridge/command centre complex with 360 visual coverage and anti-spall lining and armour

Whoops my bad! A70 is the one you want but you get the principle. Modern datalinking allows far more flexability. We have these nice T45 with powerful radar and computers capable of handling missiles launched from other ships, a rather handy way of boosting your area air defence capability without having to pay for the big ticket item like Sampson.

To be honest I think if you want the option of carrying Aster 30 , Sylver A50 would be more sensible. A70 does give you the options of carrying future upgraded and possibly longer Asters plus and or the option of more than 32 LACM.

But then we’ve just ventured onto the territory of capability creep again…………………..

Not into the A43 cells. They’re Aster 15 size, too short for an Aster 30. The A70 cells can take Aster 30, & also have scope for potential future Asters with larger boosters.

Add another vote to the “Good ship for C1” tally.

Whoops my bad! A70 is the one you want but you get the principle. Modern datalinking allows far more flexability. We have these nice T45 with powerful radar and computers capable of handling missiles launched from other ships, a rather handy way of boosting your area air defence capability without having to pay for the big ticket item like Sampson.

I like the idea of having the a43 VLS cells in there as well, we can shove what ever missile we want in them within reason so for normal day to day duties CAAMS it is but as I have said before if we did suddenly find ourselves in a big shooting war there is no reason why we couldn’t drop ASTER30 into the cells …

Not into the A43 cells. They’re Aster 15 size, too short for an Aster 30. The A70 cells can take Aster 30, & also have scope for potential future Asters with larger boosters.

Add another vote to the “Good ship for C1” tally.

I wouldnt be so disheartened Planeman. What you’ve actually done is to show people how vital it is to correctly define the scope of a project before embarking on the basics of the design. Also what happens when project definition is ill-thought out how quickly capability-creep takes a project out of all bounds of sense even though the ‘individual steps’ may seem almost plausible.

You started this with the premise that the RN needed a new escort to fit into the CVF taskgroup going forwards. In reality most of this designs itself based on the limits around it. Seeings AAW is covered by the t45’s for the next two decades at least, and the ageing T22B3/T23 fleet is going to present a Fleet ASW gap with a secondary ‘DLG’ requirement the roles required of this escort are manifest. These roles also define the sensors that will be employed and, therefore, the hull numbers in the class.

There are only eight 2087 towed array sonars in the escort fleet, so, the RN’s next ASW combattant class numbers 8 hulls only!. 8 hulls is too few to be risking them inshore chasing down SSK’s and we arent going to be affording an allround competent GP frigate for C2 when we cant afford to send T23’s on deployment today. That means the new 2087 ships must be capable of as much standoff ASW as we can provide them with. Standoff ASW for the RN means Merlin HM1 and so the new escort MUST be an aviation-weighted design. Noting that sentence used the word ‘escort’ and not ‘carrier’ as this still needs to be a vessel capable of consorting HVU’s and NOT an HVU itself in need of escort!.

So we have already pre-defined mission, sensors, performance, armament, hull numbers and only, realistically, have cost/logistics/supportability left as a variable. By that I mean can we provide a hull that services all the pre-defined criteria for a price that can be met by the defence budget. Thats the challenge and it, I’m afraid, is not met by the kind of fancy pentamaran through-deck CGH’s you want to draw. I would like to see what your design package could do with the below concept though:

Essentially the same concept as I put through above, but, pared down to provide as much pull through from T45 and the decommissioning Dukes.

• 170m x 21m
• BAE155 fwd
• 48-cell VLS (4xA70/2xA43)
• ARTISAN MRR
• REMSIG 30mm’s port/starboard
• Phalanx-1B port/stbd
• re-uprated WR21 IEP propulsion – after turbine set resited fwd so uptake intrusion into hangar minimised.
• 50m flight deck/40m hangar – 3 Merlin HM1 surge airgroup.
• SONAR2087

Essentially still a big ship, knocking on cruiser sized, but nothing really ‘big-ticket’ expensive. No PAAMS so saving of near £200mn on T45 before stretch costs. Sensors/weapons transferred across, mostly, from T23. A43 cells for theoretical quadpack CAAMS, 32 LACM capable cells for meaningful secondary land-attack capability. Hul stretch allowing for increase in dieso and avcat bunkerage, air ordnance stores etc. Cant see why this wouldnt be considerably cheaper than T45. C1 sorted IMO!

That hits the nail nicely on the head, adaptable enough to meet several needs and pulling plenty of equipment from the big RN spares bin.

I like the idea of having the a43 VLS cells in there as well, we can shove what ever missile we want in them within reason so for normal day to day duties CAAMS it is but as I have said before if we did suddenly find ourselves in a big shooting war there is no reason why we couldn’t drop ASTER30 into the cells and allow the Type45 to deal with targeting via a datalink. Its what the Americans are doing with the integration of CEC capability (the RN is looking in joining that) where the big AEGIS platforms use the lower tier asw platforms as spare missile silos.

In effect for the price of a frigate without all that expensive area radar stuff you get a spare AAW asset!:D

I think Jonesy’s design is pretty much spot on, also not that far from what may actually happen.

Agree with pretty much everything Jonesy said.

Would go only one step further with the T45 design, and not neccessarily stretch it, but do T45A without a flightdeck, but more VLS cells instead. And a T45S without the big Sampson, but with an aviation complex fitting and capable of operating three (let it be) Merlins for really having one up in the air and working any given time. (If that sounds like my beloved 1.5-ender, well it is.)

A general remark on sizing of escorts: I think a modern carrier escort should have the ability to keep up with the carrier under any circumstance, speed-wise and range-wise, thru all maneuvers, also in heavy seas. That alone will make a rather large hull, once for seakeeping, second for fuel required. Meaning that the design of such an escort will actually start with the hull, and not with the mission weapon system.

Planeman, this was a good exercise, and you put a lot of efforts into it with your drawings and keeping track, &c.

Thank you!

I wouldnt be so disheartened Planeman. What you’ve actually done is to show people how vital it is to correctly define the scope of a project before embarking on the basics of the design. Also what happens when project definition is ill-thought out how quickly capability-creep takes a project out of all bounds of sense even though the ‘individual steps’ may seem almost plausible.

You started this with the premise that the RN needed a new escort to fit into the CVF taskgroup going forwards. In reality most of this designs itself based on the limits around it. Seeings AAW is covered by the t45’s for the next two decades at least, and the ageing T22B3/T23 fleet is going to present a Fleet ASW gap with a secondary ‘DLG’ requirement the roles required of this escort are manifest. These roles also define the sensors that will be employed and, therefore, the hull numbers in the class.

There are only eight 2087 towed array sonars in the escort fleet, so, the RN’s next ASW combattant class numbers 8 hulls only!. 8 hulls is too few to be risking them inshore chasing down SSK’s and we arent going to be affording an allround competent GP frigate for C2 when we cant afford to send T23’s on deployment today. That means the new 2087 ships must be capable of as much standoff ASW as we can provide them with. Standoff ASW for the RN means Merlin HM1 and so the new escort MUST be an aviation-weighted design. Noting that sentence used the word ‘escort’ and not ‘carrier’ as this still needs to be a vessel capable of consorting HVU’s and NOT an HVU itself in need of escort!.

So we have already pre-defined mission, sensors, performance, armament, hull numbers and only, realistically, have cost/logistics/supportability left as a variable. By that I mean can we provide a hull that services all the pre-defined criteria for a price that can be met by the defence budget. Thats the challenge and it, I’m afraid, is not met by the kind of fancy pentamaran through-deck CGH’s you want to draw. I would like to see what your design package could do with the below concept though:

Essentially the same concept as I put through above, but, pared down to provide as much pull through from T45 and the decommissioning Dukes.

• 170m x 21m
• BAE155 fwd
• 48-cell VLS (4xA70/2xA43)
• ARTISAN MRR
• REMSIG 30mm’s port/starboard
• Phalanx-1B port/stbd
• re-uprated WR21 IEP propulsion – after turbine set resited fwd so uptake intrusion into hangar minimised.
• 50m flight deck/40m hangar – 3 Merlin HM1 surge airgroup.
• SONAR2087

Essentially still a big ship, knocking on cruiser sized, but nothing really ‘big-ticket’ expensive. No PAAMS so saving of near £200mn on T45 before stretch costs. Sensors/weapons transferred across, mostly, from T23. A43 cells for theoretical quadpack CAAMS, 32 LACM capable cells for meaningful secondary land-attack capability. Hul stretch allowing for increase in dieso and avcat bunkerage, air ordnance stores etc. Cant see why this wouldnt be considerably cheaper than T45. C1 sorted IMO!

True, these would be your fleet ASW assets for escorting the CVBG and ARG. You could build smaller T23 sized general purpose escorts for your C2, these would be very cheap (werent the later T23’s ~150Mil?). They can carry one or two Flynx.

If you go down further to C3.
Lets say 2000-2500t hanger equiped OPV/MCM replacement.
Either have a deck aft of the flight deck for a containerised TAS or MCM gear, or have space saved in the hull for the TAS.
Hanger for 1 Flynx.
Mk.8 Mod.0 or 1 guns and mountings from retired fleet ships, with new build fleet escorts receiving the BAe 155mm gun.
Either keep space for RAM or fit them for but not with CAMM.

———————–
Dream Ship
Tiger class cruiser
2x twin 6″ guns. In A and Y positions.
Flight deck at X position with hanger for 2-4 merlins.
64 Cell VLS at B position for CAMM and Aster 30.
RAM midships as CIWS.

With modern automation technology, maybe you could limit the crew enough to make it possible. Takes care of NGFS and can act as a flagship. Not to mention that it can use its fairly large flight wing to either argument the ASW screen or to covertly land Royal Marine commando’s.