RN Type-XX Poll: Redefine priorities!

HMS Bristol was a pretty cool boat, but only 6000 tons so smaller than a Type-45 but I like your thinking.

Ok, overall the vote was a draw between B (ASW) and D (up-size).

I am going to make an executive decision to go for D) Increase the hull size to 8000-10,000 and reduce class size to 6 not because B) is wrong or less valid but simply because D) offers more space and systems to play with, so the design is likely to be more sexy and thus more interesting to play with. Also the ASW obsessives still get a full ASW fit and the AAD nuts get to play with idea of destroying whole air wings of Su-33s 😀 Win-win.

The votes:

D)

E)

G)

Because if the Type 45 is the new Type 42, the royal navy should have some new Type 82 for twenty first century!

“B”

The T45 are there for the AAD mission, if they are not enough, buy more of them…

sweet more room for weapons :D:D:D:D

More votes please.

We have a tie between B) Ditch AAD, and D) Go 10,000 tons. If I have to make an executive decision I’ll go for D as it offers the most interesting design options.

Will tally latest rounds of votes tomorrow

Steve, again I’m not sure how I’ll tag your response when I count the vote. Please clarify which option you’re voting for.

Re your comments re SM-3, agree completely. SM-3 has already been voted for the ABM role, and that’s the sole purpose of carrying it. SAM fit has yet to be decided as per that voting thread. Having both a “Standard” lineage weapon and Aster on the same ship is not as far fetched as we might like to believe. SM-3 is already taged for Dutch Frigates that use Thales radars for example. So it’s not Sylver or nothing.

And as for VLS that hasn’t been decided, and in my opinion at least isn’t all that important. Whether it goes with Sylver, BAE Mk41 or a “new” type … all are feasible. And mixing different versions of VLS isn’t unheard of either – KD-X-II, Kirov etc etc. from a logistics and maintenance support perspective it is preferable to have a single type, but that’s hardly the end of the world.

Primary role is ASW, however the ship will have to be a “General Purpose Frigate”. If the ship is to have only CAAM as air defense, then you can probably build the ship on roughly the same displacement as the current Type 23’s. Meaning that based on the original displacement options, it would be 10 ships of 4000-5000t displacement. However if the ship is given a displacement of 6000-7000t then a ship the size of the Type 45 destroyer is possible.

My idea is basicly to reduce the AAW capability of the ship in order to reduce costs, mainly through the removal of the long range search radar and possibly through the replacement of the Sampson with Artisan. Other then that you add a TAS under the flight deck and modify the superstructure to fit two helos. A cheaper, ASW orientated T45.

So.
H)
Primary: ASW (TAS+2xHelos+Torpedoes)
Secondary: AAW (CAMM+SAAM ESR) <— by the time you have a T45 escorting the CVGB, one escorting the ARG, one being recalled from a patrol somewhere and two in refit, your AAW defense is going to be pretty patchy.
Tertiary: Land Attack (You just need VLS tubes and the ability to program missiles)

c
d
😎

Another sketch, this time with ASW fit. To be truthful I don’t like how it looks too much like an Arleigh Burke rip-off

Maybe the Sampson mast should be in the rear complex so that the ASW version can have a “lighter” fit?

Search radars would be distributed phased arrays? – well within British technical capability?

I think a modified Spruance/Kidd layout could be a good base. Somewhat shorter to loose 1000 tons, and “stealthy” if one likes. But Spruance had a wonderful compact bridge/funnel arrangement, leaven A LOT of space aft. I like the superstructure low and compact, with only masts and turrets growing higher (like e.g. F124 class). I mean, the reason why e.g. Burkes build so high are the radars on the superstructure, but that is neither the most elegant, nor damage resistant, nor growth-potential-boasting solution. A Thales-type turret arrangement (De Zeven Provincien, Sachsen) seems quite interesting.

Hi Planeman,

Your drawing above is interesting but, like Distiller, I have some doubts about that forepeak VLS. Those missiles are going to take a hell of a shock load in heavy seas – hope they shoot if you need them!. Also there doesnt appear to be much space for the 155’s magazine with the deep VLS fairly close behind the mount?.

Steve, again I’m not sure how I’ll tag your response when I count the vote. Please clarify which option you’re voting for.

Re your comments re SM-3, agree completely. SM-3 has already been voted for the ABM role, and that’s the sole purpose of carrying it. SAM fit has yet to be decided as per that voting thread. Having both a “Standard” lineage weapon and Aster on the same ship is not as far fetched as we might like to believe. SM-3 is already taged for Dutch Frigates that use Thales radars for example. So it’s not Sylver or nothing.

And as for VLS that hasn’t been decided, and in my opinion at least isn’t all that important. Whether it goes with Sylver, BAE Mk41 or a “new” type … all are feasible. And mixing different versions of VLS isn’t unheard of either – KD-X-II, Kirov etc etc. from a logistics and maintenance support perspective it is preferable to have a single type, but that’s hardly the end of the world.

Steve, please clarify what you are voting for (options A > H).

Re option g, to have two sub-classes, this is a sketch of how I imagine it. I’m sure certain details will be different from what others might prefer, but the general concept is somewhat like this:

BTW, “Mk53” VLS is just a reference to an improved Mk41 VLS that would be commissioned from BAE Systems. Just lighter really. Peripheral mounting of VLS also interests me but difficult in a conventional outward-canted hull shape.

H 😉

And i already explained it.

btw, SM3 is useless except for ABM, it’d have aster 30. Basicly a general purpose varient of the T45, similar in capability to the Italian FREMM’s, but scaled up to use a T45 hull. The VLS cells can also be used for the Land attack missiles.

If you go for a pure ASW escort that is a direct T23 replacement including only a short range AAW missile (CAAM), and forget land attack (viable if you think thats what CVF is for), then you could go for a small ship of the same size as a perry or T23.

Oh, and its either Sylver VLS or nothing, now that Sylver has been selected, they wont switch to anything else unless aster gets integrated.

Another sketch, this time with ASW fit. To be truthful I don’t like how it looks too much like an Arleigh Burke rip-off

Maybe the Sampson mast should be in the rear complex so that the ASW version can have a “lighter” fit?

Search radars would be distributed phased arrays? – well within British technical capability?

The forward 35mm location is ok. Further up it might make things top heavy, plus not to forget those EM-interference issues when firing.

Another idea: Instead of the 2 foward 35mm (I guess there are will also be a 35mm aft?), what about going asymetrical (en echelon) and having only one, while using the other emplacement for a 4×4 VLS hive? Aft of the funnel that arrangement would then be cross-dublicated. I don’t like placing all SHORADS in one location.

Good points but you are seeing problems more than solutions 😉

The foredeck VLS is much like that on the upgraded OHPs in Australian Service. And it would be hardened with outer protective doors which would also protect against gun blast and increase stealth. This feature also appears in the US Mk57 VLS intended for the DDG-1000s, where again the VLS is on the edge of a 155mm gun blast and on the forward deck.
The foredeck in most designs is under-utilised partly because of the problems you listed, but also due to its difficult shaping and anchor complex. Mounting “short” VLS in a semi-above-deck mount with completely internal capstan (for stealth also) overcomes this.

The CIWS is a more difficult one. Mounting them amidships as per Type-42 & Type-45 seriously limits their fields of fire and makes it difficult to get more than one to bear on a target at once. Skyshield typically comes with two mounts per FCR although obviously multiple mounts and FCR could be networked (or FC fed from main sensor package). Because the 155mm is not going to have an air-defence role aside from chaff and flares(?), we really need a CIWS on the front end of the ship. One or two above the bridge maybe? Mind you that might be a bit scary if you are peering out of a bridge window and one goes off, and you get a spent 35mm casing down your shirt!

Hope these VLS cells in the forecastle are hardend, in case a big wave breaks there, or that 155m blasts away. Still I’m afraid, you can’t fire it in heavy seas from that position. What about putting those small missiles (part of the SSDS?) in 4(8) 6(4)-missile cells, one between the bridge and the funnels (where you did the Horizon-style boat house), and the others further back along the second sensor turret/forward hangar, as peripherial mounts?

Also I think that second sensor/navcom turret is too close at the first one. Would rather make it part of the mission weapon system. What would you put there on the ASW version anyway?

For a 4×8 VLS cells arrangement that Daring-style cuboid is too large I think. That needs only to house the missiles of the ASW version and a selection of missiles of the AAW (which carries most of them aft).

Steve, please clarify what you are voting for (options A > H).

Re option g, to have two sub-classes, this is a sketch of how I imagine it. I’m sure certain details will be different from what others might prefer, but the general concept is somewhat like this:

BTW, “Mk53” VLS is just a reference to an improved Mk41 VLS that would be commissioned from BAE Systems. Just lighter really. Peripheral mounting of VLS also interests me but difficult in a conventional outward-canted hull shape.

Vote here is for

B. Most logical, role specification worked for the Type 42 / Type 22, so it should here.

A. While I wouldn’t use exactly those words I do believe the capability is there to build to that size.

Unicorn

B) – We’ve got area AAW. We need ASW and to that end as many Merlins as we can get on appropriate platforms. Local air defence only for this hull.

D) – If we arent going to do (B) the hull has to be bigger simple as!.

Cant vote for any of the rest…no matter how much I’d love to vote A!!!:D

“G” for me. Only realistic option.

g) Interesting idea. I imagine a modular ship where the search radar, hanger and flight-deck are interchangeable in refit. The ASW version would have a huge hanger for 2 EH-101s and big flight deck with modest AS radar, the AAD version would have smaller flight deck, single medium helicopter (NH-90?) and massive VLS and top-end AS radar.

Make that no flight deck for the AAW version. And make it three helicopters or two helicopters and a couple of VTOL-UAVs for the ASW version.

The mission weapon system is concentrated aft of the funnels (aviation complex and towed sonar for the ASW, 8×8 or more VLS cells plus a rather large sensor turret for the AAW), ahead of the bridge there are only 3×8 or 4×8 VLS cells (carrying mostly VL-ASROC in the ASW version) and the gun. SSDS identical for both versions.
An additional benefit of such an arrangement would be, that the cells for very long missiles wouldn’t have to be flush with the deck in the AAW version.
Based on the AAW layout you could also evolve a dedicated land-attack version (deleting the AAW sensor turret, add more VLS cells and a small flight deck for targeting-UAVs.