One weight saving idea would be to use a lot of composites as per the Visby. Although it’s hard to calculate, it’s pretty obvious that the plastic Visby has a massive volume-to-displacement ration relative to steel 600t vessels?
Also, I found this interesting, inspirational even, sketch on Ship Bucket:
I guess this is the “main” thread on this project.
Clearly the major challenge is incorporating the three main capabilities into a 6000-7000ton ship. I think it can be done personally. The ship needs to have a) strong AAW capability with some form of ABM capability, b) strong ASW capability and c) significant land-attack capability.
If we cannot fit all that into a 7000t package we need to either re-vote the displacement (and thus reduce the fleet numbers) or kill off some of the capabilities. – or maybe a split fleet option with two or more versions with high commonality. Or a flexible design which can switch roles with minimal refit. Whatever, I think we should first try to fit it all into the specified displacement brackets first.
So leading up to a vote on the general layout (details of weapon systems etc still being voted on), lets discuss various options and suggestions for saving space/weight.
I’ll start by saying that 7,000 tons isn’t that small. There are some very large volume designs not far off that weight. For starters there are Italy’s “micro-flat-tops of the San Giorgio/San Giusto that are only about 1,000 tons larger and they have a floodable dock included.
Voting results
Ok, four aspects have been put to the vote and the threads seem to have died down with a significant number of members voting and passing comments. Not everyone seems to have grasped that the exercise is designing (in general terms) a future combatant for RN if WE, THE MEMBERS HERE, were in charge of RN planning, not a game of second guessing what the MOD/RN will actually do. However, some solid discussion and I hope the level of participation sustains or increases as we move on with the design choices.
So without further ado here are the results of the first round:
Hull form: It will be a generally conventional mono-hull
Number and Displacement: 8 x 6000-7000t vessels
Role bias: The class has the challenging primary goal of having a dual primary role of AAW with ABM capability, and ASW. The class will also have a significant (i.e. much greater than current RN destroyers) land-attack capability
CIWS: The class will mount Oerlikon 35mm “Skyshield” system with AHEAD ammunition
More polls on the next choices like main gun, SAMs, generic layout (probably a more discursive thread to get suggestions before voting for that one) and land-attack missiles will follow.
Do any of the mono-hull voters want to change their choice to something a bit more exciting? Saying Trimarans are unproven is only half true, there is the Triton research vessel designed (and claimed successful!) to validate the concept of a trimaran warship:
After serving Qinetiq it went on to do hydro-graphic survey role and is now a serving Australian Customs in offshore patrol.
Sign In
