
The second from the left, is that one of the UK’s Invincible class CVs?
Funny you say that, that was my immediate thought. But then I checked pics of Invincible and the details are different. But weird how it just jumps out “Invincible”.
Didn’t Russia sell some KH-31s to USA for training US defences?
Further images and details here
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/1sqn_5.html
The Atlantic Conveyor was carrying a complete sectionalised airstrip for the bridgehead.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/mov1.html
TJ
Exactly. The concept, as ‘sold’ was that a small area of hard standing and a fuel truck was pretty much all you need. An “air strip” for a VTOL aircraft??? There were Argentine aviation resources at Pebble Beach and Goose Green both of which could have been borrowed.
same but with numerous refinements
Just to throw something in the mix, given the ‘concept’ of the Harrier it should have been forward operated from the Falkland Islands themselves as soon as we had a bridgehead. The Argentines had forward operated Purcuras for example. Britain’s choice not to do this, whatever the justifications, indicates the failure of the concept.
Real shame to say as I love the aircraft.
Nothing on the Black Sea missile boats is up to cracking even a single Burke and especially not those P-500/1000’s aboard Moskva. He knows that as well as any other former professional!.
Just curious on this, aren’t the Russian SSMs and AShMs quite a dangerous adversary? Also I imagine Russia would use aircraft, not that she will.
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
This whole exercise has become pointless. We have a forecast where Russian Navy will be increasingly active in North Sea and Atlantic, and where China and India will soon catch up in blue-seas capability (plus many times the magnitude of RN). And against that backdrop the forumites of Key Publishing forum want to equip the navy with warships that in those other navy’s would be OPVs or customs cutters.
I’ll leave it at that. This exercise proves that committees suck at designing things, no wonder the RN has made so many crap warships.
Erm, sampson at the back?
yes, why not? Gives the S1850M 3-D air surveillance radar a frontal arc. Sampson would be higher up obviously.
Why SM6 and not Aster 30?
Typo, SM-3 ABMs as voted
And what is the point of the weirdly placed frontal VLS cells
Similar to
“Peripheral Vertical Launch System (PVLS)
The Peripheral Vertical Launch System is an attempt to reclaim the prized center space of the hull while increasing the safety of the ship from the loss of the entire missile battery and the loss of the ship in the case of a magazine explosion. The system scatters pods of VLS around the outer shell of the ship having a thin steel outer shell and a thick inner shell. The design of the PVLS would be directing the force of the explosion outward rather than ripping the ship in half. Additionally this design keeps the loss of missile capacity down to just the pod being hit”
and the light cannon in front of the bridge?
Skyguard 35mm CIWS as voted, their purpose is to shoot down incoming American missiles in blue on blue situations
Perfectly imperfect hero

Narrower hull (more draught) with only two EH-101s (plus UAVs?) and distributed peripheral VLS but using Sylver footprint. The 16 amidship would be max depth for TacTom and SM-3. The rest would be A-50 or equiv.
Rear mast is SAMPSON etc, front mast is 3D air-search.
On the enlarged Type-45 theme, here’s a more conventional layout on the hull of the through-deck I previously posted. The hull is wider and longer than Type-45 but shallower (I’d prefer longer and thinner than this but I’d already drawn the hull…).
With the 26m+ beam the hanger can easily fit three EH-101 although that was accidental, and there’s only one landing spot. Three EH-101 would be a “heavy” load obviously.
Other key feature is the German style rear exhaust which eliminates the smoke stack (intakes in the masts).
A more Vosper-Thornycroft idea is asymmetrical masts. I’d go for search radar forwards and SAMPSON aft. Comms would be in two masts not a third mast. Bridge lacks the wings – sod Lloyds.
698 is listed as with the ETPS…
Electronic Federal Tax Payment System?
So, the question re the through-deck is less “is it feasible?” and more “is it worth it?” In particular if you only have a limited hanger and no ski-jump etc. What’s the merit of having more than two EH-101s? If more than two, then surely you need either two concurrent landing spots on the flight deck or at least an emergency landing spot on say the hanger or foredeck (?).