Through deck cruiser is a non-starter IMO.
Cool, but why so? There are plenty of through-deck amphibious warfare types at less than 10,000 tons.
Re all the parade pissers :rolleyes:
The whole exercise is not about what the RN is likely to do, but what it should do. And the spec wasn’t “replace a frigate” either. The voting brought out three significant requirements, and ultimately got distilled down to a displacement bracket of 8,000-10,000. If you desperately want to design under-armed OPVs then cool, start a thread on it, but this is a committee exercise and if people voted for stuff you don’t agree with well tough titty. 😮
Back to assessing the feasibility of a 10,000 ton through-deck design here’s a rough-scale view. The hanger is only about big enough for 3 EH-101s but could probably handle 2 EH-101s and 2 Lynx/NH-90s etc.
The CIWS are Skyguard (FCR/Optics mounted on superstructure, front and back). The VLS is extended-depth Sylver with 64 cells for a mixed load of TacTom, SM-3 and SAMs (I’d go for Aster and treat SM-3 as an add-on load for the combat systems).
The propulsion is 3 x RR waterjets with all-electric drive from a CODAG power unit with exhaust venting at rear port-side (TAS rear starboard-side). Ships launches would be on starboard side as would aircraft workshop.
Yeah, a stretched Type-45 is definitely an option. What changes would you make?
Re the “helicopter carrier” idea, I’ve done some rough calculations as to the hull dimensions for 10,000. I’ve increased the beam and reduced draught:
Here is a plan view of a ship that size with four helicopter landing spots and EH-101 and F-35s on deck for size comparrison. Provided we could get the structure within weight limits (which is pretty viable given some of the 10,000 ton ships out there), then I think the micro-carrier idea isn’t too far fetched for 10,000 tons:
Ok, I’m going to throw the germ of a design proposal out there. At 10,000 tons surely a small “through-deck” design is feasible? A rough sketch:
One neat feature is variable size lifts. I’d guess up to three EH-101s although I am also a great fan of the NH-90 design although RN already selected a Lynx follow-on(?).
In an emergency it could also act as a secondary landing platform for a Harrier of F-35(?).
Something much bigger and less multi-role but in a similar vein:
Its about the silliest concept I’ve ever heard of I’m afraid.
I think you might be exaggerating a little bit there mate, believe me I’m capable of sillier 😉
Steam turbines are pretty common on warships for many years, but I hear your concerns. I thing COGAS is more for increasing efficiency and reducing heat signature than boost power for obvious reasons. Wiki diagram of COGAS:
But, your argument is compelling re the trouble-benefit ratio of adding steam turbines to the mix. The question would be, if I’m going to install an exhaust heat exchanger to reduce signiture, why not go that extra step and run a turbine off the water?
What I am also interested in though is heat signature reduction. Conventional funnels just ain’t going to be very stealthy no matter what you do.
The Valour Class vent the exhausts below the water line which apparently reduces heat signature by 75%.
CODAG WARP; 1 GE LM 2500 gas turbine 26,820 hp (m) (20 MW); 2 MTU 16V 1163 TB93 diesels 16,102 hp(m) (11.84 MW; 2 shafts; acbLIPS cp props; 1 acbLIPS LJ2 10E waterjet (centreline)
Imagine that exhaust but with an all-electric drive.
I can see a few probs with this, notably that it makes rear-access boat ramps a bit of a hot experience. Also I wonder if it transfers more engine noise into the water.
Ok, the vote is a draw between the Aster system and the US ESSM/SM-2 combo.
I’m closing voting now this thread has died and we need to move on. The most diplomatic solution is to leave the AAD fit flexible to the “designers” (i.e. you go draw/describe your ideas and argue your case and collaborate etc). So SAM fit is completely open. Plus I have a hunch that had I included CAAM in my original list the votes might be a bit different.
Ok, re re-prioritisation. A draw between ASW and up-sizing to 10,000 tons so I’ve made an executive decision to go for the up-sizing because it’ll give more options and kit to make the exercise more interesting. More reasons explained in that thread.
Also, the SAM thread seems to have drawn to a natural close with a straight draw between Aster and ESSM/SM-2. I think we can just leave the AAD fit open to tender and the whims of the “designers” (YOU LOT!!!) in the next round of proposals. For the record:
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:
I know next to nothing about marine propulsion, but surfing Wikipedia there are a few neat ideas out there. All-Electric transmission seems to be a trend with RN leading the way, at least for the moment. Another neat idea is a steam turbine running off the hot exhaust of the gas turbine(s).
Waterjets are good for boost propulsion because they have less drag when idling.
Type-45’s all-electric drive still has shafts:
Thoughts?
Sign In
