The TKMS site has what looks like something newer, on the MEKO-D 500 & 600 –

http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/index_print.php?level=2&CatID=3.283&inhalt_id=257&detail=35&language=en

Thanks for the link swerve, excellent posting. It looks like they are firming up the original concept into quasi-definitive designs. I suspect that these ar similar to what will be offered to Greece if their AAW frigate programme ever comes to fruition?:confused:

Interestingly they are going high and low tier much like DCNS is with its FM-400 and FREMM offerings. These are clearly the companies to beat on the international warship market at the moment.

Just a quick question, what are the after VLS cells, clearly the forward and amidships house Mark-41,s but I am intrigued by the cells peripheral to the flight deck? Are they Mark-41’s or Mark-48/56?:confused:

I like the apparent choice of the SAAB RBS-15 Mk-3 as an AShM.

:D:D:D:D:D:D

Let me know when you donate your good kidney, I’ll send you a card

Well you can be assured that it wont be to someone like you who has no regard for human life.:mad:

There was never an intention to reduce the Carrier fleet to just two units. Denis Healy himself said in interviews that the plan never went below three carriers, as this was the minimum necessary to guarantee one forward deployed at all times (by 1960s standards, even by 1990s standards). The Navy’s plan was to ‘Phantomise’ both Ark Royal and Eagle by 1970-72 to operate alongside CVA-01 until such time as CVA-02 and 03 could be completed (late 70s early 80s). Victorious was to be directly replaced by CVA-01 in 1972-74, Ark in 1978-80 and Eagle in 1984. Hermes would probably have been sold as a ctol carrier either to Australia or India during the 70s (at least this was the expectation from the British side) and Albion and Bulwark would have had as a matter of necessity to have soldiered on into the 1980s until replacements could be provided.

The current two carrier plan is flawed, quite simply because at best it means 80% coverage instead of 100% which three carriers could provide.

And that is it. The government decided that the carrier force was unaffordable. In the same thought process it changed the Royal Navy’s doctrine and construction shifted to high quality escorts with ASW orientated light fleet carriers as key units. A very sensible move that rightly reflected decisions made by the Government.

ROFL 😀

You clearly have no children, so to that I would say you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.

I’m HAPPY to disappoint you

D.

Well you have proven that you are happy to disappoint everybody and anybody.:mad:

Oh, and you ‘clearly’ dont know anything about me.:rolleyes::mad:

Talk to someone who cares.

And there it is. You dont care about anybody other than yourself. Simply put you are epitome of selfish.:mad:

I hope one day you need an organ and are refused so that a corpse can be preserved to rot naturally.:mad:

Interesting responses, the real reason imo that the fleet was withdrawn east of suez was solely a political and financial one if labour hadn’t got into power CVA-01 might well have been built as the conservative goverment had announced it was providing funding for the first unit. If the political incentive was there funding could have been made available although i feel the CVA-01 was just too expensive and a ship of around 40,000 tons could have been more realistic for the east of suez role.

Maybe, maybe not. To all intents and purposes Britain was bankrupt.

Even with the withdraw of the East of Suez commitments a pair of medium sized carriers were still realistically needed for aircover if the fleet did have to operate outside its bases whether that is in the naval doctrine of the time is somewhat irrelevant as with British position in the world it needs carriers for this you can never fully rely on any other nation to back you up.

Completely wrong. Britains ‘place in the world’ is defined by the policy of its government. The policy of its government did not require it to have carriers. It required to operate from the GIUK line west.

We also have to remember that CVA-01 was not only designed to operate east of suez it would also counter russian airbases in the north this threat was still there even after the withdraw from suez, the Ark operated in this role though most of the 70’s so the need was there. With the withdraw east of suez i would have liked to have seen a pair of 40,000 tons medium ships operating the Phantom Buccaneer and AEW built to replace Ark and Eagle. The option of the Clemenceau was considered but ruled out as the platform was considered unstable and to small. The CVA-01 is a very intresting what if.

Except that the British government determined that such a doctrine was beyond the means of its economy and thus brought it to end. Beyond making a minor contribution to the massive US effort one has to ask serious questions about the viability of a two carrier fleet. At best this provide an availability of one Hull at any one time and even this is questionable. And of course that is not to mention the negative consequences that such a procurement would have had upon the escort fleet.

Err you can design a UAV better for AtoA.

Main reasons include:-

The Raptor/JSF is a BVR beast, the sensors provides the pilot the information and based on the sensors and ROE he decides to press the fire button. The pilot shouldn’t be getting withing eyeball range.

There are already auto attack functions where the Autopilot will recommend attack profiles to get into the best position, this can be done at greater turn rates without the squishy thing up front, and without a cockpit which is a major RCS hotspot.

What makes you think you can’t you design a stealthier and/or faster non manned aircraft rather than a manned one?

how else do you explain the interest in Neuron/Taranis/Global hawk/X-45…

I’m not saying its easy, but it is possible now.

Cheers

Really, so the technology exists for that does it?:rolleyes: