I’m fairly certain not all the Amazon’s had Exocet in 82 Al – will have to check up on that. In the Carrier Group, if memory serves, was a County (Glamorgan), a couple of the Amazons and at least one of the Broadswords most of the time. In addition to the 42’s that obviously didnt sport Exocet.

Arrow, Alacrity, Ardent, Active and Avenger had exocet by then.

The naval institute suggests MM38 had the same striking power as a 13.5inch shell. RN tests in 1914 showed a 13.5 (one of several guns used by the rn at that point) would penetrate 10 inchs of KC.

Air lunch MM39 is quoted as penitrating armour at angles up to 70 degrees but I could find no data on thickness

Thanks for the info Bager1968.
90inFIRST I do really like this version for the QE’s, Although the middle elevator would probably be restricted by head room for types of aircraft brought up.

I was thinking more of this sort of early design. When the BMT twin island idea appeared then the BAe design started getting a lot nicer and turned into your favorite. I believe that your one had a centre line shaft and 2 poded propulsors!

This one seems to have two islands as well! As its a usn design it must be ok!

Just some gentle leg pulling……..

How can that be, since the existing hull panels to which one would have to attach aren’t sloped?

Looks like they slope in to me? 3 degrees is enough.

I think the upgraded ship looks awesome!

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/E95A2EFE-A319-406C-B6B7-73171248D918/0/20100315NDP_Translucent_Bl.jpg&alt=Ship%20Block%20Design

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/67586E6C-1840-4A8B-9DC2-182674076DE7/0/20100315NDP_MisionBayStern.jpg&alt=Stern%20view%20of%20the%20Mission%20Bay

Check these C1 images out

Then it’ll be C2, not C3. There’s been a lot of confusion over this, with people defining ships that fit the C2 description & calling them C3. It baffles me. If it fits the C2 description, then why not call it C2?

C3 is mine hunters & survey, as well as minor patrol vessels of the sort some countries assign to coastguards, for fisheries protection & the like. And it’s no longer called C3. Also, it’s been shifted into the future. The minehunters have loads of hull life left, & the OPVs & survey ships are fairly new.

Hi swerve. you hit the nail on the head. I’ll try and post an intelligent idea in the near future. But T45 minus Sea Viper is £650 million a unit( please correct me if I’m wrong) so T26 in 10 years time based on T45 hull plus weapons and sensors comes out at £400 million. My ****! And i’m on drugs suggesting there wont be some 20 of these type of hulls. Give the RN 10 type 26 and then say “would you like 2 35,000 ton LPH and the aircraft to fly of them or another 10 T26” we all know what the correct answer is.

Actually, it seem very clear that the Type 26 will feature only a very small VLS solely for the CAMM missile.

CAMM is the Sea Wolf replacement, and with quad packed cells, will require very little cubic capacity – so there’s no need for the large Sylver A50 VLS of the Type 45, let along a MK41 or A70 capable of accommodating cruise missiles.

The Type 26 is simply a new platform for updated Type 23 systems. That should be a hint that not even the RN believes there will be 10 Type 26s.

I think there will be 10 of these combat ships but no C2 and only 10 C3 type ships…………….

Dont look at it like its a conventional strike carrier, the fighters are there in a defensive role to keep american carrier fighters at arms length untill she can launch her 12 Granit antiship missiles to make a nimitz have a bad day(or not). They dont give a **** what payload the SU 33 have as long as they can stay up long enough for a decent CAP. They may look at it differently now but that was the original idea hence the Heavy aircraft carrying cruiser tag. Dont forget the 200 anti aircraft missiles and 8 CIWS. Shes much more like the RNs through deck anti submarine cruisers in concept (RN anti sub, Kuts anti aircraft carrier).

pj do keep up, I made that comment yesterday in the navy news from around the world III thread!

Whats the odd looking object to port behind the hanger, some sort of launcher????