Thanks for reposting that. Tis the first time that I’ve read it properly.

Lynx OR MCM OR Special Forces

I, in common with many of those posting designs here seemingly, have been assuming helo AND mission deck for MCM

Won’t have room for everything. There will probably be a landing pad and a mission bay just big enough for a Lynx that can instead be filled with containers for MCM or Special Forces.

There won’t be a VLS or anything fancy, just a couple of 30mm and maybe a slightly larger gun too.

That’s all that is really needed and will fill up 2-3000t quickly enough.

A salutory lesson in reading what is actually there not what one thinks is there. I read T22 as T23!

What lessons have been learned from the T23?

OTMH I have:
Udermanning and necessity to embark extra crew when entering port (or has this been solved?)

The comedy of errors inherent in trying to run C3I by running several disparate C2 systems and integrating them manually (or has this been solved)

The huge weight of ancilliary equipment needed to operate Seawolf (CAMM and (maybe) Artisan will presumably do away with a lot of radar antennae and associated electronics cabinets and power drain)

Would rafting a la submarines allow for removal of complicated drive system in favour of simple diesels?

What are the seakeeping qualities of T23s in service?

I’d heard the seakeeping was pretty good. The complicated drive system should not be a problem for C1/C2 if the T45 systems are anything to go by. In fact most of the problems you mentioned seem to be sorted on the new generation. The weight of the electronic stuff should all have gone right down.

The power drain might be different though, I’d heard that newer radars required much more juice, it was one reason behind suggesting nuclear power for CG(X). I don’t know if the power requirements have decreased or not. I know it’ll be used more effectively now though.

The topweight from Sea Wofl should be dealt with since CAMM is an active homer and wont require the optical trackers, however they might counteract this by placing Artisan as high as possible in the superstructure like Sampson on the T45’s.

Or perhaps directly in place of Sampson if the T45 hull is used. I don’t think it’s much of an issue though, weight distribution seems good.

The first article quoted has several key words that indicate to me some bias present, but that could be the translation. It also seems to make a leap or just a downright mistake. The SFO inquiry was about a deal from the 1980’s, it wasn’t directly linked to Typhoon and never was. That isn’t opinion, it’s a fact that the SFO were not investigating there. Any indications to the contrary are wrong and if pushed I and/or others can find sources to back up what the inquiry was into.

The second article actually has listed the wrong company as under investigation in regards to Saudi Arabia, which was BAE, but in relation to a much earlier deal.

I suspect that some very general assumptions have been made by the writers of this article without any in depth knowledge (or even basic knowledge in parts) that have led to a completely wrong meaning appearing. TV and Radio aren’t infallible.

I don’t know why i’m even bothering to type this. Those i’m debating this with have already decided which reported version they will believe, no matter what facts I present to the contrary.

For the final time, the British governement blocked the inquiry about the first deal with Saudi Arabia, so obviously, any inquiry about the second deal is unlikely.

But an inquiry is only required if there is evidence of bribery in the new case, which there isn’t. You find me some quotes from reliable sources that suggest there was was direct bribery in the Typhoon case and i’ll listen.

Clearly I assumed a level of knowledge about the issue that you didn’t have. I forget that not everyone followed the story at the time.

The ONLY reason Typhoon was mentioned/involved was because the Saudi’s threatened to cancel the new deal (involving Typhoons) if the SFO inquiry (into Tornadoes and Hawks in the 1980’s) wasn’t stopped.

The SFO was NOT investigating BAE over the Typhoon sale itself.

When a multibillion dollar deal and a significant Middle Eastern ally that happens to provide most of your oil and is a major player against terrorism asks you to kill an investigation into something that happened 20 years ago and has no relevance today, any country would have done the same.

Thanks.

The C3 fitout was a Otobreda 76 mm gun, its fitted 16 Sylver A-43 quad packed with the CAMM missile. I would also have mounts for 50 cal’s around the ship.

The main thing I want out of the C3 is alot more of them than 8 – double it an i would be happy – hell 12 would be good.

Yeah the more the merrier, but it’s not been made clear what’ll actually be replaced by C3 directly. But 8 will still enhance the expeditionary capability of the MCM fleet quite significantly.

I’ll let you off, it is the weekend after all. Actually a mate who drives T23s says he’s glad they never been tested in that respect, wishes they had a CIWS. Says he’s watched too many SeaWolfs go hunting for subs to rely on it as the only missile interceptor.

I’d never thought that Seawolf was enough to act as a last line of defence. I assume we will have a CIWS on the C1 (probably C2 too) But I have had a long week.