I would go as far to say that NOT using sylver would be an utter waste of money, the adaptability it would create by using one VLS system across the fleet would be enormous.

Fully agree with all that and Swerve’s assertion to, Sylver having as many weapons integrated as possible boosts both the business opportunities for export of launcher and all its integrated missile types.

But T45s will so rarely carry a full reinforced Troop of royals…. The space has been put in as adaptable for civvie support tasks, troops, extra stores. I would have said that if it meant getting two more Darings by just changing that space to flag command facilities then that is a sensible use of money rather than the expense of extending and fitting a plug.

I was writing from the perspective of a having a couple of T45s constructed with their full potential, since I don’t think 7 & 8 are remotely likely to be built as ‘standard’ T45s anyway its purely an exercise in fantasy fleets anyway;)

Not really the right thread for posting t his in but i didn’t want to start a new 1. On BBC breakfast this morning they had a picture of a Tornado with 2 bombs on each wing instead of the large drop tanks. I cannot find this picture does anyone have any of the tornados flying without wing tanks? The Tornado’s load is vastly improved with 4 bombs on the wings but how much effect does this have on the range? I presume the Tornado has quite a big internal fuel load as it is deisgned as a strike fighter? Could be wrong though. I have seen pictures before of a tornado flying with 8 dumb bombs on the fusalage and another 4 or 8 on the wing but again can’t find it anywhere.
Also in Afganistan just now they are flying normally with a few brimstone with some dual head sekker on it. Anyone got more details of this?

Story about the first use of the Dual head seeker Brimstone here:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1464736#post1464736

Until ABM are proven and wide spread, nuffing beats SSBN.
After that, i’d go for low RCS cruise missiles, in which case the Vanguard can be modified to carry them too, in much larger numbers.

This little thing could perhaps be an alternative, tho i think it’s more of tactical use.
http://www.darpa.mil/tto/programs/Falcon.htm

Page Cannot Be Found

We have recently redesigned our site and the page you have requested has moved.

Just a thought but would it even need a hull plug? surely the space designated for marines and extra personnel would do?

But then where do the marines go? I’d rather there was space for them to be honest.

There are 6-cell VLMICA launchers mounted on the Khareefs so there is nothing odd or unrealistic about the self-defence suite initially being based on 12 quad-packed VLS cells.

Similarly there is nothing wrong with air-defence based on large numbers of shorter-ranged ‘local area’ capable anti-missile weapons – after all there are few potential aggressor states that could point at hundreds of operationally serviceable anti-ship missiles in their inventories. If you were to try and depend on a ‘missile-soak’ defence though you might wish for more, perhaps, than 48 ready rounds in the magazine!.

Also found it interesting that the forward raised section of the midships deckhouse looks to be housing a single VLS module. Scaling off that deckhouse looks to be about 7-8m high. A70 VLS module for LACM capability perhaps?. Cant fathom many other reasons for such an installation.

Agree with the earlier comments on the parent/child hangar concept. Looks like another BVT folly similar to the midships light davits on the Venator design that occupy massively useable space to accomodate a couple of light RHIB’s, for ships boats, when the whole stern end is a garage stuffed with the things.

I hadn’t even noticed that, I’d expected all of the vls space to be in the same area as on the T45 being based on the same hull.

FLUBBA – from the way the comment was written it suggests to me that the writer has seen the front end of the model, 2 c 6 vls cells with CAMM (hopefully) Quadpacked – otherwise we’re looking at 12 missiles for self defence which wouldn’t be enough.

Think its about time this thread got a bump:

From the BVT Stand at DSEi 2009.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cys2T5FgJdo/SrhLX_Z_RaI/AAAAAAAAHMw/LoHL8qFOhqs/s1600-h/Future+Surface+Combatant.JPG

My first thoughts are I can’t help but look at the design and think it looks like a moderate sized ship shoved onto the hull of a large one, there seems to be lots of unused deck space, the hanger in particular looks small and I would of thought a full sized dual hanger would make more sense on the versatility front – after all you can always place UAVs in there instead of a Merlin.

Also Artisan looks a little out of place on that huge mast.

Right quoting myself since I’ve noticed there’s some comments been added to the information dissemination blog on this design:

There are two 6 cell VLS for the Seawolf successor missile in front of the superstructure not visible from this angle. Many equipment fitout details and exact locations remain open to change, this merely outlines the general features they are required to integrate.
pred | 09.22.09 – 3:56 am | #

Presumably that means quad packed CAMM for 48 missiles, hopefully as the above comment suggests this is just minimum required fit.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/09/future-surface-combatant-at-dsei-2009.html

I think he was saying, “We saved your ass in WW2 etc..” A rather
different topic to be frank and I’m sure you agree.

I wouldn’t give that type of comment a second thought here, especially, and I’m sure you will agree, from someone like him. 😉

Yeah shouldn’t of bitten to be honest, quite amusing how anyone can come out with such tripe though particularly when stating that he’s not ignorant in the very next sentence.