Kev, funny thing is, i pointed that out myself further up the page (or on the last one). However the point that must be made is that the exact same point can be made for most C3 designs suggest both here and on warships1.

I know, getting the politicians is to think of the concepts as the correct ones and then getting the funding approved based on this catagorisation is always going to be a challenge.

For manned fixed wing aircraft you are probably right, but if sporting a solely UCAV wing….?????

I see what you’re getting at but even they aren’t that small and they are getting bigger.

The CVF are replacing Ark Royal (audacious class) and Eagle more then they are replacing the Invincible class. The Invincible class replaced the tiger class cruisers as well as Bulwark and Hermes. They don’t seem to be being replaced this time, similar to how Ark and Eagle were not replaced last time.

Best chance of something like a replacement for the Invincible Class in its original role will probably come when Ocean and possibly RFA Argus retires.

Exactly. The ability of the Invincibles to operate Harriers was a bonus, & only fitting ski-jumps gave the Harriers a decent range & payload.

BTW, any bets on the next Hyuga being named Ise?

I think you’d receive pretty short odds on that.

Actually after conversion Tiger only had 2 x 6″ and 2 x 3″ guns, the aft guns were replaced with the Hanger.

Of course its a nice thing to have but I can’t really see that you’d want it at the expense of some stores, MCM equipment, possibly a hanger etc.

I just think if you ever need to use it maybe the wrong ship got sent. The 30mm cannon that the rivers and MCMs have should be sufficient, after all they’re going to be doing a similar job, I think ideally you’d like something bigger, but not as big as a Mk8.

Swerve,

Danish Thetis class by any chance?. Very good ships!.

Ed,

I dont think anyone has proof that CAMM is going to be quad-packable in the larger Sylver cells. I think we can be reasonably certain that the A35 would be a launcher that figures in to the CAMM design brief though.

So I’d say once we get a hint that quadpack is on the cards then the A43 module is obviously a more efficient idea depth allowing. If not the 6 A35 modules represent a fairly safe bet as a minimum deployable loadout.

Cheers,
Steve

Looks like a pretty good hint here:

“CAMM canisters could be quad-packed to fit in an existing Sylver or Mk 41 vertical-launch cell,” says Dr Miller. “Alternatively we can offer the option of fitting the SVL launch canister in small standalone clusters or patterns that best suit the deck area and topside characteristics of the host ship.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=81324

Oops