Kind of proves my point, doesn’t it? Six is the absolute minimum IMHO, eight would be great.

Look at it like this, what would be of more use to the RN? Six T-45s or three KDX-3 type ships (with 2 helos etc.)? Given the mandatory expeditionary capabilities (overseas interests and international commitments), escort requirements (carriers, LPDs) and existing surface combatants (plenty of T-23s) I think the answer is the T-45s. As much as I love the KDX-3 😎

Are you saying that if the T45 was built with a hangar for 2x helos the UK would have only got three units??!!!!

The steel work for a bigger hangar wouldn’t have come to £6 million let alone £600 million!

Didn’t the US have a theoretical bomber design capable of coasting like a pebble on the upper parts of the atmosphere?

There was a concept that used external-combustion propulsion systems, a bit like a aerospike rocket engine, that was called the “flaming pumpkin seed” 😀

I believe it appeared in a issue of Air International a few years ago.

Some info here http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/pde.htm

SteveO, the point is that these capabilities, while nice, are not essential to the ship’s role. They would have driven up price, which is a bad thing for the RN as they need sheer numbers aswell. A smaller force of more capable ships may be just as good on paper, but it can’t handle as many assignments simultaneously.

It looks like T45 is unaffordable anyway, the MOD is already making excuses about buying more than six. http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jni/jni060207_1_n.shtml

Six ships are currently on order from BAE Systems Naval Ships, but the First Sea Lord insists that a class of eight ships is required.

BAE Systems Naval Ships has already offered an unsolicited proposal for ships seven and eight. However, Ministry of Defence sources acknowledge that intense pressure on equipment spending is casting doubt on the affordability of the last two ships.

This is why I can’t accept that the built T45 design was the best option. As I said before, it’s too much money spent on too little capability 🙁

No place for single role warships in the RN?. What a bizarre statement!. Whats an amphib or minehunter if not single role?!. Warship design isnt like aircraft design you know Steve. You cant just hang a pod on a ship and change its mission!. A warship is designed to fit into an overall fleet capability.

A few decades ago when weapon systems needed custom installations I would have agreed with you. In this day and age however, warship design is all about standardisation, modularity and software driven systems while vertical launch silos do away with the need for purpose built launchers for different weapon types. The only barrier to the T45 being a fully multi-role design was the cost of giving it a better ASW fit (better sonars) and increasing the number of silos for cruise missiles.

Examples of multi-role amphibious and mine warfare ships are the US Wasp class assault carriers and the Danish Standard Flex 300 http://www.navalteam.dk/300.htm

Well Steve that was precisely the post I was referring to and in it you do acknowledge that two choppers will burn the fuel up twice as fast as one – not that it is a great revelation naturally!.

The helicopter part is still nonsense. Whats the point of having two choppers aboard if you can fly neither of them cos of a lack of spares or fuel onboard and its three days til the next replenishment.

You have said that the additional chopper could just be there unused (like the RN has so many spare choppers it can just stuff ’em in a hangar and forget about them!) until the first has a glitch. Never going to happen – even if the T45 hangar was stretched to accomodate half a dozen merlins the ship would only embark the airframes it could support!.

You still haven’t convinced me about your claims that a second helicopter is a bad thing.

Spare parts can easily be carried in greater numbers.

Helicopter turbines and warship turbines use the same fuel, it’s up to the planners to decide how that fuel is used.

The Royal Navy has more aircraft than ships to carry them, this will be an even bigger problem if RAF and AAC helicopters are brought along. The ability to place an extra Lynx or Merlin on a escort will be a big help in many operations.

To be economically viable, the airships have to be flown on a daily basis. You cannot make money if they are in storage or tethered to the ground awaiting that twice-a-year occasion when a disaster arises.

I didn’t mean they would only be used for disaster relief, there are plenty of jobs they can do to justify their purchase. The RAF has used C-17’s to transport Tornado F3’s to and from the Falkland Islands to avoid complex long distance ferry flights or the trouble of getting them onto ships.

This seems like a job that a heavy lift airship could do much more efficiently. Here are some reasons-

Point to point delivery (home base to operating base).

A large payload and cargo bay would mean no dismantling of the aircraft would be necessary and several aircraft could be carried at once.

Reduced need for ferry flights would equal savings in terms of fuel usage and fatigue life.

Deployment planning simplified (no need for tankers, reduced need for SAR cover).

djcross,

I don’t see heavy lift airships as competition for existing transportation systems, I see them as a unique capability to get large loads in a single flight to locations previously only accessable to small aircraft or locations that are hard (or dangerous) to get to by land routes.

I think disaster relief missions are the ideal role for heavy lift airships.

Here’s what LM’s line of thinking is likely to produce with a FB-22 in the background poster…

Very nice 🙂 I thought it was the Northrop Grumman YF-23 based proposal to begin with.

It looks quite similar.