I last cried on the 10th March 2005 when I had to have my pet dog Digby put down at the vets 🙁
I wonder if a common hull and propulsion design could be used for both fleet replenishment ships and aircraft carriers?
When you consider that the Fort Victoria class is larger than the Invincible class I think there would be lots of benefits. The ships could be identical up to the hangar deck and then completed as a carrier or tanker.
I guess compromises would have to be made but I think it could save a lot of money.
The Royal Schelde Enforcer Series show how it could be done http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/enforcer/
‘Artistic impression of a future AWD’ http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea4000/sea4000.cfm
Steve, your comment is the first I have heard about a sponson, I did once see a vertical schematic and it did not show a sponson, just the helo hanger offset, although it does sound plausible I am sceptical, if a ship is rolling a sponson on a vessel like this would be the last place I would want to be as its movements would be more violent than any other part of the ship.
Actually I think I was wrong about the sponson, I’ve got mixed up with a design concept I saw in a book that had a similar arrangement to the T43.
Do you have any info on the Type 44 ?
A useful feature of the RFA Fort Victoria class is that they can operate up to 5 Sea King/Merlin class helicopters. This allows the RN to move it’s ASW/ASuW helicopters off the Invincible class carriers to make way for more Harriers or Commando helicopters. http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/victoria/
wouldnt landing that seaking into the narrow space sideways in rough conditions be ‘a lil tricky ? why this unconventional arrangement and very low superstructure ?
I believe the T43 design had a aircraft carrier style sponson on the port side, so there is actually more flightdeck than the picture shows. The central positioning of the flightdeck was intended to improve helicopter operations in bad weather by taking advantage of the low pitching movement in this position.
sealordlawrence, thanks for sharing that pic, in one of my first posts I asked for info on the T43 design 🙂
If I remember correctly it was the cost and difficultly of fitting the two Sea Dart launchers and magazines into the design that got the T43 cancelled. It’s a shame that a vertical launch system wasn’t adopted sooner 🙁
Is hypersonic Mach 4+ ?
Supersonic and Hypersonic strike weapon info here http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSystems/advanceweaponsystems_globalstrike.asp
Pic of HyFly
Info on US Compact Kinetic Energy Missile (CKEM) here http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/CKEM/product-CKEM.html
There are a lot of Hypersonic cruise missile studies at the moment, I think that as soon as the propulsion technology matures they will start to enter service.
Cost is another very important factor, I would imagine that Hypersonic land attack missiles would only be used on well defended targets or time critical targets.
Here is some more info http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hystrike.htm
If you want a really novel idea for this ship, we’ve been talking about tankers on my board the Idea in which Robert has come up with is really interesting…Scattered Intelligence Agency.
Battle Tankers 🙂
In Eric L. Harry’s novel ‘Invasion’ the Chinese invade the USA with aircraft carriers and transport ships based on Ultra Large Crude (or Container) Carriers. Each one carried hundreds of aircraft and thousands of troops and their equipment.
In my humble naval ignorance I thought that the bow area could be converted in a Large Hangar for Super Puma sized helos…and a large helipad could be set up there. The mid sections could be converted to personel (marine units) transport while maintaining the container capability abovedeck… Would it make any sense to have large folding floating barges hinged against the sides of the ship in order to simplify loading and unloading while at sea? Away from ports?…
Something like this Maritime Prepositioning ship proposal? http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/pms325/futureships/MPF(F)/MPF.htm
I wonder if a small LHD operating mine countermeasure helicopters and hovercraft would be better than buying purpose built Mine Hunter ships?
I think the USA studied this idea with the Sea Control Ship mini carrier concept.
I’d spend the entire defence budget on converting it into a Arsenal Ship with a 1000 cell VLS 😉
A mine countermeasures version of the SR.N4 Mk II offered to the Royal Navy in 1981 http://www.hovercraft-museum.org/concepts.html
It’s the M314 HNMS Alta a Norwegian Sauda-class minesweeper which is now a floating museum http://www.knmalta.org/en/index.html