Al.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,
Nothing wrong with that.
A nice big groundplane will help with the performance of all of your RF systems
Also see how much clutter has found its way onto the decks of the T45s. Starting clean looks good to me.
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.
Absolute agreement on that. Twin full size hangar offers flexibility in the way that the garage and dog kennel idea simply cannot.
Also Artisan looks a little out of place on that huge mast.
The (battered and bruised) optimist in me cannot help but hope that this is because there is a plan afoot to show how minimal the cost differential will be between Sampson UNITS and Artisan UNITS and thus C1 will get Sampson.
Al.I was being somewhat flippant in suggesting Spruance. I hadn’t thought in detail about pre-owned or new build.
The Spruances would meet the spec as outlined.
The drawbacks otmh:
USN manning levels
Imperial sizes
USN manning levels (worth mentioning twice I feel)
Barndoor RF signature
IR signature
Fuel economy
Tooling almost certainly broken up
Ugly as ugly
GTs Possibly noiser than IEP
Advantages
Right size
Designed for ASW
Acoustic signature
Endurance
Seakeeping
Supposed battle resilience
2 helos
Huge fncking great VLS capability
Bags of room for growth
Most models don’t have a glass flight deck
Rafting to insulate machinery from hull is not that difficult
Al.m/pdfarchive/view/1972/1972%20-%202621.html
The thing that is interesting to me about the S-67 is that it was also a troop transport rather than a dedicated attack helicopter like the Cobra or Apache. Imagine S-67s and Apaches working side-by-side.
Costantly amazed that S67 was allowed to wither and die.
Sure a crash at an airshow is bad PR (and I hope it goes without saying; a tragedy for friends and family of the deceased) but other aircraft have suffered such bad PR and the programme has continued.
ON PAPER the S67 seems to have offered a unique combination (well unique in the West anyway) of attributes and just not had any friends.
Al.Right there should be an image attached to this:o It’s a BVT C1 design from DSEi 2009.
What do people think?
Don’t think much of the glass flight deck.
Al.Since the story about going down to 3 boats was first covered I’ve spotted 3 common points being made by any of the (few) knowledgable interviewees
*Correctly calling Vanguards Boats not Subs
*Pointing out that losing 1/4 of fleet does not equate to saving 1/4 money as some/many costs are sunk costs rather than unit costs
*Pointing out that Brown has couched his suggestion with the words – if the RN can guarantee the same uniinterrupted patrol pattern
Of course headlines and knee jerk comments (by people on all sides of the argument) have all omitted these.
Al
Al.There seems to be a disconnect between the RANs desire for a proven design, & a 7000 ton ASW ship.
Spruance? 🙂
Al.Only existing on paper but what would have been impressive, the proposed VC-10 bomber with 8 external pods each carrying 8 1,000lb bombs……
Not seen that one, or is that what’s on t’pods in this piccy?
Al.The flightdeck in the middle idea seems to have been seriously considered by the RN.
The T43 (putative double-ended T42 replacement) had a flightdeck for a SeaKing amidships with an elevator down to hangar between the two engine rooms.
Have to agree with the earlier post that IMO the reduced displacement by landing on most stable point would have been more than offset by trying to thread the helo into the gap between the two superstructure islands.
The T43 does at least look and mean and ugly this ATF just looks butt ugly to me.
Edit: I also applaud the sheer chutzpah of the T43 Design. Let us combine all of the weapons from a T42 and T22 on one hul, and then double the number of SAM launchers as well whilst we are at it.
Al
Al.Al you suggest we may be the Joker in the pack as we bought into deterrence but what do you mean by that?
Joker-in-the-pack refers/referred to the theory that UK would never have enough warheads to annihilate USSR or USA (independent remember?) but we could nuke the opposing power, making it look like the one we were after had done it (why would you take the risk that it wasn’t your big bad foe?) and thus opponent gets annihilated anyway.
Punching above weight simply refering to the fact that even without world conquering armed forces, manufacturing or economy if you have nukes people haave to take you seriously. (see above)
Al i’ll also try and remember to listen to that broadcast. Any idea of date and time?
Tonight 2000 (i.e. about now!)
Al
Al.For instance Africa, instead of pouring money and resources into countries that makes little impact
There’s going to be an episode of Iconoclasts on Radio 4 next week on this very topic.
Al
Al.SSBNs are a very difficult (almost unique) concept to evaluate.
Their very success is based on their never having been needed to be used. Which is in itself based on their being absolutely efficient and effective if they were used. Otherwise the deterrent is not believable.
It is entirely possible that the UK bought into joker-in-the-pack deterrence as a way of punching above our weight.
I justify their existence thusly:
Yes it is a lot of money.
Yes the effect of unleashing them is horrific and INhumane.
But the economic cost of a conventional* war in mainland Europe would have been so much greater. And the human cost would have pretty horriffic and I suspect much more probable.
Al
* and chemical, let there be no doubt. The USSR included smoke in their list of chemical agents and NATO planned to use smoke as a matter of course; chemical escalation was almost inevitable.
Al.There’s also a Kirishima in service.
What is so politically awkward about Yamato or Musashi?
As the old joke goes ALL generalisations are rubbish. But that taken as read. The Japanese National Character includes a desire to learn from mistakes.
The Battleships Yamato and Musashi were hugely expensive wonders of engineering and manufacturing and off no fncking use whatever. (Except perhaps as resource magnets attracting Allied* units due to their great value as totems)
Are those really names, and connotations, which one would want to attach to one’s new, bright, shiny, step-change Naval Weapon Systems?
Al
*who am I kidding? At this point US not Allied
Al.AI hey,
Watcha. The font on this forum makes it hard to differentiate its Al – ay ell – (like my name) rather than AI – ay eye – (like HAL)
1. It’s Marte Mk2 AFAIK, yes it can be course corrected but an updated ASROC could do the same. Missile carried torps is not an area which i am familiar but i shall go and do some learning.
Finally overcame my own inertia and the one I was thinking of is Otomat/Milas (the shiplaunched one) rather than Marte (the airlaunched one)
NB: Swerve got in first whilst I was faffing with my response
Let me know what you find out! My knowledge of fish deployed via missile is pretty much now all up on this thread now.
2. Nice to see an Absalon fan 🙂
I find it very difficult to fault the Absalon on what you get for your cash and the potential capability it offers just does not seem to come from any other platform. (Including as a depot ship for my SSGTs :diablo:)
I agree surface units need AShM but all i am saying is the best way to sink a ship is via a sub.
Yes. Yes it is. Absolutely. I’ll even forgive you for calling a boat a sub 🙂
I’ve made some (semi) jocular suggestions about using Astutes for C1 and SSGT for C3 which might give you some idea about where my loyalties lie. (Come on – FSC Future Subsurface Combatant surely?)
I was making a (fairly rare) attempt at pragmatism ref: we just ain’t gonna get enough boats so we need something to sink skimmers with.
You speak the truth PAAMS has been paid for and deploying it on only 6 ships is lunacy. CEC would be great. I would have C1 with Aster 30 and SAMPSON that could fire an Aster in support of a C2 that has targeted it. I would still like more T45’s and if C1 was based on a T45 hull this could be financially viable.
So continues the long, ignoble UK tradition of deciding that economies of scale and getting best value from R&D investment is for Johnny foreigner.
We need to sell T45 to the Saudis (sadly I cannot see anyone else having enough cash to buy such a beast who hasn’t already plumped for one of the opposition) and then grind up some bankers for blood and bone meal to export to the French, Kiwis, South Africans and any other friends who do a lot of agriculture to fund buying a few more.
Al
Al.But i would also build 6 more T45 if not my C1 would keep SAMPSON and add Aster 30 as i have already mentioned.
There are certainly good arguments for using C1s (but probably C2s would be pushing it!) as an extra mobile silo of Aster 30s for the T45 to direct. Now that the PAAMS development money has already gone I wonder how much some more Aster 30s would actually cost?
Likewise in our bright new world of CEC and network-centric warfare having another Sampson set to provide data for the T45 makes sense. Now that development has already been sunk I wonder how much more Sampson actually costs than Artisan? On a slightly tangental note a proper AEW platform would no doubt also add to the data fusion for our T45 PWO(Air).
Al
Al.I’m a big fan of referendums.
Our ‘representative’ democracy is anything but (yes I know that I have maliciously misinterpreted the meaning of representative democracy but TBH so have those who expound its virtues).
There are BIG decisions about a Nation’s makeup and direction which I believe should be voted on directly. Not relying on the chap(pess) who seems to be the best/least worst of the available candidates holding the same views on a subject as you. When (s)he didn’t make their views or voting intentions plain when canvassing for your vote anyway.
Al
Sign In
