The talons on my drawing are on both the fwd and aft masts. you have to click the image a few times to see it at full size. I saved it in PNG format so there are no compression jaggies.
Thanks for the clarification
Bizarrely when I click ONCE on the image tonight it pops up straight away as a nice big image. Whether that has anything to do with using Firefox on my mac tonight I know not. Anyway yes ’tis clear as day now.
Al
C1 has a bow sonar, it took me a while to notice too.
Ta 🙂
Blindingly obvious AFTER you pointed it out
Al
Modern? Aren’t all of their current in service designs modified variants of late cold-war Soviet designs? Where they arent ships that have been in service from the 70’s or 80’s anyway.
Quite right and showing my age.
By ‘modern’ I mean Alpha, Akula, Typhoon, Yuri Delgoruki rather than Deltas and chums.
That’s not really all that modern is it?!
I stand by my point that their skimmers look medievel in comparison though.
Al
Actually have found thishttp://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfla.htm
Which states
PWR1 – 70 MWt
PWR2 – 130 MWt
How accurate? Is the .ru relevant? Is it merely an exercise in western bashing? Is even thinking this an exercise in slav bashing?
I have no idea
Al
Since this is an RN thread, any idea what the power output of the PWR2 is?
The only non-classified source I could find states ‘Core H 6x PWR1‘
Does anyone know what PWR1’s output is?!
Al
You mean distinguishing friend from foe visually is a critical element?
No. It’s a good and valid point, and I’m happy to have it attributed to me, but not the one I was making.
My point is that the alternative sources of information (FLIR, NVG, Radar, DASS, other EO) all require interpretation which imposes a lag in reaction in comparison to the pilot’s natural senses which are hardwired in. Add in the granularity and loss of definition and the pilot’s reactions are dulled further. The other concern is an artefacting where (s)he mistakes one object for another.
My analogy with finding a snake in a darkened room is that the snake’s speed coupled to confusing information from NVS (or even a torch!) make it spectacularly difficult to loacte and track it. Its not easy in daylight but there will be less false returns from shadows and from differential heating than at night.
Al
Some of these look pretty familiar Stan…
I’ve looked at these a couple of times, and have just realised C1 and C2 LOOK identical. What have I missed?
Al
At some point this probably needs splitting to another USN thread, the delicate judgement here of course being based on losing through traffic to see and comment.
If you are going to fit frickin laser beams (so my jape about railguns apparently not that far off the mark) then you probably do need to go nuke for powerplant
I suspect that the image posted here has suffered from the jaggies somewhat and I cannot see where Sea Talon and RAM are. There is clearly something between aft mast and goalkeeper and two other somethings on the bridge wings but I am wary of assuming what they are.
Will the USN ever plump for goalkeeper?
The crewing issue is an interesting one. T23s suffered from insufficient crew embarked and had to have extra crew brought out to enable them to come alongside safely. Now my info/experience is very old and this may have been satisfactorily resolved by now. Not having enough crew adds to the workload of those on board and can lead to silly mistakes which are not caught. Against this it must be acknowledged that crew requirements add significantly to the cost of a warship. Potentially having more crew on board does give more bodies for damage control. Of course if they are all busy with their day jobs then can they drop those to fight fires?
Al
No thanks, they roughly duplicate the capabilities of the T45 destroyers however they require double the crew of the T45.
Yeah but its got BIG GUNS (and two layer CIWS but that’s a sensible thing)
Quite apart from requiring the whole skimmer fleet to be allocated to crewing these beauties my criticism would be that helos have to land right at the blunt end i.e. giving the helo spot the longest possible lever arm and thus greatest possible displacement
Al
30 of those please
Do they come with railguns and forcefields 🙂
Very pretty ships
IMO C1 should be based on a lengthened T45 hull same propulsion with a larger hanger and flight deck for a couple of helicopters a 4.5 inch gun off the T23 harpoon off the T23. Some Aster 15 with a pretty basic sensor suite just whatever is required to fire the Aster 15 also a couple of CIWS off old ships. Put on towed array and off you go. I’m not a knowledgeable person when it comes to sensors but Artisan cannot operate Aster 15 right?
My thoughts are to resist the urge to meddle with structure and NOT stretch the T45. I’m kinda hoping that with their huge size there will be no need to stretch them to provide something approximating to decent sea keeping a la T42.
If Artisan cannot handle Aster then I suspect that C1s will not get Aster. Since you can fit 4 times as many CAMM in the same space that may not be a disaster. The currently empty central row in the silo will presumably get SCALP or TacTom if and when MoD plump for one.
Re-using Mk8, Harpoon and TAS from T23s all sound like winners to me
C2 would be pretty basic Artisan radar with some quad packed CAMM some harpoons off the T23 a 4.5 inch guns off the T23 add a single CIWS. Hanger and flight deck for up to a Merlin sized Helicopter. Make it around 120m in length and around 3000 tonnes. Diesel propulsion so it’s nice and cheap to run should give it a fleet speed of 25 Knts same as the Carriers.
I worry that 3000 tonnes may be too small.
I get scared by fitting only 1 CIWS
‘Some Harpoons‘ leaves the door open to FFBNW 2x quad but initially loading up with 2x twin (otherwise by the time we’ve used T23 (and B3 T22s) to arm up T45s and C1s we’re not gonna have enough harpoons to arm C2 as well. Good thinking 🙂
Diesels for the win
C3 should be something like the BMT venator. Diesel propulsion the same as C2 give it a fleet speed of 25 Knts. Artisan radar, space for modular CAMM VLS so that they can do the ‘fitted for but not with’ that can be fitted to a few C3 that are going somewhere a bit more dangerous such as the gulf. Fit a 4.5 inch gun (If you want to do shore bombardment it’s best to do it with your cheapest assets that is designed to be used in the littoral environment) also buying more 4.5 inch guns is cheap than introducing a new calibre to the fleet 4.5 inch guns are not exactly very expensive. Have a nice work deck like the BMT venator. Hanger and flight deck are also required.
I don’t like the look of Venator and that may well be the only reason that I’m not as keen on her as others on these forums.
I’d love C3s to have Artisan but I don’t know if its going to be THAT affordable
The other specs all sound pretty good to me
Al
Anyone else listening to Radio 4 at the moment.
Key points made about PFI
PFI borrowing doesn’t show on national balance sheet (even though taxpayer will ultimately have to pay all debt off via the commercial partner) but Treasury deny that this is a driver for using PFI funding
Typical interest on government borrowing 4%. Typical interest on PFI borrowing 10%
So looks like PFI for C3 then ………..
Al
I have heard from others that a Tiffie displayed and that sounds rather more likely. But don’t have first hand knwoeldge or images, sorry.
Al
No its not
Anymore than using NVG and relayed superior intelligence to find a snake in a room is the same as doing so in daylight
The tiny wee losses in data and tiny wee worsening of reaction time all add up and make it much more dangerous
Al
Why can’t they both be right? I don’t see it necessarily being a double standard.
Indeed not. But we are in the realm of tension between netiquette (horrible bloody portmanteau word) and tricksy factual correctness.
It MAY very well be that
US Guest was being polite AND UK guest genuinely overawed
or
US Guest was genuinely overawed AND UK guest being polite
or
US and UK guest both genuinely overawed
or
US and UK guest both being polite
However as a sort of house rule of playing fair it IS a little cheeky to claim that X was just being polite and Y had their socks blown off because it suits one’s own preferences.
Being cheeky though is not the same as not being factually correct (whether through superior knowledge or a lucky guess :))
Al