Cool, but why so? There are plenty of through-deck amphibious warfare types at less than 10,000 tons.

Re all the parade pissers :rolleyes:

The whole exercise is not about what the RN is likely to do, but what it should do. And the spec wasn’t “replace a frigate” either. The voting brought out three significant requirements, and ultimately got distilled down to a displacement bracket of 8,000-10,000. If you desperately want to design under-armed OPVs then cool, start a thread on it, but this is a committee exercise and if people voted for stuff you don’t agree with well tough titty. 😮

Back to assessing the feasibility of a 10,000 ton through-deck design here’s a rough-scale view. The hanger is only about big enough for 3 EH-101s but could probably handle 2 EH-101s and 2 Lynx/NH-90s etc.

The CIWS are Skyguard (FCR/Optics mounted on superstructure, front and back). The VLS is extended-depth Sylver with 64 cells for a mixed load of TacTom, SM-3 and SAMs (I’d go for Aster and treat SM-3 as an add-on load for the combat systems).

The propulsion is 3 x RR waterjets with all-electric drive from a CODAG power unit with exhaust venting at rear port-side (TAS rear starboard-side). Ships launches would be on starboard side as would aircraft workshop.

Yes, its about what they should do. And they *shouldn’t* build that. 😀

If you want a through deck cruiser drop the gun, make the flight deck full length, and array the VLS cells down one side (probably the superstructure side) of the flight deck. But to put it bluntly, its not worth building a through deck cruiser if it can only carry 3-4 helos. The Japanese ships carry up to 11, the invincibles up to ~20.

And before you point to the Itallian LPD “things”. They are designed to load and unload helicopters on deck as quickly as possible to get troops ashore during a landing, with these there isnt quite so much of a hurry.

Through deck cruiser is a non-starter IMO.

BUT I would like to see the landing pad stressed for F-35 ops. The physical size of the pad shouldn’t be a problem, and it won’t cost much more to beef the platform structure up for the extra weight/impact.

I think the base T-45 hull and layout is as good a place to start as any, though I’m in favor of more beam, both to aid flight ops and help with overall stability.

Matt

Don’t even really need to add more beam,the beam is already over 20 metres. In terms of flight ops, just need to find somewhere else on the superstructure to put the boats so that you can fit a pair of side by side merlin hangers. For AAW, ditch the long range radar since in a task group you can use the picture from the T45’s (plus it is for ABM as well as long range search IIRC), either keep Sampson or switch it for EMPAR. Build 8-12 of these.

For C2, i’d go for something along the lines of the current T23’s except with CAMM. Build 10-14 of these.

For C3, an enlarged River with hanger, Medium Gun (4.5″ from T23’s, T42’s and T45’s) and FFBNW a CIWS (preferably missile based like RAM). Probably need some sort of deck with crane aft of the flight deck to fit palletised mine hunting/ASW gear etc. To replace the Hunt class mine hunters, as well as the Rivers once the lease runs out, probably need around 15 or so initially, with more built once the survey ships and sandowns start reaching ~15-20 years old and it can be justified selling them off to the Brazilians.

The problem i can see with C1 and C2 is that they will effectively probably end up doing each others job once they enter service. C1 is more a general purpose Destroyer with an ASW focus, while C2 is an ASW/General Purpose frigate. C3 could be considered a Corvette along the lines of the WW2 built corvettes and sloops rather then the German baltic combatants. As i understand it, C2 and C3 are supposed to undertake the current patrol deployments, leaving the C1’s and T45’s to be dedicated to escorting the CVBG and ARG.

Ok, I’m going to throw the germ of a design proposal out there. At 10,000 tons surely a small “through-deck” design is feasible? A rough sketch:

One neat feature is variable size lifts. I’d guess up to three EH-101s although I am also a great fan of the NH-90 design although RN already selected a Lynx follow-on(?).

In an emergency it could also act as a secondary landing platform for a Harrier of F-35(?).

Something much bigger and less multi-role but in a similar vein:

Or how about something similar to this? an enlarged T45 with a second VLS aft, if you gave it a further stretch to move the boats forward of the hanger you could fit two Merlins and have possibly up to 128 or so VLS cells.

The TAS goes under the flight deck and with the hull stretch you have enough internal volume to fit just about any possible engine combo.

Photo Source: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/fsc-t45gp.jpg

Thinking in RN terms, why not fit multiple phased arrays on the type-45 to eliminate this problem?

How would it solve the problem, they would be unlikely to have a larger range then the existing Sampson, they would add unneeded topweight and they wouldn’t have the resolution of the Sampson either.

Just to those who think Aegis is better because “aster sucks” or some other reason, if you have a look at all the new build european ships they all have one thing in common, with the exception of the F100’s. This one common thing is either an AESA or small phased array radar being mounted on a radar tower above the bridge at a fair height. The advantage of this is that you extend your radar horizon, giving you a longer engagement time against sea skimming targets, for example the T45’s have their radar at twice the height above the water as the USN has the phased arrays on their burkes.

40 cells, & AFAIK no room for more. According to publicly quoted figures, range less than 60% of a Type 45. That’s what happens when you try to put more into a smaller hull.

I still think the cheapest way would be to modify the area under the flight deck of the T45 to fit a TAS, modify the hanger/boat deck to fit 2 merlins, remove the long range radar and make any modifications needed to the propulsion system for quieter operation.

You could build them in the same yards as the T45’s following on from the launching of the last T45’s. Since it is essentially the same ship with the removal of some expensive items such as the long range radar you can take advantage of the experience the workforce has from constructing the T45 to get the ships cheaper. Would also mean a fleet of almost identical system with largely similar layout and machinery. That can’t hurt training and logistics.

CV 41 (Midway-1945), 42 (Franklin D. Roosevelt-1945), 43 (Coral Sea-1947)
45,000 t. std. (59,900 t. full); 900′ w.1. (968′ o.a.) x 113′ (136′ fd.) x 32.7′ (35′ full);
2 catapults (H-6 hydraulic); 12 oil boilers; 4 shafts; geared turbines; 212,000 s.h.p.; 33 kts.;
18-5″/54 d.p. (18×1)[14-# 43], 84-40 mm (21×4), 28-20 mm (28×1); 137 aircraft; hangar 692′ x 85′ x 17′ 6″

CV 41 (1957), 42 (1958)
51,000 t. std. (62,000 t. full); 900′ w.1. (968′ o.a.) x 121′ (174′ f.d.) x 33′ (35.3′ full);
3 catapults (C-11 steam); 12 oil boilers; 4 shafts; geared turbines; 212,000 s.h.p.; 33 kts.;
10-5″/54 d.p. (10×1),22-3″/50 a.a. (11×2); 75 aircraft; hangar 692′ x 85′ x 17′ 6″

CV 43 (1960)
51,000 t. std. (65,200 t. full); 900′ w.1. (979′ o.a.) x 121′ (238′ fd.) x 33′ (36′ full);
Elevators 56’ x 44’, 74,000 lb capacity; 3 catapults (C-11 steam); 12 oil boilers; 4 shafts; geared turbines; 212,000 s.h.p.; 33 kts.;
8-5″/54 d.p. (8×1)[removed 1978],3-20 mm CIWS [added 1981]; 75 aircraft; hangar 692′ x 85′ x 17′ 6″

CV 41 (1970)[1987]
52,500 t. std. (65,241 t. full)[69,873 t. full]; 900′ w.1. (979′ o.a.) x 126’[136′] (258′ fd.)[263’] x 33′ (35.3′ full);
Elevators 63’ x 52’, 130,000 lb capacity; 2 catapults (C-13C steam); 12 oil boilers; 4 shafts; geared turbines; 212,000 s.h.p.; 33 kts.;
4-5″/54 d.p. (4×1)[removed 1978],3-20 mm CIWS [added 1980]; 75 aircraft; hangar 692′ x 85′ x 17′ 6″
(as modified width too great, elevators covered in spray; bulges [66′ x 10′] added on each side in 1986 to keep sides up, depth then too shallow causing rolling problems)

CVF (2008) Delta design
“928ft long 64,500 tons
283 meters (928 feet) length overall; 69 meters (226 feet) max width at flightdeck;
263.5 meters (865 feet) pp; 39 meters beam (water line) (128 feet)
26.5 knots
40 aircraft (including helicopters)
Hanger Dimensions (length x width x height): 163 x 29 x 7.1 to 9 meters (535 x 95 x 23-29 feet)”

Umm, why is the midway longer then CVF and have a hanger that is larger by ~7200 square feet, from about 15,000t less displacement?

Steve, please clarify what you are voting for (options A > H).

Re option g, to have two sub-classes, this is a sketch of how I imagine it. I’m sure certain details will be different from what others might prefer, but the general concept is somewhat like this:

BTW, “Mk53” VLS is just a reference to an improved Mk41 VLS that would be commissioned from BAE Systems. Just lighter really. Peripheral mounting of VLS also interests me but difficult in a conventional outward-canted hull shape.

H 😉

And i already explained it.

btw, SM3 is useless except for ABM, it’d have aster 30. Basicly a general purpose varient of the T45, similar in capability to the Italian FREMM’s, but scaled up to use a T45 hull. The VLS cells can also be used for the Land attack missiles.

If you go for a pure ASW escort that is a direct T23 replacement including only a short range AAW missile (CAAM), and forget land attack (viable if you think thats what CVF is for), then you could go for a small ship of the same size as a perry or T23.

Oh, and its either Sylver VLS or nothing, now that Sylver has been selected, they wont switch to anything else unless aster gets integrated.