CIWS on the foredeck where you located it is a no go, they tried it on one of the T42B3’s but it got to wet (and that was back further between the gun and missile launcher). The Rear CIWS is surplus to requirements as it doesnt have the same arc of fire as the hanger mounted one. The VLS cells mounted there can go with the other ones on either side of the hanger, though personally i’d rather have a hanger capable of carrying two helicopters rather then one instead.

Also, gun in front of the VLS cells please.

Look below it…..Nelson didnt have casemate guns

My guess, is that its either a Pennsylvania class, new mexico class or tennessee class battleship. The US had a habit of fitting its early battleships with very wet casemate mounted secondary batteries that were later either partly removed, or raised into the superstructure in later refits.

One weight saving idea would be to use a lot of composites as per the Visby. Although it’s hard to calculate, it’s pretty obvious that the plastic Visby has a massive volume-to-displacement ration relative to steel 600t vessels?

Also, I found this interesting, inspirational even, sketch on Ship Bucket:

In order to gain the required structural strength for continuous ocean operations, a composite ships would be much heavier then a conventional ship. Remember that the Visby is designed for operations in the Littoral region.

As for that ship bucket image, its ugly, the forward VLS is in an impossible location, and i wouldn’t want to land on that top pad unless it was in perfectly calm seas with that radar platform right behind it.

Well you never know, the French may find the cash somewhere down the line.

Yeah, but wasnt PA.2 the backup design after they realised they couldn’t afford their original plan? IIRC, they wanted a scaled up version of the De Gaule, including nuclear propulsion, after all, conventional propulsion is a backwards step:rolleyes:

Scott

On those grounds definitely but I think the cost differential would be a bit more than an extra 4 hulls for the CVF-type design!. Especially if you put in whole-life costs!. Think more like, minimum, 22 or so.

When you get there you start looking at flexible response. Not all circumstances need the full weight of a CVN so sending a single US-PA2 (for want of better description) can be a much cheaper and more efficient response. Anywhere that needs a CVN is going to be better served by teaming two US-PA2s in concert. After all 1 CVW now is what 4 strikefighter sqdns plus an E-2 det and rotaries. A CVF can easily do 3 strikefighter sqdns plus the rest…maybe a few choppers light?.

You have:
1 x CVN – 4 fastjet sqdns and support plus 5000 crew or
2 x US-PA2 – 6 fastjet sqdns and 2 lots of support elements on circa 3000 crew.

…plus you can cycle the conventional carriers to maintain a constant presence…or detach one and reallocate it in theatre to an alternate attack axis or whatever. Much greater operational flexibility. It doesnt work any smaller down than about PA2-size of course…you need the minimum deck and cats for the E-2’s but you dont need the CVN get comparable sortie rates and target effects.

True, plus in the case of the CVF, the only real weakness is the lack of an organic AEW aircraft along the lines of the E2 unless the RN develop one, probably using either the V-22 or the BA609.

The F-35B matches or almost matches both the current generation of Carrier aircraft and is almost a match for the F-35C, on paper at least. The CVF can probably also carry more aircraft then specified, just as the USN Carriers do not carry their full load. A CVF with an organic AEW capability and a FULL combat load would probably be a match for a USN CVN at the moment, though not if they increased their aircraft numbers to the maximum.

Single choice, Tactom as it can fit into a Mk 41 strike length VLS, as can several other missiles, thus getting more bang from your buck.

Given deck space is going to be limited, you don’t want a pile of non-compatible missile systems each requiring its own unique launcher system.

Plus TacTom is in service with at least three navies that I am aware of, so it has a larger customer base and hence a larger industrial base.

Unicorn

I’m going to say, whichever one is most easily able to be fitted into a Sylver A70 VLS. With Sylver A70 you still have the option of firing Aster missiles. With Mk.41, the only RN deployed munition you can fire would be the Tactical Tomahawk. None of the new Generation RN warships will have the Illuminators to fire the SM family or ESSM, the main other missiles that Mk.41 can fire.

Edit:
1. A
2. C
3. D

And i think that would be adequate for most situations i’m not sure how many Royal marines there would be available for regular deployment because your not going to put a 100 troops on a ship just in case they are needed. 30-50 permanently embarked troops would be much more sensible and better use of resources.

30-50 is probably about the maximum you could realistically embark for any amount of time anyway, remember that it takes a specialized 30,000t ship (in the case of the future RAN Canberra) to carry 1,000 troops. Scaling that down, you could probably fit 150 embarked men on a 4,500t ship if you did not put any meaningful weaponry on it.

A VLS capable of fring VL Mica should be capable of firing CAMM.

Sure, but the VLS his image is showing looks like he has a VLS system hanging out under the roof of the hanger.