StevoJHC2 is only meant to have a hanger large enough for 1 merlin + some extra space maybe for a UAV. The VLS would only be on one side of the hanger like Greek FREMM I’m sure it would not be very hard to sort the weight distrubution they wouldn’t of deisgned the greek FREMM like that if there was significant problems. Even if you had VLS on both sides you would still have a hanger the same size as a T23 which is big enough to operate a merlin.
The VLS on the Greek FREMM are individual cells that are bolted to the side of the hanger similar to the VLS on the halifax class frigates. The VLS in question (smallest that Sylver make) can only fire Mistral missiles which is not in the RN armoury and which they have no plan to buy.
Oh, and FREMM can carry 2 NH90 helicopters, roughly the equivalent of the Lynx in size.
StevoJHNot only that, but the hangar will also likely end up needing support equipment for UAV’s too, all takes up space. Not sure what the VLS weight would be like, quad packed CAMM’s or Aster 30’s are going to be pretty heavy aswell as the weight of the VLS itself. There are plenty of better places to mount a VLS systems IMO.
On the bow in front of the superstructure for example?
StevoJHNot so have a look at this http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107575 it was who Jonesy mentioned it in a previous post and as the RHIB’s are not along side the hanger like T45 there is plenty of space.
The Bow of the C1 is the same as the T45 so in theory it can go to at least 64 VLS cells i’ve read that even 72 is able to fit there.
I doubt you’d fit two merlins in if you put a VLS there, plus it would be an absolute pain to work around the VLS cells depending on how they are fitted and the number of them.
If you fit a row of 8 cell VLS’s to each side of the hanger you can probably say goodbye to your two merlins. If you have one row on one side of the hanger you might have to start think about weight distribution issues.
StevoJHI think it would be a bit of a waste using Naval Scalp against ships. To hit a target 1000 km away, you need something much closer to ID it, & provide targeting data. Why not use that to launch a shorter-ranged anti-ship missile, e.g. Harpoon, or NSM?
Erm, i thought the range of Storm Shadow/SCALP was ~250km :confused:
NSM might be a good choice, “slightly” newer then Harpoon, plus its European if thats important. 😉
StevoJHUmm….where is the hanger on your C2? you seem to have filled it up with the bottom half of a VLS. 😉
Can we give C1 the same sized flight deck as the T45 (T45 can handle Chinnook) but with the larger hanger still? Move the superstructure back and fit more VLS cells for SCALP/Aster. At the very least least it can operate as extra ammunition sources for the T45’s if they have some sort of cooperative engagement datalink system and it would let them carry more SCALP’s for land attack plus possibly anti-shipping if you could fit SCALP with an anti-shipping radar guidance system (base it on the one used for Tomahawk, Harpoon or Sea Eagle?).
StevoJHThat’s about what VT Group has proposed, theirs is:
100m
3000t
Accomodation for 76
76mm or 30mm
Diesel powered
25 knots
SAM provision
Steel hull
Flight deck for a MerlinLink.
http://www.vosperthornycroft.co.uk/shipbuilding/newsdetails.asp?print=1&ItemID=716
Doesnt mention a hanger though 🙁
StevoJHThe problem is that those drawings are now out of scale by some margin. I’m not sure about the Merlin hangar on either the C2 or, to a lesser extent, C3. The Merlin size flight deck on C3 I think is do-able I’m just not sure that a hangar that big is a practical measure. Given its mission I think FLynx or a couple of Firescout/A160 UAV’s would be the target to aim for for hangar space and air ops on C2.
I dont think there was anything wrong with the first concept drawings you had that held the stronger commonality between C2 and C3 designs. I think that there might have been a moderate scaling problem with the actual drawing because, if you compare to an Iranian Vosper Mk5 corvette, the gun is too big in proportion to a 3500-4000 ton escort. If you could fit the CAMM into a hangar-side A35 mounts as the Greek FREMM layout has and re-site the Harpoons Mk141 tubes dead aft or recessed between the forward superstructure and the funnel-group perhaps then you keep much of the original design concept of commonality. The C2 as you had redesigned it was starting to look a lot more like a FREMM than an austere patrol combattant!.
The C3 was fine as it was IMO. I’d swap the SeaRAM for Phalanx just as we already have it and I’d resite it from the bridge to the hangar roof. Best to turn the stern onto the inbound bearing and risk a hit in the hangar than turn bows in to the threat and risk the hit on the bridge/CIC spaces. Personal opinion only but I’d have Phalanx sited to cover my stern arcs!.
I have a feeling he might have used an imaged of the 155mm gun being developed by BAe.
StevoJHI love the illustrations, though I’m not sure about two particular details on the C2 and C3. The first is the bow arrangement – the forecastle seems very short, with a very structure-forward arrangement, and the gun very far forward. The second minor thing is the arrangement of the VLS on the C-2 – I’m never very sure about the idea of the aft-mounted VLS. As already discussed, the other issue is that the C-3 is unlikely to be much over 2000 tons, unfortunately. This means that C-2 is more likely to share the hull of the C-1. On the other hand, I do really like your ideas, they do represent excellent designs.
The other minor thing would be to have a full coverage for the CIWS, preferably though a pair of Phalanx, more like on your C-1 illustration. This would be worth it for the C-2 certainly, and possibly for the C-3. As was learnt in the Falklands, you really need every ship to have as much defensive coverage as possible. Using Phalanx would be an excellent way for the C-3 to be upgraded with a SAM of course, since you could just upgrade their Phalanx units to SeaRAM configuration!
It also might be worth making the CAAM a drop-in replacement for the RAM, allowing the UK to use the basic SeaRAM system, but with a British-built missile. Since Britain should be using Phalanx/SeaRAM for the carriers, amphibs, T-45s, C-1/2/3 and some RFAs, designing a UK-built upgrade might make sense. It would also make some sense for the other CAAM roles, since the Army have been using the American C-RAM system, combining a counter-mortar radar system and Phalanx. The Army would then just buy a load of Phalanx units, with some using the 1B configuration (with 20mm cannon), and some replacing Rapier units, using the SeaRAM configuration.
The C-RAM being used in Iraq are Phalanx units pulled off the decomissioned T42’s. If the RN went with a RAM version firing CAAM then i could probably see the Phalanx units being donated or “sold” to the army and RAF for airfield defense.
StevoJHFor C3, I’d go either without Phalanx or with it above the hanger, with the radar up front. Hanger for Future Lynx or NFH-90 rather then Merlin. Space for a TAS from the stern.
StevoJHB) trimaran using the basic hull form from Triton.
A) Conventional Hullform
Don’t really have a third choice, but if i had to choose i’d go for D, due to C looking like you’d get very wet.
StevoJHIf you adopt a system like the Danish Stanflex you can fit a SAM within hours. It needs the sensors & control systems in place, which with Stanflex they are, & containerised launchers designed for quick fitting. Otherwise, I suggest that you could build the ships with all cabling & connections, & reserved spaces for control consoles, processors, launchers (containerised VLS, I assume, like Stanflex) etc., & maybe fit it in days.
Why not make it a bolt on system like RAM that with the wiring in place would just need to be lifted into place, bolted down and then have the wires connected? plus if its mounted above the hanger you would keep full chopper functionality, which a Stanflex style system might risk if you were limited in hull size.
You could probably do a similar thing for a TAS. Of course if you give them a 40mm cannon but design the front of the ship around a standard mark 8 Medium gun you could probably use them as a cheap fire support ship to leave your T23’s and T45’s out at sea escorting the CVBG and ARG.
StevoJHHMS Clyde (1900t, 30mm, flight deck, air search radar, CMS-1, crew of 34) was built and is initially being operated by VT Group for iirc 3 years for 30 million pounds (60 million dollars). I think C3 should be a slightly larger Clyde (add hangar, more RM accomodation, enough space for a SAM [but not fitted initially just build it so that in a crisis a SAM could be fitted on the ships within 2-3 weeks*]) coming in at no more than 40 million pounds build costs. That would enable the RN to buy more than 12 and in numbers about sufficiently replace the MCMVs.
* not sure how realistic this is
Sure, you could bolt a Phalanx or RAM on above the hanger. Realistically if you left room for a RAM or other SAM system you might as well leave room under the flight deck for them to be fitted with a TAS, they’d make a good convoy escort and free up the more expensive and capable T23’s for task force duty (with maybe a T45, Burke or FSC to command the group and give aircover).
StevoJHIts a completely different concept and way of carrying out STOVL/VTOL.
The harrier engine has outlet nozzles to each side of the engine, while the system designed for the F35 has a lift fan forward of the jet which is connected to it by a shaft system, it also has a vectoring exhaust aft.
BAe would have to design a new airframe around the engine, would probably end up being as expensive as the F35 anyway.
StevoJHB, C, A
remember these ships are going to most likely be the replacement for the majority of the Type 23’s, which means more then 2 would be needed. 😉
StevoJHMy choices.
I) canister mounted version of CAAM, similar to RAM
G) Phalanx
C) RAM
One of the main reason for this being that none of these systems would require penetration of the deck.
Sign In
