I rather think that the hull will be dimensioned with other criteria first, and then, if big enough, the space will be reserved (but utilised as a gym in the interim).donald_of_tokyo wrote: Nice list. If I read it correctly, this mean VLS could be "fitted for but not with" as built.
Contiguous hangar and mission bay could be on the lines (for uses such as) shown here:
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/u ... ng-arcims/
- what is shown (in blue) on the sides become boat facilities
- please note the MCM boats in the water
- the "blue" then becomes the forward 50% of the contiguous space (side opening facilitated)
- the aft 50% will still facilitate 1-2 UAVs (and the 100% can not only fit a helo - not necessarily a Merlin - but the helo can also be maintained, v necessary when the mission is more about a lengthy patrol than providing a Task Force with MCM that deploys with it)
It is 5 yrs and a couple of months since
"2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) confirmed that the Mine Countermeasures, Hydrographic, and Patrol Capability (MHPC) would eventually replace the existing MCM and Survey vessels. Subsequent agreements with the French have also seen a commitment to a joint programme. It also became clear around this time, as the FMCMC had suggested, that mine countermeasures would be about removing the need for clearance divers as much as possible, reducing the need for dedicated platforms and increasing deployability. I [this quote is from the same TD article as the graphics link above] think it also signalled the end for highly specialised, low magnetic, quiet and ultra-expensive MCM vessels, maybe not soon, but definitely on the horizon [when the FLFs will need specialists to man their mission modules, say, 3 current MCM vessels would do that for an IOC to be declared]. These goals pointed to the compact deployable set of equipment that could be operated at standoff distances from any vessel [with the appropriate facilities and space] or the shore."
Many have held that the "P" had dropped off from the MHPC (because it was listed last in the acronym?).
Exactly the opposite may happen as even when fitted with a remote MCM capability (the containers and the boats), and FLF configured as shown would retain a patrol capability (only trading a manned helo for an UAV or two... AS A SIDE NOTE, now, what does the USN TERN from NG look like? And where did the UK £3m spent on a similar capability go ? No images of TERN yet, except of experimental a/c from the '50s and no info of its required footprint (deck & hangar).
- nice bonus, though, the £1.4 bn earmarked for MHPC
- say, spend .4 of it on the R&D and subscale (but working) prototypes
- - the French will spend the same (we hope)
- the remaining bn, divided by the FLF units, makes £200m per unit
-- spend half of that for the specialised modules/ kit, and you still have a subsidy of £100m towards the hull
Assume T26 coming in at £ 600-800m a piece, target price for FLF two thirds of that, say a round 500m
=> effective cost of the "additional" programme 5 x 400 (net)m = 2bn
And... what is additional about it?
- 5 T26s dropped
- instead of the pencilled in 14 MHPC units, 5 will (initially) be delivered
- to come up to the full 14 with 9 would be 4.5 bn (no subsidy element remaining and assuming that no more than 5 units would be kitted out for MCM duty at any given time)
What is £4.5bn? About 4-5 T26s. How many were dropped from the plans
... and who says there is no capability trading, now that each arm of the Defence Forces has more say within their budget?