Lord Jim wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Where do you see these 64 Mk41s fitted on the current design ? I can see the possibility of 48 up front but none anywhere else with out losing the mission bay.
I believe the suggestion was a limited stretch of the T-26 design so that whilst also using the space taken up by the 24 "Mushrooms" amidships there should be room for at least two "Standard" length Mk41s which could carry SM-6, Quad Sea Ceptor, LRASM and VL ASROC. You only really need the "Strike" length for TLAMS and SM-3. With the four "Strike" length up front, That being the total up to 48 cells but as mentioned that may not be enough. Reducing the size or sacrificing the Mission bay would allow for considerably more, possibly bringing the total to that in excess of 80 cells., but reduce some of the vessels flexibility. However with the T-26 hull quietening and the Sonar on board together with the ASW weapon on the ship and helicopter it would still be a useful ASW platform.
Of course instead of putting more MK41 on each ship we could purchase more, and end up developing a UK platform similar to what the USN has with its ABs though slightly smaller and less capable, and as a result end up with a single class that is kept in production and evolving over time as capabilities appear. Slightly stretched with a smaller Mission Bay, the basic fit could be;
1x 57mm Gun
4x8 "Strike" Mk41 VLS
4x8 "Standard" Mk41 VLS
2x Remote Bofors 40mm
2x Unspecified CIWS
Ix Merlin or other helicopter
I prefer a 57mm over a 5" as I believe NGFS is going to be too hazardous a mission for high value assets in future, Current long range rounds like the Volcano use Sub Calibre rounds that have a greatly reduced HE content and so are far less effective in this role. Possibly a Naval GMLRS or the Ground Launched SDB could be alternatives.
I havnt seen anywhere that the mid ship sit can be used for anything other than cold launch systems so I’ll hold off on accept Mk41s can be placed there until I see otherwise.
As for the mission bay I personally think it’d be daft to get ride of it in any future design, with the way things are heading it could come in very useful down the road. We have to remember the T26 and T4X will be in service out to 2060 and then some.
I style don’t believe 64 Mk41s for and AAW specialised / multi role vessel is enough. A lengthened T26 hull with up to 96 Mk41s and some of the quieting measures such as rafting removed would give the RN a modern AB equivalent for a similar cost.
dmereifield wrote:Are we really saying that the MoD/RN can afford a T26 modified AAW specialist, if it keeps the T26 ASW optimizations (sans tail)? We can barely afford them as is, if you make them larger, add more MK41 and a larger mast and more expensive radar, how much will they cost? £1-1.5bn? How many could we afford?
I'd like to know how much cheaper the T26 could be made if its ASW optimisations were junked, so that we could then afford to adapt them to AAW fit out
For the lengthened AAW version I’d look to remove some of the ASW set up such as rafting and other quieting measures along with TASS, but they’re would be no point in change the hull form as the design work for it is already paid for.
If HMG MOD and treasury pull there finger out and look at valve for cost instead on year on year cost we could get the T26s for a average price of around £850m per hull and I’d bet a T4X based like about for around £1.2bn per hull.
It’s all about reusing as much of the T26 design as possible to allow a continues role of work with the learning curve.