For all the same reasons the mission bay is on the T26. In fact due to the different ways the T26 and T31 will be deployed, the mission bay would probably be used more frequently on the T31.NickC wrote:I fail to understand why you want to create a mission bay on Arrowhead 140 / Iver Huitfeldt at the expense of the weapons deck, if memory correct the T31e RFI requirement does not mention a mission bay only ability to carry two TEUs, Arrowhead has ability to store four TEUs under the flight deck.
What size of a 'weapons deck' is actually needed on a T31? It doesn't take up a lot of room for 12 to 24 CAMM. The Mk41 capability is useful for export but its not required for the RN variant. What would RN put in them? To lose a space akin the the T26 mission bay simply to house 12 CAMM would be crazy in my opinion.
The TEU requirement is an interesting point. On paper the A140's have double the capacity but what is going to be in these TEU's. For example, If they are command modules for UUV's or UAV's why would you want then in a storage hold under the flight deck? Surely it would be more sensible to have the TEU next to the mission space. It's not clear if these TEU's could be moved in and out of this storage space whilst on deployment.
Was this under fight deck space actually designed to operate the towed array? If so, and the towed arrays are fitted in the future It won't leave a lot of space for the TEU's with the current design.
Agreed, 100%donald_of_tokyo wrote:....gaining a knowledge from Danish design and building concept will be a good "stimulation" to UK ship industry....decision process will be very interesting to see
I take your point especially when combined with a single landing spot design but I see It as a single hanger plus mission space that can house a second helicopter rather than a standard double hanger. For example, would this combined hanger/mission space be a better place to house the TEU's as it would provide direct access to the UAV's on the flight deck and the UUV's via a hatch in the side of the hanger/mission space.Aethulwulf wrote:But they also know the features in which the RN is not interested. A double Merlin hanger would be such a feature. It is not needed for the T31. Any bid featuring a double Merlin hanger would not be scored any higher by the RN than a bid with a single Merlin hanger.
Absolutely, if this is an essential requirement the Leander simply can't compete.shark bait wrote:[*]It has a saunaPoiuytrewq wrote:The current design doesn't offer enough over the Leander to be sure of victory.