• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,912
Reaction score
804
In the last week or so, there was a RFI related to adding a catapult to a ship in the near term (<5 years). The requested specs would not be enough to operate F-35C, so the logical assumption is that it is to support an AEW UAS. And based on timing, the platform is probably the QE2s.

If they are going to add cats and traps, would it not make sense to do the thing properly? After all, the uav's will be growth limited unless they go for a decent setup so building the ability to launch F-35's or bigger would be getting ahead of the game.
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961
It certainly would cut costs to mount AAW onto a Type 26 hull and propulsion setup. Frankly the Australian Hunter class will have an impressive radar fit. It's potentially possible to achieve the merger of ASW and AAW on such a ship.

While in theory a dedicated AAW could be achieved on the Type 31 as that's It's Danish roots anyway.

Which costs do you believe would be saved by retaining the T26 hull? Especially considering that hull design is very compromised and incapable of being stretched?

Systems, like propulsion, I agree should be reused unless there's been a significant improvement over time. Certainly technology insertion. Hull forms? No - no significant savings, insures making different contents harder to fit.
Costs...you have evidence to the contrary?
Incapable of being stretched?
Does it need stretching?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
961

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
In the last week or so, there was a RFI related to adding a catapult to a ship in the near term (<5 years). The requested specs would not be enough to operate F-35C, so the logical assumption is that it is to support an AEW UAS. And based on timing, the platform is probably the QE2s.


This may give more clues ..


 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61
It certainly would cut costs to mount AAW onto a Type 26 hull and propulsion setup. Frankly the Australian Hunter class will have an impressive radar fit. It's potentially possible to achieve the merger of ASW and AAW on such a ship.

While in theory a dedicated AAW could be achieved on the Type 31 as that's It's Danish roots anyway.

Which costs do you believe would be saved by retaining the T26 hull? Especially considering that hull design is very compromised and incapable of being stretched?

Systems, like propulsion, I agree should be reused unless there's been a significant improvement over time. Certainly technology insertion. Hull forms? No - no significant savings, insures making different contents harder to fit.
Costs...you have evidence to the contrary?
Incapable of being stretched?
Does it need stretching?

I don't understand your 1st question and I've already answered your 3rd. As for stretching, the T26 design is already at its L/D limit so it's incapable of stretch.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
73
Reaction score
61

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
13,979
Reaction score
3,813
What is your opinion on Gas Pebble reactors for naval applications, if I may ask?
 

Similar threads

Top