Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th April 2002 at 04:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CVF CG images
the best, cheapest and fastest solution is to buy a modified WASP class hull and use JSFs and V-22 modified as AEW. It could happen!
By: - 12th April 2002 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CVF CG images
nahh wasp is too old
we brits actually want new every now and again
coanda lol
By: - 12th April 2002 at 13:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: CVF CG images
Min,
Have thought about this one a bit since I first saw the photo's (would love to talk this one over with the design team!)
Advantages are there compared to a long superstructure version in that deck space is now made available between the two structures. If you look at the rest of the ship it has clearly been optimised for maximum possible deck space off the landing/TO area - this makes a huge amount of sense as deck reconfigurations for landings/takeoff's/striking airframes etc are one of the major factors restricting sortie rates aboard ship. With lots of room for the plane manglers to push the aircraft round in it will simplify things greatly for them and should add up to some real efficiency savings.
The way that the artwork looks is that the for'd island contains the bridge, flyco and the with the after structure housing the Samspon 3D search/track set (round ball shaped thing!) for the Aster missile system. My guess is that the EW fit would be split between both masts as a known baseline length between two receivers can be quite useful as I'm sure Biff could attest to if he's about!
Seperating the islands will also make maintenance a bit easier and probably improve damage resilience a bit as well. There's likely to be an auxilliary conning position in the second island and perhaps even a split flyco. The interesting thing for me though is the signature attenuation that this arrangement might introduce.
To explain this if you look at a Type23 frigate, like the pic of HMS Marlborough below, you can see white strakes atop the bridge and hanger. These modify the ships radar signature to the effect that, to an inbound radar seeker, the ships attitude becomes confusing. I dont want to stray into area's that shouldnt be talked about but effectively an AShM active radar seeker aims at the point of greatest signal return which, on a conventional ship, is the superstructure roughly amidships. The strakes on the Type23 monkey around with that a little.
I'm wondering whether a twin island arrangement might do a similar thing, sounds silly as were talking about a 40-50000 ton hull here instead of a 3500 ton vessel, but, the signature will dramatically increase around the islands and thus produce a reasonably widely seperated double-maximum image to an inbound missile. This could be sufficient to confuse an inbound into thinking its tracking two smaller ships close together instead of one big one and cause a targetting conflict in the seeker?
All absolute supposition and guesswork of course. The one thing which is very interesting to me though is that both images are of the CATOBAR version of the ship, not the damned STOVL one. I've heard of a few rumours doing the circuits following on from Afghan Ops that the absolute necessity of long legs on a carrier fighter may have started to filter through to the MoD and the catapult and USN F35C options are being more seriously considered at Abbey Wood. Anything UNCLAS you've heard of these rumours MikeP?
Regs,
Steve
Attachments:
Posts: 1,400
By: minmiester - 12th April 2002 at 02:43
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 12-04-02 AT 02:45 AM (GMT)]Seen some Thales images of the proposed CVF? They feature twin islands. Does anybody have an opinion on what advantages/disadvantages such a configuration would hold? I would think it simply takes up more room than a single island, with no significant reduction in RCS or costs...
MinMiester
Attachments: