Type 26 design unveiled
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19312378

Well, it looks the business, but then again so did the LCS. Let's hope that this doesn't make the same mistakes.

I do have one question though, what's that strange thing on the bow, literally right on the cutting edge, not far up from the waterline. Some sort of wave reduction device? A bumper for dolphins? Somewhere to place the tow line?

Some of these new designs are starting to look fugly and IMHO this is yet a further example.

That 'strange thing on the bow' is the bow anchor.

Yeah, they're not getting any prettier these days :-?
probably has a reason that they are designed like that.

HunterICX

Looks expensive.

Very.

I had an idea, which might be a good idea for an aircraft carrier. A submarine aircraft carrier. I know the last functional one was the I-400 class, but it's still worth a shot. Given the right design, it might even work nowadays. I am currently designing one for a fun project. Tomorrow I will put up some renders.
__________________________________________________ ______________
Edit:- Here's the renders
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...pictureid=5833
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...pictureid=5832

Yes! you can design it, but can you afford it?

Not a chance, whole budget was blown on the design costs.

Welcome to the 3rd World UK.

Stealth technology, lower radar signature etc.

Well its an ugly bugger, Jesus these modern warships do look crap and ugly these days :nope::nope::nope:

Here, have a nice-looking warship.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2z3vp77.jpg

Not a bad idea, especially with the new X-47 unmaned aircraft the US Navy is experimenting with right now or how about that new USAF 3,600 mph aircraft if say they could get that thing to work.

What a combination ... I still remember the old Regulus missile program on surface ships and submarines that's how old I am.

a radar jammer.:doh:

Actually, a special submarine is no longer needed for this role. All you need is a UAV that fits into the tubes, which isn't terribly difficult.

Additionally, you could argue that all subs became "aircraft carriers" ever since SLCMs came around. A cruise missile is, essentially, a single-use precision bomber. I don't think operating a reusable aircraft in such confined quarters is actually more economical.

OK thanks and heres another :salute:
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazin...eisenau_13.jpg

No word on air defence capability, a vague mentioning of modular implemented anti-submarine capability - but an extensive mentioning of disaster relief and reconstruction work capabilties and the symbolism of showing diplomatic presence.

It seems the MoD and I differ in the priorities of features when designing a platform capable to fight and survive in a war. Even more - a platform that they claim should operate for longer time autonomously and at a great distance away from home.

And not one hint over the costs per unit...? It seems to be more expensive than I feared. Should we start a betting game here - how much you bet that the plan to buy 13 units will not stand? When these units shall replace those 13 frigates, the Roxal Navy will shgink even more in numerical size, I'm sure.

The looks, I don'T know what you have, I like it. Classic warships like on your pics always look like uppiled chunks of swimming debris, as if they already had burned out.

One thing is certain: the program will be payed with money that the UK does not have. Right this year the UK will pay 45 billion pounds in interests on debts, which is more than the whole defence budget together.

I love Western economic theories. Always healing deficits and carrying off debts by spending more money and mounting more debts. But everybody frowning his eyebrows that there is a crisis.