rickusn

Mothership for Unmanned Vehicles Looks to the Future

London September 11, 2007 - BAE Systems has developed a new concept warship, the UXV Combatant, designed to operate in a future battle space dominated by land, sea and air unmanned vehicles.

Using a proven naval hull form to launch, operate and recover large numbers of small unmanned vehicles for extended periods, the UXV plays the role of mother ship - a permanent base and control center for the futuristic unmanned land, sea and air vehicles before, during and on completion of their missions. The 8000-tonne vessel, an evolution of the multi-role warship, is not expected to enter service until post 2020.

The design provides a cost-effective solution to the evolving challenges facing the modern navy. Features will include:

Flexible and efficient twin flight decks
Variable ski jump
Rotary aviation facilities
Below-deck hangar
Smart munitions
The weapons are a future development of the Type 45 combat suite. With the UXV support capability, performing multiple roles combined with an easily adaptable design, which moves the concept of stealth to the next level.

Propulsion options include fully integrated electrical propulsion with twin propeller shafts/motors supplied by gas turbine and diesel alternators. Alternatively, cruising power can be supplied by two shafts/motors and diesel alternators with boost power from one gas turbine driving two water jets.

The concept brings together naval technologies developed through collaboration with partners such as Rolls Royce and across BAE Systems business units, as part of a program of continuous improv

Galrahn

About time someone made a proposal. I think the potential in motherships is much greater than Navies currently realize.

B.Smitty

Wonder how they're planning on handling the launch, recovery and stowage of UUVs and USVs? Well deck? Davits or crane? LCS-like mission deck?

8000 tons is an interesting size. With a ski jump, they obviously intend on operating fixed-wing UAVs, but what about manned aircraft? Is it large enough to operate JSFs or Harriers?

What would a notional UAV/UUV/USV/Helo loadout look like?

Shipwreck

BAE Systems' Mothership :



Iowa-class BBV :



BRING BACK THE IOWAS !!!!

__________________
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9)

B.Smitty

Hmm. So looks like davits under the flight decks?

Shipwreck

BAE Systems' Mothership :



Iowa-class BBV :



BRING BACK THE IOWAS !!!!

B.Smitty

Interesting. So it has a rear ramp/welldeck.

I wonder why they didn't go with a full length flightdeck? Seems like this is a hybrid destroyer/mothership. Wonder if that's really such a good idea on a ship of this size.

Maybe it'd be better to build a destroyer and a mothership as separate vessels using the same hull.

gunnut

The new BAE ship looks like LCV-2, except for the lack of trimeram. Does it also make 45 knots?

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

gunnut

I have some questions:

1. Is it possible to bring back the Iowas?
2. Is it possible for a conversion in to a BBV like that?
3. Is it worth the money?

TopHatter

1. Anything is possible with political will and money
2. Anything is possible with political will and money
3. No, a flight deck is not worth a 16-inch turret and a flight deck cancels out the battleship's main defensive advantage: It can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' (i.e. it's harder to mission-kill a battleship than it is to mission-kill an aviation ship.)

IMHO of course.

perfectgeneral

This mother-ship should be through deck with the island offset. An island right of the flight deck was tried for full size carriers (WW2 Japan) and it doesn't work. Putting another flight deck the other side of the island will just make things worse.

Being a mother-ship for UAVs is a wildly different mission from being a mother-ship for patrol boats and USuVs. The former needs to loiter a good distance over the horizon while the latter needs to be available for littoral support of it's charges.

I think UAVs should be left to CVF and an mother-ship for autonomous/patrol boats and ASW/patrol helicopters be developed instead (to replace the Dukes?). Something like the Japanese Hyūga-class destroyers with davits under the flight deck.

Dectilion

i think you mean islands LEFT of the flight deck don't work perfectgeneral, all modern carriers have Islands right of the flight deck. Any why doesnt it work?

__________________
ROAD WARRIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

perfectgeneral

Left, right - it depends which way you look at it

I have very little detail for you on the Japanese carriers, just this from Wiki:

I think that bad air currents had something to do with it, but if you have something concrete, please post it here.

Tin Man

The only reason I have ever heard as to why port islands were not implemented that sounds feasible was this...

Piston engined aircraft pull to the left due to engine torque and rotation. It was easier to "wave off" to the left so islands were built to starboard.

Of course, there might have been other factors and this could be BS!
I do know that some types of piston engined aircraft indeed have a propensity to pull more readily in one direction but this is only what I have read.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.