By: Khazaria - 11th July 2006 at 09:53
Of todays ships, The Horizon are ugly. The Talwar are impracticle and Type 45 are worse than the Horizon but nothing is as bad as the Arleigh Burke class!
Personally I like the F-100 Bazan class followed by the Nansen class!
Sadly the best looking ship ever thought of will never hit the water, the Australian Department of Defence: Defence Materiel Organisation”s AWD Proposal. Here’s a pic
why do you think the Talwar is impractical?
By: Wanshan - 11th July 2006 at 07:16
Hey Wan, mate back in the 30’s this guy built a sub that could fly, it could only submerge to conning tower but could fly to 9000ft and had a top speed of 130mph.
I saw some drawings in Military Parade of a submersible missile boat, i.e. a cross between a missile boat (FAC) and a sub, but i never heard of a sub that could fly. Any drawings?
By: Ja Worsley - 10th July 2006 at 10:03
Hey Wan, mate back in the 30’s this guy built a sub that could fly, it could only submerge to conning tower but could fly to 9000ft and had a top speed of 130mph.
By: Wanshan - 10th July 2006 at 00:42
Sinking a submarine is far more significant than a single attack plane.
I’ve always liked the idea of sinking an attack plane :p
By: Ja Worsley - 9th July 2006 at 16:23
Here here Wan 😉
By: Wanshan - 9th July 2006 at 00:14
What ever man. :dev2: I don’t consider light torpedo launcher a powerfull weapon. :diablo:
You’re obviously not a submariner….
By: tomcat1974 - 8th July 2006 at 17:11
No you didn’t, check the quotation and the original post. You said:
“Romanian Navy Type-22 Frigate don’t have any kind of weapons on them except the OTO Melara gun.”
What ever man. :dev2: I don’t consider light torpedo launcher a powerfull weapon. :diablo:
By: Wanshan - 8th July 2006 at 12:12
Well seeing as Arabel is considered inferior to Sampson, it is quite possible. The gun arrangement is ridiculous, it dosnt allow for the future fitting of a large calibre gun, unlike the T-45 which could take one of the new 5 inchs or a 39 calibre 155mm.
The gun arrangement is related to the adoption and use of the Oto 76mm super-rapid in CIWS role, at longer range than could be obtained with CIWS like Phalanx or Goalkeeper. Alows for engagement of multiple targets from multiple directions. As adopted also in, for example, the Italian Luigi Durand de la Penne class DDGs , in combination with a single 127 gun. Before that, there was the Audace class DDG, with 2x single 127mm and 4x 76mm (in pairs on each beam). In other words, it reflects the AAW role of the ship, which is given priority over shore bombardment.
By: Wanshan - 8th July 2006 at 12:05
I said that except the guns and EW/ECM and torpeedo launcher… they are NAKED. There aren’t helicopters at the moment. First Naval Pilots are in training now.
No you didn’t, check the quotation and the original post. You said:
“Romanian Navy Type-22 Frigate don’t have any kind of weapons on them except the OTO Melara gun.”
By: Turbinia - 8th July 2006 at 03:47
Not really surprising there is a strong similarity between the Type 45 and Horizon considering the shared ancestry and that certain key systems are shared.
By: Bager1968 - 7th July 2006 at 07:26
Someone earlier commented that they had a concern about top-weight.
The masts, while large, are actually pretty light. They are mostly empty space, being simply plating over a framework. The plating controls the return angle of the reflected radar pulses, and also prevents corrosion of components… actually aiding in reliability (and keeping the weather off of the repair workers).
The funnels are also, of course, mostly empty space, so they don’t weigh much either.
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th July 2006 at 22:16
Lol those pictures of the Forbin are interesting. They make me think of the Daring-class, so I guess they’re useful in gaining an understanding of what we should be expecting.
By: JonS - 6th July 2006 at 15:18
Of todays ships, The Horizon are ugly. The Talwar are impracticle and Type 45 are worse than the Horizon but nothing is as bad as the Arleigh Burke class!
Personally I like the F-100 Bazan class followed by the Nansen class!
whats wrong with talwar, burke and type 45?
Well seeing as Arabel is considered inferior to Sampson, it is quite possible. The gun arrangement is ridiculous, it dosnt allow for the future fitting of a large calibre gun, unlike the T-45 which could take one of the new 5 inchs or a 39 calibre 155mm.
They should have been fitted with Shorad Mistral system instead of the oto’s similar to the one’s fitted in Delta class FFG i guess it comes down to $$.
By: tomcat1974 - 6th July 2006 at 08:15
I think the MICA VL is intended as SAM but it is not yet fitted, same w.r.t. SSM. However ….. in addition to 76mm gun, there are a pair of armed helicopter (ASW/ASUW), lightweight ASW torpedo tubes, full sensor with in all three dimensions (surface, air, subsruface), EW/ECM. Ships originally had 2 – DES / Oerlikon 30mm/75 twin mounts and 2 – Oerlikon / BMARC 20mm GAM-B01 single mounts, which I presume are easy to mount and dismount depending on need.
I said that except the guns and EW/ECM and torpeedo launcher… they are NAKED. There aren’t helicopters at the moment. First Naval Pilots are in training now.
By: Wanshan - 6th July 2006 at 08:04
Romanian Navy Type-22 Frigate don’t have any kind of weapons on them except the OTO Melara gun. Supposely the additional weapons will be addded during seccond upgrade program 2007-2008.
I think the MICA VL is intended as SAM but it is not yet fitted, same w.r.t. SSM. However ….. in addition to 76mm gun, there are a pair of armed helicopter (ASW/ASUW), lightweight ASW torpedo tubes, full sensor with in all three dimensions (surface, air, subsruface), EW/ECM. Ships originally had 2 – DES / Oerlikon 30mm/75 twin mounts and 2 – Oerlikon / BMARC 20mm GAM-B01 single mounts, which I presume are easy to mount and dismount depending on need.
By: sealordlawrence - 2nd July 2006 at 15:08
the Aus proposal doesnt show a 3D radar on rear mast and a smaller mast for comms and EW gear. I doubt the picture shown would be how it finally turned out. every new-gen ship has a 3D search radar for backup.
Although this is something that is being challenged, BAe claim that Sampson alone would be sufficient for the T-45’s. And the Meko-X design which would use the CEA AESA radar dosnt have one either.
By: WisePanda - 2nd July 2006 at 14:52
the Aus proposal doesnt show a 3D radar on rear mast and a smaller mast for comms and EW gear. I doubt the picture shown would be how it finally turned out. every new-gen ship has a 3D search radar for backup.
By: Ja Worsley - 2nd July 2006 at 08:09
Of todays ships, The Horizon are ugly. The Talwar are impracticle and Type 45 are worse than the Horizon but nothing is as bad as the Arleigh Burke class!
Personally I like the F-100 Bazan class followed by the Nansen class!
Sadly the best looking ship ever thought of will never hit the water, the Australian Department of Defence: Defence Materiel Organisation”s AWD Proposal. Here’s a pic
By: WisePanda - 2nd July 2006 at 04:53
France is building Mistral class amphib ships and the Italians have a few too. I dont see why EMPAR + ASter30 + Aster15 cannot deal with Block52 F16/P3 + harpoon @ Karachi.
By: Jonesy - 2nd July 2006 at 02:20
Well seeing as Arabel is considered inferior to Sampson, it is quite possible. The gun arrangement is ridiculous, it dosnt allow for the future fitting of a large calibre gun, unlike the T-45 which could take one of the new 5 inchs or a 39 calibre 155mm.
SLL,
If memory serves the Franco Italian PAAMS uses EMPAR (analgous to a turbo-Arabel…sort of!) not ARABEL. ARABEL is used by the Aster15 shooters only and is essentially a self-defence suite….albeit with a pretty good, local, crossing target ability.
Irrespective of said nitpickery EMPAR is still inferior to the UKPAAMS setup because of the UK requirement for a higher capability level than that deemed necessary by our European neighbours.
Essentially all the Forbin and Italian-Forbin are required to do is area goalie duty on the carriers of their respective services. Yep you need a powerful system to defeat modern AShMs but the actual threat scenarios are quite simple.
T45 is required to perform as AAWC over amphib debarkation areas inshore and operate independant of a big, flattop, consort etc, etc. Its therefore specified to a higher degree in its weapons system, comms systems etc. As anyone in the boat-floating game will tell you – ship steel is cheap….its the gadgetry you bolt onto them that’ll make you wince!!!
Sign In
June 30, 2006 at 10:47 am