WanshanNo offense, but the eurpopean air defense ships such as F100, Horizon and Sachen would more probably be labelled as Destroyers or Cruisers then as frigates.
They are called Frigates for political reasons.
Probably, but the point was that F100 does not have the same version of SPY-1 as F85.
Destroyers (DD or DDG)
A destroyer is smaller, and less capable than a cruiser, but is also capable of operating independently in a high-threat environment. Destroyers have steadily grown in size (now 5,000 to 10,000 tons), expense (nearly US$700 million apiece) and capability. Generally, a destroyer is considered to be a ship that has all of the sensors (including a sophisticated phased-array radar), combat systems, and weapons needed to operate in a high-threat environment. A number of world navies are currently building ships that, while called frigates, more accurately represent destroyers in size and capability. Examples include the Spanish F-100, the German F-124, and the Dutch De Zeven Provincien classes (all are highly capable ships displacing over 5,000 tons and carrying phased-array radars).
Frigates (FF or FFG)
A frigate is a medium-sized surface combatant (between 2,000 and 5,000 tons) that is either suited for one specific role (anti-submarine warfare or anti-air warfare), or has lesser all-around capabilities than a destroyer. A frigate may be less capable than a destroyer, but is still a relatively sophisticated and expensive (averaging around US$325 million apiece) platform. A frigate is generally the smallest surface combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment.
Vessel Types (AMI International)
WanshanF100 Alvaro de Bazan
The Aegis combat data system controls the detection, control and engagement sequence through the AN/SPY-1D radar
The first four F-100 ships are equipped with the Lockheed Martin AN/SPY-1D fixed phased array radar for air and surface search. AN/SPY-1D is a multi-function E/F band, three-dimensional radar which is an essential part of the Aegis system. It provides instantaneous beam steering, target detection, fire control tracks on hundreds of targets, and multiple target kill assessment.
“The main missions of the F100 frigate include fleet protection and anti-air warfare.”The planned fifth and sixth vessels, Roger de Lauria (F105) and Juan de Austria (F106), will be fitted with the SPY-1D(V), which includes an upgrade to improve littoral performance.”
Full Load Displacement 5,800t
Length Overall 146.7m
Length Waterline 133.2m
Maximum Beam 18.6m
Draught 4,84m
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f100/
F310 Nansen class
The Aegis combat system is based on the Spy-1F multifunction phased array radar, a scaled [down] version of the AN/SPY-1D
Displacement Fully Loaded: 5,130t
Overall Length: 133.25m
Length at Waterline: 121.39m
Maximum Beam: 16.8m
Beam at Waterline: 15.9m
Draught: 4.9m
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nansen/
By virtue of its size, SPY-1D is a more powerful radar and, consequently, has increased range, but both the SPY-1D and the SPY1-F have air defense and ship self-defense capabilities. The SPY-1F, on the other hand, has not been designed to provide TBMD capability through software and hardware modifications.
The SPY-1F [F for Frigate] maintains the power and advanced capabilities of the AEGIS system found on guided-missile cruisers and destroyers, but its size has been scaled back to fit on smaller ships. SPY-1F is a smaller, lighter version of the SPY-1D radar system, providing robust performance with Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and SM-2 missile capability on frigate and corvette-sized ships. Spain’s F-100 program was the first application of the SPY-1F AEGIS system for frigates, which are smaller than the large guided-missile cruisers and destroyers that were previusly the only vessels with AEGIS systems. It is also nstalled on the RNoN Fridtjof Nansen class frigates. By virtue of its size, SPY-1D is a more powerful radar and, consequently, has increased range, but both the SPY-1D and the SPY1-F have air defense and ship self-defense capabilities. The SPY-1F, on the other hand, has not been designed to provide TBMD capability through software and hardware modifications.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-spy-1.htm
Wonder if the red text is correct.
WanshanWe could also just send small sailors to be on these ships. There is bound to be 76 small sailors out of 40,000!
Just use suitably sized submarine service applicants that were rejected for reasons other than length and presto …
I’m surprised there aren’t (m)any potential buyers lining up.
Wanshanwoow….
thanx for the reply Wanshan
WanshanPeople, can anyone ID these torpedoes?
http://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090630_09
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B04.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B05.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B06.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B01.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B03.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090630_B02.jpghttp://www.defence.lk/new.asp?fname=20090703_09 (Scroll to the bottom)
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_15.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_16.jpg
http://www.defence.lk/img/20090703_17.jpg
See also: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sri-lanka-army-recovered-ltte-torpedoes
The launcher looks identical to a Russian 533mm torpedotube found on e.g. Soviet era Project 206 Shtorm (NATO: Shershen) class torpedo boat and successor Project 206M Shtorm (“Turya“) class PCH (Patrol Craft Hydrofoil).
Their torpedo armament is anti-surface only and the torpedoes are ejected by a powder charge. The torpedoes were controlled by a radar based OTA-53-206 fire control system. The 53-56 torpedoes in Warsaw Pact navies had a rudimentary anti-surface wake homing ability; the export models were the 53-56VA straight-run only variant.
There is a story which suggests these LTTE ones may have been obtained as early as 2007. Their origin as yet unknown, they were loaded aboard ship ‘in the persian seas’.
In that region, Project 206M Shtorm (“Turya”) class PCH (Patrol Craft Hydrofoil) was exported to:
Ethiopia – 2 boats
Seychelles – 1 boat
In that region, Project 206 Shtorm (NATO: Shershen) class torpedo boat were exported to:
Cape Verde Islands: 2 unit, ex-Soviet boats were donated by the USSR in 1979. New hull numbers were 451 and 452. Both were delivered with the torpedo tubes removed. Discarded in the late 1980s.
Congo: 1 unit, delivered in 1979. The boat was ex-Soviet and had the torpedo tubes removed prior to transfer. It was non-operational by the late 1980s.
Egypt: 6 boats (In service), 7 units: Hull numbers 751, 752, 753, 755, 757, 759, 761; transferred from the USSR in 1967-1968. 752 was deleted after the Yom Kippur War. In the late 1990s, the six were downgraded to gun-only harbour patrol boats; with torpedoes, MLRS, and SAMs deleted. They will likely be scrapped soon.
A simplified version, Project 206E, known to NATO as the Mol class was built for export. Ethiopia: 2 boats
Somalia: 4 boats
and Sri Lanka: 4 boats (!)
Maybe LTTE got the tubes locally and was trying to come up with a similar contraption as the Cubans did (by bolting it onto a semi-submersible catamaran party raft)?
WanshanWhen German(?) ships were fitted with an interim Goalkeeper capability these were mounted on top of containers.
3 F122 Bremen class ships (Bremen, Niedersahsen, Karlsruhe) were fitted with containerized Goalkeeper for Gulf War deployment (RAM missile launchers had not yet been delivered). The container sat to one side/corner atop the hangar.
Wanshanthe phalanx barbette houses the transmitter, the transmitter power supply, pneumatic drive power supply, pneumatic electronic control unit, the seawater heat exchanger etc.
so i think it’s save to assume that phalanx only needs a power connector, a seawater connector and a controle console as “off-mount” equipment.goalkeeper on the other hand needs several off-mount electronic cabinets.
btw. according to thales below deck high is 2800 mm, according to gd it is 2500 mm.
FYI:
Non-Penetrating Version. As a response to criticism over the mount’s deep penetration into the hull – it makes retrofits very labor-intensive – a non-deck-penetrating version of the gun was demonstrated in April 1994. The solution is based on the use of a strengthened and redesigned ammunition feed spring which allows remote installation of the ammunition drum.
Land-Based Version. A land-based version of the Goalkeeper was introduced in April 1994 in conjunction with modifications to the base model. The land-based version is available in three different models: a fixed installation, a containerized (semi-mobile) variant, and a truck-mounted, mobile variant.
http://www.hawk-france.com/uploads/shared/datahub/samples/N040/body.html
(Original text by Forecast International)
If a ship can fit an Oto 76mm or a Fast Forty twin 40mm, it can fit a Goalkeeper
WanshanCavour doesn’t suit UK needs. The UK needs a carrier that is not tied to one aircraft and that can also be converted for conventional launching in case there are no suitable STOVL options after the F35 retires. The UK also needs a carrier that can give strong power projection such as a large ship that can operate many aircraft. CVF is the right ship it’s just the MOD being stupid over its procurement.
Don’t overlook Fincantieri’s involvement with the carrier program of India. It may be well feasible get to a suitable enlarged design based on Cavour and incorporating their experience in the Indian program, which aims at a far larger ship than Cavour.
WanshanAh you mean The Sun and its famous page 3
For those non-UK readers who may not know – WARNING – NSFW!
😮 Shocking! :p
WanshanWanshan, now i’m confused. :confused: Your contention was that there is little weight/size difference between Phalanx and Goalkeeper, which there plainly is.
Yes, there is a big difference in system weight (which is everything lumped together). But the difference between the weight of the Goalkeeper mount and Phalanx is small. All I’m saying is that in order to make sweeping statements about the weight of both packages, one needs to know exactly what constitutes that package associated with a particular weight quote.
Yes the above deck portion of goalkeeper is a neat little package, but its the huge below deck part that makes the difference between the two. Phalanx is a self-contained unit thats why it was easy to fit on the CVS in 1982. I never said the arrangement was perfect but I was illustrating the point that you could not have done that quick emergency fix with Goalkeeper.
Indeed, Phalanx is a self contained system for the most part, but there is some unclarity about whether power supply and – more importantly – (sea)water cooling system for the electronics are included in the qeight quote.
Goalskeeper ‘above deck’ uses up a similar volume to Phalanx. But unlike Phalanx, Goalkeeper it penetrates the deck. Though not overly so (1.65m). That’s a relatively small volume straight down below the mount (compare to below deck portion of Oto 76mm), not a huge square block (unlike the Russian Kashtan fire unit, which does indeed require all that volume).
For quickfitting, you could (temporarily) fit the Goalkeeper gunmount into a 10ft container and park it on any deck. That is bulkier that Phalanx (taller mostly) but very do-able. Three German F-122 Bremen class frigates – Bremen, Niedersachsen and Karlsruhe – were in fact so fitted for service during the Gulfwar (pending delivery of RAM)
WanshanWhy replace them at all.
Do we need Airpower at sea?
Dave
Yes. But there are mature alternatives (e.g. see Italian and Spanish navies)
WanshanIt’s certainly a little on the surreal side.
“Surreal … but nice” (Hugh Grant in the movie Notting Hill)
WanshanDoes anyone else find the picture of a Typhoon submarine just cruising past the beach a little bit hard to belive. The people on the beach don’t even seem to notice there is a HUGE missile carrying sub about 50 yards offshore. Wouldn’t it be a bit risky to be that close to land. Anyone else think they have seen this picture before without the beach?
Hopefully next time i’m down portobello beach HMS Vanguard can cruise buy. Maybe even fire off a couple of tridents just for show?
Considering her length (175 m), she’s obviously further out than 50m.
Google earth to Severodvinsk, where there are several Typhoons, you’ll find beaches quite near the port/dock facilities (e.g. north of build up area). It would not be strange for a shipping channel to go by there. People who live/work near a port facility see a lot of ship and might not get as excited about them as people who hardly ever see a ship. Besides, near a main naval station, many of the people on the beach may be (relatives of) naval personnel.
WanshanThe Danes are also getting large parts of their new frigates (formerly described as “patrol ships” – but that didn’t fool anyone when applied to 6000 ton ships with APAR, Smart-L, Oto 127mm, SM-2, Harpoon, etc.) built in Lithuania & Estonia.
The hull of the second and latest Dutch LPD was built in Rumania IIRC.
WanshanLand based Phalanx includes the weight of the truck and all the powersources that it needs. The ship-based Phalanx taps into the powersources the ship already carries so those cannot be counted in the weapons weight. A ship comes ready powered, a flatbed trailer does not.
Yep, all exactly like I said. What’s your point?
You need to look at the scale of Goalkeeper Vs Phalanx.
I have.
There is very little below decks, it barely penetrates the deck. Compare that to Goalkeeper pictures in your post, that yellow box under the gun mount is all under the deck.
Yep, again, that’s exactly what I said. Your point?
Then look at how simple the modification to HMS Illustrious in 1982 was, the RN basically bolted the Phalanx’s on. The work to put Goalkeeper on to the carriers had to wait for a major refit.
Following the Falklands war, both Invincible (now a veteran) and Illustrious (rushed into for Falklands service) were initially fitted with two Vulcan Phalanx units as a stop gap measure (with suboptimal fields of fire, and interference with aircraft ondeck movement and Sea Dart operations).
In both ships, these have since been replaced with three Goalkeeper systems. This occurred during a refit in which some structural modifications were made (as is necessary in order to fit the deck-penetrating Goalkeeper).
However, in the third of class, Ark Royal, there are three Phalanx CIWS systems. She was fitted with these when built. Note that her structure is exactly the same as that of Invincible and Illustrious after refitting with Goalkeeper.
So, three CIWS were needed for effective all round coverage (irrespective of this being with Goalkeeper or Phalanx) and the same physical structures (cut-out port rear corner, built up starboard flank position, extreme forward bow position) now accommodate Goalkeeper as well as Phalanx.
Goalkeeper is the better weapon based on performance but its too big a gun to fit to some vessels, phalanx has the edge on weight and simplicity, there is no mystery. It is why T22B3 only carry one Goalkeeper while the smaller T42 carries two Phalanx. Simple.
T22B3 got only 1 goalkeeper because the Sea Wolf she carried already was a good missile killer (capable of intercepting target as small as 4,5″ shells in fact). Type 42 got 2 Phalanx because these had not any other on board anti-missile capability and thus were more vulnerable and in greater need of a last ditch defence system. Incidentally, the plan initially was for 2 lightweight 4 round Seawolf launchers.
“Sea Wolf in its original guise cannot therefore be easily added to existing vessels. For this reason a variant was designed to use a four-missile launcher, similar in form to that of the obsolete Sea Cat system; Lightweight Sea Wolf. It was to equip the Royal Navy’s “Invincible” class carriers and “Type 42” destroyers to supplement the medium range Sea Dart system, which was not as capable of intercepting sea-skimming missiles. However, it was cancelled before it entered service.”
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/310685
Goalkeeper is not too big. That is not the problem. The problem is that deck penetration is required and that it is more expensive. Neither of which warrents your qualification of Goalkeeper as ‘massive’. Compare images below.
Sign In
