WanshanSo I think the Furke-4 is more like Top Plate but with perhaps Active Phased Array antenna which will perform MFCR role and secondary designation capability while the Poliment will have more dedicated Air Search capability along be surface search.
Furke-4 is more like EMPAR, you mean, performing concurrently 3D detection, multiple target tracking and missile guidance (for which the Dutch use APAR)?
http://www.selex-systemsintegration.de/fileadmin/media/pdf/EMPAR.pdf
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Radar-and-Electronic-Warfare-Systems/European-Multifunction-Phased-Array-Radar-EMPAR-Italy.html
http://www.dune-sistemi.com/prj_rad_empar.html
WanshanTo save €30 mn a year.
Well, ….
The Príncipe de Asturias was put into service in 1988. In 2018, it will be three decades old — the usual maximum period for an active warship. Nine years ago, it was due for a complete refit which was never carried out, owing to the €400 million this would have cost. The aircraft carrier now requires increasing repairs and much of its equipment is obsolete. Meanwhile, military spending has been reduced by almost 25 per cent over the last four years. The €6,316 million allocated to Defence in this year’s budget was 8.84 per cent less than in 2011. Days at sea for Navy vessels were cut from 49 to 40 and their fuel allowance reduced by 44 per cent. The Principe de Asturias’ activities are now very limited and the aircraft carrier no longer participates in international manoeuvres….
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2883385/posts
Plus, despite-because budget crunch, I suppose they rather want to keep their new, alternate deck.
WanshanSpanish AC Principe de Asturias will be decommissioned beginning 2013
source (in spanish)
http://www.infodefensa.com/cache_noticias/la-/la-armada-dara-de-baja-el-portaviones-principe-de-asturias-a-comienzos-de-2013.html
BID! (first dibs)
WanshanThe position of Furke-4 indicates to me its role is similar to Top Plate , its a Multi Functional Air/Search radar rather then SMART-L type Air Search Radar only.
Beg pardon, not sure I follow this…
SMART-L 3D Long Range Surveillance Radar
Main features
…
• Simultaneous air- and surface surveillance channel
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Countries/Netherlands/Documents/Datasheet_SMART-L/?LangType=2057
SMART- L 3D Long range surveillance radar
SMART-L is a 3D multibeam radar designed to provide long-range air & surface surveillance and target designation.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/smart-l/
COMPARE
Fregat-М2EМ 3-D shipborne radar intended for air and sea surface targets detection and for target destination guarantee for weapon emplacements. It is placed on ships of middle and large displacement.
Fregat-М2EМ solves the next tasks:
– air and sea surface situation control on a distance up to 300 km;
– air targets detection, including low-sized and low-flying;
– sea surface targets detection;
– state identification of detected targets;
– primary radar information output for weapon emplacements, electronic countermeasures facilities and into data processing system;
– as a unit with data processing devices – tracking of detected targets and output of secondary radar information into control systems;
– as a unit with target destination and target distribution devices – target destination and target distribution output for ship air defence facilities.
http://www.concern-agat.com/products/defense-products/72-npp-salyut/69-fregat-m2em
WanshanBarracuda is the smallest current SSN, I think. It shouldn’t need much scaling down. The builders have experience in both smaller diesel & bigger nuclear boats.
That would apply to UK as well (Upholder, Trafalgar/Astute).
Meanwhile, it should be realized Germans postwar scaled up from 500ton boats to the current 212A (1800), 214 (1900) and Dolphin (1900/2300), pretty much what U-boat Milk Cows ended up at by the end of WW2. Note your typical Type VII was approaching 900 tons. The IX boats were 1100-1200 tons (and went from Germany into the Indian Ocean …’. X boats were over 2000 tons. US fleet boats grew to well over 2000 tons. Japan had a tiered system with many boats of around 1000 tons, of around 2000 tons and many approaching 4000 tons.
WanshanPoor design was only the start of the Aus DoD’s issues with Kockums. When it became apparent that Kockums did not have the expertise needed to correct a number of issues, the DoD turned to the USN for support. Kockums then attempted that halt that collaboration through court action, arguing that the DoD was not respecting their ownership of the related intellectual property. To cap it all off, the only build quality issues that have become apparent with the Collins class have been identified in hull sections built in Sweden (there have been no issues with Aus built sections or equipment), indicating again that Kockums didn’t have enough expertise relevant to large, blue water boats.
Just a thought: would scaling DOWN from an SSN (e.g. Virginia, Astute or Barracuda) be any simpler or safer an approach, compared to scaling UP from an SS(K)? Particularly if the yard does not have expertise in smaller and/or coastal boats? (< am making this distinction because e.g. Walrus class is smaller but not a coastal boat like Type 209)
Wanshanthese kind of ships are not safe. poor fire control management. that is why one of them burn down. i feel sorry for the sailors who have to sail on it. that is why china is desperately trying to replace Hangzhou
Well, actually …
531 SOOBRAZITEL’NY #190 Severnaya 14.10.2011 128th surf ships bde BAL +
20380-II. Keel laid down on May, 2003. 2009: painted, planned for sea trials 2010. 14.10.2011 entered Navy. 10.2011 tactical sea exercises. 04.2012 control exercises, arty firings. 02.09.2012 fire aboard during exercises in Denmark.
http://warfare.ru/db/linkid/2179/catid/271/
See detailed incident account http://navaltoday.com/2012/09/04/russia-fire-incident-at-corvette-soobrazitelny/
There may have been a fire on board last september, but the crew extinguished it in about a good hour. The fire location was the stack. Cause was either electrical wire short out or human error.
Also, you seem to be referring to a Sovremenny destroyer, which is a 1980s design, obtained by China. Not really a good comparison. Still:
In 2002 China ordered another two Sovremenny class destroyers from Russia, for a total of 4 ships in service by 2010. The two ships are said to be the modified Project 956EM variant, which will be equipped with improved weapon systems and sensors. The first ship (pennant number 138) was launched in April 2004 and was delivered to China on 28 December 2005. The second ship (pennant number 139) was launched in July 2004 but the scheduled delivery date was postponed due to a fire accident that took place onboard the ship in April 2005.
Again hardly a case of burning down.
WanshanThe Soryu submarine has an overall length of 84m, beam of 9.1m and depth of 10.3m. The normal draft of the sub is 8.4m. It has a surfaced displacement of 2,950t and submerged displacement of 4,200t. Hydrodynamic design based on the Oyashio class submarine but larger displacement than any other submarine class in JMSDF’s service. AIP equipped (Sterling). By comparison, 2300 ton submerged displacement Dolphin class w. AIP has a length of 68 m, beam of 6.8m and draught of 6.2m.
Of course, the Japanese went from 2400 tons subs to 2800 ton subs with the introduction of the Yushio and from 2800 ton subs to 4000 ton subs with the introduction of the Oyashi class. This shows it is quite possible to scale up, so to speak.
WanshanKockums AB is a shipyard in Sweden (The Submarine Division is based in Malmo and the Surface Vessel Division, including all production facilities, in Karlskrona) and these days owned by the German shipyard Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) in Kiel, Germany. HDW itself is a subsidiary of the German ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (often abbreviated TKMS), a group and holding company of providers of naval vessels, surface ships and submarines. It was founded when large industrial conglomerate ThyssenKrupp acquired Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft on January 5, 2005.
Today, the TKMS group consists of:
Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft in Kiel, Germany
Blohm + Voss in Hamburg, Germany (Blohm + Voss Shipyards, Blohm + Voss Repair GmbH und Blohm + Voss Industries 20%, Blohm + Voss Naval 50%)
Kockums in Malmö, Sweden
Hellenic Shipyards Co. in Skaramangas, Greece (25%)
Research, development, sales and production by all four companies within the submarine component of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems are managed by HDW in Kiel.
Not the same situation as in 1980-1990 where the Collins class originated from, I would think.
In 2002 Kockums worked with Northrop Grumman and HDW to offer a Visby class corvette derivative in the American Focused Mission Vessel Study, a precursor to the Littoral Combat Ship program. The American Northrop Grumman Corporation is a global aerospace and defense technology company formed by the 1994 purchase of Grumman by Northrop. The company was the fourth-largest defense contractor in the world as of 2010, and the largest builder of naval vessels. It contains Newport News Shipbuilding, one of only two companies capable of producing U.S. nuclear submarines. If push comes to shove, I’m sure HDW/Kockums and Northrop Grumman can find each other to design a good sub. Not in the last place because in the past Northrop Gurmman and HDW have already worked together in the area of subs to new markets e.g. Egypt and Taiwan (not succesful but nonetheless). Northrop Grumman (NG) continues to try and collaborate with HDW and sell to e.g. Taiwan. In 2003 NG, reportedly in partnership with HDW, NG made an offer of a modernized version of the Barbel-class submarine which would have been based on a Barbel hull form fitted with an HDW pressure hull. USS Barbel was 2,637 tons (2,679 t) submerged. Apparently that 1950s hullform was still good enough for the 2000s ….
Incidentally, German built Israeli Navy Dolphin class subs are 1,640 tons surfaced, 1,900 tons submerged and 2,300 tons for AIP-capable model (The two new boats Israel signed up for in 2006 are an upgraded version of the older Dolphins, featuring an air-independent propulsion system, similar to the one used on German Type 212 submarines). I’m sure the French could come up with a bigger boat, given they build both SSN and SSK. And probably so could the Brits if they put their mind to it: Upholder/Victoria class comes out at 2,455 tonnes (without AIP insert. adding AIP would bring her up to 2750-2850 tons). The Dutch Walrus/Zwaardvis are about that size without AIP (and their hull form is based on …. my, what a coincidence … USS Barbel! And Taiwan operates Zwaardvis as Hai Lung class!).
WanshanHDW U216 concept http://submarinersworld.blogspot.nl/2012/01/german-type-216-u-216-conventional.html
From that source:
Displacement 4,000 tons
Engines Diesel Electric with AIP
Builder
HDW – TKMS Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbHLength: 89 m
Breadth: 8.1 m
Maximum Draft: 6.6 m
WanshanNow now guys I have a hunch that Wanshan has made an innocent mistake!
Whist the HDW Type 214 is not 4000 tons the proposed HDW Type 216 is!
Wanshan you didn’t get your types and figures mixed up did you:p
We have all done it with our Google-fu in the past;)
Argh@#$$! proposed Type 216 > 4000 tons (I take that to mean submerged)
Plus e.g. by comparison some other European produces
Dutch Walrus class Displacement: 2,350 t surfaced and 2,650 t submerged
Dutch Zwaardvis class Displacement: 2,408 t surfaced and 2,640 t submerged
(aka ROCN Hai Lung class)
Kilo class Displacement: Surfaced: 2,300–2,350 tons and Submerged:3,000-3,950 tons full load.
If you buy off the shelf, you look at commercial product i.e. stuff design for the most likely markets and demand. Just because sub producers build (small) stuff for which there is demand, doesn’t mean they can’t design and build something that is bigger. It is not like they are incapable of building any other designs. Lets not forget the Collins class is an enlarged version of Swedish shipbuilder Kockums’ Västergötland class, which displaces surfaced: 1,070 t (1,050 long tons; 1,180 short tons) and submerged: 1,150 t (1,130 long tons; 1,270 short tons). Two morphed into AIP subs (Södermanland class) and two more into Archer class (Singapore) with the following displacement after insertion of an AIP hull plug: Surfaced: 1,400 t (1,400 long tons; 1,500 short tons) Submerged: 1,500 t (1,500 long tons; 1,700 short tons)
Apologies accepted Badger 😉
WanshanArticle says “The 4200-tonne Soryu-class boats are the only new conventional submarines of the size and capabilities set out in Canberra’s 2009 defence white paper for 12 new submarines to take over from the Collins-class subs from the late 2020s.
Until the Soryu became theoretically available, off-the-shelf submarines included only German, French and Spanish designs of about 2000 tonnes”
However, displacement Type 214: 4,000 metric tonnes
Also, the av commentary point to the need for a different sub for a different job (than european designs). Doesn”t that mean export prospects [of a new Australian sub] would be limited?
WanshanWanshanAustralian Labor split on nuclear submarines
Australian Coalition like nuclear as option
Australian Coalition rule out nuclear as option
Nuclear subs ‘out of Aussie reach’ says US Ambassador
Lots of fun in Australia at the moment.
What of a ‘uber AIP’ sub, derived e.g. from an SSN ? Loose the reactor compartment or use the additional space for bunkerage, batteries, fuel cells, sterling engine or whatever it takes to get a superior AIP sub. Or use the space for VLS or smimmer delivery.
http://bemil.chosun.com/nbrd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/01/Barracuda%20class%20SSN_schematics.jpg
HDW U216 concept http://submarinersworld.blogspot.nl/2012/01/german-type-216-u-216-conventional.html
WanshanI don’t see shafts in the superstructure that would indicate future missile placement either. If Barak was going to be fitted I would presume they would ask Yantar to make the necessary space arrangements to make integration easier.
Chilean Type 22 Williams had Barak refitted ‘externally’, this could still happen with these ships. With some effort a director could be fitted atop the hangar, forward of the radome (relocating small mast up and towards funnel)
http://fotos.subefotos.com/32d14f8b836ef26140f76cf72ada9194o.jpg
Russian Navy’s decision to go with AK-630 is even weirder. If they don’t want Kashtan, why not just stuck Palma/Palash in the available space. Aside from higher cost there is no downside to such a config, we know it is not a space + weight + vollume issue…
Agree
Sign In
