None of these show the vessel post-impact.
The RN info page on the Type 23 does mention it (and has good video on it in fact). And having been on Lancaster last year I can confirm that the superstructure and hull are shaped with RCS in mind, though there is plenty of clutter on deck and the design can probably not be compared to the current generation. Reason can be derived from their main emphasis on ASW maybe and design capabilities in the 1980s.
Let’s say that I would not be surprised if it were eventually to come out that Hanit had been sailing at a distance of 10 miles from shore and providing an outer layer to the naval blockade while SAAR 4.5 FAC were operating closer in shore to conduct shore bombardment when it was hit by one of two Chinese designed, Iranian built C-802 missiles fired at the Israeli flottila because the vessel’s self-defence systems comprising Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS, soft-kill countermeasures and the Barak-1 point-defence missile system (incidentally, can it be confirmed that this system ever became fully active and stocked with missile after naval budget shortages?) were inactive as a result of general intelligence failures and individual’s decisions aboard the vessel itself, and that the missile warhead failed to explode for technical reasons or short engagement distance and thus “only” caused damage to the flightdeck and stern of the vessel as a result of kinetic impact and unburnt fuel, which nevertheless resulted in disabling the vessel, requiring it to be towed back to Haifa by other vessels in the area, caused a fire which took several hours to extinguish and led to the loss of 4 crew.
Maybe the “living off” reasoning does apply if we’re talking having to wait for the state to cough up the funds the shipyard should be able to expect to be paid in a timely manner.
Though it would make a lot more sense spelled the other way, the company is actually called Austal is it not?
They are supposed to have offered a new build multi-hulled fast vessel for patrol duties recently as a quick fix solution .. is it feasible to get this new corvette design into play for this or more likely something based on a commercially derived catamaran design?
The Baynunah corvettes are about 600 tons, have substantial armaments and are more a grown up fast attack craft for use in Gulf area. Seakeeping, endurance etc would differ substantially compared to BAM. Cost is probably more as well, $130m+ per unit and up. Although still quite a big gap in displacement (and usable volume…) the MEKO 100 RMN patrol vessels/corvettes are probably more interesting comparison and can be retrofitted with RAM, Exocet and the like later. I do not see provision for such in the BAM sketches.
I suspect the reason for them being “slow” is not really related to having a helicopter and rather lies in the fact that they are more task orientated than say frigates and also serve as a common hull for survey, intell etc versions following in future. Thus they are after economy and range rather than sprint speed which would require a heavier, more expensive and complex propulsion layout with more powerful diesels or a marine gas turbine added.
BTW, the EUR1.1 billion is probably split 700m/400m for F-100 and 4x BAM, which shows what level of systems this involves.
Argo, could you enlighten me as to which company is building the new patrol boats?
Also, in regards to the Korcula MHI: although the need for about 4 ships has been expressed is there actually a programme and funds available? Progress on the missile boats appears very slow also.
Although development is indigenous I am not so sure about the outfitting…have there been major changes? At the last count this was it: MTU diesels (Germany) 8V 183 TE62, two azimuth thrusters from Holland Roer Propeller/HRP (Netherlands), sonar from Reson (Denmark), sidescan sonar from Klein Associates (USA), ROV from Societe ECA (France), navigation radar from Kelvin Hughes (UK).
Turkey has several variants of Lürssen designed or derived FACs in its inventory, although they are all based on FPB 57, yes. Three were built in Bremen, the rest in Turkey. The dimensions of the Kilic appears to mirror the Victory corvettes in Singapore more closely than the earlier Dogan and Yildiz FAC though.
Anyway, along the way the ships grew and grew to about 3x the displacement of the above and lost the Polyphem and VTOL drones and is limited to 4 RBS.15. Enough of this…
Talking of designs… Electric Boat and designs for Taiwan? France, Italy, Netherlands, Germany have all declined to provide them.
A while back 7seas posted a link to 3D rendered images of the K130 (and other vessels) provided by Thales. Gives a good impression of current K130 layout. The earlier designs looked like enlarged Lürssen MGB 62 (variants in service with Singapore, UAE, and Turkey > see Kilic on the website mentioned)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=860552&postcount=9
That Swedish corvette looks interesting, and seems to share some design elements that were carried over into later designs like Stockholm and Göteborg.
I have been frantically looking for an outline published around 1997 or so for the corvettes that have now become the K130 class in Germany. I recall seeing a somewhat different design, smaller, much faster (45kts), armed with Harpoon, and drawing heavily on a long line of B+V and Lürssen FAC designs.
Didn’t mean to imply that the fuel-cell would produce oxygen, rather that substantial supply of oxygen is available for the fuel, though on second thoughts the idea that some of this may be “diverted” for life sustaining measures in the boat seems a little too ambitious.
What else(more) could they possibly want on these ships?
And, indeed they are corvettes. Though they are large enough to be bordering on small frigates. Brunei called them Patrol Vessels at some point. I cannot confirm this (google earth try anyone?), however they may be tied up back in Scotland at the moment until the dispute is solved.
Are there actually RN plans for replacements for the Type 23 (and remaining Type 22s)? Seems like it is a process of “consideration” at the moment. And part of that equation no doubt concerns the variety of pressures that derive from operational requirements, political and financial issues. Do we buy smaller numbers of expensive locally designed and built vessels that help to sustain local industry and knowledge base? Or, larger numbers of similarly capable but cheaper vessels available through participation in existing international programmes and thus reduce local industry design and build input? Or, let local industry adapt existing designs (with mixed success > LSD(A)) and risk not getting either the desired capability per ship or overall level of capability offered by the fleet?
Similar queries apply to the Future Lynx as well I guess. With sufficient numbers on order it might have been possible to get a British line for the NH90 going also. AgustaWestland has their fingers in both programmes in any case.
The Brunei OPVs/light frigates were built by BAE if I remember correctly. Brunei should have the cash to fund them, however it may have suddenly figured out that it is good idea to have sufficiently able crews and support facilities for their expensive new toys or go down the same route as the Nigerian Aradu MEKO.
Finally, the P28 is due for an ASW primary role is it not? So not much point to put BrahMos on these as well. Also, there have been all sorts of statements from Indian and Russian side on whether it will be indigenously designed. Some Russian design bureau claims involvement, Indian Admiral refutes and so on. It may or may not be under construction at this time also.
According to the statement put out by the German Navy they operated without access to fresh air for those two weeks. No way to check if they “broke the rules” by snorkeling but I am inclined to think that with air-recycling and on-board oxygen tanks for the fuel-cell system something can be worked out, though quality may be suffering. Nuclear subs use air-recycling no?
http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W26P8EDN307INFODE