NeptuneAs I have mentioned you don’t know ANYTHING about project 22350, not how many weapons itwill have, nor its displacement. I guess shipbuilding and designing is not your job,otherwise you would know the flexibilities in it.
Weight is not an issue. Moments are. To compensate the additional weight of the VLS you have several options. Firstly, this ship is larger than the previous 54. Secondly, as mentioned above it is moments that count, not weights. If you give both of your anchors 8 shackles of chain instead of 10, you’ll be saving up a lot of momentum to counter the light 30t of the VLS, add to it that you can play a little more with your forward cabins like making 2 6-men cabins instead of 3 4-men ones and hence save some bulkheads in weight and distance too. These are only a few examples in how you can counter and redesign a ship. It’s rather likely that the additional underwater volume of lengthening the ship has already absorbed the additional weight after all.
Deck space and below deck volume are by far not the issue.
As for Talwar, as I have mentioned, the Shtil revolver below deck is not filled with missiles, if you do fill that footprint with missiles, you are already near 32 or 36.
I’m not excluding the Kinzhal copy, it’s just that if there are Orekhs onboard, it would be hard to believe that they would use a different system.
NeptuneFirstly Pinko, why Talwar has only 22 missiles stored below deck? Simple, it’s the construction of the system. It has a revolver below deck, which means the “footprint” is by no means “filled” with missiles. Secondly, there is a raised platform with an RBU and Klub VLS on that spot. If you take those away you have plenty of deck space available.
Secondly, you seem to have forgotten that Talwar also has 2 Kashtan modules along with 32 SAM reloads and a control station below it. All that stuff has its weight too, and I’m pretty sure that two type 730 CIWS without missiles weigh a lot less than Kashtans.
KDX is heavier, but she’s also longer than 54A, considering she has a 32Cell Mk41, that would,together with the above and otherknowledge, certainly not exclude the Shtil for 54A. Is it that hard to admit they still import technology from Russia?
NeptuneAnd your point is? That they are using Kinzhal? It certainly isn’t too big for that position. 4 cells or 8 cells could fit in there.
Currently the smallest ship with Shtil is INS Talwar, at approx 4000t full load displ. That incorporates 22 Shtil missiles below deck and the footprint of the launcher isn’t that much smaller than the VLS. So 54A could still have that amount of Shtil missiles. As for the Russian frigate, you,nor me, know anything about that ship, it could be any displacement ranging from 4000 to 8000t and it could have any number of missiles. The tonnage really doesn’t matter for this system. As mentioned before, we will have to wait and see, we can’t exclude any of the options (except for Rif-M đ )
NeptuneI’m not sure how hard it would be to adapt a module to 2×8 and 2×4, but there is no evidence that they have done it.
And you do have evidence except that single drawing that they would make 6 cell modules??? Drawings aren’t a real proof and we haven’t seen anything from testing either, so we will just have to wait and see, a 8 or 4 cell module isn’t a proof of having something different from Shtil up till now, nor is a 6 cell module proof of really having Shtil.
As for Orekh, Fregat probably has the best shape for that type of radar. Bandstand is a different thing, it’s just a bulb, it’s spacious and hence you can hide about everything below it. Orekh is a totally different thing as it has a very definite space inside and hence limits your possibilities to design something to fit inside of it.
NeptuneNow CMA CGM commits for the big ships
Maersk Lines led the way with the delivery a few weeks ago of its first post-11,000 TEU container ship the Emma
Maersk, the first of a number of the class to be built for the company at the Odense Shipyard in Denmark..Now other shipping lines are getting in on the act, which is likely to see a splurge of super container ships being
churned out by an ever hungry market. French shipping giant CMA CGM is the first to follow in Maersk Lines footsteps
with an order for eight 11,400 TEU ships placed with South Koreaâs Hyundai Heavy Industries.
The cost of each ship is reported to be US $ 150,000 million or $ 1.2 Bn for all eight, according to Korean media
sources. The ships will be delivered in 2009 and 2010. Korean sources add that Hyundai already has more than 21
ships over 10,000 TEU in size on order.
Speculation now is on how long it will take MSC to place their first super post 11,000 TEU vessel.
So 150 million dollars for a ship that large… Really sounds attractive for warship conversion (in the planning stage, building stage or real conversion) when the need would be there!
Neptunetphuang, I don’t think they are actually obliged to tell you every order they make or every export (the Russians in this case) do. How hard can it be to adapt a module like this from 2×6 to 2×8 or 2×4 and so on? It’s basically a very easy system and they can probably adapt it to each required configuration to fit a ship.
Orekh, why would they keep the Orekh shape if they have developed their own stuff? It’s not like the Orekh shape is the ultimate stealth shape or has any other super advantage really…
NeptuneI just think they have tested the general concept of this frigate with the two first 54’s. Now, the design has been tested for a while and a Russian Air Defence suite isn’t that unreliable (otherwise they wouldn’t have bought it) they might have geared up the production considering it to be more or less mature enough.
NeptuneNopes, looks like a regular combattant, frigate sized at least.
I suppose they considered the Bora design pretty successful or at least wished it to be as this hull obviously is taken from the Bora design.
Is that the Furke radar on top of the bridge?
NeptuneIt looks as if they have already done that study and hence I’d say yes.
I guess the main problems they had were:
Draft of the vessel, normally those container vessels have a lower freeboard compared to the draft (you can see on page 15 of the first pdf you’ve shown). Indeed this ship will be very lightly laden in this condition compared to its normal loads. So, considering this, I guess stability will be an issue too, as weight is pretty high up, normally that hull is entirely filled with containers before they start loading on top.
They’d also have to divide stresses. Container vessels have their frames and structure fully adapted to TEU and FEU’s, so they’ll have to adapt the structure or at least put the extra structures on those cornerpoints.
The transverse tunnel would be a near necessity as on such ships the engine, directly connected to the shaft and propellor, is pretty much in the way of a stern well or stern tunnel. It certainly is large enough and the draft wouldn’t be too much of a problem either as it would take several thousands of tonnes to make this ship rise or sink a meter. So the hatch shouldn’t be a problem. Although I wouldn’t be too happy with a hatch in my freeboard (all those RoRo vessel accidents were actually caused by their hatches…)
But all in all it would certainly be feasable. Of course, there are some objections, I guess the same objections as there would be to turn these ships into aircraft carriers…. The hull isn’t built for combat situations, if there’s an ambush coming from somewhere, this ship is a likely target and less likely to survive the attack than normal combat ships. It does however fit their needs, rapid to build/convert, cheap and large enough to house a LOT of things!
The Seabee concept also has something. I first heard of such a concept in the book “Red Storm Rising” from Tom Clancy, in which the Russians would have used a Lykes Lines SeaBee to transport their LCAC’s to the Iceland coast. Always thought it was a cool idea, never heard that such things were really possible or realistic enough to be considered!
NeptuneIt looks as if they have already done that study and hence I’d say yes.
I guess the main problems they had were:
Draft of the vessel, normally those container vessels have a lower freeboard compared to the draft (you can see on page 15 of the first pdf you’ve shown). Indeed this ship will be very lightly laden in this condition compared to its normal loads. So, considering this, I guess stability will be an issue too, as weight is pretty high up, normally that hull is entirely filled with containers before they start loading on top.
They’d also have to divide stresses. Container vessels have their frames and structure fully adapted to TEU and FEU’s, so they’ll have to adapt the structure or at least put the extra structures on those cornerpoints.
The transverse tunnel would be a near necessity as on such ships the engine, directly connected to the shaft and propellor, is pretty much in the way of a stern well or stern tunnel. It certainly is large enough and the draft wouldn’t be too much of a problem either as it would take several thousands of tonnes to make this ship rise or sink a meter. So the hatch shouldn’t be a problem. Although I wouldn’t be too happy with a hatch in my freeboard (all those RoRo vessel accidents were actually caused by their hatches…)
But all in all it would certainly be feasable. Of course, there are some objections, I guess the same objections as there would be to turn these ships into aircraft carriers…. The hull isn’t built for combat situations, if there’s an ambush coming from somewhere, this ship is a likely target and less likely to survive the attack than normal combat ships. It does however fit their needs, rapid to build/convert, cheap and large enough to house a LOT of things!
NeptuneIt’s been mentioned before here. I think two pages ago, Snake answered that question. Not really Anchar, but you can clearly see the Kirov influence in this one.
NeptuneAnd look who’s here:
Leopold I, first for Belgium.
NeptuneI can’t speak for UK container terminals and its workers, but over here (inside the “entire Europe” area) the terminals and its workers are about the most efficient. I don’t think they are overpaid either, they daily do things a normal man wants to avoid doing even once in his entire life.
Containers all together have a growing pain. They want to move on to 45 foot containers nowadays as a standard, but those don’t fit on any conventional current container ship, so they have a major problem now as you can’t just adapt the world’s container fleet for bigger containers…
The problem is, and I think Turbinia is right with the road lobby there, that road transport is not paying its costs. They pay something, but they by far do not pay for the entire bill of the roads they damage, the pollution and congestion they cause. If they’d have to pay for all that, their prices would rise quite a bit and hence shipping would be even more attractive! Of course rising oil prices will help a bit in that as ships use rather inexpensive HFO.
NeptuneIndia To Scrap 56% of Ships
According to reports emerging from India 56% of the national fleet will be headed for the scrapyard in five years.
The Indian shipping industry will be required to spend about $4 billion on fleet renewal, as 56 per cent of the ships
owned by Indian companies will have to be scrapped in five years, according to the Indian National Shipownersâ
Association.
The average age of the Indian fleet is about 18 years and 40 per cent of the ships are more than 20 years old, said
the associationâs Secretary-General, SS Kulkarani.
According to international practice, all ships over 17, if they have to continue in service, must be overhauled and redeployed.
Even after that, they can serve only up to the age of 25. Internationally, the average age for retiring ships is
22 years.
Moreover, most ships owned by private Indian companies are single-hull, all of which have to be phased out by 2010
under Indiaâs commitment to the International Maritime Organisation.
âFor expansion and replacement, along with the International Maritime Organisationâs phase-out programme, the
country will have to invest $4 billion by 2009,â said Indian National Shipownersâ Association President Yudhishthir
Khatau. As of March this year, Indian companies owned 739 ships.
To make matters worse, the threat of scrapping looms over the industry at a time when the share of Indian ships in
the countryâs overseas seaborne trade has slipped to 13.7 per cent from the high of 40 per cent in the late 1980s,
while the share of foreign companies has been rising steadily.
âIndian shipsâ share in the countryâs overseas trade is continuously decreasing and as a result, the country has to
depend on foreign ships to a considerable extent, resulting in higher freight payments,â said Shipping Corporation of
India Chairman and Managing Director SS Hajara.
Companies will feel the pinch of replacement as the prices of second-hand ships have shot up by as much as 60 per
cent in the last three years.
Only the state-owned Shipping Corporation of India has a policy of buying just new ships, while the private sector
generally prefers pre-owned ones.
Of course Trucks do have more flexibility than coastal shipping and that is one of the main points… You can’t position all companies near a river/channel or other waterway! And to the customer you still need trucks too. But I do agree that it would help to lighten the load. I saw one inland navigation boat with a plate on the side saying: “here lays a road congestion of 56 trucks” đ
Neptunelooks like an LA class.
And what’s with the turbine stuff here? Need speed, you need a turbine, need distance and moderate speed, you need a diesel. Turbines are designed for a certain rpm, slowing them down is very bad for fuel consumption/ specific efficiency. All together you want a diesel for cruising and manoeuvering and a turbine to boost to a certain speed. China can design about everything on the propulsion area, from general diesel propulsion to turbine propulsion (started with LNG carrier production last year,those have a steam turbine).
Gollevainen, displacement is one thing, but also hull shape is something you have to take in account. You can save a lot of fuel by just designing a different hull for the same engine.
Sign In
