International Naval News & Discussion

Nikhil T · Post by **Nikhil T** » 29 Sep 2009 21:56

Israel gets two German Dolphin-class subs
Israel has taken delivery of two German submarines ordered four years ago, a military spokesman said on Tuesday."We have received two Dolphin-class submarines built in Germany," he said, on condition of anonymity.

The submarines, called U212s, can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads, although when it confirmed the sale in 2006 the German government said the two vessels were not equipped to carry nuclear weapons.

The subs were ordered in 2005 and delivery was initially expected in 2010.Including the two new ones, Israel has five German submarines -- the most expensive weapon platforms in Israel's arsenal.

Germany, which believes it has a historic responsibility to help Israel because of the mass murder of Jews in World War II, donated the first two submarines after the 1991 Gulf War.
It split the cost of the third with the Jewish state.

According to Jane's Defence Weekly, the U212s are designed for a crew of 35, have a range of 4,500 kilometres (2,810 miles) and can launch cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

Israeli media have written that the Dolphin submarine could be key in any attack on arch-foe Iran's controversial nuclear sites.

An Israeli submarine recently used the Suez Canal for the first time in June, escorted by Egyptian navy vessels, in what Israeli media said was intended as a message to Iran.

Widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power, Israel suspects Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme, a charge Tehran denies.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Oct 2009 09:46

How Neutrinos Could Revolutionize Communications with Submarines

Sending messages using neutrinos could improve data rates by up to three orders of magnitude.

-----

Gee, I wonder if mastering neutrino communication could even one day enable robust communication underground?

I'm not just talking about the mining industry. For example, what if you were trying to explore underground caves or lava tubes on the Moon or Mars. Radio communications between orbiting satellites and underground rovers would be difficult, if not impossible. But neutrinos could easily pass through entire mountains of rock.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 08 Oct 2009 02:01

air launched anti submarine mines and torpedos used on su34
http://www.aviation.ru/jno/MACS99/image ... orpedo.jpg

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Oct 2009 16:31

EX-US amphib. vessel in the Malasian Navy destroyed by fire.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... c9oUEtiJuQ

Malaysia to replace burnt navy ship: minister
(AFP) – 9 hours ago

KUALA LUMPUR — Malaysia is to replace one of its biggest naval vessels which was destroyed in a fire caused by a short circuit, the country's defence minister said.

Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told state media late Thursday he was proposing the purchase of a new landing craft, after an early morning fire destroyed the KD Seri Inderapura at the Lumut naval base in northern Perak state.

"It should be done through a open tender. To refurbish it would take 36 to 60 months. To me the ship cannot be used so a replacement has to be found," he told the Bernama news agency.

Ahmad Zahid said initial reports indicated that the fire was started by a short circuit on board the vessel, which was carrying 77 personnel, including six officers and 22 trainees, but no one died.

"Thankfully the incident happened at base. It would have been unfortunate if it had happened at sea, it would have been difficult to put out the fire," he added.

Ahmad Zahid said the vessel had been loaded with supplies for delivery to the navy's bases in the states of Sabah and Sarawak on Borneo island, and there are plans to send fresh supplies to the bases using another landing craft.

Officials said it took firefighters eight hours to put out the blaze and that this was the second time that the KD Seri Inderapura had caught fire in its 15-year service with the Malaysian navy.

The 40-year-old ship was one of three Malaysian navy vessels deployed in the Gulf of Aden last year to assist in anti-piracy operations. It was previously owned by the US Navy and saw action in Operation Desert Storm in the first Gulf War before being sold to Malaysia in 1995.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 09 Oct 2009 21:39

Russian Navy to buy 24 MiG-29K carrier-based fighters

MOSCOW, October 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Navy will buy at least 24 MiG-29K (Fulcrum-D) fighters to be deployed on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, an unnamed Defense Ministry official said on Friday.

He added that deliveries of the carrier-based multirole fighters would start in 2010.

The MiGs will subsequently replace the Su-33 (Flanker-D) carrier-based fighters, even though their service life does not expire until 2025.

Military analyst Konstantin Makiyenko suggested that production of new Su-33 aircraft was possible but not cost-effective, given the small production volumes, whereas considering that India has already contracted 16 MiG-29K's and could place an order for another 28, the latter option is more financially viable.

The 24 aircraft will cost an estimated $1 billion.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Oct 2009 16:20

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/10416/

UAE Navy to receive new Anti-Submarine-Warfare (ASW) suite
18:04 GMT, October 9, 2009 Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei (WASS) and Thales are pleased to announce the signature of a contract with the UAE GHQ Armed Forces for the supply of an Anti-Submarine-Warfare (ASW) suite to the UAE Navy.

Under the terms of the contract, the WASS/Thales/Eurotorp team will provide a comprehensive ASW system composed of a sonar suite with its underwater communication telephone, torpedo decoy launching systems and light weight torpedo launching system. All the systems will be provided to the UAE Navy and installed on the “Abu Dhabi” class corvette by Fincantieri.

“The UAE Navy will benefit from a state-of-the-art ASW capability. The increasing success of our anti torpedo countermeasure system proves the need of acquiring a highly performing self defence capability against the new generation of torpedoes in the market today. Moreover, due to its modularity, such an ASW System will significantly enhance the ASW capabilities of different Navies with similar needs”, commented Filippo D’Antoni, WASS Commercial Director.

Thales, as a subcontractor to WASS, will provide the sonar suite including the hull mounted Kingklip sonar and its low frequency active variable depth sonar, the Captas Nano.

“At Thales we are particularly proud of this contract award. Drawing on the many successes of the well-known CAPTAS product family, this CAPTAS NANO contract highlights the relevance of our approach to move towards compact sonar systems that are perfectly suited for mid-size platforms”, said Marc Darmon, Senior Vice President of Thales and Head of Naval Division.

----
Surface ship based Anti-Submarine Warfare against conventional submarines presents numerous challenges, particularly in littoral waters. The CAPTAS Nano is the result of Thales’s over 20 years experience in Low Frequency Active Sonars (LFAS). It is a sophisticated, highly-capable product, yet light-weight & compact without compromising performance. The CAPTAS Nano’s unique design is based on a horizontal transmit array and a linear receive array, all in single tow, recoverable onto a simple, single-drum winch. Highly cost-effective, the sonar can be installed on a wide range of ship classes including corvettes and OPVs.

defpro.news
Company or Organisation Portrait:
Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei (WASS), a Finmeccanica Company, is a leader in underwater systems that has earned worldwide recognition for its excellence in integrated system engineering. WASS offers a complete range of light and heavy torpedoes, torpedo countermeasures for surface vessels and submarines, active and passive sonar for ships and helicopters, countermine and underwater surveillance devices. The company holds a 50% share in Eurotorp, the consortium formed with DCN and Thales to design and build the world’s most sophisticated lightweight torpedo. WASS has a 130-year tradition of success. Its origins date to 1875, when Robert Whitehead opened his torpedo factory in Fiume. The company has been based in Livorno since 1945 and is wholly owned by Finmeccanica.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 12 Oct 2009 23:48

http://www.4shared.com/file/139886184/e ... ard-1.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/139886598/f ... ard-2.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/139886722/f ... ard-3.html

I have this Milparade Article of Gepard SSN launch and its in Russian , Can some one ( Igor , SNaik ) who can read Russian can translate in English , if there is any thing interesting mentioned about this submarine , Gepard was a special Akula SSN and Nerpa too is closely linked to this sub.

Thanks in advance

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 16 Oct 2009 03:45

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ima ... der_lg.jpg
P-3 Orion’s SMIP Program Keeps on Rolling

SMIP work is performed on all types, models and series of P-3 aircraft in the 164-aircraft U.S. Navy fleet, as well as P-3 aircraft supported through U.S. Navy-administered foreign military sales programs. This work includes 2 types of activities…

The first type of activity involves special structural inspections to ensure that corrosion from salt spray, or the stresses of repeated low-level swoops to near-sea level, haven’t created damage that might make the airframe unsafe before the next inspection. These services include:

* P-3 Special Structural Inspections (SSIs);
* Enhanced Special Structural Inspections (ESSIs);
* Fabrication and delivery of Special Structural Inspection Kits (SSI-Ks)

Next comes the actual work done on the aircraft. Sometimes, the work involved is simply regularly scheduled maintenance. Sometimes, the work involves installing new equipment, from upgraded electronics and radars to entirely new sets of wings. These services are referred to under SMIP:

* Phased Depot Maintenance (PDM); and
* Modification/Installation Programs (MIPs).

The exact bundle of work varies to some extent from customer to customer, and MIPs will have contracts of their own attached to cover the cost of the equipment and any work “above and beyond.”

Wonder if the Pak Navy's P3-C's will eventually beg to get the upgraded Orion's. Word is that Indian Navy is interested in the D variant's. Will be interesting to see how the outcome of that comes to be.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 16 Oct 2009 06:19

Craig Alpert wrote: Word is that Indian Navy is interested in the D variant's. Will be interesting to see how the outcome of that comes to be.

from where you heard this

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 16 Oct 2009 06:49

Baldev wrote:
Craig Alpert wrote: Word is that Indian Navy is interested in the D variant's. Will be interesting to see how the outcome of that comes to be.
from where you heard this

no disrespect, but ehmm.. heard of google? the WP-3D Orions are something that LM offered India and India expressed interest in it back in 02-05.
Links to back up the claim -
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=23064

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 16 Oct 2009 07:49

Craig Alpert wrote:
Baldev wrote:from where you heard this
no disrespect, but ehmm.. heard of google? the WP-3D Orions are something that LM offered India and India expressed interest in it back in 02-05.
Links to back up the claim -
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullst ... wsid=23064

That should be the E-3D Hawkeye?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Oct 2009 12:44

The Israeli AEW option on a Gulfstream platform is superior and has the advantage of being a jet,as the catapult launched Hawkeye cannot be used on India's current and future carriers which operate VSTOL and STOBAR aircraft only.The DRDO alternative based upon the Embraer platform is another option,but the Israeli product is the front-runner.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 16 Oct 2009 18:27

NRao wrote:
That should be the E-3D Hawkeye?

No No. E3D are called SENTRY E2D are HAWKEYE. I believe Obama admin cleared the E-2D's which have a propeller not a TURBOJET engine unlike the E-3D. The E-3's are a in a different league all together. There is no way that that US would be WILLING to sell India the E-3's considering it is their latest AWACS.
E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawekye are AWACS while P3 and P8 are MMA (Multimission Maritime Aircraft meant specially for ASW/ASuW) anti submarine /sub surface warface. While the P3-s orion are meant for maritime patrolling. India made the Chanakiyan move and went for the P-8 which is the next generation of P-3's so to speak. But back in 02-05 it had expressed interst in it, until the P-8 offer came along as a blessing in disguise by the Bush Admin. P-8 is meant for more advance type tasks, and word was that they want to integrate P-8's with the IAF AWACS to make it more deadlier, and the Navy is looking to get some other AWACS on a SMALLER role like the e-2D not our steriod build Phalcon AWACS hence the reason to go for E-2AWACS.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 18 Oct 2009 01:00

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 18 Oct 2009 05:24

APAR – Active Phased Array multifunction Radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057
http://www.ca.thalesgroup.com/projects/apar/apar.pdf

Sea Master 400 – Non-rotating long-range surveillance radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057

Sea Watcher 100 – Surface surveillance radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057

Smart-S Mk2 – 3D medium to long range surveillance radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057

MRR-3D NG Radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057

HERAKLES Radar
http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/ ... gType=2057

and i think these radar are available with TOT without any problem and BEL should leave or junk LW08 radar for god sake

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 17:50

Oz's woes with their much touted but in reality much troubled Collins class/,already moodified by the USat a cost of billions,for which their are no crews available to man even two subs,is now faced with new problems of faulty engines.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 5RFxvHR6VE

Australian Navy Submarines Face Engine Flaws, Australian Says

By Nichola Saminather

Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Australia’s navy may have to severely restrict the use of its A$6 billion ($5.5 billion) Collins-class submarines after a series of mechanical and maintenance problems, the Australian newspaper reported.

The Swedish-supplied Hedemora diesel engines in the submarines may have to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, according to some engineering experts, the newspaper reported.

The Collins vessels are at the top of the Defence Materiel Organisation’s list of “projects of concern,” the Australian said.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 22 Oct 2009 03:43

USS-Ronald Reagan Gets a Makeover Before Returning to Duty

John · Post by **John** » 22 Oct 2009 05:53

Philip wrote:Oz's woes with their much touted but in reality much troubled Collins class/,already moodified by the USat a cost of billions,for which their are no crews available to man even two subs,is now faced with new problems of faulty engines.

I really question the cost effectiveness of an SSK compared to an SSN their limited size, speed and even AIP does not address their poor submerged range. Plus unlike a surface combatant they have very little use during peace time. Australia should install some deck guns on its billion dollar Collins SSK and at least then they can use them for patrol in Gulf of aden

I should not really be laughing at the Aussies considering our Scorpene's are approaching those cost figures.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Oct 2009 06:03

Philip wrote:The Israeli AEW option on a Gulfstream platform is superior and has the advantage of being a jet,as the catapult launched Hawkeye cannot be used on India's current and future carriers which operate VSTOL and STOBAR aircraft only.The DRDO alternative based upon the Embraer platform is another option,but the Israeli product is the front-runner.

How is the Israeli option superior or for that matter even the Phalcon?

On VSTOL/STOBAR, perhaps you missed the memo that India is considering the eletcromagnetic (whatever) cat.

negi · Post by **negi** » 22 Oct 2009 07:44

It will take some time for EM cats to materialize ; while the concept has been proven and demonstrated there are material and engineering challenges to be addressed in areas of reliability,wear and tear of the rails,and most important availability of a high power density power source .

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 22 Oct 2009 23:37

Fast US Warships

Littoral Combat Ship. Top Speed 45+ Knots, Sustained 44 Knots.

Pics

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2009 11:05

Good point about the EM cat.It is why the UK's new carriers (which might be shelved if the Brownites have their way) are to have STOVL JSFs.The RN has the most carrier experience of any navy other than the US.It is also a navy that does not have access to massive funds unlike the USN.Their carrier requirements were carefully crafted after intense evaluation of various designs and options for aircraft.The weight and power required for cats makes them less cost-effective when the STOBAR/ski-jump is available or STOVL/VSTOL aircraft.These aircraft also do not need the carrier to always "steam into the wind" to launch aircraft.Recovery of aircraft is far easier and less tense for deck crews.

The point made about Oz's Collins class 3000+t subs costing almost a $billion each and its capabilities as against an SSN/SSGN is spot on.India is acquiring an advanced Akula-2 for a 10 yr. (some say with advanced eqpt. actually the equivalent to an Akula-3) lease with purchase options later for half that price.The costs of developing our own approx. 8,000t ATV would be huge considering the development costs incurred,but these should not be taken into account,only the actual cost of the sub with its reactor and fuel,which should be fairly competitive.What is happening in the world's navies is that the demand for subs to perform varied tasks,including operating special forces from their dedicated vehicle,or even a UUV,means that conventional subs would have to be larger to accomplish these tasks which nuclear powered subs do better.It is only in littoral waters where the conventional sub has the edge in quieting and stealth being much smaller.For open ocean teu blue-water operations,there is really no equivalent to a nuclear powered sub.The RN proved this in the Falklands War.

Here is the Malaysian viewpoint about their Scorpene acquisitions.

http://www.thesundaily.com/article.cfm?id=39346

Submarines purchased through direct negotiations to protect defence system

Husna Yusup and Meena L Ramadas
Abdul Latiff Ahmad

KUALA LUMPUR (Oct 22, 2009) : The purchase of two Scorpene submarines was done through direct negotiation in order to protect the country’s defence system, the Dewan Rakyat was told today.

Condemning the opposition for suggesting that the purchase should have been done via open tender, Deputy Defence Minister Datuk Dr Abdul Latiff Ahmad said doing so may cause Malaysia' security secrets to be exposed.

"What we do is, we have our own intelligence whereby first we study all companies with expertise in submarines and see whether their specifications suit the country’s security needs.

"Had we decided to call for an open tender, we would have exposed our defence secrets to enemies. In the acquisition of defence assets, no countries would go for an open tender to buy submarines."

"If we have an open tender, it means we are submitting our defence system to outsiders. Is this what the opposition wants?" he asked in reply to Nga Kor Ming (DAP-Taiping).

Abdul Latiff said similar approach was also taken by countries such as India, Chile and Brazil.

The government had also studied the experience of other countries like India, Pakistan, Turkey, France, German, the Netherlands and South Korea in acquiring the submarines.

Nga asked why the submarine purchase was done through direct negotiation although the Treasury has directed that all purchases involving more than RM200,000 must be done through open tender. He also asked what were the specialties of the two companies involved.

The submarines were procured from Armaris of France and Navantia of Spain at in a contract signed in June 2002 and worth Euro 1.084 billion (RM5.52 billion).

To the original question from Datuk Seri Tengku Azlan Sultan Abu Bakar (BN-Jerantut), Abdul Latiff said the first submarine named KD Tunku Abdul Rahman arrived in Malaysia on Sept 3, 2009 while the second, KD Tun Razak was still under construction.

"It is 98% completed now and expected to be handed over to the Royal Malaysian Navy on Nov 3, 2009. It will leave for Malaysia in February next year and expected to arrive in April," he said.

He also said the estimated cost of maintenance for the two submarines is RM270 million a year and it will be done at the Teluk Sepanggar naval base.

viveks · Post by **viveks** » 23 Oct 2009 11:56

shameekg wrote:Fast US Warships

Littoral Combat Ship. Top Speed 45+ Knots, Sustained 44 Knots.

Pics

Excellent ship! I think its more of Art. US military has some great designs. I think they like it to move slowly..quitely building some wonderful architectures.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2009 12:49

There is an excellent anlaysis on the LCS in a professional journal,I'll try and locate it.There are however several shortfalls in the design and the cost prohibitive.What is excellent however is the speed,40+ kts.,which speed should be possible in a much smaller missile corvette that can double as an anti-sub coastal/littoral platform in support of larger dedicated ASW frigates.I've been speculating on the parameters of just such a design (minus helo) but could operate a UAV from a flat transom.It could be a very cost-effective class of warship that could be built in large numbers for countries with large coastlines which need large numbers of vessels such as India,Indonesia,the Phillipines,etc.

Here is an intriguing "flying sub" design.
http://www.jaunted.com/story/2009/10/22 ... arine+Jet+

mody · Post by **mody** » 23 Oct 2009 14:16

Here's the full article about the fast LCS for the US Navy. The coolest feature about these ships, apart from the speed is the changeable mission module feature. The ships can have different mission modules fitted in them, depending on the kind of mission. The different modules can be anti-sub, anti-surface, mine sweeper etc.
The specification from US navy says that the modules should be changeable within 24 hours preferably and maximum within 96 hours.
This means that you can use the same ships to do multiple things almost in the time it takes for a ship to come in for refueling and replenishing of stores.
The concept is quite revolutionary and would be of great importance for navy's like ours.
Offcourse the cost of the ships at $460 million each is the down side.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091022/ap_ ... dy_warship

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 23 Oct 2009 16:31

Mody,there was a similar modular approach by the Danish Navy I think-one of the European navies, sometime ago in JNI,with a great little design for a vessel of corvette size,basically a minehunter,that could similarly morph into different roles by changing modules.Far cheaper and more capable,except that its speed was far slower.It was a design that would eminently suit the IN,which needs a large number of MCM vessels,patrol craft,etc. for coastal and littoral duties.The key fact about the USN's littoral warfare vessel is that on its own,without the supporting umbrella of a task force,it would be swiftly sunk.Secondly,in the absence of forward base facilities,a factor that the US experiences (with the new Japanese govt. now wnating to throw it out of Okinawa anbd stop refuelling its ships on Af-Pak duty) how is the LCS going to change shape and role at sea?!

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 26 Oct 2009 20:46

Paket-E/NK antitorpedo defence system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBpNNVuD ... re=related

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Oct 2009 11:24

That was a nice U-Toobe link Baldev.
Here's some news on sub commns.development by Lockheed.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRel ... RN20091027

Lockheed Martin Successfully Completes Preliminary Design Review For U.S. Navy Submarine Communications Program
Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:14am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]

Featured Broker sponsored link
Lockheed Martin Successfully Completes Preliminary Design Review For U.S. Navy
Submarine Communications Program

MARION, Mass., Oct. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- A Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT)-led
industry team recently completed a successful Preliminary Design Review (PDR)
for the U.S. Navy's Communications at Speed and Depth (CSD) program, essential
to providing real-time, two-way communications to submarines without having to
surface to periscope depth.

All U.S. Navy submarines will be equipped with this capability, which will
allow communication between underwater submarines and surface ships, aircraft
and land-based assets.

mody · Post by **mody** » 30 Oct 2009 16:57

Phillip can you please elaborate how you have come to the conclusion that the the US littoral combat ship would be quickly sunk if it was operating on its own? By definition the vessel is to be used for patrolling the littoral waters. The speed of the vessel, combined with the stealthy design, make it more then a match for the role for which it is intended.

The ships are more then 400 feet in length and also carry a helicopter. A pair or three ships of the class with one having combat module for surface warfare, one for anti-submarine operations and one in the role of mine sweeper can very well operate together and can be more then a match for most other surface vessels of frigate and corvette class and perhaps also small destroyers. You can also have a fourth vessel with a combat module dedicated for air defense and the picture would be complete.

Also where is the need to change the modules when the ship is at sea.
The point is that if they have these kind of replaceable combat modules, the same platforms can be used for different roles at different times. Hence every time the ship sails out it could potentially have a different combat module fitted in and hence fulfill a different role as per operational requirement.

Consider a similar approach for our Project 28 corvettes. We can use the same platforms for anti-submarine or mine hunting roles without having to build a large number of vessels. We can build 9 vessels of the class with these features and they could give us more versatility and operational freedom then say building 12 vessels of the same class which do not have this changeable combat module design and hence are purpose built to perform only one kind of task.
Also if we consider for example, that IN is already short of mine hunters in its fleet. The existing vessels are old and need to be replaced sooner rather then later. If say a platform like the P-28 had a replaceable combat module, then at any given time vessels of this class can be converted and used as mine sweepers, without us having to invest in more number of dedicated vessels.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Oct 2009 18:04

Littoral Combat Ship. Top Speed 45+ Knots, Sustained 44 Knots.

Can some geek-jingo comment on this please? According to Alistair McLean's "HMS Ulysses", the Ulysses, a cruiser built circa 1940, could surpass 40 knots in a short time (see end of the book).

Why is it that 70 years later, 45+ knots in a small ship is a big deal? What is the fundamental limitation that keeps big ships from reaching, say, 80 knots?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2009 18:23

Mody,the "conclusion" is one by a US study that questions the ships ability to operate as planned for in the littorals, as it lacks adequate anti-air and missile defences,especially when it would be overwhelmed by land and naval forces of an enemy operating so close to the shore,without the support of a task force.The proliferation of coastal anti-ship missile batteries like the Chinese Silkworm series and enemy air power with air launched anti-ship missiles,will make it very difficult for a LCS to close in .There is no such a thing as a completely stealthy ship and modern warships have to factor in far more battle damage than before with the accuracy and lethality of anti-ship missiles and new torpedoes.Just one anti-ship missile or torpedo will sink or neutralise an LCS made up of composites and light-weight materials.RN frigates with aluminium superstructures simply "melted" in the Falklands War.Even in the Falklands,at great distances from their home bases,Argentinian aircraft played havoc with the RN fleet using their Exocet missiles and "dumb" bombs.The "speed" of the LCS is comparatively insignificant to the speed of an anti-ship missile and even newer torpedoes as far back as 2001,had speeds of 60+ kts.

The better alternative is to use smaller stealthy AIP subs,or even SSGNs,which also have dedicated UUVs that can perform a variety of tasks like detecting minefields,recce and laying mines,launching lightweight TTs,etc.These would have a far greater survivability rate.Many naval experts have come to the conclusion that the only "stealthy" vessel is a sub.It is why the IN should concentrate upon increasing the number of subs,both nuclear powered and conventional AIP subs to at least 25% of the force (ideally 36-48),to face the numbers and capability of Chinese,Paki and other subs of the IOR littoral nations,plus the extra-regional powers!

There is a case though as you've pointed out for a type of vessel for littoral warfare,I would prefer very fast small attack craft/small corvettes,not the multi-purpose P-28s,equipped with LR anti-ship land attack missiles like Brahmos and a CIWS for anti-missile defence,that could be launched into action after being escorted by a task force of larger ships (even the LCS requires task force logistics) with better AAW and ASW capabilities.Being much smaller than the LCS of size around 500-750t,these attack craft could be acquired in larger numbers and even if a few are lost in a major attack or engagement,it would be far less costly overall than losing two or three LCS.

The idea of "combat modules" is a valid point though,as I mentioned an EU design which was a small corvette sized warship based upon a MCM hull,that could easily perform a multitude of tasks.That option would be ideal for the In,where we are short of both MCM vesels and coastal anti-sub craft like the Abhay/Pauks required to protect our many ports and bases fro enemy subs.We've had the experience of the Pakis using the Ghazi in '71 and their far more capable AIP subs could be used again for similar littoral operations.

N3,the IN's class of WW2 Rajputs could easily do 45+kts! I personally know a former commander of this destroyer squadron.

Patni · Post by **Patni** » 30 Oct 2009 18:24

enqyoob wrote:
Littoral Combat Ship. Top Speed 45+ Knots, Sustained 44 Knots.
Can some geek-jingo comment on this please? According to Alistair McLean's "HMS Ulysses", the Ulysses, a cruiser built circa 1940, could surpass 40 knots in a short time (see end of the book).

Why is it that 70 years later, 45+ knots in a small ship is a big deal? What is the fundamental limitation that keeps big ships from reaching, say, 80 knots?

http://www.lesliefield.com/other_histor ... future.htm

The link above covers the questions you raised very well a good read as it covers the physics behind the hull shape & Ships size and power requirement to archive higher speed.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Oct 2009 18:43

Here's a report on the LCS,not the study which I must dig out of the archives.As you can see,the ship is now about 3,000t,the size of a frigate of approx.Godavari class,larger than the old Leanders.The cost too is atrocious and from the report thye requirement of it to be refuelled several times before it can get to "station" in the littorals, makes it posses a serious flaw,in that it requirs to have support from slow auxiliaries which are vulnerable themselves.For archaepelagic nations like the Phillipines,Indonesia,etc.,with a large number of islands and coastline to patrol and defend,India too with its island territories,numbers matter and small warships designed especially for the littorals would be ideal,if they also come in at reasonable costs.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 3-2009.asp

USN Buys Another Of Them Funny Little Ships
by James Dunnigan
April 23, 2009
The US Navy has ordered a second LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) from Lockheed Martin. This came after the first ship of this design, the USS Freedom (LCS 1), completed its sea trials, and made its way from Lake Michigan, via a network of narrow locks, to the Atlantic ocean. The trip continued, via the Panama Canal, to San Diego, and gave the Freedom an opportunity to show how well an LCS operates on a long voyage. The ship is now at its home port, San Diego.
A crew of 40 is pretty small for a ship this size (which, in the past, would have about four times as many sailors). But the LCS is highly automated. On the Freedom, the captain decided that officers, including himself, would pitch in with maintenance and housekeeping chores. More so than in larger ships, sailors learn to do other jobs on an LCS, and, as a result, work is lot more interesting and less boring. But it can get intense at times, and there are still questions about whether the smaller crew, and all the "smartship" tech can really handle the kind of damage control emergencies that crop up on military ships

Normally, an LCS would have another 35 crew manning its "mission package". The LCS is designed for a variety of interchangeable modules (e.g., air defense, underwater warfare, special operations, surface attack, etc.), which will allow the ships to be quickly reconfigured for various specialized missions. Crews will also be modularized, so that specialized teams can be swapped in to operate specific modules. Thus about 40 percent of the ship is empty, with a large cargo hold into which the mission package gear is inserted (and then removed, along with the package crew, when it is no longer assigned to that ship.) Thus the LCS has two crews when underway, the "ship" crew and the mission package crew. The captain of the ship crew is in charge, and the officer commanding the mission package is simply the officer in charge of the largest equipment system on board.

Three years ago, when construction began on LCS 1, it was to displace 2,500 tons, with a full load draft of under ten feet (permitting access to very shallow "green" and even "brown" coastal and riverine waters, where most naval operations have taken place in the past generation. Top speed is expected was to be over 80 kilometers with a range of 6,300 kilometers. The 378 foot long ship still has the range and top speed it was designed for. Basic endurance is 21 days. Thus the Freedom had to refuel and resupply several times on its way to San Diego.

Built using "smartship" technologies, which greatly reduce personnel requirements, the basic LCS was expected to require a crew of 40 in basic configuration, but will have billeting for about 75 personnel. The sea trials gave the smartship features a workout, which, so far appears to be successful. The successful sea trials were very important, because the LCS project is over budget, behind schedule and, worst of all, an untried new concept.

There are actually two different LCS designs, a semi-planning monohull from Lockheed-Martin and a trimaran from General Dynamics. LCS 1 was laid down by Lockheed Martin in Marinette, Wisconsin, in June of 2005 and was expected to be commissioned in 2007, after months of sea tests in late 2006. That schedule slipped, with the ship not completed until late 2008, and sea trials not starting until January, 2009.

LCS 2 was laid down by General Dynamics in late 2005. These, and LCS 3 and LCS 4, were to be built by Lockheed and General Dynamics, respectively. These are essentially prototypes, and serial procurement was expected to begin this year, after initial design flaws had been worked out. Ultimately, the Navy hoped to have 55 LCSs by 2014-18, at a cost of $90 million each. Congress has capped the price of LCS ships at $460 million, after years of increases, and threats to cancel the project.

There were a lot of problems with the LCS design. The USS Freedom ended up costing $500 million, about twice what the first ship in the class was supposed to have cost. LCS 2 will not be delivered until later this year, with sea trials completed by the end of the year. Next year, the navy will choose which of the designs will serve as the model for all future LCS class vessels. At that point, the winner will build two more ships of their design, and the loser one. All five of these LCS ships will be used heavily to determine what changes in the basic design are required. Then, mass production will commence, to build another 50 ships.

LCS 1 ended up displacing 2,900 tons, and most observers in 2005 believed that it would end up closer to 3,000 tons. The LCS is armed with a 57mm gun, four 12.7mm machine-guns, and an eleven cell SeaRam system for air and missile defense. The RAM (RIM-116 "Rolling Air Frame") missiles replace Phalanx autocannon. SeaRAM has a longer range (7.5 kilometers) than the Phalanx (two kilometers).

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 30 Oct 2009 18:54

Patni, thanks!

So this LCS is a "semi-planing" (not semi-planning as the above article says!) hull design. Or so they claim.

I would imagine that by attaching 3 hydroplanes they can get the speed up a lot. Maybe they do that and don't advertise it. Otherwise they are still going to be left far behind by speedboats that have now surpassed 160 mph (Miss England 3, in the article posted by Patni).

Given that there are hydrofoil ferries all over the world, it would be very surprising if this ship is not equipped with those.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Oct 2009 19:01

how stable are these bimaran and trimaran type ships in heavy seas ?

the imo tend to have small interior hull volume but good area of deck - ideal if the ship is meant to carry helicopters or supply containers stashed away.

a smaller "submarine chaser" inshore patrol boat based on conventional hull form looks cheaper and more practical to indic needs than these LCS.

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 01 Nov 2009 07:35

AK-630M1-2 "ROY"
earlier
http://pvo.guns.ru/naval/roy2.jpg
http://pvo.guns.ru/naval/roy4.jpg
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/tmz2003/tmz07.JPG
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/tmz2003/tmz05.JPG

and now
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/imds2007/DSC_1591.JPG
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/imds2007 ... 37_eei.jpg

and to read whole topic
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... q4_HYP0J_Q

Baldev · Post by **Baldev** » 02 Nov 2009 08:25

Ring-mounted MANPADS TYPE Igla "COMAR"
http://www.oao-ratep.com/images/ratep/Gibka_gun.jpg
http://www.oao-ratep.com/images/ratep/komar.jpg
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/imds2005/2/IMG_1671.JPG
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/maks2005 ... G_2255.JPG
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/maks2005 ... G_2248.JPG
http://pvo.guns.ru/images/expo/idelf2006/IMG_4499.JPG

specifications are here
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... ByTys_38tA

this system is comparable to navalized MISTRAL missile
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ ... tralmb.jpg
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/ ... ralmb1.jpg

Anti-aircraft missile complex "Blade"
http://www.oao-ratep.com/images/ratep/klinok_in_ram.jpg

specifications
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... 8VX_OMryhw

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Nov 2009 18:49

http://en.rian.ru/infographics/20090729/155661233.html

Russian submarine successfully test-launches ballistic missile
Vitaly An'kov 12:2701/11/2009

MOSCOW, November 1 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian nuclear submarine has successfully test-launched a ballistic missile, the Defense Ministry said on Sunday.

"On November 1, the Northern Fleet's nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarine, Bryansk, successfully test-launched an intercontinental ballistic missile in the Barents Sea from a submerged position," the ministry said in a statement.

"The warheads reached the target area at the designated time," the statement said.

Russia's nuclear triad comprises land-based ballistic missile systems, nuclear-powered submarines armed with sea-launched ballistic missiles, and strategic bombers carrying nuclear bombs and nuclear-capable cruise missiles.

Shameek · Post by **Shameek** » 03 Nov 2009 01:20

USS New York

Ship built from WTC steel comes to New York.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 03 Nov 2009 04:22

shameekg wrote:USS New York

Ship built from WTC steel comes to New York.

HiRes:

http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 7L-003.jpg