Stealth Design Frigate
- Thread starter companion
- Start date
kinggodzilla87
New Member
looks good 
but can it work:shudder
but can it work:shudder
mmm...
Nice thought, but me being an old gett (who can't visualise things properly), would prefer to see a side on view, to compare with other ships of the type, eg. Type 45 / Chinese DDG 52, etc
To see whom has borrowed ideas from who...?
Systems Adict
Nice thought, but me being an old gett (who can't visualise things properly), would prefer to see a side on view, to compare with other ships of the type, eg. Type 45 / Chinese DDG 52, etc
To see whom has borrowed ideas from who...?
Systems Adict
Brickmuppet
New Member
I'm not sure the intense and expensive fixation with extreme stealth on warships is cost effective. Certain emissions are going to be broadcast, and one cannot make the ship invisible to the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
It might be better to invest in really good silencing like the Brits did with their Type 23, provide what stealthing can be obtained without compromising seakeeping or sending the price through the roof and provide a ship with good point defense systems.
Any thoughts?
It might be better to invest in really good silencing like the Brits did with their Type 23, provide what stealthing can be obtained without compromising seakeeping or sending the price through the roof and provide a ship with good point defense systems.
Any thoughts?
The most obvious radar reflection is the corner reflection between the water surface and the hull. No matter what you do on the superstructure, you are not going to get that much (diminishing returns) without angling the hull at the water line like the DDG 1000. Ultimately that is going to force you to abandon monohulls for catamarans, e.g. Chinese Type 22 design, though what I have best in mind is the Sea Shadow. If you like future stealth ships, it would be kind of like floating pyramids on the water.
Well, Norman Friedman's position is in line with yours. Compromising other aspects of the design like staying power and hard-kill defensive power is definitely not a wise move at all. And this notional design illustrates that clearly. The close in defenses have to be stowed in hatches to maintain the design's LO qualities. Which means that the ship is very poorly defended against sudden, pop up missile attacks. The ship's LO qualities are also not available if the weapons are unstowed, meaning that the design cannot benefit from one of the purposes of LO: the enhancement of soft-kill measure effectiveness. All the moving parts needed to raise/lower the guns are also very failure prone in the sea environment. Finally, having to raise/lower them means taking up a lot of volume in the hull, which detracts from available fuel for bunkerage etc. This is a design that makes many sacrifices for absolutely no gain. Very bad design, IMO.
High flying surveillance aircraft would likely get a hit on radar once they fly perpendicular any sloped surface.
Infra-red will give it away every time, an aircraft fitted with FLIR would show your ship up as bright as day once within visual range. A Penguin-style missile would not notice much difference, even with fancy paint and special materials all over the superstructure.
Additionally, if you are engaging an opponent with satellite imagery, they can potentially just use good old photography to locate you.
There are a couple of other ways you could localise a target using some pretty neat toys; however you won't get anyone who uses them to openly talk about them.
Sounds good at the outset, but as Transient states: All sacrifice and no gain.
---
Unfortunately, there is an effective "stealth frigate" out there: Invisible to the naked eye, no radar signature, packed with weapons, scares the living daylights out of everyone who doesn't know where it is....
...the submarine.
Packs the same kind of punch, and has the characteristics that most 'stealth ships' have, but do it better. Yes they cost a lot more, etc etc, but it is a case in point: All you are doing is trying to make a frigate into a non-diving submarine, and if you get that far, why not make it go beneath the surface to rub out the final few detectable signatures it has?
All in all, your objective should be this: reduce the signature as best you can of various elements about the ship, but do not comprimise anything. Even cost; why have two super-expensive hard-to-find frigates, when you can have half a dozen?
I don't mean to rain so hard on your parade, but as cool as the idea that you have is, the limitations are too extreme to contemplate.
Last edited:
Last edited:
BMT Defense services, who are helping out with the RN's new carriers and Astute class propose another type of new firgate for the RN and abroad.
IT is shown at
bmtdsl.co.uk (sorry but I am not allowed to post hyperlinks)
and is the Concept-F5 Future Fast Flexible Frigate
(they also advertise ships for the UK MARS and a 'new' type of submarine)