It has been said many times on this thread that there is no perfect multi role warship. But if one is discussing about a ship that is best suited for modern naval warfare I would suggest the Milgem class guided missile corvettes. It can carry 8 Harpoon Ashm(or in Bangldesh's case 8 C-802). 1 sea hawk ASW heli. UAVs. 21 seaRAMs. Mk.46 Torpedoes. It has low radar profile, it is fast very maneuverable and weighs only 2000 tonnes
Best Multi-Role Warship?
- Thread starter gforce
- Start date
It all depends on what roles you want to task to it. For america its BMD, AA, ASW, long rang strikes with tomahawks, and anti surface.
The LCS are both between 3100 tons (freedom LCS-1) and 2700 tons (LCS-2 Independence)
So both are about the size of the Milgem.
The problem when saying the best warship is that different Navies have different requirments. Where many if not most navies design ships for shorter cruises than USN requirments.
So yea there is no perfect warship, its all in the details.
gardnerdesign
New Member
The ohio class submarine...... It has an inherent ASW capability and a very high degree of stealth and endurance .... but more importantly it has 24 large VLS tubes. The development of the SSGN demonstrates the utillity of these ships. If the US Navy took this Idea further and expanded the VLS capability to include other missiles and UAV's you would than have a very well rounded multi role vessal.
2 tubes for special ops
2 tubes for trident ballistic missiles (8 nuclear warheads each)
6 tubes for UAVs with with air to air and air to ground radar (no arment to allow for greater endurance) for area reconnesance and targeting.
7 tubes for tomahawk missiles (7 per tube) for anti surface.
7 tubes for SM-6's (7 per tube ) for air defence.
logistics can be kept very simple.... needing only food for its sailors and fuel for its aircraft until it eventualy exhausts its missiles and torpedos. Potenitaly whatever mechanism is used to load and unload UAV's could also load and unload VLC's, alowing the ship to rearm buy recieving airdrops making its tour limited buy its nuclear fuel and crew rotation only.
2 tubes for special ops
2 tubes for trident ballistic missiles (8 nuclear warheads each)
6 tubes for UAVs with with air to air and air to ground radar (no arment to allow for greater endurance) for area reconnesance and targeting.
7 tubes for tomahawk missiles (7 per tube) for anti surface.
7 tubes for SM-6's (7 per tube ) for air defence.
logistics can be kept very simple.... needing only food for its sailors and fuel for its aircraft until it eventualy exhausts its missiles and torpedos. Potenitaly whatever mechanism is used to load and unload UAV's could also load and unload VLC's, alowing the ship to rearm buy recieving airdrops making its tour limited buy its nuclear fuel and crew rotation only.
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What the devil are you on about?
A submarine, due to conops, is not a general-use platform. A nuclear submarine is even less so. Now, a SSGN version of the Ohio-class can accomodate up to 22 Multiple All Up Round Canisters (MAC) with each containing up to 7 Tomahawk TLAM. At present, UAVs are not able to be launched from canisters or operated by submerged submarines. In order for a submarine to operate a UAV, it would need to be near enough the surface to allow high bandwidth comm systems to be used, and would also surrender one of the advantages a submarine has over surface vessels, namely a difficulty in being detected. For similar reasons, carriage or use of SM-6 Standard missiles makes no sense from a submarine either. If the submarine is close enough to engage an aircraft with a SAM, then the submarine has already failed to escape/evade detection.
Now, a submarine does have offensive and defensive ASW capabilities, however an Ohio-class is essentially a boomer, not an attack submarine. This means due to size, sensor fitout and role it is ill-suited to hunting other submarines.
In short, an Ohio-class SSGN cannot currently do what has been suggested as being possible, and if it did perform some of the roles suggested, it would be operating in such a manner as to yield many of the advantages it would have as a submarine. Therefor IMO what has been presented is neither likely nor realistic.
-Cheers
Would have rather seen the space for the seals used for more tomahawks myself.
Then you lose a very useful insertion method for SF. Not every insertion can be conducted by air - particularly with the absence of a stealthy capability. The existing SSGN's have a stack of Tomahawks, why the need for more?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The space used to deploy SEAL teams could otherwise have carried a total of 14 Tomahawk TLAMs... Given that the new Ohio-class SSGN variants will be able to launch ~154 Tomahawk TLAM, I tend to agree with Marc1 that 154 + a SEAL unit(s) is better than 168 Tomahawk TLAM and no SEAL unit.
-Cheers
Well my reasons-though i fully understand yours and figure it a good point- is that in order to launch these seals they are going to need to come to the surface or just there anyway. And this will require them to get within the litorals which is a place were our nuke boats are at a disadvantage against cheaper more numerous diesel electric or what have you boats.
Then again im also a guy who believes in "walk softy and carry a hand gernade" type of mind set.
If your conops is to get close enough to either dispatch swimmers or for the subs to have to surface to launch zodiacs - then yes, I'd agree with your point.
However, I'm not sure that they need to surface at all - and not sure they even need to get very close to the objective - I believe they have the ability to transfer underwater to something that will take them much closer. Don't know the current state of the art - but miniature submersibles and chariots were used during WW2 - the state of the art would be a hell of a lot more advanced than that.
I understand that its just what is there range and does this equipment if its carried on the hull detract from the subs stealth in creating a noise signature?
There's a documentary floating around somewhere where they show sub-surface transfer of a spec ops team, I'll see if I can dig it up for you after I get home from work. From memory (and I could be wrong here) the equipment is stowed inside and then deployed on the outside of the vessel when the team departs the submarine. There's a bit of anecdotal stuff here and there online that indicates the Ohios are very, very quiet boats - as I imagine would be true for any boomer worth its salt.
In any case I'd agree with Tod that the flexibility inherent in having an embarked special operations team provides more capability than the addition of more missiles above and beyond the already very substantial 154-round payload.
I've always heard the way you look for a ohio is to find the hole in the ocean.
As I pointed out I have no idea about what they are using now - or even that in needs to be carried externally. It may fit within a BM tube (which would make a lot of sense - carrying a submersible piggybacked as you leave the dock would be a bit of a giveaway. Then again, the sub could depart dockside and marry up with the delivery vehicle elsewhere I guess.
........what?
As to the part of not sending a carriar off by its sels, That is not true. In the Mayaguez incident off of Cambodia in 1975 the Coral Sea (CVA-43) to get to its launch point in time to get off its Alpha Strike tock off at forty knots leaving behind all of its escorts. Some of which could only do 25 and others at best 32 knots. The Coral Sea was just going around in circles for half a day before the rest of us caught up to them and most of the real action was already over. I was there I Know.
Did you say 1975?? Just kidding
Anyway, that was 35 years ago. Naval tactics change with technology through time. In today's modern environment, even if a Carrier broke off from its battle group, you still have AWACS that patrol the skies to pick up incoming threats. Once picked up at 200 miles, fighters would be launched to intercept. It's just a movie and Hollywood over does it sometimes to make the movie more interesting. It's funny.By the way, I never knew that CVA-43 could do 40 knots.
Cheers
!
IronsightSniper
Member
Well, I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned before, but I believe the Kirov class battlecruiser is a rather nice compromise of all the capabilities you listed. It has a fair AShM capabilities with it's loadout of P-700's. As for it's SAM capabilities, it comes with either 96 S-300's or S-400's, which have a vary capabilities to detect and destroy Stealth aircraft in their own.It also has over 200 Point-defense missiles and a fair ASW capability. For CIWS, it has either 8 AK-630 six-barreled 30 mm autocannons or 6 Kashtan gun-missile systems(each has 2 AK-630's and SAM at the same time). Ground attack is slightly different, with only two 130 or 100 mm caliber guns. It's also a nuclear-powered vessel, so endurance would be longer than most. Overall, good stuff.
Carries, today can go far faster that 40 knots. The top speeds of these capital ships are classified, very classified and for good reasons. Let us just say, that the slowest modern US carrier is faster that any other blue water ship in the fleet except another carrier and as far as I know faster than any other blue water naval vessel of ant type or country anywhere in the world by a wide margin. If it had to, it could get up enough forward air speed over the flight deck to land combat aircraft despite a considerable tail wind. It can land aircraft without changing course and swinging into the wind to so if it had to. I am not a carrier guy, so I am not boosting about this because I love carries, I don’t, I didn’t even like being around them when I was in the Navy. But they are what they are. A modern carrier is the most advanced, complicated, powerful, dangerously destructive conventional armed warship ever made and they are the hardest ship ever constructed by man to sink. If it were to take a hit and put, say one of its four screws out of condition, on just three screws it could still be fully combat ready.Did you say 1975?? Just kidding
By the way, I never knew that CVA-43 could do 40 knots.
Cheers
!
As far as tactics changing in the last 35 years? The one about hasn’t changed. Some civilian adviser to president Ford insisted back in Washington (I have forgotten the idiot’s name) on the time line and the taskforce commander followed orders.
A SSN or SSBN may have a higher top speed than a nuclear powered carrier. No facts but both would go faster than 40 kts, proberly faster than 50kts.
And a SSBN has a pretty high destructive value too.. However they are not really comparible. I would assume the carrier group would have had a SSN in the area, so I would assume none of the surface escorts could keep up but a sub surface one might..
I wonder if you could even make a do everything ship given unlimited money and time and technology.
And a SSBN has a pretty high destructive value too.. However they are not really comparible. I would assume the carrier group would have had a SSN in the area, so I would assume none of the surface escorts could keep up but a sub surface one might..
I wonder if you could even make a do everything ship given unlimited money and time and technology.