General Naval News

[Sandhi Yudha]

Italy in talks to sell frigates to Egypt

Two FREMM of Italian production stock are being discuss for potential sell to Egypt. This is from GP version, while the Italian according to this article will replace those GP version to ASW version if the sell goes through.

"“Egypt is a fundamental actor in Libya, the Mediterranean and the Middle East,” he said." Such a complicated part of this world, even more than the Spratly Sea....

But having 3 FREMM frigates, 4 O.H. Perry frigates and 4 Gowind corvettes, thats a nice fleet!
Hopefully the fanboys in our country will not find out that Italy wants to get rid off these to FREMM frigates.... :-D

 

[John Fedup]

Here is a proposal by a Russian design team to build a large nuclear powered NG tanker submarine. Even without collapsing demand and pricing for NG, short of open season on sinking surface tankers, this can’t make economic sense.

The Largest Submarine In The World Could Get Eclipsed

Russian engineers have proposed a massive submarine tanker capable of carrying 170,000-180,000 tons at a time. This would dwarf the mighty Typhoon Class ballistic missile sub, which is the largest submarine ever built.

www.forbes.com

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Here is a proposal by a Russian design team to build a large nuclear powered NG tanker submarine. Even without collapsing demand and pricing for NG, short of open season on sinking surface tankers, this can’t make economic sense.

The Largest Submarine In The World Could Get Eclipsed

Russian engineers have proposed a massive submarine tanker capable of carrying 170,000-180,000 tons at a time. This would dwarf the mighty Typhoon Class ballistic missile sub, which is the largest submarine ever built.

www.forbes.com

Hi JF. This makes no sense at all in any way! God forbid there be a nuclear accident aboard or a tank rupture fuel spill high in the Arctic! A stupid idiotic idea that hopefully gets "put to bed" soon!! Cheers!

Dave Dunlop

 

[ngatimozart]

Here is a proposal by a Russian design team to build a large nuclear powered NG tanker submarine. Even without collapsing demand and pricing for NG, short of open season on sinking surface tankers, this can’t make economic sense.

The Largest Submarine In The World Could Get Eclipsed

Russian engineers have proposed a massive submarine tanker capable of carrying 170,000-180,000 tons at a time. This would dwarf the mighty Typhoon Class ballistic missile sub, which is the largest submarine ever built.

www.forbes.com

Hi JF. This makes no sense at all in any way! God forbid there be a nuclear accident aboard or a tank rupture fuel spill high in the Arctic! A stupid idiotic idea that hopefully gets "put to bed" soon!! Cheers!

Dave Dunlop

Ahh, but is that the actual reason for such a design? It could be a design for nefarious purposes such as smuggling toilet paper into Australia - sorry couldn't resist.

 

[John Fedup]

Ahh, but is that the actual reason for such a design? It could be a design for nefarious purposes such as smuggling toilet paper into Australia - sorry couldn't resist.

I actually heard on the radio today that supermarkets here were reporting a "run" on toilet paper which somebody understands the reason for. Probably have OZ relatives giving them a heads up.

 

[ngatimozart]

OFF TOPIC

I actually heard on the radio today that supermarkets here were reporting a "run" on toilet paper which somebody understands the reason for. Probably have OZ relatives giving them a heads up.

People were doing the same in Auckland. I can't understand it myself because the virus doesn't give you the D&V (diarrhoea & vomit). It's just like a cold, albeit a bit more serious. Some people can just be so thick.

 

[ngatimozart]

USNI article: Sonar Equipped Drone Fleets Could be Key to Future Submarine Warfare - USNI News, looking at UUVs undertaking ASW using passive sonars and wave gliders as part of submerged sonar net and comms node. Looks quite interesting and the concept is aimed at nations who can't afford high end ASW assets. Even then it could also be used as part of a ASW capability by nations who have ASW ships, subs and / or aircraft.

 

[John Fedup]

With respect to getting allied nations to buy into this concept, ASW efforts are closely held. Maybe baby steps are needed, start off with a 5 eyes agreement and see how this works out.

 

[ngatimozart]

With respect to getting allied nations to buy into this concept, ASW efforts are closely held. Maybe baby steps are needed, start off with a 5 eyes agreement and see how this works out.

That's one way of looking at it. Within the FVEYS ASW community it could probably operate similar to a localised SOSUS which would be worthwhile in its own right. Definitely nothing to be sneezed at and if the hydrophones etc., can be easily moved, then it reduces the chances of comrade Vlads and comrade Jins mates playing silly boys with them, because they aren't permanent fixtures.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Ahh, but is that the actual reason for such a design? It could be a design for nefarious purposes such as smuggling toilet paper into Australia - sorry couldn't resist.

Toilet paper would be a good product to "move" to Australia for Russia. Only problem is that they couldn't dive due to a buoyancy problem. Canada would never run out of this product as we have enough "raw" product to keep us going for at least a thousand years (if we don't clear-cut our whole supply-wanna buy some? It wouldn't cost you much-perhaps a couple of LHD's and 12 attack submarines)! To be propelled by at least 3 reactors would be a daunting task! I believe it was Japan who first proposed this vessel (too much Saki I guess). To move that much LNG under the ice in the high Arctic via this method would still be idiotic (I wonder how much "wacky-tobacci" Putin is smoking!) I wonder though, how many troops & support vehicles could be hauled by these subs? Probably at least a brigades' worth. If this massive sub does come about, they couldn't build many as the cost would be astronomical and even the Russian people would not stand for this (or be sent to Siberia)! Cheers!

 

[John Fedup]

OT but a recently saw a picture of leaves packaged in a ziplock bag and marketed as organic toilet paper so no need to clear cut our forests. At little pricey at $10 a bag though!

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

OT but a recently saw a picture of leaves packaged in a ziplock bag and marketed as organic toilet paper so no need to clear cut our forests. At little pricey at $10 a bag though!

We could sell our TP to the world @ approx. $100 for a case of 4 and make a killing! Probably enough to buy 12 Hybrid AIP Subs, 4 Juan Carlos class LHD's and 2 America class LHA's along with another 6 CSC Type 26 Frigates. TP, a great weapon!

 

[Ananda]

Spain joins European Patrol Corvette program in which nations can customize ships

There are now four members of the European Patrol Corvette program, created to design and develop a prototype of a modular 3,300-ton ship responsible for a number of tasks and missions, including those performed by ocean patrol vessels and light frigates.

www.defensenews.com

Spain officially joining European Patrol Corvette program with France, Italy and Greece. According to this article, couple other Euro nation can join the program like Portugal and Bulgaria.

Put it on this thread since this program seems evolve in multi nation Euro program. The idea seems to combine Light Frigate-Corvette capabilities with flexibility of OPV. Highly modularity thus provide each nation to customisation based on their individual preference. Provide capabilities of GP range (thus mostly for Surface and Anti Sub capabilities).
This I presume will provide also economics on developing, while also provide Jobs for each countries Ship Yard that joining the program.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Spain joins European Patrol Corvette program in which nations can customize ships

There are now four members of the European Patrol Corvette program, created to design and develop a prototype of a modular 3,300-ton ship responsible for a number of tasks and missions, including those performed by ocean patrol vessels and light frigates.

www.defensenews.com

Spain officially joining European Patrol Corvette program with France, Italy and Greece. According to this article, couple other Euro nation can join the program like Portugal and Bulgaria.

Put it on this thread since this program seems evolve in multi nation Euro program. The idea seems to combine Light Frigate-Corvette capabilities with flexibility of OPV. Highly modularity thus provide each nation to customisation based on their individual preference. Provide capabilities of GP range (thus mostly for Surface and Anti Sub capabilities).
This I presume will provide also economics on developing, while also provide Jobs for each countries Ship Yard that joining the program.

EUROPEAN PATROL CORVETTE:

• Around 3300 tons
• A limited warship optimized for surface warfare and able to counter airborne attacks as well as undertake anti-submarine missions.
• A limited warship for lengthy missions (10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots) that can conduct surface warfare missions.
• An offshore patrol vessel in various configurations.

Sounds more like a heavy multipurpose frigate.
I dont call this 'limited'.

 

[ngatimozart]

I wouldn't call it a heavy multipurpose frigate. Definitely doesn't meet that criteria, in fact it would be struggling to meet the light frigate criteria with that tonnage. That's in a western navy sense because it very much depends upon what your definition of a frigate is. In western navies, a heavy frigate would be something weighing in at probably > 6,000 tonnes displacement, and something like the RAN / RNZN ANZAC class frigates at 3,800 tonnes displacement would be classified as light patrol frigates. Again that also depends upon the navy. Western navies are building OPVs and OPCs (corvettes) with displacements in the region of 3,000+ tonnes like the EPC, so we'll see how they fit out the ships with sensors, weapons and aviation etc.

During WW2 the Royal Navy built corvettes as convoy escorts because they were quick and cheap to build. The most famous of them was the Flower class which weren't good sea boats, were wet boats and could roll on wet grass. Towards the end of the war some bright spark in the Admiralty had an epiphany and promoted the corvettes to frigates, what the USN called destroyer escorts (DE). So although the ships and their missions didn't physically change, by the stroke of a pen their classification had changed.

Therefore it comes back to the definition of the classification of frigate as I alluded to earlier in this post. What you may call a frigate we may not and vice versa, and our brethren in Beijing and Moscow each may have different definitions as well. It can be bloody confusing and confounding.

 

[Redlands18]

EUROPEAN PATROL CORVETTE:

• Around 3300 tons
• A limited warship optimized for surface warfare and able to counter airborne attacks as well as undertake anti-submarine missions.
• A limited warship for lengthy missions (10,000 nautical miles at 14 knots) that can conduct surface warfare missions.
• An offshore patrol vessel in various configurations.

Sounds more like a heavy multipurpose frigate.
I dont call this 'limited'.

Armament wise you are probably looking at
1x Otobreda 76/62mm, most of these Navies are already using this or maybe the MK 110 57mm
a couple of lighter guns in the 25-30mm size
A 8 Cell of some Defensive SAM system such as CAMM(12 Cells) Aster 15, ESSM or a 21 cell Sea RAM launcher.
4-8 SSM of choice
A LWT ASW Torpedo system
But the reality is today that no one is building Frigates under about 4000t, you just cannot get a ,decent Weapons, Sensor fit, CMS and Aviation capability on any thing smaller anymore. Classification of Warship designations needs to be looked at, to call something like the Sigma 105m the same as the 149m Type 26 is as NG says above bloody confusing and confounding, maybe a job for NATO HQ
Today we have Destroyers the size approaching WW2 Heavy Cruisers, Frigates the size of WW2 Light Cruisers and Corvettes the size of WW2 Destroyers and OCV/OPVs the size of WW2 Corvettes. The new German Navy MKS-180 Frigate is reportedly going to be 154m long and displace 10,000t!!!!

 

[Ananda]

Definition of warships classes no doubt has been increased in all measurements aspects. If I see some classification and try to categories based on several navies and constructors definition:

• Up to 1000 dwt consider Patrol Boats,
• 1000-2500 dwt consider Corvettes,
• 2500-3500 dwt consider Light Frigates,
• 3500-4500 dwt consider Medium Frigates,
• 4500 dwt above consider Heavy Frigates

However this then become blurry on the limit of Corvettes with Light Frigates, and between Medium-Heavy Frigates with Destroyers. Seems the Chinese and Russian still used 6000 dwt as the limit of Frigates and when Destroyers begin, but NATO seems now putting the limit upward to 9000 dwt.

I think now the measurements limit being override and the classification more on the roles. Seems Corvettes and Light Frigates now become one, as the role more to coastal/green water patrol and protection. They will not have extensive capabilities for blue water operation due to limit of their operational range. The Corvette and Light Frigates measurements seems also being used by OPV. The difference in equipment and power plant specifications that will separate OPV to Light Frigates/Corvettes.

While Frigates more on GP or ASuW duties in blue water operation, where Destroyers more related to long range area AAW operation which can be up to anti balistics missile capabilities. Both Frigates can do their job independently thus Frigates also have substantial AAW capabilities so does Destroyers on GP and ASuW. But the level of specialisation seems the differ factor for Frigates and Destroyers.
Both also are used for Blue Water escort duties of Carrier or Task Force Group, but with differentiation in specialise duties.
For that the measurements limit can be overlapping between both warships classification.

Interesting also on when Cruisers will begin. If we see Tico, then perhaps 11000-12000 is where cruisers begin, but if we see Chinese type 55 Destroyers, it's already in Cruiser classification. The Russian planning their new Destroyers (the Leeder) also already in the range of 12,000 dwt+. If we see USSR cruisers, the Slava begin in that range.

Thus I also begin to wander if in the future, Cruisers will still be exist on World Navies classification.

 

[oldsig127]

Thus I also begin to wander if in the future, Cruisers will still be exist on World Navies classification.

I wish you well in trying to impose a system of classification on any basis other than "a ship is whatever it's navy chooses to call it". That said, it's quite likely that cruiser will get another run, and another still contradicting the previous, just as have definitions like "frigate".

There are just too many conflicting definitions, historical and practical

Ships classed as frigates have had as little as a couple of hundred ton displacements, 20 guns and no anti-submarine role whatsoever. They were among Nelson's most valuable naval assets.

German "torpedo boats" in WW2 had greater displacements than many RN destroyers, and armed with four 5" guns were just as capable. Late war versions were armed with 105mm AA guns and intended mainly as AA ships. The vessels used by Germany which a US Navy sailor would call a torpedo boat would be an E-boat to an RN sailor, or a fast boat (Schnellboot) by its crew.

@Redlands18 has noted the tendency to growth in size over time, whatever type of ships are involved.

Roles have evolved over time. Technology has changed over time. Doctrines have changed over time. Definitions have changed to meet all of those changes, and will, like them, evolve further in the future. I really can't see, for example, the United Nations writing a definition for Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer and so on, and anyone electing to stick with them beyond the point where they make no sense to their own navy.

I think that in these confines - Defence Talk - we can call them whatever we want if it makes it easier to undestand in some fashion.

Just don't expect that to survive the next technological change that redefines roles and alters sizes, or the next politician wanting to exaggerate his nation's potency or hide it, or the numb skulls of the press who will call all of them battleships anyway

oldsig

 

[Ananda]

Roles have evolved over time. Technology has changed over time. Doctrines have changed over time. Definitions have changed to meet all of those changes, and will, like them, evolve further in the future. I really can't see, for example, the United Nations writing a definition for Corvette, Frigate, Destroyer and so on, and anyone electing to stick with them beyond the point where they make no sense to their own navy.

I think that in these confines - Defence Talk - we can call them whatever we want if it makes it easier to undestand in some fashion.

Well, that's why I Believe as I put in previous post, in the end the measurements is not going to matter, but more on the roles.
True technology and doctrine changes through out times, and will evolves also. Still so far what I see is that the similarities of roles through out some navies (not just NATO but also with Russian and Chinese) that determine classification and not measurements anymore.

There's seems still similarities on the roles of Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyers in NATO and Non NATO navies. What the Chinese assign in their latest Frigates roles still have similarities on what NATO assign on their latest Frigates, despite there's relative difference in measurements.

Thus seems for the moment, we should see more on the roles rather than measurements to understands and perhaps make sense why a ship being classified as Corvettes or Frigates.

Indonesian Navy for example used PRK for their SIGMA 10514 which in Indonesian PRK have similarities with classification of DE in WW2 USN. The roles of DE now more similarities with Corvettes or Light Frigates.
This perhaps an example where on doing classification, more navies now look on the roles rather than just measurements.

True politics can play, where some Navy downgrade their classification, Like JSDF that still call their carriers as Destroyers (eventough they are now planning to have F-35B operating from that Destroyers) or Iran that called their 'corvette' size warship as Destroyers.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Well, that's why I Believe as I put in previous post, in the end the measurements is not going to matter, but more on the roles.
True technology and doctrine changes through out times, and will evolves also. Still so far what I see is that the similarities of roles through out some navies (not just NATO but also with Russian and Chinese) that determine classification and not measurements anymore.

There's seems still similarities on the roles of Corvettes, Frigates and Destroyers in NATO and Non NATO navies. What the Chinese assign in their latest Frigates roles still have similarities on what NATO assign on their latest Frigates, despite there's relative difference in measurements.

Thus seems for the moment, we should see more on the roles rather than measurements to understands and perhaps make sense why a ship being classified as Corvettes or Frigates.

Indonesian Navy for example used PRK for their SIGMA 10514 which in Indonesian PRK have similarities with classification of DE in WW2 USN. The roles of DE now more similarities with Corvettes or Light Frigates.
This perhaps an example where on doing classification, more navies now look on the roles rather than just measurements.

True politics can play, where some Navy downgrade their classification, Like JSDF that still call their carriers as Destroyers (eventough they are now planning to have F-35B operating from that Destroyers) or Iran that called their 'corvette' size warship as Destroyers.

You are right.
There is also a political reason indeed in giving warship classes classifications. The last decades we see most West-European countries continuesly downgrading their new frigate classes. The Dutch Tromp Klasse (Geleide Wapenfregat Klasse) were regarded by many as destroyers, not only because of their appearance, but also their size of 138 meters long was a size for destroyers in the '70s. The Zeven Provincien Klasse (LCF-Klasse) were again bigger and heavier. Also the FREMMs are just slightly smaller than the Horizon destroyers.

It just annoying to explain every time to young internet users that ships below 100 meters of length can be frigates.