Roussen class FAMC

Gerasimos

New Member
I wanted to share with you some specs for the brand new FAC of the Greek navy and to hear your thoughts.I find it amazing...We have all 5 of them built here in Greece.The designs are of Vosper-Thornycroft .It is 62 meter long with 45 crew,capable of firing Exocet MM40 BlockII SSM,RIM-116A Block I for air defence,one Oto Melara Super Rapid 76mm gun,two Oto Melara 30mm guns,and a lot more things.you can visit http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hellenic/ for more info.I wish Greece could export this ship.The only disadvantage for me is the lack of torpedoes,but we can't expect from a ship of 62m and 45 crew to be capable of everything.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Gerasimos said:
I wanted to share with you some specs for the brand new FAC of the Greek navy and to hear your thoughts.I find it amazing...We have all 5 of them built here in Greece.The designs are of Vosper-Thornycroft .It is 62 meter long with 45 crew,capable of firing Exocet MM40 BlockII SSM,RIM-116A Block I for air defence,one Oto Melara Super Rapid 76mm gun,two Oto Melara 30mm guns,and a lot more things.you can visit http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hellenic/ for more info.I wish Greece could export this ship.The only disadvantage for me is the lack of torpedoes,but we can't expect from a ship of 62m and 45 crew to be capable of everything.
Very modern indeed and the RAM has a range of 9.6km, so it is almost a SAM, not a simple CIWS.
Compared with the latest Turkish FACs, it has an advantage in AAW.
I don't think however Greece can export them unless it has a specific clause with Vosper Thornycroft, the owners of the Super Vita design from which your new FACs are based.

cheers
 

Gerasimos

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
contedicavour said:
Very modern indeed and the RAM has a range of 9.6km, so it is almost a SAM, not a simple CIWS.
Compared with the latest Turkish FACs, it has an advantage in AAW.
I don't think however Greece can export them unless it has a specific clause with Vosper Thornycroft, the owners of the Super Vita design from which your new FACs are based.

cheers
Yes you are right about AAW, none of the 5 classes of FACs Kilic,Yildiz,Dogan,Kartal,Turk has SAM,not even CIWS.To be more specific only the Turk class has AAW,the old 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon.Also the updated Greek Mirage 2000 are capable of carrying Exocets,so you can imagine the superiority.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Gerasimos said:
Yes you are right about AAW, none of the 5 classes of FACs Kilic,Yildiz,Dogan,Kartal,Turk has SAM,not even CIWS.To be more specific only the Turk class has AAW,the old 40mm Bofors and 20mm Oerlikon.Also the updated Greek Mirage 2000 are capable of carrying Exocets,so you can imagine the superiority.
Although to re-equilibrate things a bit ;) , the Super Vita FACs were really needed, because the Combattante IIs were getting too old vs the latest Turkish FACs (and MM38 or Penguin were inferior to Harpoon).
I wonder why you haven't armed the much more modern Osprey-derived FACs with missiles. They were conceived for Harpoons but they don't carry them.

cheers
 

Gerasimos

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
contedicavour said:
Although to re-equilibrate things a bit ;) , the Super Vita FACs were really needed, because the Combattante IIs were getting too old vs the latest Turkish FACs (and MM38 or Penguin were inferior to Harpoon).
I wonder why you haven't armed the much more modern Osprey-derived FACs with missiles. They were conceived for Harpoons but they don't carry them.

cheers
Again you are absolutely right about the missiles,although I find Exocet quite useful(due to the good history they have).We have 8 Osprey class ships.Are you sure they are conceived for Harpoon?According to the official site of the Hellenic Navy,this class and Thetis,Asheville class is mostly used for ASW.As you can see all Ospeys have Mk55 mines,and the Thetis class has Mk44 torpedoe tubes.Also I disagree that Osprey are much more modern from Roussen class.
 

contedicavour

New Member
Gerasimos said:
Again you are absolutely right about the missiles,although I find Exocet quite useful(due to the good history they have).We have 8 Osprey class ships.Are you sure they are conceived for Harpoon?According to the official site of the Hellenic Navy,this class and Thetis,Asheville class is mostly used for ASW.As you can see all Ospeys have Mk55 mines,and the Thetis class has Mk44 torpedoe tubes.Also I disagree that Osprey are much more modern from Roussen class.
Ospreys are less modern than the Super Vita, but they are much better than the Combattante IIs. That's why i was suggesting adding SSMs aboard the Ospreys and deleting the oldest Combattante IIs. It keeps your force level while modernizing a bit.
I confirm Ospreys can carry Harpoons.
I must admit however I wasnt' aware they had an ASW/mine warfare role in the Greek Navy. I learned something new ;)

cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
Gerasimos said:
Yes you are right about Osprey.If I was high ranking officer I would surely listen to your suggestion,but I'm not:D .We also have 10 more ships just for mine warfare,check If you want
http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/minesweeper.asp.
Excellent internet site with 100% of your ships identified with specifications, armament and photographs. Very good job :) congrats to your Navy.
The Italian Navy site is not as updated as I would wish... for instance the most recent pictures of our new carrier or of our new DDGs are more than a year old :( . Still, good on the ships in service and on history.
http://www.marina.difesa.it/

cheers
 

Gerasimos

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
The Greek version of the site is even better informed than the English version.
I also visited your site but I couldn't find the English version button,so I tried to use some Latin I know to navigate;)
 

ahussains

New Member
:eek: Very modern indeed and the RAM has a range of 9.6km, so it is almost a SAM, not a simple CIWS.
Compared with the latest Turkish FACs, it has an advantage in AAW.
I don't think however Greece can export them unless it has a specific clause with Vosper Thornycroft, the owners of the Super Vita design from which your new FACs are based.
:smoker ATTACK CRAFT DESIGN

The design of the fast attack craft is based on the smaller Vita class vessels already in service with the Qatar Emiri Navy and similar-sized craft built for Oman and other countries.
The fast attack craft has a steel hull and aluminium superstructure. Vosper Thornycroft Controls is supplying the electrical power distribution system, the platform management system, electrical machinery and the mine counter-countermeasures system.
FAST ATTACK CRAFT WEAPONS

The ship is armed with the MBDA (formerly EADS Aerospatiale-Matra) Exocet ITL 70A MM40 Block II surface-to-surface missile. Exocet uses active radar homing and has a range of 70km. The two four-cylinder launchers are installed on the missile deck, set in a crossed configuration with one facing starboard and one facing port side.
The vessel’s air defence missile system is the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile), to be supplied by RAMSYS, a consortium of MBDA (formerly EADS Daimler-Chrysler Aerospace), Diehl and BGT. The missile system’s GMWS Mk 31 21-cell launcher is installed on the stern deck. The RIM-116A Block I missile has a dual-mode radar/imaging infra-red seeker and a range of 10km.:jump
The craft's main gun installed on the bow deck is the Oto Melara Super Rapid 76mm gun which is capable of firing 6kg shells at a rate of 100 rounds per minute to a range of 16km. Two Oto Melara 30mm guns are installed on either side of the upper deck to the stern of the main radar mast.
The ship is equipped with the Argo Systems AR900 electronic support measures system and the Sippican SRBOC decoy launcher.
 

docrjay

New Member
The RIM-116A Block I missile has a dual-mode radar/imaging infra-red seeker and a range of 10km
Is this the version that can be used to attack helicopters and surface targets plus ofcourse anti-ship missiles?
 

orko_8

New Member
Very modern indeed and the RAM has a range of 9.6km, so it is almost a SAM, not a simple CIWS.
Compared with the latest Turkish FACs, it has an advantage in AAW.
RAM was designed with the sole purpose of countering the threat of anti ship cruise missiles. If you are thinking of engaging an aircraft / helicopter 8 or 9km away from your ship, you are alredy dead meat :)

No aircraft, either fixed or rotary wing, comes alone to a hostile ship, see Falklands for Anti Ship Strike 101.

Fast attack boats rely on their speed (put emphasis on "Fast") and their small size, thus small RCS, to outmaneouver aerial threats, be them fixed or rotary wing aircraft or anti ship missiles. Therefore the biggest threat against FAC's are enemy submarines, since by definition, most FAC's do not have ASW capability. If you try to add ASW, then you get a much bigger boat and no longer a FAC, but a corvette. So, if you want to eliminate FAC threat, all you have to do is put some SSK patrol in the area.

Making a choice between RAM and high rate of fire DP guns depends on tactical needs and operational requirements. It is clearly seen after 9/11 that small patrol boats may have the crucial role of patrolling friendly waters, fighting against asymmetric threats and so on. Improvements in advanced munition and fire control systems can provide efficient close in protection as well as having good potential against surface targets (especially high speed, small ones, remember USS Cole). 35 and 40mm DP guns with advanced + intelligent munitions (such as DART, which is in use with Turkish Navy) can provide a substantial boost to the capability of the ship.

Besides, deploying RAM on a FAC can arise the question: "Why such a fast ship (Roussen class has ~34kt capability) needs an anti-cruise missile missile?" It can be understood to deply it to larger (and slower) ships such as frigates and corvettes (and fleet replenishment ships maybe, as well as aviation ships). But fixed and rotary winged aircraft are more serious threats to fast attack / patrol craft than cruise missiles. If I had a limited number of expensive anti ship missiles I would surely use them on frigates instead of patrol boats.


Excellent internet site with 100% of your ships identified with specifications, armament and photographs. Very good job congrats to your Navy.
Congrats go to Jane's mate ;), since all the technical and background information are direct copy-paste's from Jane's Fighting Ships :) I couldn't see a copyright notice by the way...
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
Modifying the RAM for targetting helicopter/aircraft/surface is apparently worth it, hence the Block I upgrade. ;)

RIM-116 RAM Rolling Airframe Missile

...

In November 1998, the United States and Germany amended the Block I development Memorandum of Understanding to include scope and funding for the development of a helicopter/aircraft/surface craft (HAS) upgrade of the RAM missile. Requiring only software changes to the RAM Block I missile, the HAS upgrade will extend RAM targets to include helicopters, aircraft, and surface ships. Navy plans indicate that all RAM installations on LSDs, LHDs, LPDs, and CV/CVNs will be the HAS configuration by 2009. Also, the Navy is developing an 11-round guided missile launcher in the HAS mode configuration for installation on CG 52 through 73 between 2004 and 2009.

According to DOT&E, the testing schedule remains on target to reach the scheduled deployment times.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ram.htm
 

orko_8

New Member
Grand Danois said:
Modifying the RAM for targetting helicopter/aircraft/surface is apparently worth it, hence the Block I upgrade. ;)
Mate, I think you are missing my point. Whether you RAM or other missile system, if you plan to use it against an aircraft max 10km away, then you indirectly accept that you had long lost air superiority, because enemy aircrafts have precision guided weapons with ranges much longer than 10km. US has the luxury to invest money and time on such a solution, since it has CAG's, AEGIS and other stuff to provide full air superiority and AAD. For increasing littoral warfare threat, such an additional capability might come into handy. But US is the only country in the world with such freedom of choice. For lower echelon navies such as Turkey, Greece, etc, RAM is ideal for protection of larger vessels of frigate (or maybe light frigate / corvette) class or high priority auxiliary ships and LPD / LHD's.
 

contedicavour

New Member
orko_8 said:
RAM was designed with the sole purpose of countering the threat of anti ship cruise missiles. If you are thinking of engaging an aircraft / helicopter 8 or 9km away from your ship, you are alredy dead meat :)

No aircraft, either fixed or rotary wing, comes alone to a hostile ship, see Falklands for Anti Ship Strike 101.

Fast attack boats rely on their speed (put emphasis on "Fast") and their small size, thus small RCS, to outmaneouver aerial threats, be them fixed or rotary wing aircraft or anti ship missiles. Therefore the biggest threat against FAC's are enemy submarines, since by definition, most FAC's do not have ASW capability. If you try to add ASW, then you get a much bigger boat and no longer a FAC, but a corvette. So, if you want to eliminate FAC threat, all you have to do is put some SSK patrol in the area.

Making a choice between RAM and high rate of fire DP guns depends on tactical needs and operational requirements. It is clearly seen after 9/11 that small patrol boats may have the crucial role of patrolling friendly waters, fighting against asymmetric threats and so on. Improvements in advanced munition and fire control systems can provide efficient close in protection as well as having good potential against surface targets (especially high speed, small ones, remember USS Cole). 35 and 40mm DP guns with advanced + intelligent munitions (such as DART, which is in use with Turkish Navy) can provide a substantial boost to the capability of the ship.

Besides, deploying RAM on a FAC can arise the question: "Why such a fast ship (Roussen class has ~34kt capability) needs an anti-cruise missile missile?" It can be understood to deply it to larger (and slower) ships such as frigates and corvettes (and fleet replenishment ships maybe, as well as aviation ships). But fixed and rotary winged aircraft are more serious threats to fast attack / patrol craft than cruise missiles. If I had a limited number of expensive anti ship missiles I would surely use them on frigates instead of patrol boats.



Congrats go to Jane's mate ;), since all the technical and background information are direct copy-paste's from Jane's Fighting Ships :) I couldn't see a copyright notice by the way...
I agree aircrafts and helos are the biggest threats to FACs.
I disagree however on the assumption that SSKs are the most suitable assets to dispose of enemy FACs. This is why : SSKs are much slower than FACs, at best 17-18kn vs 30++kn ; SSKs carry a limited (and expensive !) load of heavy torpedoes. Does it make sense to waste a heavy torpedo on a FAC ? Last but not least, FACs have very small drafts, adapted as they are to shallow waters. A torpedo will have a tough time locking on such a naval platform, especially if it is navigating above 35kn.
Btw, you're right, the Greek Navy site looked familiar to me... you've found out why ;)

cheers
 

orko_8

New Member
This is why : SSKs are much slower than FACs, at best 17-18kn vs 30++kn;
But torpedoes are not ;)

SSKs carry a limited (and expensive !) load of heavy torpedoes. Does it make sense to waste a heavy torpedo on a FAC ?
You are absolutely right. But it makes more sense than wasting a precious guided missile

Last but not least, FACs have very small drafts, adapted as they are to shallow waters.
Draft is not a problem for modern guided torpedoes.

But I must underline that I'm not claiming submarines are the only assests to counter the threat of FAC's.

My best
 
Last edited:

contedicavour

New Member
orko_8 said:
But torpedoes are not ;)


You are absolutely right. But it makes more sense than wasting a precious guided missile


Draft is not a problem for modern guided torpedoes.

But I must underline that I'm not claiming submarines are the only assests to counter the threat of FAC's.

My best
I would opt for ASMs launched by helos or patrol aircrafts, as you suggest in the preceding post.
AFAIK heavy torpedoes cost a lot more than a long-range guided missile (what I have is Blackshark costing more than a TeseoMk2). Unless of course you're using an obsolete Mk37.
Regarding speeds, most modern torpedoes are limited to 30-35kn if launched from 30-40km away, although you are right that if the SSK is sitting some 20km away from a FAC, then the torpedo can bypass 50kn. Question is, the SSK will be lucky enough to be close to the FAC to launch its torpedoes at top speed ?

cheers
 

orko_8

New Member
Question is, the SSK will be lucky enough to be close to the FAC to launch its torpedoes at top speed ?
Bingo!

A FAC alone does not have a chance against a submarine since usually most FAC's do not have hull mounted or towed sonars. Some FAC's have TT's (such as HN Combattante II's) but efficiency is very questionnable (obsolete SST-4's)

So, FAC's will require ASW support from other assests such as ASW helicopters (Vesta datalink) and frigates (Link). This leads us to:

1. FAC's do not operate alone
2. FAC's require operating areas around which friendly assests (preferably frigates, ASW aircraft and helo's) are present.

#2 implies that enemy aircraft / helicopters thinking of attacking a FAC must first get rid of those (FAC's) friendly assests. i.e. An F-16 which is going to fire an AGM-84 Harpoon will first have to face the SAM systems of a nearby frigate. This does not make sense to me. If I were the pilot of that F-16, I would fire my Harpoon right into that frigate, instead of the FAC.

So, my point is (and I better come to it, otherwise this will turn something into a strategy palaver :) ) :

FAC's need defense against ASM's, thus requiring CIWS / PDMS. But since they have to operate in coordination with friendly surface and air assests, they do not need SAM's in first place. Speed and size are their primary defensive weapons against aircraft, ASM's and torpedoes.

RAM is a state-of-art close in defensive system. It's a short range (some 10km in nominal conditions) system because of it's mission definition. Using it as a SAM system is meaningless, since either enemy aircraft will not find the chance to get in closer to 10km because of friendly assets in the region or they will already have fired their ASM's (or other types of weapons).

A FAC having a RAM does not mean much, since the targets which RAM is designed to neutralize are mostly directed to bigger ships, i.e corvettes, frigates, support ships, amphibious ships etc.

It's been a hellish day at the office, so excuse if my message is complicated :)
 

contedicavour

New Member
orko_8 said:
Bingo!

A FAC alone does not have a chance against a submarine since usually most FAC's do not have hull mounted or towed sonars. Some FAC's have TT's (such as HN Combattante II's) but efficiency is very questionnable (obsolete SST-4's)

So, FAC's will require ASW support from other assests such as ASW helicopters (Vesta datalink) and frigates (Link). This leads us to:

1. FAC's do not operate alone
2. FAC's require operating areas around which friendly assests (preferably frigates, ASW aircraft and helo's) are present.

#2 implies that enemy aircraft / helicopters thinking of attacking a FAC must first get rid of those (FAC's) friendly assests. i.e. An F-16 which is going to fire an AGM-84 Harpoon will first have to face the SAM systems of a nearby frigate. This does not make sense to me. If I were the pilot of that F-16, I would fire my Harpoon right into that frigate, instead of the FAC.

So, my point is (and I better come to it, otherwise this will turn something into a strategy palaver :) ) :

FAC's need defense against ASM's, thus requiring CIWS / PDMS. But since they have to operate in coordination with friendly surface and air assests, they do not need SAM's in first place. Speed and size are their primary defensive weapons against aircraft, ASM's and torpedoes.

RAM is a state-of-art close in defensive system. It's a short range (some 10km in nominal conditions) system because of it's mission definition. Using it as a SAM system is meaningless, since either enemy aircraft will not find the chance to get in closer to 10km because of friendly assets in the region or they will already have fired their ASM's (or other types of weapons).

A FAC having a RAM does not mean much, since the targets which RAM is designed to neutralize are mostly directed to bigger ships, i.e corvettes, frigates, support ships, amphibious ships etc.

It's been a hellish day at the office, so excuse if my message is complicated :)
I agree with what you explain - I'd only say that if a FAC operates alone and is attacked with Harpoons or similar SSMs or ASMs, then the RAM launcher will come in handy ;)
Your point brings me more to the discussion on the relevance of a FAC in today's naval warfare scenarios. The more SSKs and aircrafts/helos with ASMs, the less it makes sense to spend on FACs ...
Though it isn't so easy after all since for example shallow waters with a complex coastline hidden by vegetation and/or hills would require FACs (basically Finland's example).

cheers
 

Gerasimos

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
orko_8 said:
Mate, I think you are missing my point. Whether you RAM or other missile system, if you plan to use it against an aircraft max 10km away, then you indirectly accept that you had long lost air superiority, because enemy aircrafts have precision guided weapons with ranges much longer than 10km. US has the luxury to invest money and time on such a solution, since it has CAG's, AEGIS and other stuff to provide full air superiority and AAD. For increasing littoral warfare threat, such an additional capability might come into handy. But US is the only country in the world with such freedom of choice. For lower echelon navies such as Turkey, Greece, etc, RAM is ideal for protection of larger vessels of frigate (or maybe light frigate / corvette) class or high priority auxiliary ships and LPD / LHD's.
What I really think is important is that we constructed one of the best FACs,someone could have.That is what counts for me.My opinion is that every ship has a disadvantage,"a way to defeat it"..As I said before you can't expect a FAC to do all jobs.By obtaining this ship Greek navy takes a step up,I really want to see what Turkey has to present...
 
Top