General Naval News

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
MEKO A300 is probably - besides having a design for export opportunities - also about providing a design to derive concepts pertaining to German Navy project F127 in the near to mid future.

Not so much the frigate design as a whole, but instead the way certain subprocesses are integrated into it. F125 similarly took some core design concepts from MEKO D proposed a few years earlier, adapting those to a larger hull with a different focus (two-island damage control concept, ship automation degree for low crew number etc).
Example relatively new core design concepts in MEKO A300 are e.g. the splitting of a larger VLS numbers between a bloc with a ship defense focus (Mk56) and one with a strike focus (Mk41); the proposed integration of energy weapon systems into a gun/laser mixed CIWS concept; the CODAD propulsion; or also the "permanent citadel" feature.
 

Meriv90

Active Member
I think this news are pretty relevant for your situation (Australia)
Finally the Kingfisher is out, or is taking shape.
Standard sonobuoys have delicate parts and would need to be made robust as well as miniaturised to fit. If these challenges can be overcome, the ability to rapidly deploy multi-static sonobuoys from the ship would be very useful. The data from the sensors could be combined with the ship’s sonar, helicopter dipping sonar or sonobuoys laid by other platforms to enhance detection range and accuracy.

If it is possible to build a very small UAV that can fit inside the shell, survive the launch stresses and deploy successfully this would be another useful tool. A visual picture of a target of interest up to 30 Km away could be relayed back to the ship within seconds from a gun-launched UAV.

There is also the potential for a specialised hydrographic sensor that could sample temperature and salinity in the water column as it sinks. After a reaching a preset depth it would release a transmitter that floats to the surface relaying the data back to the ship. Knowledge of the temperature and salinity layers in the ocean is important in understanding the performance of sonar.

Finally, Kingfisher could be used to deploy a floating data node. Similar to sonobuoys but designed to receive underwater data transmissions, these nodes could act as a communications relay with UUVs or a submarine operating in support of the ship. It is difficult to send high bandwidth data over long distances underwater and relay nodes could allow UUVs to communicate back to the ship or other platforms by satellite or radio data link.
In poor words with a 127mm (5inch) cannon you could in the future:
-Classic ASuW(long range with Vulcano up to 80km if i remember correctly)
-NGFS
-AA, unguidied or guided as CIWS (if you develop a 127mm DART)
-ASW with deep charges
-ASW with sonobuoys
-Data link buoys with submerged units
-Drone launch
-Torpedo countermeasure (probably with the before mentioned deep charges)

Not only, even the army could be adopting the same format
The carrier shell concept is not unique to naval guns and the development of Kingfisher is dependent upon ongoing work to develop this type of round for the British Army. This includes larger 155mm gun but the Army is also considering moving to 127mm calibre as part of the programme to replace its 105mm L118 Light Gun. There are arguments around the mobility versus power of bigger weapons but standardising on 127mm would improve the commonality of logistics with the RN and munition development paths. The Army has a requirement for carrier rounds that can dispense sub-munitions for illumination, multi-spectral obscurants (smoke), electronic jammers and even leaflets.
IMHO this is a big game changer, not for big units that have specialized weapons and equipment, but for smaller units like OPVs.
Being it a jack of all trades makes smaller units a swiss knife, you wont sink a chinese (in our case russian) sub but you will be a pain in the neck because what was once an unarmed and blind unit now can help/deliver damage.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Malta's newest patrolboat arrived on 7 november in the port of La Valletta, it was already launched in February 2021. Once commissioned, P71 will replace P61 as the flagship of the Maritime Squadron.
The contract is worth 48,5 million euros, with €34 million allocated from European Union funds as part of measures to strengthen the protection of the southern borders of the EU against the enormous flow of illegal immigration from Africa and the Middle East.

The offshore patrol vessel (OPV) P 71 will have a total displacement of 1,800 tons, a length of 74,8 m, a width of 13 m, a draft of 3,4 m and will be the largest vessel ever in Malta's fleet.
The ship will be armed with a 25-mm remote weapon station and a 12,7-mm machine gun.

 
Last edited:

CJohn

Active Member
The first of three large Arctic OPV's for the Norwegian Coast Guard has been christened recently.
KV Jan Mayen being first of class, KV Bjørnøya and KV Hopen to follow in 2023, 2024.


 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
What is OPV ?


Put this VARD (Fincantieri subsidiary) OPV design just shown how the definition of OPV this days already evolve. This is more become area close to 'Light Frigates', while in Indonesian thread I also put link to Indonesian OPV 90 program where the final design already close to 'Corvettes' area.

Definition on what is Destroyers, what is Frigates, Light Frigates, Corvettes increasingly become mix in my opinion this days around. So perhaps now more to what each Naval want to use toward their operational environment.

I don't know, I'm no naval designer, also not Navy officers. However Iatest designs come out in my opinion seems blurring some definition limits that used to be put just few years ago in last decade.
 
The designation of ships, that in the past was relatively simple because based on the displacement, dimensions and caliber of the guns Is now a very complex matter.
Some says that displacement and dimensions are still a factor, but they actually arent really a reliable One.

For example, Italy classifies the Thaon di Revel class ( 143 meters and 6200 tons ) as an OPV even if the ships are actually bigger than many countries destroyers.

Another example Is the Zumwalt class, classified as destroyers while having a displacement of around 15000 tons.

Then we could say that a factor Is the number of missiles carried.
But Is It?
The Chinese type 055 Is classified as a destroyer, exactly like the British daring class.
Do they have a similar armament? Not even close... ( 112 VLS vs 48 VLS ), with the Chinese ones being even bigger and able to host quad-packed missiles ( short range ofc but still...).

In my opinion, the most reliable way to understand how a country designate their ships Is the role the will have in the fleet and the level of command facilities they have aboard... But we could still argue about this for weeks...
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
The designation of ships, that in the past was relatively simple because based on the displacement, dimensions and caliber of the guns Is now a very complex matter.
Some says that displacement and dimensions are still a factor, but they actually arent really a reliable One.

For example, Italy classifies the Thaon di Revel class ( 143 meters and 6200 tons ) as an OPV even if the ships are actually bigger than many countries destroyers.

Another example Is the Zumwalt class, classified as destroyers while having a displacement of around 15000 tons.

Then we could say that a factor Is the number of missiles carried.
But Is It?
The Chinese type 055 Is classified as a destroyer, exactly like the British daring class.
Do they have a similar armament? Not even close... ( 112 VLS vs 48 VLS ), with the Chinese ones being even bigger and able to host quad-packed missiles ( short range ofc but still...).

In my opinion, the most reliable way to understand how a country designate their ships Is the role the will have in the fleet and the level of command facilities they have aboard... But we could still argue about this for weeks...
In the words of Crocodile Dundee
Thats not a Destroyer
Izumo-Class Helicopter Destroyer (naval-technology.com)
This is a Destroyer :D
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Naval Iron Dome system has become operational.
Mounted in a VLS system that includes 40 missiles on the Sa'ar 6 ships, this gives the Israeli navy superb capability to defend offshore assets, participate in the national air defense missions, and vastly increases the defensive capabilities of individual ships.
The Israeli Navy plans to operate 4 Sa'ar 6 ships, all equipped with the Naval Dome system, very soon.
The same system was also tested on older ships as a proof of concept, but may be operationally used if needed.

The Israeli Shipyards company has also presented the Sa'ar 80 light corvette design.
As said here before, the line between OPV, corvette, and frigates, is sometimes blurred, and Israeli Shipyards have indeed started calling their designs Light Corvettes. The Israeli Navy operates its old Sa'ar 4.5 ships as both OPVs and light corvettes, meaning they are tasked with most daily patrol missions, but are equipped for high intensity combat versus peer adversaries and other more strategically valuable tasks.
The Sa'ar 80's name refers to its length - 80 meters, and is based on the Sa'ar 72 previously offered to Greece, and the reportedly 78m Reshef-class light corvette currently in its design phase for the Israeli Navy.
The Israeli Navy (IN) is generally interested in the light corvette concepts Israeli Shipyards (IS) presents, and has shifted from the 72m design to 78m, indicating it is possible the IN will adjust to IS capabilities and expand the Reshef class size and capabilities before its production.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
What is OPV ?


Put this VARD (Fincantieri subsidiary) OPV design just shown how the definition of OPV this days already evolve. This is more become area close to 'Light Frigates', while in Indonesian thread I also put link to Indonesian OPV 90 program where the final design already close to 'Corvettes' area.

Definition on what is Destroyers, what is Frigates, Light Frigates, Corvettes increasingly become mix in my opinion this days around. So perhaps now more to what each Naval want to use toward their operational environment.

I don't know, I'm no naval designer, also not Navy officers. However Iatest designs come out in my opinion seems blurring some definition limits that used to be put just few years ago in last decade.
Yes I had another look at that last night and the video said that optimized naval design rules apply, so does that mean that it's designed, built, and armoured armoured to naval combatant standards and not civilian OPV standards? It has excellent range and endurance: 8,500nm @ 14knots and 60 days respectively. It's longer (125m) than the Anzac Class FFH (118m overall), wider (17.4m vs 14.8m) and draws 4.4m vs the Anzac 4,35 m fully loaded. So definitely of comparable size.

You are correct about the definitions of what is a corvette, frigate, destroyer and cruiser. There is no one international standard and each navy has it's own definition. For example the latest PLAN DDGs are for all intents and purposes cruisers just based on their size and armament, and the same can be said for the ROKN Sejong The Great Class DDG. What both the ROKN and JMSDF would classify as frigates the RAN, RCN, RN, & RNZN might classify as corvettes. and the USN possible as light or escort frigates. It's quite confusing overall.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
so does that mean that it's designed, built, and armoured armoured to naval combatant standards and not civilian OPV standards?
Yes, what's intrique me is why with this shifting on specs, those latest 'OPV' still call OPV ? They are not similar with 'civilian' grade vessels that previous one - two decades ago being call as OPV. The latest trend shown more 'naval' standard even with higher speed capabilities.

As you are also point out, the similarities perhaps hold on patrol endurances. Still long endurances also seems hold to some newly build Corvettes, Light Frigates, or Frigates. Thus why then call it corvettes or friggates rather then still call it OPV ?

Distiction become blur, the idea that each Navy call it differently base on each CONOPS seems shown that. It is just becoming confusing for some enthusiats (like myself), which now must guessing when one Navy decided to call on specifications of their vessels. Somehow I just think this is like marketing gimmick, but done by Navies.:)
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, what's intrique me is why with this shifting on specs, those latest 'OPV' still call OPV ? They are not similar with 'civilian' grade vessels that previous one - two decades ago being call as OPV. The latest trend shown more 'naval' standard even with higher speed capabilities.

As you are also point out, the similarities perhaps hold on patrol endurances. Still long endurances also seems hold to some newly build Corvettes, Light Frigates, or Frigates. Thus why then call it corvettes or friggates rather then still call it OPV ?

Distiction become blur, the idea that each Navy call it differently base on each CONOPS seems shown that. It is just becoming confusing for some enthusiats (like myself), which now must guessing when one Navy decided to call on specifications of their vessels. Somehow I just think this is like marketing gimmick, but done by Navies.:)
The VARD 7-125NG would be ideal for the NZ OPV replacement as an OCV - Offshore Combat Vessel, if it was designed and built to naval combat specs. Some changes to the weapon fitout; replacing the 76mm gun with a 57mm gun, the SeaRAM for a 40mm gun, and a couple of spots for 30mm CIWS with the CIWS being FFBNW. I am sure that the crew can be knocked back to a base crew of less than 100, say 80, using automation. It definitely has the range and endurance required.

There would be other navies / coastguards that would definitely find a use for such a ship. For going up against the PRC fishing fleet the hull would need to be strengthened so that it can withstand ramming and undertake some ramming itself.
 
Top