Replacing the Jianghus and sub-chasers?

planeman said:

Certainly not necessary, but I thought it ought to have the equipment, just without them actually fitted. Remember that the biggest gun onboard is likely to be a twin 37mm, or a 30mm CIWS.


Re the AK-176 76mm gun. Here's it to scale on the foredeck of my concept Corvette:
[qimg]http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/2728/plancorvette1a1yn1.jpg[/qimg]
I've given it a stealthy profile where the whole upper casing move in elevation with the barrel, reducing the radar cross-section:
[qimg]http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6615/ak176sar1.jpg[/qimg]
(Note that the dimensions are completely wrong)

Adding the 3m tall gun to the foredeck has meant having to raise the bridge. In a toss-up between a CIWS, a 76mm gun and SAMs (PL-12), I'd still ditch the 76mm.

Click to expand...

You can add the CIWS on top of the hangar, or on top of the bridge, from the looks of it.

tphuang said:

To Ishtvan.
this is a video someone posted on youtube on Goalkeeper.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The video shows engage 1 and then 2 concurrent Exocet missiles. This is exactly what a good CIWS system can do against missile threat.

Click to expand...

Tphuang I have seen this video before and it really shows how capable Goalkeeper system is... On other hand Exocet missiles are coming from same direction making easier for CIWS to engage them. My point was that single CIWS would have serious problem engaging multiple targets coming from various vectors(for example one missile coming low at stern from one direction, one coming low at bow from other direction and one coming high for amidships)...

Also If ship would be engaged by supersonic missile there is no way that only one CIWS could engage more then one target (Goalkeeper's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile like the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the engagement starting at a range of 1500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m).

joshuatree said:

Actually I would suggest removing the torpedoes, anti-ship, and anti-air missiles from the OPV. You can upgrade the main gun to a larger caliber and add GP machine guns. With the removal of the missiles, you can also probably move the hanger further midship and have a larger aft deck which can be fitted with fire-fighting, disaster relief, anti-pollution, minesweeping, or dive support equipment if needed. Think the OPV and the corvette should share the basic hull and engines to cut costs but the weapons on the corvette would seem to be overkill for an OPV.

Click to expand...

I would arm OPV whit 76mm main gun and GPMG since there main task is protection of EEZ,humanitarian aid, diplomacy,naval law enforcement etc. This are all low-risk tasks and there is no need for full armament...

On other hand I would install MANPAD similar to SIMBAD/SADRAL system(joust in case) and ship would be fitted for but not equipped whit SSM. SSM would be 2-4 older missiles like YJ-8... In case of possible hostilities ships could be quickly armed whit this missiles.
This would be quite similar to French Floreal class...

isthvan said:

Tphuang I have seen this video before and it really shows how capable Goalkeeper system is... On other hand Exocet missiles are coming from same direction making easier for CIWS to engage them. My point was that single CIWS would have serious problem engaging multiple targets coming from various vectors(for example one missile coming low at stern from one direction, one coming low at bow from other direction and one coming high for amidships)...

Click to expand...

it seemed to be me the 2 Exocet were not in the same direction. As for opposite directions, well it shouldn't handle that, because it wouldn't be able to detect it anyhow. That's why you put them on opposite ends. When you handle concurrent strikes, the idea is the same as handling one strike. You take one out and then another out and then another out. As long as you can detect one, change your gun to that direction and score a hit. You can move on to the next. Programmatically, it's not any different.

Also If ship would be engaged by supersonic missile there is no way that only one CIWS could engage more then one target (Goalkeeper's reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile like the Russian SS-N-22 Sunburn from automatic detection to kill is reported to be 5.5 seconds with the engagement starting at a range of 1500 m and ending with a kill at 300 m).

Click to expand...

I have no idea where you got your reported summary from.
you have two missiles coming at you with a delta time difference. You should detect both by that engagement point, so you engage the first before it reaches the target. The second is still slightly further away and then you engage that. In fact, if it is supersonic, then it's most likely easier to shoot down, because you can predict that it will turn less often and less sharply.

From the article I read on goalkeeper regarding its testing:
there are 2 batches of 2 missiles coming. First batch attacks from left side at 45 degree from the center. Two are separated by 5 degrees. time difference is 5 s. Second batch attack comes 10 s after the first missile from right side at 45 degree from the center. Again, separated by 5 degrees and 5 s. The missiles go in straight direction and deviate 50 m on both sides?

speed: mach 1.5 (there you go, supersonic missiles), altitude 30 m, dimension 1.25 m for length and 0.7 m for diameter.
level 3 sea condition.
reaction time:
2 s to turn 90 degrees and 0.5 s to turn 5 degrees.
firing at 1st batch starting at 3000 m.
firing at 2nd batch starting at 1800 m
meet 1st batch at 2000 m
meet 2nd batch at 1200 m

If destroying the targets require 1, 2 and 3 shots. Then, can handle all 4 targets before reaching 100 m of the ship 100% of time.

Then, there are some other tests involved too.

Thanks for that info, it is quite interesting... I got my data from few years old Jane's article but I have find almost identical data here:

(Complete edit of post)

Still begging for comments and suggestions before I freeze my concept, but in the meantime here is a sensor fit:

1. Datalink
2. Air-search & Track radar: HT-233 3D C-band mono-pulse planar phased array radar, which operates in the 300MHz bandwidth and has a detection range of 120km and tracking range of 90km. The radar can detect targets in azimuth (360 degrees) and elevation (0 to 65 degrees), and is capable of tracking some 100 airborne targets and simultaneously engaging more than 50 targets. (Same as used for HQ-9 SAM system BTW)
3. Datalink (2)
4. Air Defence targeting radar with secondary search/track capability. Used by PL-12 SAMs and CIWS (not shown). Used for search when HT-233 is folded down for max stealth.
5. Navigation radar
6. IIR/Optics
7. IRST
8. Fire control radar for SSMs (Bandstand for Moskit shown) - normally stowed behind stealthy lid

Well as I promised, here's illustration of my suggestions (which i described in the very begining of this thread)
I had some difficoulties to get the Type 730 CIWS to scale down properly, so it might be in bit wrong scale...but I think you can get the picture

Nice design PLANEMAN...I would not want to work on the bridge though..You nuts could be fried by that fire control radar..A sailor could wind up with shriveled up nuts. Sterile in other words...unless of course you have some sort of sheilding under that radar..as I'm sure you will as do most warships

Otherwise I like the ship. I really like the placement of those stablizers. Makes it more seaworthy in case it has to travel in deeper waters.

What's your propulsion plant consist of?

3 minutes later..Golly I did not read your eairler post but why no VLS on your ship? saving space?

well You are most welcome to point out place for it

PLAN is a big fleet. Big fleets doesent have to overload their vessels. If they want a ship with frigate armament, then they should build a ship with frigate hull and dimensions. The idea is to build small compact patrol combatant and thats why I went for corvette size hull with normal patrol vessel/FAC armament+helo, making it more than match for Tarantul/Vita/Combatantte/Saar class fast attac crafts in their playground, thus giving it enough strength to be used as 2nd class major combatant in low-intensity conflicts/or battle zones.

So there isent any practical space for VSL and IMHO ship of this level doesent nesserily need one. Perhaps a net of those new TY-90 anti missile SAMs around the CIWS when (or if) the system comes operational...the ship is expected to face similar areal threat as any normal fast attack craft. They arent supposed to give air coverance for other vessels...

How about integrating the missile launchers into the back of the hanger like this:



Five different slopes are combined into one; this reduces the RCS and increases usable deck space.

Gollevainen said:

Well as I promised, here's illustration of my suggestions (which i described in the very begining of this thread)
I had some difficoulties to get the Type 730 CIWS to scale down properly, so it might be in bit wrong scale...but I think you can get the picture

Click to expand...

Very cool pics. At a guess your's looks longer than mine.. um, that sounded wrong but you get what I mean

If you really were into adding VLS for SAMs you could put them in place of the AAA beside the hanger, but that would mean adding more radars which would be a challenge in itself. As it is it looks well balanced, like a smaller Type-054a.