Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1247 times:
...with regards to their naval vessels?
I read this article recently, I don't know how long it was out but it is new to me. I am not worried but it is not something I expected, it was somewhat disturbing. The title of the article is "Saudi Navy Take Delivery Of First 'Stealth Frigate'". Pertaining to the french La Fayette class of stealth frigates, do we have any besides the experimental Sea Shadow?
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1222 times:
As far as a large vessel can be stealthy (and that is a strictly limited distance) it would be far more successful at it versus submarines dependant on sonar/sound for detection rather than aircraft/other ships depenedant on radar or visual. You cannot really compare the concept of a stealth plane and a stealth ship, they are 2 different beasts
Non-metallic composite hull materials, back-up electric or aqua-jet engines and ever improving passive sonar have been around for some time and just keep getting better.
Since these ships would be ASW vessels anyway I doubt a US or any submarine would get too close, they have other fish to fry !
Lephron - You cannot really compare the concept of a stealth plane and a stealth ship, they are 2 different beasts. with the ships it is much more a case of sound and radar signature reduction than of being stealthy. Perhaps in the future but not yet.
I have always wanted to be the guy who 'suggests' a different forum for a post but since this about ships not aircraft this is as good a place as any I suppose.
Pacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2699 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Having read that article again I think a far more interesting question is why the Saudi's would want ships like these at all ?
The need for advanced AAW ships and internal systems I can easily understand but the emphasis placed in the article on these ships range and seaworthiness are odd.
The Saudi navy operates in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Like any military equipment what is bought (hopefully) coincides with the particular needs of the user. What need of long range open ocean vessels does SA have ? Previous naval equipment they have bought concentrated putting the most bang on the smallest and cheapest hull and this was appropriate to where they would be operating having no need to waste space and expense on unnecessary range or sea going ability.
Anyone know what the motivation behind this latest purchase might be ?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12957 posts, RR: 79 Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1161 times:
If you do a websearch, you'll find that this class of Frigate, fairly lightly armed, were designed for the French Navy for 'out of area' patrolling, they've been exported to Taiwan and Saudi Arabia.
Calling them 'stealthy' is a stretch, they have features designed to make them less observable to IR and radar, but not invisible or anywhere near.
So they are a bit like the Royal Navy's Type 23 frigates, maybe taking the idea a bit further on the newer, smaller French ship.
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1120 times:
Current political tensions perhaps. I wouldn't be surprised to find one of those backstabbing Middle Eastern countries building armadas to duel with the USN. We all know of China's new J10 fighter-jet, courtesy of Israel, with US technology.
Boeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1111 times:
You are referring to the Chales De Gaulle nuclear powered carrier. Take a look at the last pic in this link, looks like the Rafale Ms can land on them quite well. I'm not sure about the power drain thing though.
B757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1106 times:
The Charles De Gaulle is still going through some "teething" problems but it shouldn't be a surprise considering that it is the first of its class and the first French nuclear powered carrier. It is interesting that France is the only nation in the world other than the United States to operate a full deck, conventional carrier. The Russians have one but it rarely leaves port. There are reports the French might build a second carrier and with the name Richelieu being suggested.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1100 times:
The Saudis want them because the Iranian navy has recently taken delivery of the first of several ex-Soviet Kilo class submarines. Those are the first subs in the region (at least the first owned by countries in the region) and are an obvious threat to free shipping (at least to countries opposed to Iran which is just about anyone).
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12957 posts, RR: 79 Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
'Out of area' in a NATO context means general patrolling, unlike say being optimised for anti-sub warfare, so ideal for the Saudis as these vessels are in effect large patrol boats.
I wonder if the crew of the USS Stark still has 'no faith in French naval technology', (the ship was hit by AM-39 Exocet missiles fired from an Iraqi Mirage F1 in 1987).
And unlike the RN in the Falklands war, the US ship had a Phanlax radar guided gun, (which the RN brought after the 1982 conflict).
If the US vessel had been out at sea rather than in the Gulf, near a port, probably it would have sunk.
The new French carrier seems to have been fixed, they certainly need a second one though.
The airgroup is made up of the new Rafale aircraft, later two-seat attack optimised versions will replace the remaining Super Etendards, the carrier also carries E-2C Hawkeys for AEW, and helicopters.
From 2012, the RN will get back in the big carrier business, when the CVF 1 is commissioned, the airgroup will be 24 - 48 F-35Bs, plus 6-12 helicopters for ASW/SAR/AEW. (Though a VSTOL ship, it will have provision for catapult/arrester wire fitment, so E-2C may yet be ordered).
A second will follow in 2015. Orders for both ships will be expected early next year, they will displace 60,000 tons.
It will interesting to see if 'steathly' features will be a part of CVF design, artists impressions seen to indicate they will-but not easy to make a ship of this size a low-observable.
According to this database the ship was decommisioned in 1999. It was one of the short hull Perry class ships and most of those have been drummed out of service. I don't belive they are able to accomodate the Seahawk helicopters and only one hanger on board was usuable in recent years on those ships due to some sort of structural issue.
Here is a more detailed write up. Note that there is some conterversy on the operational status of the ships phlanx gun. Also note that on the Stark it is mounted over the top of the hanger deck and I wonder if it could be trained far enough forward to engage the missles based on where they hit on the ship.