Shipbucket :: The Norwegian alternative ships idea

Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/

The Norwegian alternative ships idea http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10403	Page 1 of 4

Author:	heuhen [ January 20th, 2022, 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:	The Norwegian alternative ships idea
Here I will post personal design: Ideas/toughs I will mainly be thinking out loud with drawings, some off them I will finish, some will just stay as a idea on paper! (when a drawing is just an idea on paper, the drawing will be simple and I have no problem that people just take it, specially of my personal design) FFG What if Norway was to replace FN class with a new class, build with similar design choice, but with newer equipment and yeah equipment. I tried out a different placement of weapons as well.

Author:	Hood [ January 22nd, 2022, 9:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
Interesting, I look forward to seeing this series develop.

Author:	heuhen [ January 25th, 2022, 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
wonder if the AN/SPY-3 will fit in this design. But I was wondering about going for a radar like the Japanese OPS-24, instead

Author:	heuhen [ January 28th, 2022, 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
I start of with this one, and it will be the most conservative design. The criteria I set my self, is to continue Fridtjof Nansen class excellent quality, that class have on many occasion showed them self as excellent vessel of it's type and role, as a multi-role ASW-ships, so may criteria is simple: - same length, to fit inside the main dock at Haakonsvern Naval base, where all service and MLU is done. - Increased beam (max. 20 meter, there is a chance the dock gate have to be upgraded). - increase the displacement with around 750-1000 tons. - Larger or more powerful powerplant - similar weapon loads but updated. - replacing SPY-1 with next generation radar (preferable a proven system, that the ship powerplant can handle) But at the same time carry over some equipment that can still be classified as "of the shelf"-electronics - improvement on close in defence. - Larger helicopter deck and a multi/flex helicopter hangar. - reduced crew area. - reduced crew but still a 4 shift crew, due to more automation. (crew goes from rope handler to button pusher) (will work nice with the up and coming computer and mobile generation). - need to carry minimum 1 medium helicopter and 1 drone-helicopter. FFX134 class Length: 134 meter Beam: +-20 meter Draft: sonar 8,34 meter displacement: estimated 6000+ tons ------------ Power-plant: 1 x GE LM2500-G4 47,370 shp 2 x 8000 hp diesel electric engine 2 x 2000 hp diesel electric engine a battery pack (Lithium is possible) ------------ Complement: 90; accommodations for 125 ------------ Electronics: Spy-3 Reutech RSR 210N air/sea surveillance radar or newer 2 × Mark 82 fire-control radar Various other standard electronics. MRS 2000 hull mounted sonar or newer towed sonar ------------ Armarment: 1 x 76mm Oto Melara SR 1 x 40mm Bofors Mk4 or RAM 2 x 12.7 mm Browning M2HB machine guns Sea Protector 2 x 12.7 mm Browning M2HB (In storage: 7,62mm MG 3 machine gun) 2 x 8 cell Mk-41 VLS for RIM-162 ESSM and RIM-156 S-2ER (can carry RIM-161 S3) 4 x quad launcher for NSM (Surface and land attack) 2 x twin ASW Torpedo launcher Depth charges Can be fitted with: an additional 76mm 127mm to replace 76mm LRAD Long Range Acoustic Device --------------- Aviation: 1 medium helicopter 1 or 2 Drone helicopter Multipurpose Hangar My minus point of the design: - upgradability. - Large single funnel. - large Hangar, multipurpose, take up a lot of space - carrying over som old equipment, some of them would be outdated quite fast and need to be replaced soner then the MLU. - Range, Speed and a powerplant that is to powerful for the ship size (powerplant chosen, to have enough spare energy for a future upgrade to laser tech) - point defence limitation - limitation on how much air intake for engine you can have.

Author:	Rainmaker [ January 29th, 2022, 12:36 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
Very interesting and plausible design. I do have to say that I much prefer the split-funnel design to the large single funnel from an aesthetic standpoint. If your intention is to carry SM-2 and SM-3, I wonder if it would make sense to do what the Danes did with the Iver Huitfeldt - class frigates, i.e., split the funnels and use the space in between to carry STANFLEX modules for ESSM. That way you can dedicate your forward VLS exclusively for SM-2/SM-3 for long-range air defense/BMD. Your design has lots of beam to spare amidships, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible.

Author:	Eeo [ January 29th, 2022, 10:02 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
A few things that poke out here. Propaganda aside, FNAN-class isn't really the best like you seem to believe. If nothing else, the HING travasty told us that much. Too many design compromises. So let's just put that notion to rest right off the bat. Anyway, to the design: One of the really big regrets in the RNoN is the ridiculously low VLS cell count on the FNANs, so why continue that idiocy? With only 16 cells, you won't waste even four of them on SM2s (side note: why not SM6?) because you need them all for ESSM! At minimum double the MK-41 modules to give 32 VLS cells, which is considered the NATO minimum these days. Why go with SPY-3 when you could probably piggyback off the USN and get SPY-6, which is more suitable for a frigate? The FNAN is already a slow frigate, and you've fattened this one up even more without increasing the powerplant? How do you expect this thing to keep up with the SMNG/CSG it will be attached to, or even power all the warfare systems? If you've made her a fat girl, at least put in a second LM2500 so she has a hope to keep up. One of the really big lessons identified from the HING travasty was that the lean manning concept of the RNoN is a Really Bad Idea(TM), to the point that the Navy is refitting the survivors in order to increase the crew size. Thus, reducing the crew like you've done here is... shall we say, not exactly the way to go.

Author:

heuhen [ January 29th, 2022, 4:11 pm ]

Post subject:

Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea

I'm listening and thanks for all the comments

Updated version

Change log:
- moved Hager more aft, reducing helicopter pad somewhat.
- reducing landing spot for drone, to 1.
- splitt funnel, but still tall!
- increased air intake on main funnel somewhat.
- added two Stanflex spot aft for the main funnel, mainly for ESSM
- increased Mk41 VLS load from 16 to 32 with standard load being ESSM and SM2 in a secondary role (the ship it's self is more an multi-role ASW escort, but it should still be able to do good AAW work)
- removed aft 40mm and go for RAM only
- moved RHIB bay, forward and TT-room aft, due to the there will be no multipurpose room on this design. (it godt axed)
- Keeping SPY-3 for now, but it's possible to use SPY-1 mast with SPY-6 faces on (since SPY-6 looks modular in size) (SPY-4 MDF would just be ...stupid

)

"Overall a more stabel platform, when it come to role, but is it a stabel platform as a ship!" I'll increase the weight from with 1000-2000 tons compared to FNAN.

[ img ]

Not so important discussion bellow!:

Rainmaker wrote: *

January 29th, 2022, 12:36 am

Very interesting and plausible design.

Thanks, I based in on what Norway have, with what is possible to get, there are of course things that can be done different. some I will comment bellow.

Rainmaker wrote: *

January 29th, 2022, 12:36 am

I do have to say that I much prefer the split-funnel design to the large single funnel from an aesthetic standpoint.

I do to!

Rainmaker wrote: *

January 29th, 2022, 12:36 am

If your intention is to carry SM-2 and SM-3, I wonder if it would make sense to do what the Danes did with the Iver Huitfeldt - class frigates, i.e., split the funnels and use the space in between to carry STANFLEX modules for ESSM. That way you can dedicate your forward VLS exclusively for SM-2/SM-3 for long-range air defense/BMD. Your design has lots of beam to spare amidships, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible.

Norway have on it's list the possibility to carry SM2, but they chose not to, as "Eeo" pointed out; "to few available VLS"

If I was going to do a Danish version on it, I will lose some of the capability of the multipurpose hangar deck and some space for that, but it's doable. I'll look into it.

Eeo wrote: *

January 29th, 2022, 10:02 am

A few things that poke out here.

Thanks for poking

Quote:

Propaganda aside, FNAN-class isn't really the best like you seem to believe. If nothing else, the HING travasty told us that much. Too many design compromises. So let's just put that notion to rest right off the bat. Anyway, to the design:

A little lost in translation there. Well I have to take the blame, I didn't use the correct wording. For what they are worth as a class build after a budget, they are good and have what is needed, but in the end these boats are only as good as the crew, something they showed with sinking one of them by keeping all hatches open!

Quote:

One of the really big regrets in the RNoN is the ridiculously low VLS cell count on the FNANs, so why continue that idiocy? With only 16 cells, you won't waste even four of them on SM2s (side note: why not SM6?) because you need them all for ESSM! At minimum double the MK-41 modules to give 32 VLS cells, which is considered the NATO minimum these days.

Back when RNoN designed FNANs, the upgrade from Mk-29 to Mk41 was so big that they tough it's big enough, at the same time they build after a budget. The original design requirement was a purpose build ASW frigate, the load of VLS and armament was more or less a compromise, The version I saw in the early stage of the project, before they even sendt out the requirement, had even less VLS capacity and they was even considering to just move the Mk-29 from the Oslo class over! The class was originally envisioned as a pure blodet ASW platform, and almost nothing else, luckily the requirement changed a lot from back then (back then you could find equipment and tools form Oslo class on the equipment list for the FNAN and most of the time for the project people during the project, went to removing those equipment from the list but at the same time find out what Norway had of equipment from before that can be reused, they had tons of fire-equipment from ships they had recently sold, etc. all to save on money)

Quote:

Why go with SPY-3 when you could probably piggyback off the USN and get SPY-6, which is more suitable for a frigate?

I wasn't sure if she would be able to handle the extra weight and power, I even don't know how much difference in weight and power between SPY-3 and 6. But I'll shall make a different variant.

Quote:

The FNAN is already a slow frigate, and you've fattened this one up even more without increasing the powerplant? How do you expect this thing to keep up with the SMNG/CSG it will be attached to, or even power all the warfare systems? If you've made her a fat girl, at least put in a second LM2500 so she has a hope to keep up.

FNAN is slow at 28 knots when using the LM2500 turbine, but here is the ting, the LM2500 FNAN using is the old one and compared to the newer version, basic. I chose the G4 version of the LM2500, and it have close to double the power of the FNAN LM2500, at 47000+ shp. I was considering the LM6000, but I feel it would be physical to big and have to little power compared to size, when I compare it to the LM2500+G4 some have just around 7000 shp less then the LM6000, although there is a 50MW variant

Now on this design i do not use GE LM2500 but I use GE LM2500+G4:
- FNAN use is a 21.5 MW LM2500 (approx 28000 shp) (Normally a LM2500 produce approx 25MW (approx 33,600 shp)
- LM2500+G4 delivers 35 MW (47,370 shp)

(I'm making the underwater hull more sleek, thus the weight isn't increasing in proportion to the increase of the with of the hull)

Quote:

One of the really big lessons identified from the HING travasty was that the lean manning concept of the RNoN is a Really Bad Idea(TM), to the point that the Navy is refitting the survivors in order to increase the crew size. Thus, reducing the crew like you've done here is... shall we say, not exactly the way to go.

I have increased some of the automation, if I was building yesterdays ships, yes 140-160. I'll go for 90+ with space for 125+

The problem the Navy have, isn't the amount of crew on the ships it's self, they are operating on rotation as they should, but the problem they have is that they do not have big enough crew to operate the ships them self on big enough rotation, thus most of the time, these ships are in port waiting for it's crew (they basically operate with one crew pr. ship, instead of 2-3 crew). they still do the normal rotation onboard, but some of the rotation they do onboard is small, specially at night time. In addition they training in the navy for specially navigation officers are lacking at the best. And on top of that, crews around these officers are almost afraid to say anything if something is wrong (fear culture) + command that aren't willing to listen to experienced officers underneath them, like my step-father that warned them over and over again.

to say it this way, most of those that worked on the frigate project, was waiting for an accident like this to happen, they all knew and warned about bad officers on RNoN ships. Heck my step-father that is a radar specialist but have also commanded many ships in the Navy had spend the last 20 years as office worker, got asked to take command of the first frigate, something he said no to, with the main reason he didn't have the training and education to command such a big combatant.

Author:	heuhen [ January 30th, 2022, 4:09 am ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
A small update, minor adjustment and new main radar. it's modular, the question is what is behind those faces?

Author:

Eeo [ February 1st, 2022, 2:07 pm ]

Post subject:

Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea

heuhen wrote: *

January 29th, 2022, 4:11 pm

Quote:

I personally have a decade of experience serving in uniform in the Royal Norwegian Navy. Admittedly mostly in submarines, but I have completed an SNMG 1-deployment aboard a Nansen-class (as flagship staff), so I dare venture to claim that I have the personal experience to back up my claims. Have you hands-on experience with the Nansen-class (and no, recollections from family doesn't count)? I also have several good mates that survived the HING-sinking, and have been given harrowing first-hand accounts of that particular event, which is backed up by the official investigation report that you can read online (see link below).

The problem isn't that ships are harbor queens anymore -- that ended in the mid-2010s when the Navy actually got funds to buy spare parts and fuel so they could sail following the Russian invasion of Crimea and Donbass, and the subsequent reorganization of the Navy that gutted land-based organizations in favor of building crews to sail the ships. That ships were harbor queens was true until circa 2015/2016, but not after. The problem was rather that we had to solve a mission tasking that presumed an active fleet of 40+ ships (like we had during the Cold War) with only 20ish hulls of all types -- the taskings weren't reduced along with the ship list following the Cold War's end!

Basically, the problem with HING was systematic in that there are too few hulls technically available as compared to the tasks the political masters give them to solve, combined with having crews that are far smaller than what is really required. This goes all the way back to the design phase of the Nansen-class, which you can read all about in this book by retired Commodore Jacob Børresen (Børresen, Jacob (2014) Det store fregattkjøpet : historien om anskaffelsen av Fridtjof Nansen-klasse fregatter til Sjøforsvaret Oslo: Vidar Forlag. ISBN 9788279902904). Børresen states clearly on page 422 that "The Naval Staff had already in 1994 decided that the crew size of the frigates, including helicopter crew, was to be as small as possible and not to exceed the crew on the Oslo-class, which at this time was 120 men. In TPODOK 1 of 1997 the crew size was set to 107, including helicopter crew." Hence the crew size was arbitrarily decided from the get-go based purely on economy, and not because automation was the way to go!

This, sadly, was underscored by the second investigation commission report after the Helge Ingstad-sinking which clearly states that the lean manning concept aided in the disaster. On page 167 it is clearly stated that this manning concept was chosen due to economic reasons, but a high level of competency in all crew members was a basic foundation and key assumption for this being a viable concept. However, the continued pressure on the ship to carry out missions came at the cost of training and building that competency, as you can read on page 168 and 169, and 171 and 172 of the report. It was so bad that the Navy was "recommended" (read: instructed) to modify the manning plan on the Nansen-class frigates (Sikkerhetstilrådning 2021/33T, page 193 of the report). This is something the crews have warned and tried to raise the alarm about time and time again in report after report for decades, but that the admirals have ignored until Helge Ingstad happened. Fortunately, the recommendation has actually been implemented by the Navy in that the crew size of the Nansen-class has been increased.

Thus, based on real life experiences on the class of warship that you are basing this class of ship on, I dare categorically state that your claims that the crew size wasn't at fault and indeed is sufficient is in fact plainly wrong. The Nansen-class was (and to a certain degree still is) undermanned, something which the Royal Navy still dings us for every time we send a frigate to FOST, and your new bigger ship is even more grossly undermanned.

Author:	heuhen [ February 1st, 2022, 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: The Norwegian alternative ships idea
Nice to know, I only know the few things I pick up from media and those few times my stepfather say something, I have never asked at home more than that, there is after all things we don't talk about. So they had a crew of 107, interesting. I thought it was slightly larger. That the navy is pressed to work more then it have capacity isn't surpraising, the Navy have since early 90's been totally... I'm also a bit surprised we are going for only 4 submarines. And that we do not have a modern variant of those good old MTB's. But there is something weird with the Navy, it's second time we loose a frigate, last time was combination of multiple things: bad weather, engine that had an tendency to stop and many more, but then that class was quite old

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/