Russian stealth warship best light frigate in world?

Planeman,

Does it have longrange guided shells for the deck gun? If so, how do they compare to our Excalibur effort?

Nearly a 1/4 of the hull is dedicated to a helipad but what good is a helicopter when it can't range far enough nor fast enough to provide sensor coverage against high speed threats. Better to regain the enclosed hull volume and either stage a landbased asset like a Russian GHawk in support. Or provide a superior jet-lift equivalent UCAV able to recover to the top of the superstructure with a conventional elevator-as-roof and no forward-obstacles to a shakey approach. This is important because it offloads the emission requirements of the ship to a more mobile, wide-horizon, airframe and thus lets you put SLS and terminal arrays into the sides of the hull rather than in multiple AEMS/mast combinations.

I see two slant clusters for presumably Kayak 'Harpoonsky' but nothing like a VLS. Assuming the helodeck is 100ft long, why is a 400ft long ship not a missileer arsenal concept in an age of cheap missile weapons?

I don't like the notion of what looks like an uptake/stack lower than the rear of the forward deckhouse. Either exhaust underwater or get the damn fumes clear of the upper works.

I see what looks like two ADG-630 mounts and what looks like a navalized version of the 2s6 but these are all terminal/inner zone defenders with very limited coverage of the after hull areas. Why yield the outer air battle to /anyone/? Particularly given as most missiles are either offboard guidance, ARH or IR capable after a strapdown midcourse, the need for complex fire control systems is basically down to a 3D Air Search when CEC is not available. Add to this the typical 'scout/picket/presence' mission of these light ships, it makes no sense to argue light:heavy, AAW/ASW in a platform that is both more exposed -and- less capable of self defense.

Dedicating so much of the foredeck to gunnery systems seems ridiculous. Nobody should be out on-deck in normal operations and internal volume seems more critical to me than swoopy lines.

You have to be a fool to risk an attack boat (SSN) to inshore robotics and sensor grids in brown water where you cannot dive to exploit the thermocline. Hence almost all submarine attacks are likely going to be roving mines or AShM or LAM driven from _well_ out to sea. Given the thief-to-catch-thief principle, the lack of overall threat and the advances in remote operation, it makes no sense to install a huge bowdome on the ship.

Of course it's impossible to know to what extent Smart Ship technologies have reduced the crewing requirements but particularly for Russia as a poor super power and smaller countries to whom a 'frigate' might be of interest, showing me shape-not-function is kind've a waste of time.

CONCLUSION:
The ideal frigate is probably a scaled Arsenal Ship whereby dedicated missile designs able to support a dense VLS/SLS loadout (for cost and configuration) mean more than any by-tonnage-divided mission-hull classification. Configurationatally, it probably /looks like/ a cruise ship with the bridge as far forward as you can safely get it and either no guns or guns buried in LO embrasure type 'extrudable' mountings. It has independent RISTA capabilities inherent to its own airwing and a robust ability to operate same in any seastate with some margin for waveoff and over-the-side safety margins (Skyhook perhaps). It probably has at least provisions for DEWS weapons. It probably operates on a crew of between 20 and 70 with 'mission module' capabilities for another 100 or so naval infantry or SOF. It is probably totally smooth, externally, so that it is both easy to link up modular subassemblies and as volumetrically efficient as possible. Even if signature management is not intentional it is probably more effective for all this. Optically, it has adaptive surface skins to counterilluminate areas vulnerable to centroid seekers and a fog of war system to keep the hull as nominally athermal as possible. All's I see here is swooped up Krivak. Putting a new body makeover on an old concept as much as chassis doesn't say much...


KPl.

that desing doesn't look that stealth to me.

when you take a look at proper stealth craft like
the Swedish Visby-class corvette.
that hull is more like in our "semi-stealth" Hamina-class missile boats.

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Lempo]

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Lempo]

It looks like a rusted bucket of bolts to me, or an old fishing boat.
Americans have the best stealth technology of all.






Now that looks stealthy. Its called the stiletto stealth ship, it has a cutting edge "M-HULL" wave damp design. it can launch inflatible boats and UAV's while serving as a communications hub via its "electronic keel".

Originally posted by Phillyfan1234
It looks like a rusted bucket of bolts to me, or an old fishing boat.
Americans have the best stealth technology of all.



Now that looks stealthy. Its called the stiletto stealth ship, it has a cutting edge "M-HULL" wave damp design. it can launch inflatible boats and UAV's while serving as a communications hub via its "electronic keel".

otherwise fine point. but that ship is a prototype.
the most close thing what Americans have is the LCS. and those are in development.
the Swedish Visby class was the first full concept stealth ship
operational. and practicly every nation which has access to
modern technology has some varioty of "semi-stealth" ship.
aither in production as we speak or atleast in prototype stage.

the British royal navy is aparently getting their type 45 destroyers
started this year while the American DD(X) stealth destroyer
program is probably finished after 2010.
Visby was already operational in 2005.

The first vessel designed with stealth in mind was the type 23's of the RN. The first major warship with what would nowadays be called stealth (i.e. RAM's, Angled flat sides, hidden equipment etc) would be the La Fayette class frigates of the french navy (1995). To date the 'most' stealthy warship in service (at least what has been published) is the visby class corvette. As you say all warchips being desinged today have some form of radar reduction designed into them in one form or another.

Stealth is not just about radar though. Most vessels also have exhaust cooling systems or mist generators to reduce the IR signature. reduced noise emmissions and EM emissions.

P.A.

Well, the launch of the first Type 23 predates the Burke's by two years (89 v. 91) but their development stages overlapped somewhat. The Arleigh Burke class was also designed with RCS reduction in mind and I think it was the first large US production warship with that kind of consideration put into it.

looks stealthy[: reminds the shapes on a stealth
but i though smooth lines makes the body radar stealth not unsmooth?

iron made, like the British destroyers. another words..
it lasts against the "other" nations.