Is a modern Flower class corvette even realistic?

timmymagic said:
Yep £50m is the cost for Sonar 2087 i.e. CAPTAS 4 + Ultra passive TA.
Click to expand...
Okay, so 70mil USD for the really high end ASW towed-array sonars, plural, to fit to your high-end ASW ships (and I'm guessing another ~70mil for hull arrays, one shallow-water optimized and one mine-searching sonar).

Not sure you'd want CAPTAS 4 on a USV, but CAPTAS 1 or 2 would be about right.
 
Oh, I almost forgot. There is a batch time too. You have about 45 minutes to paint with what you've mixed up before the paint starts to set up in the bucket or whatever you mixed it in. After that just wait for it to fully harden and you can toss the now dry paint with the mixing bucket (liquids are a no-no with the EPA but solidified paint is not).

If you go longer than about 45 minutes applying it, it doesn't fully stick to whatever you're painting it on and can more easily peel off during use.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so 70mil USD for the really high end ASW towed-array sonars, plural
Click to expand...
You keep saying ASW ships need two arrays deployed simultaneously, can you point me at one that does?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Okay, so 70mil USD for the really high end ASW towed-array sonars, plural, to fit to your high-end ASW ships (and I'm guessing another ~70mil for hull arrays, one shallow-water optimized and one mine-searching sonar).
Click to expand...
The entire ASW suite of a DDG-51 Flt III is ~$60M (MFTA + hull sonar). An FFG-62’s ASW suite is ~$30M (Captas 4 VDS).
 
DWG said:
You keep saying ASW ships need two arrays deployed simultaneously, can you point me at one that does?
Click to expand...
It needs either two towed arrays or VDS plus hull array.

Mogami has a pair of towed arrays.
Type 26 has VDS plus hull array.
 
Stellerfella said:
The batch 2s had already been locked in. This was a submission for type 31. Who knows, they may build a few of these after the batch 1s leave service. But they'll probably just wait for NGPV
Click to expand...

You're right it was an early submission for T31, that rapidly got supplanted by the GPF that took a lot of the Khareef Class lineage. BAE stopped talking about it very quickly, always suspected it was from earlier than that though.
 
DWG said:
You keep saying ASW ships need two arrays deployed simultaneously, can you point me at one that does?
Click to expand...
It's actually three simultaneous tows, if you're serious about it:
  • Active VDS 'fish' emitter
  • Passive long-line receiver
  • Towed torpedo decoy
CAPTAS-4/Sonar 2087 works that way, as does OQQ-25. The Constellation-class will use the CAPTAS-4 active element with a TB-37 receiver, presumably because someone in the USN fancied repeating the systems integration work.

The towed decoy is technically unrelated, but probably wise: the submarine you're hunting is likely to start hunting you back. Active hull sonar fills a different niche to the VDS.
 
timmymagic said:
You're right it was an early submission for T31, that rapidly got supplanted by the GPF that took a lot of the Khareef Class lineage. BAE stopped talking about it very quickly, always suspected it was from earlier than that though.
Click to expand...
BAE were doing a lot of different submissions for programs around this time
 
I think some people mistaking something here.
The original Flower class was a single that did all the things but today we are transitioning to a system of sytems within a kill web of systems. Since we more or less envision our hunting party to be specialized and low (cost) level the specs don't have to be fullsized warship. ASW dedicated ships are still needed ofc but in this case they would be on standby somewhere to either provide effector weapons or to reinforce in case the situation has become a large scale battle.
As I envisioned we have a mannable USV barge or manned mothership. I want to keep it steathy, hence using special ASW USV like the Netherland 12m boat for hunting. Another barge with the effector weapons would be nice to keep stealth up for the manned ship. In this case the manned mothership will have defensive weapons only.
The ASW USV will have dipped sonar. The barges will have SURTASS with the noisy unmanned one having the LFA (Low Frequency Active) sonar part. There's no need for towed arrays or expensive hull sonar, though, towed decoy and probably VDS is needed for mine clearing and litoral coast lines.
Also this requires longrange ASROC like min. 35 nm=50 km for the barges and 4-600 km Sea Lance/SMART (india) for the ASW warship.
 
Stellerfella said:
You don't need two towed arrays. Mogami doesn't have two towed arrays. It's one in the same
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. It's got a VDS and a conventional tail combined into the OQQ-25 system.


DWG said:
That's a beast of a very different colour from what you've been insisting on.
Click to expand...
Not really.

You need a sensor above the ~250ft thermocline and you need a sensor below that thermocline. That is what is important. The nature of those two sensors is less important than their locations in the water column.
 
DWG said:
I'd count that as one system, not two.
Click to expand...
I'm understanding it as two separate sonars combined into a single control box.



DWG said:
It is if everyone was presuming you meant two tails and hull sonar as well.
Click to expand...
I've always said either two tails or tail+hull sonar for a minimally-competent USV or frigate. Two tails and at least one hull sonar for a more-competent option, like an ASW DD.

In any case, the hull sonar should be optimized for littoral/shallow water operations, while the tails are for deep water. The ASW DD I'd strongly consider giving a second hull sonar, but this second one would be an HF mine-hunting set.
 
I remember one of the big changes they made to the Constellation-class was because the FREMM hull just didn't cut it for the Navy's survivability standards. And honestly, politically speaking, I don't see a cheap, flimsy ship like that going over well unless it's unmanned.
 
Last edited:
The Flower-class's USP was it's commercial design and standards, so that it could be built and crewed by civilians easily.

I think it's definitely possible if armed forces are willing to take on the risk of fielding 'less safe' platforms.

They could be oil & gas / wind offshore support vessels with containerised systems on the work decks, plus a retrofitted radar mast.

Won't be able to do serious IAMD, but great for ASW.

Possibly a big STUFT opportunity for the UK
 
Last edited:
If cheaper containerised TAS can be produced....hello Optica.....then running a commercial standard vessel to draw such arrays in a pattern out on the North Sea or Eastern North and Atlantic isn't the worst of ideas.

Big issue is we'd need containerised processing and communications systems to datalink over to platforms that can prosecute a target.
Though in theory UAV can deliver torpedos, and itself be containerised.

Out at those distances opposition ability to destroy such vessels is essentially revealing their location to us if they use a SSN or SSGN.
Air platforms getting out there is a very exposed journey, where we can intercept as we choose.

Exchange ratio between a civilian vessels so equipped and an SSN or SSGN is very much in our favour. Even if they succeed in sinking such a ship and killing the crew.

Now if we have containerised ASW......we can plonk such capabilities on any vessel able to handle the several containers it would comprise.
Container ships become potential lower tier ASW capable.

That becomes an exportable opportunity.

This is where for example Republic of Ireland might be able to afford such capabilities and genuinely contribute to all North Atlantic Islands defence.
 
zen said:
Now if we have containerised ASW......we can plonk such capabilities on any vessel able to handle the several containers it would comprise.
Click to expand...
Yes. For what it's worth, Naval Group studied just such a containerized ASW fit (Captas towed sonar + 324mm torpedo launchers) for its Gowind OPVs. No reason it couldn't also work on a fast supply vessel or similar civilian platform.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/modern-submarine-chaser.42690/page-2

img_3487-jpeg.751765
 
TomDRV said:
The Flower-class's USP was it's commercial design and standards, so that it could be built and crewed by civilians easily.

I think it's definitely possible if armed forces are willing to take on the risk of fielding 'less safe' platforms.

They could be oil & gas / wind offshore support vessels with containerised systems on the work decks, plus a retrofitted radar mast.

Won't be able to do serious IAMD, but great for ASW.

Possibly a big STUFT opportunity for the UK
Click to expand...
The problem with that for ASW ships is that commercial ships aren't quiet. They put too much noise into the local area for a sonar a quarter-KM away to be useful.
 
Mk38 said:
I think the maawlr system would be an excellent system for this hypothetical corvette whether manned or unmanned.
2 mounts can provide 4 aim9/120s and 4 pods of APKWS rockets, or just 8 aim9/120s

https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/mission-solutions/integrated-air-defense
Click to expand...
Is APKWS qualified for longterm open exposure (typical aircraft launcher) to sea air & water? If not it needs containerized or at least capped launchers or tubes. Also the direct data link variant requires a lot of space. It's imho a very space inefficient design rn.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem with that for ASW ships is that commercial ships aren't quiet. They put too much noise into the local area for a sonar a quarter-KM away to be useful.
Click to expand...
Not an insurmountable challenge I would think. Simply favors civilian ships with hybrid electric drive.

It would also help to mount the generators on rafts, which is probably not very hard to do during the short maintenance period needed to install all the containerized ASW gear.
 
H_K said:
Not an insurmountable challenge I would think. Simply favors civilian ships with hybrid electric drive.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would. How many 200-600ton ships run electric drive, though?



H_K said:
It would also help to mount the generators on rafts, which is probably not very hard to do during the short maintenance period needed to install all the containerized ASW gear.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that backfitting a silencing raft is possible. If it is possible, it is absolutely not cheap.
 
The splashing water from the bow wave on commercial ships is also a loud source that needs changing. Afaik some do get bows replaced these days but it's for reducing drag even further, though, not noise reduction.
 
Seragina said:
The splashing water from the bow wave on commercial ships is also a loud source that needs changing. Afaik some do get bows replaced these days but it's for reducing drag even further, though, not noise reduction.
Click to expand...
Since the way that the splashing waves are addressed is by a bulbous bow to destructively interfere with the biggest part of the bow wave, I'd argue that makes less noise unintentionally.

I suspect any ship with a hull sonar at the bow has the top of that sonar dome set up to cancel the noise more than any extra waves.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Since the way that the splashing waves are addressed is by a bulbous bow to destructively interfere with the biggest part of the bow wave, I'd argue that makes less noise unintentionally.

I suspect any ship with a hull sonar at the bow has the top of that sonar dome set up to cancel the noise more than any extra waves.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The boulbous bow aligns the bow wave within a certain speed range so that it cancels wave drag. But that's not what I'm addressing. I'm talking about pushing out the water at the bow. Civilian ships tend to divert the top crest water as far as possible to the sides. As a result at higher speed the water splashes farther and noisier to the sides.
 
H_K said:
Yes. For what it's worth, Naval Group studied just such a containerized ASW fit (Captas towed sonar + 324mm torpedo launchers) for its Gowind OPVs. No reason it couldn't also work on a fast supply vessel or similar civilian platform.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/modern-submarine-chaser.42690/page-2

img_3487-jpeg.751765
Click to expand...

On first look, CAPTAS-1 plus 324 mm torpedoes looks like a survivability fit for ships on high seas going alone.

324 mm torpedoes launched from torpedo tubes won't kill a sub, but they may deter pursuit by a SSN while the ship runs away from the contact at well over 20 kts (retracting the towed sonar while doing so) and calls in a MPA.

Problems: defence against sub-launched anti-ship missiles, restricting coastlines, inability to break through a line fo contacts to get to where you need to go, many false positives, absence of torpedo warning sonar (CAPTAS is not for this, thus Sea Sentor adds a dedicated torpedo warning passive towed sonar). Moreover, the ship needs to go zig-zag for 360° detection.
 
How many Anti-ship missiles does a SSN carry?
8?
10?

How long does resupply take?
 
A Russian SS(G)N could in theory send a salvo of 40 missiles, maybe even more if it uses torpedo tubes for missile launch as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasen-class_submarine

Such a salvo against a lone transport ship or OPV would be self-defeating, so something like Saab Sea Giraffe 1X + a launcher for 32 RAM would be effective deterrence.
Sadly, RIM-116 is ridiculously overpriced, so Sea Giraffe 1X + 40 IRIS-T SLM might actually be lower cost and more capable.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom