Navantia SMART 4000 concept ship

Grey Havoc

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
9 October 2009
Messages
19,999
Reaction score
10,521
Now....I quite like the concept of a voluminous vessel like this. There is much merit in that side of this concept.
But I rather take issue with the weaponry being so far forward. That seems to just be asking for trouble.

So my chief question is. How does this design protect the weaponry from salt spray, and waves breaking over the bow?

I've seen what power the waves can have, and radically bending metal structures is well within the force of such.

I've also seen the effects of salt encrustation on metal structures. Famously the Sea Dart launchers during the Falklands had to have salt chipped off them to free the mechanism.
 
zen said:
So my chief question is. How does this design protect the weaponry from salt spray, and waves breaking over the bow?
Click to expand...
Presumably the whole bow section is a composite enclosed deckhouse built on top of a steel hull (with the main deck being the strength deck). This is how the first stealth frigates were built in the 90s (La Fayettes), so it’s well proven.

The composite deckhouse is corrosion proof, reduces top weight and allows for easy openings for enclosed weapons.

The high wavepiercing bow (raised one deck compared to a traditional frigate) reduces the incidence of waves breaking over the bow, so seakeeping should be fine… there’s been plenty of studies and tow tank tests showing this.
 
1647659876094.png
Source: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/smart-4000-navantia-looks-at-the-future

H_K said:
zen said:
So my chief question is. How does this design protect the weaponry from salt spray, and waves breaking over the bow?
Click to expand...
Presumably the whole bow section is a composite enclosed deckhouse built on top of a steel hull (with the main deck being the strength deck). This is how the first stealth frigates were built in the 90s (La Fayettes), so it’s well proven.

The composite deckhouse is corrosion proof, reduces top weight and allows for easy openings for enclosed weapons.

The high wavepiercing bow (raised one deck compared to a traditional frigate) reduces the incidence of waves breaking over the bow, so seakeeping should be fine… there’s been plenty of studies and tow tank tests showing this.
Click to expand...
I would agree that the bow would reduce the incidence of waves breaking over the bow, although I am concerned that the gun would still wear some greenies in higher sea states, especially those prevalent in the Southern Ocean (below 45S). HMNZS Aotearoa has a similar bow designed by Rolls Royce and known as an Envirobow.

1647660572042.png
Source:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1488726379004899329
View: https://twitter.com/AntarcticaNZ/status/1488726379004899329?s=20&t=aXEyfBSfBd0zpGDwCNGpiQ


It's not quite so noticeable in this photo but the foc'sle is enclosed in order to protect sailors working up fo'ard during harsh sub Antarctic and Antarctic conditions. This photo was taken about a month ago when it stopped in at Lyttelton NZ on its wat to McMurdo Sound in the Ross Sea of Antarctica to offload diesel and aviation fuel and about 20 containers for the wintering over crew at McMurdo and Scott Base. It had just arrived from Tonga after delivering relief supplies and providing fresh water. It's built to Polar Class 5 & 6 standards.

I would have thought that the Navantia designers would have made some consideration for the protection of the gun. Maybe one open would be for the gun to be able to be lowered and raised for firing meaning that it would be protected inside the hull when not in use. It is obvious that a fair such as on Aotearoa's bow isn't going to work, although the RNZN intends to fit a 25mm gun on a Typhoon mount up fo'ard. Since the NS4K is still in the concept and design phase, I am sure that the design will change before it's finalised and the first steel is cut.

Fincantieri have just delivered their first PPA - Multipurpose Offshore Patrol Vessel to the Italian Navy and they have a naval cockpit for it as shown in the image below.

1647662008016.png
Source: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ers-first-ppa-thaon-di-revel-to-italian-navy/

It's quite an interesting concept but the only drawback I can see is combat damage and the removal and replacement of wounded or dead personnel in a hurry. Of course there will be an emergency conning / ship control position elsewhere onboard.
 
ngatimozart said:
I would have thought that the Navantia designers would have made some consideration for the protection of the gun. Maybe one open would be for the gun to be able to be lowered and raised for firing meaning that it would be protected inside the hull when not in use.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how the design works. If you look at the model, you can see a two-part hatch to cover the gun when retracted.

Navantia-SMART-4000_03.jpg
 
TomS said:
ngatimozart said:
I would have thought that the Navantia designers would have made some consideration for the protection of the gun. Maybe one open would be for the gun to be able to be lowered and raised for firing meaning that it would be protected inside the hull when not in use.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is how the design works. If you look at the model, you can see a two-part hatch to cover the gun when retracted.
Click to expand...
Great thanks. I hadn't been able to enlarge the photo enough to see the detail. That makes a big difference.
 
TomS said:
Yes, that is how the design works. If you look at the model, you can see a two-part hatch to cover the gun when retracted.
Click to expand...
My issue here is: okay, fine, let's assume that the hatch covers work as intended. I have doubts, but let's assume it anyway.

Where do the anchors, windlasses, towing brackets, and all that other boring stuff go? It's all well and good if the ship can go shooty-shooty-bang-bang, but if it decides to go on an unscheduled tour of the harbour any time there's a stiff breeze then it's not really much use to anyone.

I'm sure Navantia have thought about this, but there's nothing in evidence on the model of what conclusions they reached.
 
Keel anchor?

I'm not really seeing any practical reason for all the effort for hatches and retractable guns, especially right on the prow when the rest of the forecastle area is available.

As a futuristic concept it looks cool but not very practical. Seems to more be a showcase of what is possible rather than a fully thought out design that a customer might actually pay a deposit for.
 
Hood said:
Keel anchor?
Click to expand...
Keel anchor would work, and the first hatch aft of the chine might be a mooring bay - but that's not an ideal position, the moment arms are quite short so the line loads would be rather high. And in any case there's no sensible way to tow the ship.
Hood said:
As a futuristic concept it looks cool but not very practical. Seems to more be a showcase of what is possible rather than a fully thought out design that a customer might actually pay a deposit for.
Click to expand...
Most of these exhibition designs are - the idea is invariably to showcase the company's design talents, knowing full well that real customers actually want the same as the last ship, only more so.
 
RLBH said:
Keel anchor would work, and the first hatch aft of the chine might be a mooring bay - but that's not an ideal position, the moment arms are quite short so the line loads would be rather high. And in any case there's no sensible way to tow the ship.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's definitely not a finished design. I'd expect a couple more openings somewhere that just don't show up at this scale and level of model detail. Compare to this shot of the DDG-1000 bow, where you can see line handling ports and fairleads that never show up in models.

1647867410624.png
 
Hood said:
Keel anchor?

I'm not really seeing any practical reason for all the effort for hatches and retractable guns, especially right on the prow when the rest of the forecastle area is available.

As a futuristic concept it looks cool but not very practical. Seems to more be a showcase of what is possible rather than a fully thought out design that a customer might actually pay a deposit for.
Click to expand...

Definitely a keel anchor, as in DDG-1000.

I presume the gun and VLS are pushed forward to maximize the clear arrangeable space for unmanned systems midships and aft.
 
Last edited:
Would those VLS even fit there? Given the flare of the bows there and the tapering fitting a deep silo would be difficult.
I'm no VLS expert so not sure what 16-round VLS system is being shown here.
 
Hood said:
Would those VLS even fit there? Given the flare of the bows there and the tapering fitting a deep silo would be difficult.
I'm no VLS expert so not sure what 16-round VLS system is being shown here.
Click to expand...

The hull sides are very nearly vertical there, so I'm sure a VLS would fit. This one appears to be generic. It looks a little smaller than either Mk 41 or Sylver, using the 76mm gun as a reference (its gun house should be just about 3.65 meters long). And neither of those come in perfectly square 16-cell blocks.
 
This is a really cool looking design, however a plan for a highly automated, low crew, stealthy, 4000t escort ship in a program that seems very reliant on partnerships is a bold move as Mogami's are commissioning.
 
Kota said:
This is a really cool looking design, however a plan for a highly automated, low crew, stealthy, 4000t escort ship in a program that seems very reliant on partnerships is a bold move as Mogami's are commissioning
Click to expand...

They're not exact equals. These SMART ships are meant to hold more modular equipment (umcrewed vehicles and similar systems). The Mogami class seems more conventional, just with very small crew.
 
The Mogami's already have a UUV, the USV is about to go into production with the latest budget, and they are looking at either having the MA02 or a new UAV supplement SH-60 ops. I just don't see what specialized role the SMARTs occupy that the Mogami can't fulfill as Multi-Mission Frigate.
 
Kota said:
The Mogami's already have a UUV, the USV is about to go into production with the latest budget, and they are looking at either having the MA02 or a new UAV supplement SH-60 ops. I just don't see what specialized role the SMARTs occupy that the Mogami can't fulfill as Multi-Mission Frigate.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't another company offer a competing alternative design?
 
I'm not saying they shouldn't. They just went one of the worst routes possible to do so by creating a program that almost necessitates international partnership and funding. It's a risky move because they will be competing for sales with a ship that is already in active service using one that is nothing but a plastic model. Any potential partners will be shouldering a massive risk having to fund development costs as well. Just look at the Su-57 and T-14. Russia was heavily banking on India becoming a partner for both programs and when that fell through both programs just collapsed. If it was a Spanish program with options to bring on international partners that would give it much more security, but the Spanish basically showed up with a plastic model saying "give us your money so we can compete with a highly competitive and established design.
 
Kota said:
I'm not saying they shouldn't. They just went one of the worst routes possible to do so by creating a program that almost necessitates international partnership and funding. It's a risky move because they will be competing for sales with a ship that is already in active service using one that is nothing but a plastic model. Any potential partners will be shouldering a massive risk having to fund development costs as well. Just look at the Su-57 and T-14. Russia was heavily banking on India becoming a partner for both programs and when that fell through both programs just collapsed. If it was a Spanish program with options to bring on international partners that would give it much more security, but the Spanish basically showed up with a plastic model saying "give us your money so we can compete with a highly competitive and established design.
Click to expand...

Navies adopt new designs all the time.

I would not expect to see the SMART designs actually offered or built as shown here, any more than the most exotic DCM submarine offerings (for example). These sorts of models are design exercises to showcase innovative thinking and energize design teams.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom