Jump to content


Photo

Multirole Combat Ship 180


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 0459 AM

More recent overview of gestation of official plans (still termed K 131):

Posted Image
  • 0

#22 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 0813 AM

Love the look of the trimarans...they're so much better for helo operations too (bigger deck, more stable).
  • 0

#23 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 1234 PM

Yes, very nice.
Would love to see top-down deck lay outs of the ships,
for more in-depth comparison and all that,...
  • 0

#24 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 0409 AM

A new article mentions that current plans for the light guns are in fact for two 35 mm. I'm slightly surprised.

Other data are a planned range of 4,000 nm at 18 kts, endurance of 21 days and maximum cruise speed of 26 kts. That's similar to Fregatte 125 as previously stated, so no surprise there.
  • 0

#25 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 0701 AM

Has anyone done a study on the vulnerablity of Trimarans (or otherwise) to combat damage? It doesnt strike me as a common approach for a warship.


Just speculatin' as always,
but I see it that if a trimaran (or any multi hull) can pump ballast water into and out of the sponsons/hulls as needed, that seems like it could actually improve ship stability if it's damaged (well, depending where it's damaged and how bad: keeping the bow up after a mine, probably is out of the question).

Enhancing balance and stability was one of the reasons early man invented the outrigger on our first canoes and such (well, that, and it was eventually discovered it could create a lot more usable deck area to work from).

I remember when InCat (Austal?) and others first started really coming into the spotlight with their various multi hull types.
Somewhere there was even a conceptual study for a pentamaran tanker or cargo ship, with this funky layout of side sponsons.

Biggest shortcoming I see in those multihulls of any type,
is the berthing at pierside.
A lot of shorter-length ships can be maneuvered around smaller piers and docks and such,
but when their beam suddenly doubles in size, it seems like that could complicate moving them around in close proximity to other floating and stationary objects,
and reduce the number that can be moored at those smaller pier facilities at any given time.

From a BBC article, on the pentamaran,
Posted Image
It can clearly be seen that, for container type ships, those extra sponsons limit how close it can moor to the dock,
which is of some necessity because of the reach of some of the dockyard gantry cranes to unload the connexes.
A tanker, on the other hand, which often unloads via umbilicals (typically, movable booms) a distance away from the shore, might not be much of a hassle.

Looking at the penta there,
a super carrier configured as such, seems like it could increase by 50% the available deck capability, with aircraft launching (US-angled style) from both sides as well as the bow,
more planes can be launched and recovered more quickly, and any damage to one area can be compensated for by the other.

Problem though, such a massive ship won't fit thru the two critical canals in the world today (Panama & Suez).
Not like we couldn't build wider, deeper canals with larger locks, though: the rising sizes of container- and tanker ships will most likely require it, eventually.
  • 0

#26 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 1415 PM

A new article mentions that current plans for the light guns are in fact for two 35 mm. I'm slightly surprised.


Millennium, as per the Danish Absalons?

Edited by Chris Werb, 19 October 2011 - 1420 PM.

  • 0

#27 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 1419 PM

Problem though, such a massive ship won't fit thru the two critical canals in the world today (Panama & Suez).


USN supercarriers already won't fit the Panama canal locks. Are you sure that ship won't fit down the Suez canal?

Edited by Chris Werb, 19 October 2011 - 1422 PM.

  • 0

#28 DanielStarseer

DanielStarseer

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 716 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 1659 PM

USN supercarriers already won't fit the Panama canal locks. Are you sure that ship won't fit down the Suez canal?


That ship in that pic, maybe.
But I was more meaning a notional future supercarrier, a $50B Follow-On-To-Ford-class multihull that would obviously be too big to fit (I don't really have much faith in that whole SeaBasing thing...).
But then again, plans to upgrade/redig/reroute the Panama Canal have been toyed with for some time,
and I doubt the Suez would be far behind, as the Middle East's desires for more consumer stuff increases (not that Europe and the US produce a lot of such things to actually go down said canal, rather more likely the stuff will continue in from china via Indian Ocean...)

National budgets aside, the big corporations aren't getting poor anytime soon, and any means seen to move more stuff (freight, fuel, etc) on less ships, bigger ships, is pretty much a gimme (gonna actually happen).
Although it will be interesting to see at what point it's decided building even bigger ships just isn't feasible anymore.

But I do expect, the bigger they get, multihulls will become more common, as their hulls basically act like tank treads equivalently: a track layers spreads its weight out over a larger area versus wheels, which tend to sink in soft soil.
A monohull ship will most certainly set far deeper in draught than a multihull of similar displacement,
and ports, canals, harbors, and other waterways may decide that deeper draughts are too cost-prohibitive in needing all those waterways cut deeper to handle them safely.
So more multihull designs actually makes some logical sense (plus, just look at all that above-water space we see in the trimaran LCS: bigger multihull ships will certainly make use of such additional acreage as well).
  • 0

#29 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 0450 AM

Millennium, as per the Danish Absalons?


I would suppose so, since it's currently the only one I can think of and we're introducing the same gun with MANTIS. Unless Rheinmetall comes up with an MLG 35 with a Wotan 35 mm variant, which I wouldn't see to have any advantages over Millenium except weight.
  • 0

#30 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,572 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 0736 AM

A big problem with multi-hull ships is stress-induced fatigue as the different "hulls" are twisted and flexed by the sea as they move. Each hull component will take a swell in a different manner, the difference being magnified by distance between components. The twisting moments will be significant, especially in higher sea states.
  • 0

#31 Argus

Argus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,953 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 0646 AM

The Panama locks are 108 and some inches feet MAX, Chinese money is putting in a new set of locks due to open in 214, but until then Panamax Rules.


No US fleet carrier since the Nimitz have been able to transit the canal.

(Single Hull)
Length - 950' over extreme protrusions (165 for passenger and container ships)
Beam - 106' standard, 107' if drawing less than 37' (there's a concrete patch in one of the locks that sets this limit, anything wider needs to transit the 'wrong way')
Draft - 39'5" in Gatun fresh water, less if the lakes are low
Air Draft - 190' standard, exceptions to 205' at mean low water

So basically 80,000 dwt.

The new locks will take this out to about 1350' x 175'x 47'

shane
  • 0

#32 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 28 October 2011 - 0858 AM

From a BBC article, on the pentamaran,
Posted Image
It can clearly be seen that, for container type ships, those extra sponsons limit how close it can moor to the dock,
which is of some necessity because of the reach of some of the dockyard gantry cranes to unload the connexes.
A tanker, on the other hand, which often unloads via umbilicals (typically, movable booms) a distance away from the shore, might not be much of a hassle.

Looking at the penta there,
a super carrier configured as such, seems like it could increase by 50% the available deck capability, with aircraft launching (US-angled style) from both sides as well as the bow,
more planes can be launched and recovered more quickly, and any damage to one area can be compensated for by the other.

Problem though, such a massive ship won't fit thru the two critical canals in the world today (Panama & Suez).
Not like we couldn't build wider, deeper canals with larger locks, though: the rising sizes of container- and tanker ships will most likely require it, eventually.

Suez max is up to 77.5 metres, depending on draught. 50 metres at maximum draught of 20m.
  • 0

#33 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 0741 AM

The analytic phase for the MKS 180 project ended in November, and three possible variants are now suggested for implementation. Variant 1 fully satisfies the functional requirement written up for the project and includes a 127 mm gun (most likely OTO Melara 127/64 as on Frigate 125) and a full complement of AShMs and Layer 2 SAMs, the latter with a range of up to 25 km (I think this doesn't mean RAM, nor NSSM/ESSM; possibly a naval variant of IRIS-T which has a stated range of exactly that); crew capacity would be 100 plus 80 additional personnel embarked.

 

Variant 2 has reduced capabilities, in particular less AShMs and SAMs, an embarkation capacity of only 65, and the required continuous cruise speed of 26 kts can not be guaranteed. Variant 3 has the same size as Variant 2, but a 76 mm main gun. While Variant 1 is projected to have a displacement above the one of currently used German frigates (i. e. at least 6,000 ts full load - not so far from F 125, but far removed from the K 130-successor corvette this started out as!), Variants 2 and 3 would be significantly lighter and, of course, cheaper. Variants 1 and 3 are represented in this image which unfortunately can't be embedded here; RAM launchers can be seen on both, though it's not clear if Variant 1 has any additional SAMs.

 

Any selected variant would be modular-equipped, though not to LCS extent. Planned mission modules are for MCM, a towed array for ASW, a pressure chamber to support divers, and detention capacities (probably for anti-piracy missions). Selection is expected in "early 2015", therefore Soon™. Competition by European yards to build the ships is expected to be concluded by an order in 2017, first of class to be built until the end of 2023.


  • 0

#34 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,572 posts

Posted 10 March 2015 - 0849 AM

Since this has become the current surface combatant thread, I'll ask here:

How does the throw weight of modern 57mm gun systems compare to the 76mm guns?


  • 0

#35 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 12 June 2015 - 0756 AM

The full-on variant of MKS 180 has been given a go; apparently it was not found sensible to save in either armament or ship performance. As part of the new "honest" procurement approach, cost are calculated higher at 3.9 bn € for four vessels, though there will be an option for another two to get the originally planned number of six. An international invite to tender is supposed to come forth within the next few weeks, and the decision for a winning design to be made 100 weeks thereafter. It has been pointed out that this will be about the date of the next national elections and there will be an inevitable delay while the new Bundestag constitutes and starts parliamentary deliberations on acquisition, but apparently that's already as fast as the MoD feels safe with.

 

I've not heard any mention of another SAM system but RAM. It is also being put forth that the final result will not be called MKS 180, but F 126.


  • 0

#36 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts

Posted 12 June 2015 - 1828 PM

Is Germany planning to buy enough ASW modules to fit all the ships? With the ASW Bremen frigates being replaced by ships apparently aimed at third world interventions, it looks as if Germany could become rather short of ASW ships.


  • 0

#37 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,054 posts

Posted 12 June 2015 - 2032 PM

shipflexing

 


  • 0

#38 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,861 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 1318 PM

The Inspector General of the Bundeswehr mentioned this so briefly to our workgroup some time ago already that I thought I might have misheard, but it seems the MKS 180 will henceforth officially be called the F 126, which merely reflects the obvious.

 

Also, the AD system I have puzzled over so much will simply be ESSM.


  • 0

#39 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,054 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 1339 PM

What I am seeing at other forums is that the actual ship costs for hull and steel are not a major cost driver, so a OPV, frigate, destroyer, the hull costs are not significantly different. It makes sense to build a slightly larger hull which can be upgraded and modified throughout the ships life.


  • 0

#40 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,949 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 1315 PM

Is Germany planning to buy enough ASW modules to fit all the ships? With the ASW Bremen frigates being replaced by ships apparently aimed at third world interventions, it looks as if Germany could become rather short of ASW ships.


In imitating a proud tradition of the sea power Britain: fitted for...
  • 0