Jump to content


Photo

Fincantieri's Ffg(X) Entry


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 08 July 2019 - 2117 PM

Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?

 

https://www.defensen...gx-competition/


  • 0

#2 bfng3569

bfng3569

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 185 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 0924 AM

Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?

 

https://www.defensen...gx-competition/

 

interesting read.

 

i wonder how the aluminum hull based on the Independence class meets those same requirements?


  • 0

#3 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 0926 AM

Nothing about either LCS meets the requirements. They will drop out.
  • 0

#4 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,656 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 0947 AM

Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?


  • 0

#5 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 1048 AM

Im guessing that the USN has harder rules about shock damage.
  • 0

#6 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 09 July 2019 - 1925 PM

Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?

By the time we're through with it, it's going to be a DDG-51, dammit :D


  • 0

#7 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,007 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1329 PM

Its a frigate. Are they planning on using them as icebreakers or something?


Or get into ramming confrontations with Icelandic gunboats :)
  • 0

#8 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 11 July 2019 - 1901 PM

Considering the number of collisions that Burkes have been involved with in recent times, the USN ought to be experts in damage control.


  • 0

#9 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 1545 PM

The US is famously good at damage control - to the point that the RN sent people to be trained by the USN in damage control post-Falklands war. Look at the difference in outcome between Sheffield and Stark.

Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer displacing almost 5,000 tonnes, is hit by a single Argentinian-fired Exocet and is lost.

Stark, an Oliver Hazard Perry frigate displacing 4,100 tonnes, absorbs two Iraqi-fired Exocets and survives.
  • 0

#10 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,694 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 1709 PM

The collisions were excellent examples of DC, though obviously negative points for navigation. The Cole was another DC success story.
  • 0

#11 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,007 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 1832 PM

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield?  I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.


  • 0

#12 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 13 July 2019 - 2339 PM

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield?  I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Agree on the differences in environmental conditions, but its worth looking a bit deeper into some other stats.

Stark had 21% of its nominal complement killed (37 of 176), with a further 12% injured. According to para 2.5 of the JAG report (https://www.jag.navy...STARK BASIC.pdf), the second Exocet (which detonated) severed a fire main junction, disabling the port fire main.

Sheffield had 7% of its complement killed (20 of 287). Damage to the fire main is absolutely unlucky.

Im not saying one crew is better than the other, just that the smaller of the two ships was hit by two of the same type of missile, losing a greater proportion and number of its crew, and survived. That Stark wasnt in a declared war zone - and was presumably less prepared than Sheffield - is also of interest.

Both crews fought and endured horrific conditions. Thankfully both navies learned from the experiences.

Edited by 2805662, 13 July 2019 - 2351 PM.

  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,656 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0212 AM

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield?  I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

 

Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.

https://en.wikipedia...Sheffield_(D80)

The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]

 

Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 14 July 2019 - 0214 AM.

  • 0

#14 2805662

2805662

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 764 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0246 AM


I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield?  I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

 
Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.
https://en.wikipedia...Sheffield_(D80)
The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]
 
Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....
The warhead on Stark*s **first** Exocet didnt detonate, the second Exocets warhead did.

Hadn*t seen the study you mention to: thanks for that.

Edited by 2805662, 14 July 2019 - 0247 AM.

  • 0

#15 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,656 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0254 AM

If you find a copy, remember where you heard it. :D

 

Ive searched myself, and although usually lectures of this sort have an accompanying document, even if a transcript, ive seen nothing of it. Perhaps some of it is still classified.


  • 0

#16 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,381 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0344 AM

It's available from RINA for £135.
  • 0

#17 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0919 AM

If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.


  • 0

#18 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,834 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0928 AM

Generally most powerful damaging force in Exocet was leftover fuel as it started very hard to extinguish fires.


  • 0

#19 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,456 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 0940 AM

If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.


There were so many things that could have gone wrong with the Falklands War. Honestly in retrospect it is mildly surprising that the British won. Better bomb fusing would have changed everything, for instance.

Edited by Brian Kennedy, 14 July 2019 - 0941 AM.

  • 0

#20 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,656 posts

Posted 14 July 2019 - 1126 AM

So would working Rapiers though...

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 14 July 2019 - 1126 AM.

  • 0