Part 1 of my mythical fleet series.
For a patrol boat I want speed, firepower and the ability to strike hard and get away clean. There are many boats that qualify but my pick for the patrol boat in my fleet is the Skjold.
| General characteristics | |
|---|---|
| Type: | coastal corvette |
| Displacement: | 274 tonnes full load |
| Length: | 155.83 ft (47.50 m) 46.8 ft (14.3 m) (Length on cushion) |
| Beam: | 44.29 ft (13.50 m) |
| Draught: | 3.3 ft (1.0 m) |
| Propulsion: | 2 × Twin gas turbines →12,170 kilowatts Twin diesel engines →1,490 kilowatts |
| Speed: | In rough sea: 45 knots In calm sea: 60 knots |
| Range: | 800 nmi at 40 knots (74 km/h) |
| Complement: | 15-16 |
| Sensors and processing systems: | Thales MRR-3D-NG air/surface radar Ceros 200 FC CS-3701 electronic warfare suite Sagem Vigy 20 Electro-optical sensor |
| Armament: | 8 Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile SSMs (when available) kept in an internal weapons bay 76mm Otobreda Super Rapid multi-role cannon Mistral Surface to air missile 12.7mm gun |
| Notes: | Soft kill: TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System) Other: Link 11 and Link 16 |
Cannons, anti-air and anti-ship missiles.
60 knots in calm seas!
Imagine stationing a squadron of these boats at strategic locations throughout the Pacific. The Chinese or whoever our enemy is, would have to worry about American swarm tactics. In reality all I'm doing with this pick is reviving the Hydrofoils of the 60's and 70's and bringing them to the future.
Range would be an issue but for extended operations I have that covered in part 2 of this series. An early warning. My list has a Nordic feel to it (at least in the early rounds).
One thing is becoming apparent though. Necking down might apply to aircraft, but it becomes much more problematic when it comes to ships.
Mike at New Wars was a big proponent of small, inexpensive ships. I disagreed at the time because I thought that your force would be killed piecemeal and the idea that ships are disposable didn't sit well.
My position has since changed. I like small ships...but not because I think that they're disposable, but because large ships can't hope to accomplish all the missions that need to be done. Perhaps the problem with US ship building can be traced to the demise of small ships in our fleet?
weren't PT boats from the second war, designed for the purpose of such tactics? I know they didn't have the firepower of the Corvette class you like, what they lacked in firepower they made up in numbers.
ReplyDeleteDamn it! You're exactly RIGHT!
ReplyDeleteok. i'm embarrassed. i just reinvented a wheel. mea culpa!
Nah, just had to remind you is all. Still it's interesting how logic comes around. What's also cool is just how many small boat builders we have in America. We talked about sharing the building of ships among the builders before, instead of just one ship builder having the contract, spread it out so all the companies have work.
ReplyDeleteyeah and unlike welfare programs you see the return on investment AND it stimulates the economy of the town the work is being done in.
ReplyDeletebut i'm on a tangent. you're right we need to get on this today, but the congress critters won't let us.
What about bringing back the PHM program in an LO Pegasus-class hydrofoil?
ReplyDeleteI've always liked Skjold. I just don't see much use for a short ranged, relatively expensive to maintain missile FAC.
ReplyDeleteIt might be better as a littoral MIW or ASW vessel though.
Actually while the USN should maintain a missile boat squadron for various reasons they really don't need one as essentially they're anti surface and we've got myriad assets that can do this.
ReplyDeleteI'd argue what is more important is a new patrol boat to replace the Cyclone's. Whether it carries heavy anti ship missiles or not is secondary to the basic notion that in restricted waters the USN is best served by cost effective patrol boats. The USN since Vietnam seems to have run as far as they could from green and brown water operations.
Consider that we're essentially replacing our mine hunting and patrol boats with LCS. That's a blue water ship able to operate in green water but it's still a nice big ship for our blue water loving Navy.
It's as if all the small naval craft utilized in every single war in the nations history somehow weren't doing anything important or more effectively, even if only from a cost perspective, than an ocean going ship.
It's actually going to be rather ironic when we have to operate what the RN would call an inshore squadron consisting of LCS and DDG-1000's to do patrol, mine hunting, shallow water asw, naval gunfire support, etc. All of these being better accomplished with smaller boats and craft and perhaps backed by medium corvettes for asw and a modern monitor for NGS.
Frankly naval mines have sunk and damaged more USN ships post WWII than every other weapon combined. Yet somehow the mine warfare community doesn't even get to have dedicated cost effective ships anymore but have to rely on modules for LCS part time. It's a head in the sand decision.
SOL, Skjold is to me more a coastal combatant in the new defintion of things~ It is not meant for Patrol but for several specific small scale missions such as fast attack making it a FAC, or for NSW inserts. Which is why our SOF sailors liked it when one came to Little Creek.
ReplyDeleteBTW a while back Norway was under some budget pressue, they almost sold off the whole class~ The USN could have picked the total program up for cheap?
But in the end B.Smitty is right these boats are meant for short range missions in the "flat waters" of Scandinavia.
Lane is right the Cyclones are worn out, but what to replace them with a Patrol ship or a FAC or an OPV? My mantra: Pick the right type ship FIRST.
I agree Lane.
ReplyDeleteI like the Danish Flyvefisken class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyvefisken_class_patrol_vessel). They aren't as fast as the Cyclones but are better armed and can use Stanflex modules, allowing a single hull to be re-rolled to support MIW, ASW, AAW, ASuW, pollution control, and so on.
They have a non-magnetic hull as well.
Modularity makes them more expensive than single task vessels, but I think it works out in the long run, especially if the USN were to commit to a relatively large buy.
hey i can take the pain.
ReplyDeletei'm looking at this through a Marines eyes...FIREPOWER!
seakeeping and legs for missions count too.
oh well. if you hated this pick you're gonna slam me on my next.
Bill M had some documentation on a longer-ranged, more "patrol boat" oriented Skjold.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, a boring ol' displacement hull would still be preferable though.
Keep em coming Sol. I enjoy the discussions.
ReplyDelete