via Janes.
The first two Ambassador IV-class fast missile craft to be built for Egypt in the United States by VT Halter Marine are being prepared for delivery.The Israeli Navy is finally going to have some competition.
The Pensacola News Journal reported that the two vessels were seen being loaded into a civilian transport ship in Pensacola Bay, Florida, on 25 May. It published a photograph of first-of-class S Ezzat (682), which was officially handed over to the Egyptian Navy on 19 November. The second Ambassador IV, F Zekry (683), was handed over in December.
Automatic Identification System (AIS) data shows that Combi Dock III (IMO: 9432828), a semi-submersible transport ship that is capable of carrying both 62 m vessels, is currently moored off Pensacola Naval Air Station.
If Egypt goes rogue then they're going to have some real nice tech to attack our ally with.
Want a kick in the pants (yeah I'm repeating myself)? The Ambassador class is 1500 tons lighter than the LCS but has at least twice (probably 3 times) more firepower.
I absolutely love this ship, small, compact weapon platform. Two even three if you count main gun AA weapon systems, anti-ship missiles, very modern design. Hell I just love the look and that serious heavy firepower of Ambassador... Ambassador... that's a weird name for a attack/patrol craft don't you think?
ReplyDeleteWonder who else will buy it, damn... they would be perfect for Poland and Baltic operations, just replace those pussy Harpoons (Yep, I'm just in love with weapons Made in Sweden or Norway) and give them RBS-15 or NSM. Such beautiful dream.
i think you're hitting on something. i wonder if they'll allow it to be sold to other nations? if so then i would think that the Philippines would be interested....if Surface Navy ever got those black shoes out of their behinds they'd probably be interested too. Poland is a given and i expect them to turn to their Navy once they get their land forces where they want them to be.
Deleteoh and you're right. Ambassador is a crazy name for a warship.
Business is business, if someone will show interests with that design I bet VT Systems will sold them. You are absolutely right about Philippines as potential buyer, lot's of islands give enormous advantage for small attack crafts over big ships.
DeletePoland start to modernize or rather rebuild it's navy, they finally awaken and notice in how tragic situation it is. New ships are planed, second anti-ship land battery also. They already start to cut sheet metal for new mine destroyer. But still many things unknown and that ship would be perfect.
European nations have way more know how in design and build of such ships and weapons systems than US so only very low price could get one sold in Europe.
DeleteMr.T you underestimate the power of "love train in to ass of other Nation". Those are the times where decisions about arms buy take politicians, and if they want to grab some points in that case US they will buy it.
DeleteShas the design is owned by NAVSEA I believe and of course they could promote it for FMS. VT Systems is corporate parent but VT Halter Marine has their own marine engineers and naval architects.
DeleteProblem with PI is lack of funds.
We estimated a version for USN at ~$250 million each on a production run
even at that price its still a bargain!
DeleteNo helicopter, which is the primary weapon of the LCS, and an endurance rating of 8 days? Not exactly what we need. What I can't understand is why you couldn't fit a 76mm gun and some Harpoons on LCS.
ReplyDeleteLittoral zone lad, you can receive support of land based air component pretty fast. Also 8 days is maybe not that long time but still, so close to shore you really don't need big endurance.
DeleteAbout main gun and Harpoons on LCS, yeah I also don't get that. If they can put all those weapon systems on a lot smaller ship then why not there?
I don't like it either, it also seems poorly armed, its a similar size to Visby a ship which has ASMs, torpedo launchers, towed sonar array and can be fitted with SAMs and ASW rockets. I also think its an akward size, a bit bigger and you could maybe add 2 MK41 VLS for ASM/ESSM, stick a RAM CIWS on the roof, and leave a landing pad clear.
Deletei'm not sold on single or two plane operations off destroyers in the littoral environment anyway. i just don't think it will work. that concept was designed for anti-sub work, not to deal with fast boats...its just gotten tagged onto the to do list. as far as endurance is concerned that isn't really a show stopper. think about it. the LCS is suppose to switch out mission modules which means operating with a mothership or being close to a port.
ReplyDeleteand thats the rub in my opinion. we have an LCS that straddles the line between equisite and not well thought out capabilities and mediocrity because it can't even match up against new fast missile boats that are three times smaller.
Even worst Sol, LCS can't fight back. Any missile boat, even the old ex-Soviet Tarantulas can engage LCS behind it's weapon range and you can't do a shit about that. Yeah you can send helo but what will happen when that helo will need to land and refuel? Then some bandit can rush from cover on shore islands and attack it. And I don't know if LCS can defend itself against full barrage of 4 anti ship missiles in one attack.
Deleteremember gents the is an FMC not a littoral destroyer. Adding flight deck makes it bigger, more expensice and for what? I think the ship is designed for surface action with some self-defense
Deletewhat exactly is a "littoral destroyer"? i don't think we've ever answered that question. historically the littoral zone has been the area where small patrol boats have operated. now we're trying to ram a frigate sized ship into that zone. i don't think it can work.
DeleteHow about about this for dealing with the fast boat and swarms.... What if instead of a LAMPS helo, or maybe in addition to if the hangar can hold two Seahawk sized helos, putting a Battlehawk (http://malaysiaflyingherald.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/untitled.jpg?w=640&h=441 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uae-ordering-weaponized-uh-60m-battlehawk-helicopters-05078/) version of the Seahawk? (I'd give it the unofficial name of Seasnake based on the Seahawk lineage and in honor of the Cobra). Ideally I'd put an Apache on it, love that M-230, but I know it's not optimized for the maritime environment and I'm not sure it's has the stability needed for LCS/FFG/DDG deck ops in choppy seas. If on the LCS, both the helo and ship would benefit from a common ASuW missile system (Hellfire/Brimstone, Spike (ER or NLOS), TRIGAT, APKWS, etc), and possible a common cannon caliber if the same cannon was used on both the ship for point defense and helo.
DeleteIf your just after a missile or inshore patrol boat then why not go for something like the Type 022, Skjold-class, Hamina-class with Umkhonto SAMs, and a ASW-601 unit. You could probably even integrate something like Camcopter with a radar unit and ASW sonar.
DeleteThey are cheap, maybe 30-50M each, have low fuel and manning requirements, can be easily mass produced in even smaller yards and would be very well suited to operating in tandem with larger, more capable frigates, which might even be designed in a way so that they can refuel these ships. They could feature something akin to raytheons AMDR. They are extremely cost effective, can't go wrong.
The Ambassador is an impressive ship for its size, but I still prefer the Sa'ar 4.5/5 Israeli Corvette made by Huntington Ingalls. These ships are a little larger, can carry a smaller helo and have more range. The Sa'ar weaponry includes Harpoon, SAMs, torpedos, and CWIS giving them the offensive puch of a well armed frigate. All with a crew of around 75. Why this ship or a modification of this ship for a fraction of the price is not the LCS is beyond me.
ReplyDeleteSa'ar 5 looks quiet good, no gun though, wonder how much it costs. Agree with you, could be a little more heavily armed, it is an akward size, maybe it would be better if it was larger, or smaller.
Delete