Spanish and other navies Never where ships

[Trident]

I'm pretty sure the Soviet cruiser is fan-art, but the concept is basically sound IMHO. As depicted, the design has waayy too many VLS cells (64+32 would be more realistic) but if Russia ever develops an AAW/ASuW follow-on to the Kirov/Slava classes, I do believe it will be along similar lines. I.e. Slava-size, conventional powerplant, several of the ubiquitious Kashtan/Palma CIWS and a S-400 derived SAM system with 4 fixed AESA antennae as well as a Top Plate style back-up. I'd expect it to have 2 helos rather than one though, and either the A-192M 130mm gun (which is single barrelled) or the new 152mm mount (which does have twin barrels but vertically stacked).

Whoever made that model also captured the distinctive look and feel of Russia's recent LO warships very well! The L/B ratio seems a bit high and the bow sonar dome is probably too flat, but other than that I won't be complaining if the next Russian CG looks a bit like that (assuming they'll ever build another one)

[Gollevainen]

Originally Posted by enrr

Soviet Navy Project 1157 Cruiser

Designed in the late 1980s to meet the Russian Navy's urgent demand to counterbalance the US Aleigh Burke class destroyer, Project 1157 cruiser is equipped with 4 X-band radars, hundreds of missiles including SA-N-24 (sea based S400), 4 Kashtan Air Defence Gun/Missile System, four gas turbines, the ship controls over 300KM radius of battle space with the full speed of 33 knots. Basically, Project 1157 cruiser is a stealth upgrade of the Slava class cruiser, and if the communist Russia ever survived, the Project 1157 cruiser would become the most dreadful surface vessel in the 21st century.

To meet the highest standards of ship modelling and make it compatible to most 3D applications, most details of this ship model are achieved via polygons instead of texture maps, so you can have splendid geometry that contributes to realism at any time.

--------------------------------------------------
TYPE 1157 CLASS

Country Of Origin: Russia & States
Designation: Cruiser
Class: TYPE 1157
In Service: N/A
In Development: N/A

DIMENSIONS
Displacement: 13,200.0 (Tons) (Fully Loaded)
Length: 186.0 (Metres)
Beam: 20.8 (Metres)
Draught: 7.6 (Metres)
Speed: 33.0 (Knots)
Range: 6000 at 15 kts (Miles)

This has nothing to do with reality, nor the topic of this thread.
Fanart, like it was mentioned, But rather well done.

If I recall correctly, these same pictures have been offered for real ones previosly in this forum, back when people could discuss russian military affairs without uselles trolling that seems to have taken all the bandwith

I remember reading it from Jane's book about that.
South Korea offered 16 to Taiwan who needed coastal defense warships like Ulsan derivative.
But French gave big bribe, so Taiwan purchased 6 Lafayette.
I don't know if this will help, but if you browse Jane's Navy book from late 80s to early 90s, it mentions in Taiwan category.

yeah I recall that pribe thing, but It didn't came to my mind that it was related to these projects.

[briantk]

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

yeah I recall that pribe thing, but It didn't came to my mind that it was related to these projects.

So do you think, Taiwan would have been better off by getting Korean ships instead of French?
Aside from bribe, cost and poor AD, Lafayette is good ships. But then stealth is poor trade-off in my opinion and Taiwan should have purchased Ulsan derivative. I mean it offered better AD than current Taiwanese Lafayette, plus 16 vs. 6.

[Gollevainen]

What concerns me in that Korean ships, is that IMO they back too much on too small, and thats never recepy for succses. Also, Before that biggest SK build surface ships had been the Ulsan class ligth frigates, so It would have been risky deal to purchase ships before Korean Own navy had any experience wheter their shipyards could come up with succsefull ships.
Ofcourse, the KDX program seems to go on fine, so that migth have been death concern. Also, I agree Lafayettes AD is almoust useless compared to what the Korean ship would have offered. As it came known, the French deal was hampered by mainland opposition, but would that have inflicted to SK ones? Expecially, when the armament fit would have been from US? Im not that big expert on China-Korean relations, but that sure is intresting side note on the Taiwan's proplematic naval accustion history.

[briantk]

Originally Posted by Gollevainen

What concerns me in that Korean ships, is that IMO they back too much on too small, and thats never recepy for succses. Also, Before that biggest SK build surface ships had been the Ulsan class ligth frigates, so It would have been risky deal to purchase ships before Korean Own navy had any experience wheter their shipyards could come up with succsefull ships.
Ofcourse, the KDX program seems to go on fine, so that migth have been death concern. Also, I agree Lafayettes AD is almoust useless compared to what the Korean ship would have offered. As it came known, the French deal was hampered by mainland opposition, but would that have inflicted to SK ones? Expecially, when the armament fit would have been from US? Im not that big expert on China-Korean relations, but that sure is intresting side note on the Taiwan's proplematic naval accustion history.

Well, I believe by the time Korea offered the ships to Taiwan, they learn to overcome many problems they faced when building Ulsan class warships. Also, civil shipbuilding was booming at time, building supertankers for Korean and foreign customers. So technical improvement in civil can be transferred to military with little or no difficulty. Plus before late nineties, naval projects for foreign customers was the biggest arm industry in Korea at the time.

And as for the relations with PRC, there was none. This happened before diplomatic relations was first established between RoK and PRC. Of course, Korea diplomats may influence the sale in regard to possible PRC relations, that is something to speculate.

PS: Don't you think the Ulsan derivative look like smaller version of US Spruance class?
Also, can anyone has better pictures of those models?

[Gollevainen]

Yeas, South Korean naval build up has blossomed quite well and their achievments have been almoust par with Chinese PLANs new desing, despite the huge size differences.
To me, they all (KDXs included) look really "Americanish" just like many japanese newer ships.

[Merlock]

*BUMP*

Another "never were ship" was the Bâtiment d'intervention polyvalent or BIP, in english "Multipurpose intervention ship". It was presented by the then DCN (today DCNS) at the Euronaval show in 1994 fior the export market...

Basically it was a "scaled down" version of the US Tarawa-class LHD, because as compared to the 40,000 tonnes Tarawa, the BIP had a smaller displacement of 19,000 tonnes.
Apart from that it was a similar concept of warship, capable of operating S/VTOL aircratfs and helicopters.

It also possessed a well deck for launching smaller landing craft, up to 2 Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) hovercraft or 4 Landing Craft Utility (LCUs) a would have carried a ready batalion-sized amphibious force, and provided all the necessary logistic...

Main characteristics:
Lenght: 198 m
Beam: 50 m
Draft: 6,50 m
Air draft: 22,60 m
Displacement (full): 19,000 tonnes
Consumables: 45 days
Crew: 450+15 passengers
Troops: 500 soldiers
Engine: CODOG 2x14700Kw + 2x3,8Kw diesel, 2 shafts
Speed: 22,5 knots
Range: 10,000 min at 15 knots
Air operations up to Force 6 sea.

[Merlock]

The same (1994) year, the Chantiers de l'Atlantique (today Aker Yards), proposed a "cheap solution" for troop transport with the NIMIS, for Navire Interarmée pour MIssion de Soutien (Join Vessel for Support Missions), an transport/logistic ship, designed for non-combat mission in "secured" naval zones. Its price was estimated at 150 millions USD (1994) apiece.
The NIMIS was supposed to be "cheap" because it was built folowing civilian methods, instead of military, and its architecture (eng ?) was highly inspired buy the car-ferries'technologies...

The NIMIS was expected to carry:
-4 helicopters on the upper deck, or
-a total of 24 helicopter, or
-4 LCUs, or
-100 vehicles or 500 soldiers
-50 hospital beds

Main characteristics:
Lenght: 162,5 m
Beam: 32 m
Draft: 5,50 m
Air draft: 12,80 m
Displacement (full): 13,000 tonnes
Consumables: 30 days
Crew: 140
Troops: 500 soldiers
Engine: CODOG 2x10,000Kw diesel
Speed: 20 knots
Range: 8,000 min at 20 knots

[santi]

Great additions, Merlock.

I knew the first one but not the second, an interesting half way between Foudre and Mistral...

Regards

[MConrads]

Thanks Merlock. And I feared that this great thread would be dead already:-))

As Santi, I was unaware of the NIMIS. In essence Chantiers de l'Atlantique employed the same strategy as TKMS (for their MHD 15000 design) and Merwede (Canterbury).

Am I right in assuming that the BIP is a direct predecessor to Mistral?

Regards.

[Merlock]

You are most welcome, guys!

And I'm always happy to help... I had heard of those ships in 1994, in a, now long dead, magazine named "Défence Magazine". It was oriented toward the "technological" side of defence and featured some projects like this one. I must say, I had been terribly disappointed the day I learned the BIP project had been dropped... By the way, since you had both heard about the BIP, when/where had it happened ?

@santi: I think it can indeed be said, that the NIMIS is a half way between Foudre and Mistral; it is in essence a Foudre-sized vessel with similar configuration, but with not much capacity and was somewhat vulnerable. It added very few to the Foudre and presented few interest by comparision.
In fact (but that's only my opinion), I think that the NIMIS should actually have been three or four times heavier (39,000 or 52,000 tonnes) than the planned 13,000 tonnes, in order to have a good long range logistic/support vessel, for an expected reasonable price...

@MConrads: You are right when saying, that the BIP is a direct predecessor to Mistral, since studies for the mistral (then known as the BPC, note the closeness of the acronym) began in 1997, around the same time the BIP was forgotten.
It seems that the mistral is "simplified" BIP, concentrating on strictly amphibious missions. It is interesting to note, that the Mistral makes a wide use of civilian technologies (just like the NIMIS), and I think it can be said the Mistral is in fact a fair compromise between the BIP and the NIMIS.

For this reason, the ski-jump and the capability to operate S/VTOL aircraft was suppressed.
Let's say, IMHO, that I find sad that the French Navy abandonned an opportunity to have a vessel abble to operate with other navies using S/VTOL aircafts: by this time, the UK, the US, the Italian and Spanish navies used Harriers aircrafts and this would, indeed, have improved the join capacities between those NATO navies (a French BIP operating USMC's Harriers ? Why not ?).
However, this is explainable since this would have required a specifically designed warship that was seen as too costly for the french navy, since the FN had no S/VTOL aircrafts, no intention to buy them and no intention to pay more, simply to allow "foreigners" to have use of their ships.
Another reason, was that in 1994, both the CdG and the Rafale's program where under high criticism and threatened of cancellation (the "dividends of peace", remember ?). The French Navy feard that it could be "trapped" with the BIP being considered an "aircrat carrier" and could loose many of its combat capabilities...
One last word: the BIP is an almost twin of the Spanish BPE (or is that the contrary ?). Had the BIP indeed been built, maybe Australia would have bought it...

[santi]

One last word: the BIP is an almost twin of the Spanish BPE (or is that the contrary ?). Had the BIP indeed been built, maybe Australia would have bought it...

Yeah, they are very similar concepts, but BPE is 50 % bigger and may be Australia was more interested in the capabilities of a larger ship than in the presence of a ski-jump itself, thought it will be an useful addition...

Regards

[santi]

And I feared that this great thread would be dead already:-))

Not yet, my friend

Back to the Far East.
A couple of concepts for a future Japanese DDG:



... and the aproach of some jap enthusiast:





Cheers

[MConrads]

Hi,

don´t know when I first heard about it. However I found two other vies of it on my HD. Though I saved it under "BPC".




I really like the planned new Japanese destroyer. Here are some more views:



Regards

[santi]

I really like the planned new Japanese destroyer. Here are some more views:

Well, they are not exactly "never where" ships but "near future" ships
19DD is on order and it will be commissioned in 2011-12.

Here, a comparison of the "regular" 19DD and a possible improved version:


... a realistic CGI of 19DD:


Regards

[shiplover]

The model photo of MConrads is a scan from Naval Forces 4/95. The vessel is described as Batiment d'Intervention Polyvalent by DCN. It should have had 12 Harriers, 7 ready for take of and 5 parked. The Sky Jump would have had reduced the take of spots from 5 to 6.

[MConrads]

I really like this thread. Perhaps it can be resurrected.

Here is a 1986 concept sketch of a Blohm & Voss Meko multi purpose frigate, something that eventually became the F123 (kind of at least):



Than there are two CGI shots depicting early versions (1992?) of the Meko A family:




Hope to see some more of your treasures soon:-)

Regards

[orko_8]

Four Sea Zenith's? That's quite a firepower.

Too bad that this exceptional system could not find much chance in the market except Turkish MEKO 200's...

[santi]

I really like this thread. Perhaps it can be resurrected.

I really love it too .... but is more and more difficult to find some hidden pearls.
Fine those Meko iterations!

That is a good image of the “Navire de Transport Belgo-Luxemburgois” proposed by Izar in 2003.



... and the hi-res version:
http://www.infodefensa.com/ediciones...defensa_01.jpg

Cheers!

[MConrads]

Hi,

has someone seen this SIGMA class version before?



Regards

[TinWing]

Originally Posted by santi

I really love it too .... but is more and more difficult to find some hidden pearls.
Fine those Meko iterations!

That is a good image of the “Navire de Transport Belgo-Luxemburgois” proposed by Izar in 2003.



... and the hi-res version:
http://www.infodefensa.com/ediciones...defensa_01.jpg

Cheers!

Here's the brochure for the 21,500 LHD from the Navantia site:

http://www.navantia.es/irj/go/km/doc...C3%B3n%201.pdf

[E2R]

Originally Posted by MConrads

Hi,

has someone seen this SIGMA class version before?



Regards

I haven't seen it before, but I guess it is the CODAG propelled-version of the SIGMA's. I will try to find out more.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by orko_8

Four Sea Zenith's? That's quite a firepower.

Too bad that this exceptional system could not find much chance in the market except Turkish MEKO 200's...

Seagaurd wasn't exceptional, which is why it didn't find wider employment. In fact the system performed rather poorly during trials in the UK which pretty much destroyed any future sales prospects.

A successor system employing two Oerlikon KBD gatling guns firing at a combined 10,000 rpm and an off-mount tracker did not sell either.

[X07]

Originally Posted by MConrads

Hi,

has someone seen this SIGMA class version before?



Regards

may be it's De Schelde's SIGMA project for MRM (Marine Royale Marocaine)

http://forummarine.forumactif.com/ma...aroc-t3210.htm

[MConrads]

Originally Posted by X07

may be it's De Schelde's SIGMA project for MRM (Marine Royale Marocaine)

Maybe, but it doesn´t match the other CG images from of those designs:

[X07]

Originally Posted by MConrads

Maybe, but it doesn´t match the other CG images from of those designs:

you're right, the lateral side of main superstructure is different.

[MConrads]

Hi,

recent new images (at least for me) validate the resurrection of this thread (I hope:-). This November-December 2007 issue of the Australian Defence Buisness Review has a CGI shot of the CEAFAR equipped Halifax frigate. It also shows a "new" configuration of the CEAFAR equipped Anzac frigate (the third configuration if I am not mistaken).

First configuration

Second configuration



There is also this corresponding image on the CEA website.

Now I understand all this talk about the difficulties of mounting the Harpoon launchers in their "usual position" behind the bridge. If you want to install such a high and surly top heavy new mast module you have to save all the weight you can and mount every piece of equipment as low as possible. Reminds me a bit of the Know class (from the silhouette I mean).

It is interesting to note that on all three ships depicted, CEAFAR replaces different sets of radars: Halifax -> only the long range AN/SPS-49; Hydra -> both the long range as well as the short range radars (and with CEAMOUNT the STIRs); Anzac -> only the short range radar.



Sadly the General Dynamics team gave up its tender for the FLEX program otherwise we might have seen this Thales SeaPAR/Smart-S equipped beauty come to life:



Hope you like the drawings.

Regards.

[orko_8]

The below is the preliminary design of Turkish MilGem corvette project.

As obvious, it's more like a frigate and the project had gone through major redesign and redefinition processes.

[MConrads]

Thanks for the info Orko. The depicted ship looks worse though than many of our shipbucket drawings. Are you sure this is an official design?

Regards.

[orko_8]

Originally Posted by MConrads

Thanks for the info Orko. The depicted ship looks worse though than many of our shipbucket drawings. Are you sure this is an official design?

Regards.

You are right Martin,

As far as I remember, the drawing depicts the preliminary design parameters of Turkish Navy regarding the MilGem project. Not the drawing maybe, but the weapon and mission systems and the overall composition is the then-official design. The mission definition and design parameters of MilGem were changed later.

When this design was published (late 90's - early 2000's IIRC), the TF-2000 project was also on the table. I think Turkish Navy wanted a general purpose frigate by MilGem and an AAW - C&C frigate in TF-2000. When the TF-2000 was shelved, the definiton maybe shifted to ASW oriented corvette, which is the MilGem as we know today.