Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Forbin - Horizon
nominoe    3/19/2008 11:37:21 AM
here is a very interesting article about the new french frigate, unfortunately it's in french : http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107154 Currently, the new frigate is tested at sea. it's radar is following planes of Roissy airport from Lorient harbour (450 km). You will find some details about weapons, sensors, etc..
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Shirrush       3/19/2008 2:31:50 PM
Pretty ship! I'd feel better if there were a couple of CIWS's topside though, and not just these Otto-Melara cannons for the front arc only!
It is also satisfying to read that La Royale got quality seaworthiness for her money this time around.

I still do not understand why the Europeans insist on calling their DDG's "frigates". Does it make them look any more cost-efficient in the eyes of the taxpayer?

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Too bad about the compartmentalization and the Asters though.   3/19/2008 6:31:44 PM
Pretty does not equal effective.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       3/19/2008 6:53:22 PM

Pretty ship! I'd feel better if there were a couple of CIWS's topside though, and not just these Otto-Melara cannons for the front arc only!
It is also satisfying to read that La Royale got quality seaworthiness for her money this time around.

I still do not understand why the Europeans insist on calling their DDG's "frigates". Does it make them look any more cost-efficient in the eyes of the taxpayer?

I still don't understand why the US insist on calling their frigates DDG's. Does it make them look any more cost-efficient in the eyes of the taxpayer?

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/19/2008 7:14:26 PM
Good stuff.... I can't read all the article but it looks very competitive to the Type 45 - carrying more Aster, and being equipped with Exocet.

I'm not quite sure about the 76mm gun layout, but it's certainly different!  I can only assume by doctrine they intend to steer into air-threats?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    USN custom.   3/19/2008 8:03:19 PM



Pretty ship! I'd feel better if there were a couple of CIWS's topside though, and not just these Otto-Melara cannons for the front arc only!
It is also satisfying to read that La Royale got quality seaworthiness for her money this time around.

I still do not understand why the Europeans insist on calling their DDG's "frigates". Does it make them look any more cost-efficient in the eyes of the taxpayer?


I still don't understand why the US insist on calling their frigates DDG's. Does it make them look any more cost-efficient in the eyes of the taxpayer?

We had a fairly good system until the "cruiser" gap.

The Russians started building all those Krestas which were called  "cruisers"  in the  press in the Jimmy Carter 1970s. Well the press back then; was as dumb as they are now.

The sensible Russians called the Krestas medium sized rocket firing ships.[korabi]. Our reporter  cretins couldn't associate anything that large with a "coracle" so they settled on "cruiser".

How does this apply to the USN? Well John Q. Taxpayer heard about all these Russian "cruisers" He asked "Where were our  "cruisers" "?  At the time an American anti-submarine warfare ship [Spruance] was technically a "frigate".  Congress, being full of cretins, listened to the citizens and asked the Navy where were our "cruisers"?

The Navy pointed at the Ticonderogas and the Spruances and said there they are.

Congress looked at the Krestas and squawked, "but our ships are not as heavily armed as the Russian "cruisers"." "They're just frigates!"

The Navy tried to explain the actual differences between an anti-air warfare ship, an  anti-submarine warfare ship, a general purpose escort, and an anti-surface ship strike ship [Kresta]. But explain THAT apples/oranges dichotomy to a Congress cretin.

So the Navy learned. They try to call AAW ships, cruisers and ASW ships DESTROYERS. Make the ship sound aggressive and tough.

Never mind that the Ticos and the Arleigh  I's are really  AAW ships and the Arleigh II's are more like ASW ships and that all of them are  fleet ESCORTS. Got to make them sound WW II tough, so they become cruisers and destroyers to J.Q. Taxpayer and the Congress cretins.

Here endeth the history lesson.

Herald  


 
Quote    Reply

nominoe       3/20/2008 4:40:07 AM
Herald, what do you mean about compartmentalization? I thought this boat was very good in that aspect!

EMPAR is less efficient than SAMPSON but using SAMPSON means that long range radar S 1850M is useless (same range). Less efficient does not mean it can't do the job, i just hope it's sufficient for that. After all, western ships are more likely to face a one or two silkworm launch than a full scale saturation attack.

On the other hand, Forbin carries Exocet and MU90 torpedoes, so it's a more polyvalent ship. I can't wait to see the future french battle groupe, with Forbin class, CdG or PA2, and a new barracuda SSN armed with SCALP naval!!

In some years, europe will be able to field up to four battle groups (UK+France), that will be quite a contribution for western operations!


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Ive written about the radars WAY too much.....   3/20/2008 4:46:02 AM
but my chief complaint is the CRAP Aster missile and the CIC which is still designed for a point defense ship and not a TRUE AAW escort.

Compartmentalization refers to hull subdivision and poor damage control layout. One torpedo or cruise missile amidships, you break in two and you roll over and SINK. Few or no survivors if you take it in the Sylver VLS.

Herald


 
 
Quote    Reply

nominoe       3/20/2008 5:11:48 AM
About compartmentalization, i think you are uncorrect.

Forbin has 12 independant compartment and is designed to sail with several of them full of water, with a 15 meters breach.

Moreover,  technical  galeries are present on each side of the boat  to ensure two layers of protection against a direct hit.

Forbin has also two operational centers (main and emergency) and a very high degree of redundancy of each equipment. It can sail and defend itself with only 3 screens, and you can virtually operate weapon systems from anywhere one the ship.

I can hardly see a compartmentalization issue!
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       3/20/2008 5:28:12 AM

About compartmentalization, i think you are incorrect.

Is that so?

Forbin has 12 independent compartment and is designed to sail with several of them full of water, with a 15 meters breach

Arleigh Burke is a cellular honeycomb. 12 bulkheaded compartments? You've learned nothing from the days of the Titanic I see!.

Moreover,  technical  galleries are present on each side of the boat  to ensure two layers of protection against a direct hit.

Useless , you don't have the beam to take advantage of that OBSOLETE  type of passive damage defense.

Forbin has also two operational centers (main and emergency) and a very high degree of redundancy of each equipment. It can sail and defend itself with only 3 screens, and you can virtually operate weapon systems from anywhere one the ship.

I would expect a auxiliary damage control center.as a MINIMUM.  So what? A civil ship has that feature. Do you have damage control zones?

I can hardly see a compartmentalization issue!

I just explained it to you.
Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       3/20/2008 1:38:46 PM
Herald, the majority of Soviet cruisers were ASW ships, not ASuW as you say.


 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics