|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:missile gun boats
KennethB
2/1/2004 2:49:35 PM
|
It is not true that FAC has never been able to successfully accomplish its coastal sea-denial mission. The Egyptians, using a 75 ton patrol boat armed with two 2.3 ton Styx missiles sunk an Israeli destroyer in 1967. It happened again four years later during an Indo-Pakistan war. In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Egyptian and Syrian boats fired 52 missiles without hitting anything. The Israelis were prepared with electronic devices that jammed the guidance systems. But this is more an issue about missile and sensor technology, than the platforms they where launched from. I think it is wrong to use 100 years of history against present and future technology. Today a small vessel can carry the same weapon and combat systems and as far larger ships. This was not the case in WW2. A SSM launched from a FAC is as lethal as if it was launched from the largest ship in the world. Especially if it is a fire and forget missile like the NSM or Penguin.
You still compares an OPV with a FAC. They have two different tasks. A FAC is not designed to patrolling a 200nm EEZ for weeks at a time. It is designed to operate close to the shore. If you want an OPV, you build an OPV. If you want a ship (at approx. the same cost) to defend a rugged coast, you build a FAC. And I think it is strange that you can say that an OPV is FAR SUPERIOR in ALL THE MISSION AREAS I mentioned. I am beginning to doubt if you are serious. If I was on a ship in a hostile environment, I would like it to be as fast and stealthy as possible. The Skjold class has 90-99 percent reduction of RCS compared with a Hauk class, depending on angle. But if you want to cruise around in hostile waters with a large and slow OPV-like vessel, be my guest.
When I read what you write, I get the impression that you think that it is sea state 8 all over the world all the time, since you emphasizes the sea keeping capabilities so much. In fact, the waters along the Scandinavian coast are usually sea state 3-4 or less. In Norwegian fjords it is rarely waves more than a few feet tall. I think it would be wrong to build a large vessel, and loose many of the advantages you have with a Skjold class vessel, just to be able to operate the few days a year at some parts of the coast, where a Skjold class could have difficulties with the weather.
As I tried to explain in my last message, FACs are not uneconomical or ineffective in peacetime. The small Hauk-class are known as workhorses among coastal communities. They can be used for a wide variety of tasks.
And FAC's do not require very expensive - and vulnerable - support facilities ashore, not more than any other ship. In fact, a small vessel like Skjold can go to any port, small or large, to get new supplies. And if it needs more missiles or ammo, it can get to a naval base, and be operational much faster than an OPV-like vessel. The Norwegian Navy will also build a support vessel for the Skjold class, so they easily can be deployed abroad, and to be a force-multiplier.
A F-16 could launch an ASM, instead of sending the information to a FAC. But then the aircraft would have to carry ASM weapons on expense of other weapons. A F-16 are better used for other tasks. A shore battery can not replace a FAC. A FAC is more than just a missile launcher. And if you take a look at the Norwegian coast, you would understand that a mobile launcher on land, would not be very mobile at all. It would take a day to travel the same distance along the coast, whereas the Skjold class would use a few of hours. KNM Skjold used 16 hours and 10 minutes on a trip from Bergen to Tromsoe, a distance of 730nm, using the protected waters where Norwegian FACs usually operates.
I am not trying to say that the Skjold class, or similar designs are a good solution for everyone. Most countries would probably prefer a larger design, with better endurance. But Norway has 8-9 OPVs, and together with the 5 new frigates, no more is needed. What Norway do need, is relatively low-cost vessels, which can take advantages of the rugged coast, and defend it against surface treaths, especially after the coastal fortresses has been laid down. I belive a Skjold class vessel can do that much better than any OPV-like vessels. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
