5 Responses

1. Fairly straight forward piece, but, slightly strange in that its key markers…seakeeping, multirole modularity (i.e mission deck space) and increasing importance being placed on offboard systems (requiring both seakeeping and mission deck space!!) aren’t really great strengths of the fairly conventional STX product line!

   Its a better fit for something like the 70m OPV showed by A&R at the last Euronaval:

   http://www.defence24.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Zdj_SWAT_70_m1.jpg

   …and the £40mn 60m pilot/accomodation hull also from the Bremen outfit…

   http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_b976wTDcJ8U/TGwDljKBepI/AAAAAAAArMU/8SiGkUym03I/s1600/Lotsenstationsschiff+Weser.jpg

   A hull that provides an interesting foundation for a high-endurance 14-16knt cruise, 22knt sprint, OCPV. One with perfect characteristics for towing droggy or MCMW arrays or for providing a stable launch/recovery platform for davit deployed units…or for rotary air. All on a very modest hull able to provide decent levels of habitation for long-duration droggy taskings.

2. How much will that SWATH hull cost, compared to a boring monohull?

3. SWATH pushes surface hulls into submarine territory. Whatever you save on steel you will spend more on pumps, plumbing, and other costly gubbins.

4. Smitty,

   The basic 60m Pilot hull linked cost £40mn all in. You’d need to redesign something like this….

   http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/87/60mswath.png/

   (note….thats a scaling exercise only to see if all elements ‘fit’!)

   Effectively though its an up-engine, structural redesign for hangar/helideck, increased bunkerage and a basic weapons/sensor fit. Spread the development costs over, say, 14 hulls & add in the cost of bigger motors and sensor/weapons integration. I dont think you’d double the cost of the basic ship.

   X,

   Much depends on what you submerge with the hulls….A&R put diesel engines and all sorts down there…which I’m no fan of but keep it simple and it makes things lots less difficult to run!. My view is drive motors and bunkerage down there only.

   With the layout you need to trim and ballast more carefully sure…but you get all the attributes that STX cite as desireable without building out beyond 90m to get the pitch response suitable for oceanic work!.

5. Hi Jonesy,

   First of all, a general observation, when everyone on the current threads seems to have an opinion on how many of x, y or z to exchange for a T-26, and as for a global role OPVs as opposed to corvettes (that would depend on an extensive local basing network)seem to be the only real alternative, not many comments on this thread?

   But going to your opening one “slightly strange in that its key markers…seakeeping, multirole modularity (i.e mission deck space) and increasing importance being placed on offboard systems (requiring both seakeeping and mission deck space!!) aren’t really great strengths of the fairly conventional STX product line!”
   1. STX was the main sponsor for the conference
   2. I think (it was a while ago I read the materials) they have something like a 70% market share anywhere that can be considered at least somehow an open market
   3. They have adopted the adage “Think global, act local”
   – so they say they can do anything that anyone would want
   – when push comes to shove, in most countries the ship will have to come from a local shipyard
   – surprise, surprise, STX wins the order as they have (bought) a local yard (never mind that only a fraction of what the conference prescribed as Best Practice will be built in… it is the budgetary constraints to blame, of course, not that from a truly open market one could have bought 90% of the desiderata, for the same price!)

Comments are closed.