Design the perfect littoral combat ship....

Wouldn't a Su17M4 be better in this role ? Given it might be more survivable incase enemy ships have AAW capability?
It's an airbase. It has airplanes. Russian Naval Aviation has two squadrons of Su-24s besides the planes the Russian Air Forces has. Of course, most of the ships being talked about here don't have viable AAW so anything that can carry an LGB would be a viable strike plane.
 
I think some thing like the OPV

Built to merchant standards about 1500 - 1700 Tons.

2 Diesel Engines driving 2 props - max speed 20 knots - 4000 plus NM range

Large helipad to the rear (no hanger or facilities) Chinook/Sea stallion capable that can double up as storage area or mission specific containers

Weapons -

OTO 76mm compact automatic gun system (or even a Bofors 40/60 if the budget is tight?)

2 (1 each Port and Starboard) Wing mountings for .50 cal machine guns

2 additional mountings on port and starboard Quarter for GPMGs

2 large RIBS - deployable 1 each Port and Starboard

Troop capacity of up to 60 men

Troop Space can be converted to a operational command post or medical center or evacuating civvies, Children's party's and Sods Operas

But a lot depends on the mission but this design should be good for the 3 block war scenario the OP speaks of
 

Khanzeer

Banned
It's an airbase. It has airplanes. Russian Naval Aviation has two squadrons of Su-24s besides the planes the Russian Air Forces has. Of course, most of the ships being talked about here don't have viable AAW so anything that can carry an LGB would be a viable strike plane.
even if the target ship is a destroyer and have point defence SAM systems like sea sparrow , can they not be overwhelmed by half a dozen or so such strike aircraft armed with LGB ? Afterall all is you need is 1-2 well placed hit by a 1000 lb bomb to disable a ship of that size
 
.
However, this conversation also ignores a key point - what is the ability of the <insert developing country here> to operate and then sustain this capability? It takes a tremendous investment in time and money to train a ship's company to safely navigate in congested littoral waters, once we add in the requirement to then fight & win in this environment the professional standards increase again (how can you fight & not collide with other ships).
This is the big challenge right here. Check out the uplifting tales of NNS Nigeria and NNS Aradu
 
even if the target ship is a destroyer and have point defence SAM systems like sea sparrow , can they not be overwhelmed by half a dozen or so such strike aircraft armed with LGB ? Afterall all is you need is 1-2 well placed hit by a 1000 lb bomb to disable a ship of that size
If you're trying to stay out of missile range, the launch planes have to stay at medium altitude, which is the easiest altitude band for missiles to target. If the target ship has missiles like a Sea Sparrow that can outrange an LGB, the attack would have to be made at low level with offset approaches and a lot of chaff. Of course, because the last thing you want to do with manned aircraft is make an attrition strike on a defended target, so any missile system lather than something like RAM or Crotale should be countered with anti-ship missiles.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
If you are on the receiving end of LGB in the 65-85 period are you not fighting somebody to big.....?
no this was a seperate discussion
i had a general question about how vulnerable was SAM equipped destroyers to strike fighters of that period 65-85
it spilled over into this thread
 
Ship is expected to fulfill the role in the 1965 to 1985 period
It has to be designed with low intensity conflicts and brush fire wars in mind
Primary customers third world countries
Jack of all trades
Think of a Naval ship equivalent of F5A/E
What weapons sensors will it carry?
Size tonnage?
Any special features? Like
Troop carrying capacity, helos etc

If the troop carrying capacity isn't a priority, I've always thought Ecuador's Esmeraldas were pretty powerful ships on a small displacement

506_13.jpg


https://www.helis.com/database/sys/506-Esmeralda-class

The website above does have an error; the Apside anti-aircraft missile launcher is a two-cell (as seen in the photo), not an eight-cell

A couple were recently modernized by Ecuador

https://www.janes.com/article/84665/ecuadorian-navy-receives-two-modernised-corvettes

Regards,
 
Aside from the 1980's electronics there's no reason a Peacock class ship couldn't have been built in the 60's.
Yes but in the 60s its probably cheaper to use something second hand from WWII?

Unless you care about manpower costs (and for third world countries in 60s you should not in comparison to new western wepon systems) you should at least use second hand weapons even if they need more manpower than a new system. The question is what hulls are available or do you go with a new build?

Something like Peder Skram class frigate but with out the GTs would be good for new build?

Personally I would go for something like a ex RN Battle class available cheap in early 60s just ask Iran or Pakistan.....
 
Going back to the original idea it sounds like a João Coutinho class. As the D'Estienne d'Orves they could carry a small landing force - around 16 men from memory landed presumably by ships boat ( rigid inflatable) and as Espora and similar derivatives carried a helo.

The Finnish Turunmaa class is also pretty close, or some modification of it. It was designed as a fast littoral combatant with some ASW capability.
 
Yes but in the 60s its probably cheaper to use something second hand from WWII?

Unless you care about manpower costs (and for third world countries in 60s you should not in comparison to new western wepon systems) you should at least use second hand weapons even if they need more manpower than a new system. The question is what hulls are available or do you go with a new build?
I could see a small developed country such as New Zealand opting for something new built for the role as a back up for their handful of frigates.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Yes but in the 60s its probably cheaper to use something second hand from WWII?

Unless you care about manpower costs (and for third world countries in 60s you should not in comparison to new western wepon systems) you should at least use second hand weapons even if they need more manpower than a new system. The question is what hulls are available or do you go with a new build?

Something like Peder Skram class frigate but with out the GTs would be good for new build?

Personally I would go for something like a ex RN Battle class available cheap in early 60s just ask Iran or Pakistan.....
Yes also like RIVER class frigates , C class and O class destroyers
They are a relevant threat until early 70s I think
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Parchim class corvettes are used by Indonesian navy in similar role in 90s.
Interestingly they retained their RBU mortars despite absence of immediate sub threat in the 90s.
Was it because RBU 6000 can be used as a shore bombardment weapon and close in anti ship weapon ? E.g in battle of paracel islands apparently Chinese used it in that manner
 
Within the OP time frame the Portuguese Joao Coutinho class Corvettes were successful in that exat role. The ships could carry a detachment of marines and gained a good reputation for sea keeping in the difficult conditions of the Azores. they had very long service lives.
 
Top