China to Build Two Missile Corvettes for Bangladesh

[MilSpec]

@kazhugu

Well, actually, I was referring to the grouping of destroyers, frigates and corvettes; of course the smallest cruiser is bigger than the largest destroyer. If you look at my comment once again, I've actually referred to the relative size of destroyer and cruiser. Except that in order to avoid the cost-cutting of Congress, the US Navy has described its Aegis-equipped vessels as destroyers, when they should really be light cruisers. I can specify the US Navy classes if you like, and their designations.

About not much speed between the three, or corvettes being supposed to be the fastest of the three, this is wholly incorrect, not partially. There are three types of hull that we are looking at, planing, semi-displacement and displacement. The fastest vessels have planing hulls, and these hulls, generally found on fast attack craft, can go up to speeds of 40 knots. These hulls present a minimal surface for immersion, hence their drag is the least.

All semi-displacement and displacement hulls have natural speeds which are a function of several parameters of the hulls themselves. These natural speeds can be exceeded by increasing the size of engine, but that carries a huge penalty in terms of efficiency, and beyond a point, it is not worthwhile increasing the size of engines to increase speed through the water: the penalty of fuel usage is simply too high.

In general, for displacement hulls, the larger the hull, the greater the natural speed.

I hope you understand from that what is implied.

That is why I mentioned at the beginning of this note that it is wholly wrong to consider a corvette to be the fastest of the three. If it is a displacement hull corvette (and I don't know of any other type), then it simply cannot technically have a natural speed equal to a destroyer. Or a frigate.

Hope that helps.

There's tons of technical stuff on this; if anybody is desperately keen to know, I can dig it out and reprint it.

Please do, it will be a very interesting read.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sorry, I might have made a mistake. China has delivered probably a LPC only a few weeks ago. Please correct me if I am wrong. BN has produced one Khulna-class FAC and has taken delivery of it. Another four are now under construction. All with Chinese technical collaboration.

What surprises me is the whole question of Bangladesh seeking to import naval vessels rather than making her own.

This begs the question of what Bangladesh Navy needs.

In my humble opinion, it is of paramount importance for the Bangladesh Navy to define its objectives before acquiring equipment, as is true of the Bangladesh Army and the Bangladesh Air Force. For the Bangladesh Navy, it surely makes sense to cover the most critical tasks first, the most expansive tasks last. From that point of view, a possible list of objectives might be:

• Protection of fisheries and fishing vessels;
• Protection of coastal shippling;
• Protection of coasts against amphibious attack;
• Medium-range defence of coastlines;
• Long-range defence of coastlines;
• Capability of mounting attacks on potential enemies or hostile fleets;

If this is an acceptable list and prioritisation, then we have the following:

Protection of fisheries and fishing vessels: Long Range Patrol Craft, Fisheries Protection Vessels (both are identical): example, Icelandic fisheries protection vessels;

Protection of coastal shipping: Fast Attack Craft, separately equipped for anti-ship and anti-aircraft defence; Corvettes, for anti-submarine defence;

Protection of coasts against amphibious attack: Fast Attack Craft, fitted with medium- and long-range anti-shipping missiles, linked to Long Range Maritime Reconnaissance aircraft; on-shore missile batteries;

Medium-range defence of coastlines: diesel-powered attack submarines, with torpedo and anti-shipping missiles fitted; on-shore missile batteries with extended range;

Long-range defence of coastlines: diesel-powered attack submarines, with torpedo and anti-shippling missiles fitted; on-shore missile batteries with maximal range;

Capability of mounting attacks on potential enemies or hostile fleets: diesel-powered attack submarines, with torpedo and anti-shipping missiles; missile-carrying destroyers, with anti-shipping, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft capability, in sufficient numbers to form independent squadrons to deter littoral naval powers of interest.

It seems from this cursory analysis that a very strictly regulated number of options would meet the
needs of maritime defence, and that purchase of big-ticket items is typically more for the sake of giving the naval head, or heads, their talking points and bragging rights, rather than to the enhancement of defence skills.

 

[Penguin]

whats the point of having all these ships if they are not going to be used in combat against those who are against the national interest


be that india burma pak usa marshans fishes etc whoever

Because if you can find another solution you will have won without having to fire a shot. Violence is a last resort, having to resort to it represents a failure of government, politics and diplomacy. It is like children hitting each other because they are not yet well enough able to resolve their conflict in another, more mature and civilized way. Just my 2c.