Featured Concepts: 'Littoral Mission Vessels'

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Excellent write up. can we classify or modify yarmook class corvettes as LMVs?

The Yarmook-class is a full-fledged ship (OPV 1900), can work as well as a light frigate if we opt to equip it that way (which the PN will).

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

8-9 Type 056 Chinese Corvettes would do wonders for our Close shore patrol needs

 

[Akh1112]

If I understand it correctly, there's still a fixed overhead cost to steel. So, the larger the ship, the more steel you're using. Yes, with the MILGEM-J we can lower the build (from naval to commercial), but the cost might still be on the higher side compared to a smaller ship, like an enlarged FAC(M). If anything, if we needed a corvette similar to the 056 (as @Rafi alluded to), then a cost-reduced MILGEM-J/ADA is the way to go.

However, with LMVs, the vision is a little different. I'd want to produce ships that cost less than even the 056, which means either enlarging the FAC(M)/Azmat, or looking at one of the concepts above. In fact, I think a bigger FAC(M) or Azmat would basically result in a C74/7310-like design.

The benefit of an LMV is that we'd manufacture these small ships for like $50-60 m each, but each one of them can offer the anti-ship/land-attack and anti-sub effect of a MILGEM-J. It would lack the range, endurance, ECM, etc, but it would stick nearer to our coasts, and work under an actual MILGEM-J (or 054A/P).

If you have 12 of these ships, you're presenting the IN with 12 possible land-attack threats, 12 possible anti-ship threats (be it via the subsonic Harbah or supersonic missile), and more ASW coverage. Coupled with our growing submarine force, LRMPAs, coastal AShM, JF-17s, etc, would the IN even want to fight over our SLOC/EEZ? At the minimum, we might be able to stabilize the naval front (i.e., achieve true deterrence).

This aside, if I wanted more frigates, I'd add more MILGEM-Js. If I wanted more OPVs (e.g., for policing our SLOC, coalition missions, etc), I'd build slimmed-down MILGEM-J/ADAs. No doubt on any of that.

Why not shrink it? don't need hangar, remove whatever else is 'extra'. The reason why i suggest a smaller Ada is because there are already systems available for it, qualified and integrated, with a azmat based design you are going to need to find sufficient systems, integrate, test etc

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Why not shrink it? don't need hangar, remove whatever else is 'extra'. The reason why i suggest a smaller Ada is because there are already systems available for it, qualified and integrated, with a azmat based design you are going to need to find sufficient systems, integrate, test etc

hmm...either way, I think we'd pretty much be looking at an original design (albeit based on one of ADA or FAC(M)).

 

[Tipu7]

The boundaries of nomenclature of combat ships have become vague. There is need of work for standardization of all cetagories for better understanding.

IMO, the Litteoral Mission Vessels should be defined as such vessels which fall in between FACM and corvette, offer multi-mission capabilities but cannot support rotary wing aircrafts due to absense of flight deck.

Overall, I classify Littoral surface ships into following cetagories.

Fast Attack Craft (FAC):
Displacement: ~250 Tons.
Primary Armament: naval gun. (secondary low caliber guns)

Fast Attack Craft Missile (FAC-M):
Displacement: 250-1000 Tons.
Primary Armaments: AShMs + Naval gun (with CIWS/SHORAD or both)
Flight deck absent.

Torpedo Boat:
Displacement 250-1000 tons.
Primary Armaments: Torpedos + naval gun (with secondary anti submarine and air defensive capabilities)
Flight deck absent.

Off-Shore Patrol Vessels (OPV):
Displacement: 800-1600 tons
Primary Armaments: Naval Gun (secondary defensive capabilities)
Flight Deck present.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS):
Displacement: 800-1600 tons
Multi Mission Capabilities including naval gun, AShM, Torpedos, CIWS/SHORAD.
Flight deck absent.

Corvette:
Displacement: 1200-3000 tons.
Sub cetagories: Missile Corvette, ASW Corvette, Multi Mission corvette.
Armaments depend on sub cetagory configuration.
Flight deck present.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Akh1112]

hmm...either way, I think we'd pretty much be looking at an original design (albeit based on one of ADA or FAC(M)).

ye, makes sense

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

The boundaries of nomenclature of combat ships have become vague. There is need of work for standardization of all cetagories for better understanding.

IMO, the Litteoral Mission Vessels should be defined as such vessels which fall in between FACM and corvette, offer multi-mission capabilities but cannot support rotary wing aircrafts due to absense of flight deck.

Overall, I classify Littoral surface ships into following cetagories.

Fast Attack Craft (FAC):
Displacement: ~250 Tons.
Primary Armament: naval gun. (secondary low caliber guns)

Fast Attack Craft Missile (FAC-M):
Displacement: 250-1000 Tons.
Primary Armaments: AShMs + Naval gun (with CIWS/SHORAD or both)
Flight deck absent.

Torpedo Boat:
Displacement 250-1000 tons.
Primary Armaments: Torpedos + naval gun (with secondary anti submarine and air defensive capabilities)
Flight deck absent.

Off-Shore Patrol Vessels (OPV):
Displacement: 800-1600 tons
Primary Armaments: Naval Gun (secondary defensive capabilities)
Flight Deck present.

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS):
Displacement: 800-1600 tons
Multi Mission Capabilities including naval gun, AShM, Torpedos, CIWS/SHORAD.
Flight deck absent.

Corvette:
Displacement: 1200-3000 tons.
Sub cetagories: Missile Corvette, ASW Corvette, Multi Mission corvette.
Armaments depend on sub cetagory configuration.
Flight deck present.

@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Technically, you can even arm a FAC-M to the level of a LCS, e.g., Finland's Hamina-class (i.e., AShM, SAM, and LWTs). This actually opens up another line of work. We know the PN is working on 'stealthy gun boats' of its own design, it should study turning said boats (basically 250-300-ton FACs) into ASW assets.

 

[Tipu7]

Technically, you can even arm a FAC-M to the level of a LCS, e.g., Finland's Hamina-class (i.e., AShM, SAM, and LWTs). This actually opens up another line of work. We know the PN is working on 'stealthy gun boats' of its own design, it should study turning said boats (basically 250-300-ton FACs) into ASW assets.

Yes. But the most important question is, Do we need to focus on versatility or we need specialized vessels?

Finnish navy is not equipped with large vessels like Frigates or corvettes. The burden of primary defense lies on Hamina class, and therefore these vessels have been designed to be as versatile as possible.

We on the other hand have different profile. Our small vessels are more focused towards specialized roles as other duties can be undertaken by Frigates. For example, our Azmat class FACM, despite being bigger vessel, is not equipped with credible air defense capabilities. Instead, emphasis is towards ship based missiles. Therefore, I see future FACM of Pakistan Navy also more focused towards specialized roles instead of being versatile vessels.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Yes. But the most important question is, Do we need to focus on versatility or we need specialized vessels?

Finnish navy is not equipped with large vessels like Frigates or corvettes. The burden of primary defense lies on Hamina class, and therefore these vessels have been designed to be as versatile as possible.

We on the other hand have different profile. Our small vessels are more focused towards specialized roles as other duties can be undertaken by Frigates. For example, our Azmat class FACM, despite being bigger vessel, is not equipped with credible air defense capabilities. Instead, emphasis is towards ship based missiles. Therefore, I see future FACM of Pakistan Navy also more focused towards specialized roles instead of being versatile vessels.

It'll depend on how much the PN can spend towards operating costs. The fewer (but more versatile) ships you have at sea, the less you'll spend on running them. OTOH, if you have 30-40 specialized vessels across AShW, ASW, and AAW clogging up your littoral waters, the IN is very unlikely to move in.

 

[Akh1112]

It'll depend on how much the PN can spend towards operating costs. The fewer (but more versatile) ships you have at sea, the less you'll spend on running them. OTOH, if you have 30-40 specialized vessels across AShW, ASW, and AAW clogging up your littoral waters, the IN is very unlikely to move in.

OH btw, have you heard of any progress on the PN's homegrown AAW missile? Was discussing VLS options for the ADA with someone and stumbled upon the domestic missile stuff.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

OH btw, have you heard of any progress on the PN's homegrown AAW missile? Was discussing VLS options for the ADA with someone and stumbled upon the domestic missile stuff.

No news other than the one-off statement. It's obvious foreign OEMs (esp. MBDA Italy) are trying to get in on the MILGEM-J, but otherwise, no info. I think we'll learn more when we see the launch of the lead MILGEM.

 

[FuturePAF]

Over the past few weeks, I've been a little fascinated by the concept of the 'littoral mission vessel' (LMV). The basic idea of these LMVs is to deliver key naval capabilities, but at lower cost than a full-fledged frigate or corvette. The term LMV isn't real per se, but I think it may become real if enough ships of this type materialize.

There is no hard or fast rule, but in general, I find that these designs have a displacement of 500 to 1,500 tons (i.e., corvette-sized). So, they're compact.

But they are multi-mission-capable: anti-ship/surface warfare, anti-sub warfare, and anti-air warfare. However, these LMVs may not include decks and hangars for helicopters (though in some cases, they might -- depends).

It'd be interesting if we could design something like the SIGMA 7310 or Dearsan C74 in Pakistan. If we apply the same commercial build standards of the OPV 1900, such ships might be low cost enough to procure in numbers to deliver ASW coverage and distribute land-attack/anti-ship capabilities in our littoral waters.

Concepts

Damen SIGMA Fast Attack 7310 (Netherlands)

Displacement: 900 tons
Length: 74 m
Propulsion: CODAD
Range: 2,000 NM (at 15 knots)
Weapons: 1x 76 mm; 2x4 AShM; 2x3 ASW; 2x2 VLS(?)

Dearsan Corvette C74 (Turkey)

Displacement: 1,000 tons
Length: 74 m
Propulsion: CODAD
Range: 2,000 NM
Weapons: 1x 76 mm; 2x4 AShM; ASW rockets(?); 2x8 VLS(?)

Real World

Baynunah Class Corvette (UAE/France)

Displacement: 915 tons
Length: 71.3 m
Propulsion: CODAD
Range: 2,400 NM (at 15 knots)
Weapons: 1x 76 mm; 2x4 AShM; 8-cell VLS(?); 4-cell VLS (8 ESSM)

Independence-Class (Singapore)

Displacement: 1,200 tons
Length: 80 m
Propulsion: CODAD
Range: 3,000 NM
Weapons: 1x 76 mm; 2x RWS; 12-cell MICA-VL

Better to have more of the 500 ton FACs then a few corvettes if we can use the right tactics and weapons to engage the enemy from multiple vectors. Also the reason why the navy needs a dedicated naval air wing of fixed jets; maximizing maneuver warfare.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Anything smaller then Corvette Level would be not appropriate

• For short term we need to solidify the Near frigate level Ships , segment

 

[Tank131]

So as @Bilal Khan (Quwa) can attest, i have been saying for years ti enlarge the Azmat, and while I still stand by that position, it would at best be a adequate but unlikely very good solution. That is because much of the design is frozen amd by enlarging it you can change some but not all of the layout. To be honest, im not a huge fan of Yarmooks layout either with respect to its use as a corvette. Reason being the smoke stacks interfer with its CIWS preventing coverage of nearly 40% the ship against missile attack.

I have come to the conclusion that to have a good smaller ship you need to design it not for a particular mission but for a particular style of equipment younwant it to carry for the mission. Example of a poor design is the USN LCS's which were designed to replace Frigates for escort and work in the littoral space... Except they suck at every job and are woefully underarmed.

If PN wants to design an opv/lcs/corvette it needs to address what systems it needs to do its job. If it needs anti-sub capability does it need a towed array? Hull mounted sonar? A chopper or can a UAV do the trick? If it needs air defense, does it need point defense or is a slightly larger missile needed? How any AShM?

Ideally if it were me designing this, it would be a 1000t-1200t ship with hull mounted sonar and a towed array. Plan for a unified mast with something like Kronos for its radars. Behind the mast, a VLS (4 CELL with plans for the Turkish G-40 quad packed missile or another quad packed missile). In the A position, a Gokdeniz 30mm CIWS. On either side of it, rocket propelled depth charges (like RDC-32 on F-22p). Behind the vls, 2 triple boxes for Harbah. Behind that a small telescopic hangar for a UAV (Multirole quad copter which can carry different equipment from dipped sonar or a life raft (for SAR) OR a light torpedo, similarly to the size of the British T-150.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So as @Bilal Khan (Quwa) can attest, i have been saying for years ti enlarge the Azmat, and while I still stand by that position, it would at best be a adequate but unlikely very good solution. That is because much of the design is frozen amd by enlarging it you can change some but not all of the layout. To be honest, im not a huge fan of Yarmooks layout either with respect to its use as a corvette. Reason being the smoke stacks interfer with its CIWS preventing coverage of nearly 40% the ship against missile attack.

I have come to the conclusion that to have a good smaller ship you need to design it not for a particular mission but for a particular style of equipment younwant it to carry for the mission. Example of a poor design is the USN LCS's which were designed to replace Frigates for escort and work in the littoral space... Except they suck at every job and are woefully underarmed.

If PN wants to design an opv/lcs/corvette it needs to address what systems it needs to do its job. If it needs anti-sub capability does it need a towed array? Hull mounted sonar? A chopper or can a UAV do the trick? If it needs air defense, does it need point defense or is a slightly larger missile needed? How any AShM?

Ideally if it were me designing this, it would be a 1000t-1200t ship with hull mounted sonar and a towed array. Plan for a unified mast with something like Kronos for its radars. Behind the mast, a VLS (4 CELL with plans for the Turkish G-40 quad packed missile or another quad packed missile). In the A position, a Gokdeniz 30mm CIWS. On either side of it, rocket propelled depth charges (like RDC-32 on F-22p). Behind the vls, 2 triple boxes for Harbah. Behind that a small telescopic hangar for a UAV (Multirole quad copter which can carry different equipment from dipped sonar or a life raft (for SAR) OR a light torpedo, similarly to the size of the British T-150.

You want this, don't you?

In a way, you'd be in luck because this design is from Dearsan in Turkey.