What's new

Israel Navy’s New SA’AR 6 Corvette Begins Initial Sea Trials

The Ronin

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,386
Reaction score
0
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
ESxwjNaXsAA4mED


An Israeli Navy (Ḥeil HaYam HaYisraeli) new SA'AR-6 class corvette, likely first ship in class INS Magen, started her initial sea trials on March 10, 2020. Several ship spotters images from the Kiel area in Germany show the vessel underway under her own power.

The first SA’AR-6 class corvette was named INS Magen in May 2019. German shipbuilder thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) acts as General Contractor to build four corvettes of this class for the Israeli Navy.

SA’AR 6-class corvettes have the stealthy design of a low-signature missile corvette with tailor-made solutions and numerous new technologies on board. The contract for the delivery of four SA’AR 6 corvettes was signed in May 2015. After the design phase, the construction phase started with the steel cutting ceremony of the first-of-class in February 2018. Only 15 months after the first steel cut, the ship was launched, fulfilling its very ambitious schedule.


Following the current sea trials campaign, INS Magen is set to be delivered in spring 2020. The other three ships will follow subsequently in intervals of a few months.

In terms of weapon systems, the SA’AR 6 features an impressive firepower despite its compact size:

  • an Oto Melara 76 mm main gun,
  • two Typhoon Weapon Stations,
  • 32 vertical launch cells for Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, the C-Dome point defense system,
  • 16 anti-ship missiles (likely Gabriel V)
  • two 324 mm torpedo launchers

The sensor suite includes the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR AESA radar. It has hangar space and a platform able to accommodate a medium class SH-60-type helicopter.

Key data for SA’AR 6 corvettes

Israel-Navys-first-SAAR-6-corvette-named-INS-Magen_002.jpg


Length o.a. approx. 90 m
Beam 13 m
Full load displacement approx. 1,900 t

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ew-saar-6-corvette-begins-initial-sea-trials/
 
Not sure about 90 m and 1,900 tons, but I hope the Pakistan Navy designs and constructs a 2,000 to 2,500 frigate with similar capabilities (e.g., 16 AShM, 32 VLS SAM, 2x3 ASW LWTs, CIWS/PDMS, etc). Let's hope the Jinnah-class (MILGEM) leads us to this direction, and that too with additional radar and thermal concealment than current. @Rafi @Armchair @Tank131 @cabatli_53
 
Two things I know about these builds,

1. Ship was built using German funds as a series of reparations to Israel for WWII Nazi activities.
2. The hull was CAD designed to have the minimum wake pattern when passing through water to avoid detection by subs (part of stealth design).

I hope the six new frigates project back home for us will have similar hull designs (minimum wake). There were local builds in Bangladesh already about ten years ago for civilian yards.
 
Not sure about 90 m and 1,900 tons, but I hope the Pakistan Navy designs and constructs a 2,000 to 2,500 frigate with similar capabilities (e.g., 16 AShM, 32 VLS SAM, 2x3 ASW LWTs, CIWS/PDMS, etc). Let's hope the Jinnah-class (MILGEM) leads us to this direction, and that too with additional radar and thermal concealment than current. @Rafi @Armchair @Tank131 @cabatli_53


Few points to takeaway:

The hull design is suitable for the Mediterranean but is not suitable for the Indian Ocean.
This is better armed than any ship in the PN, basically a near Destroyer capability in the size of a corvette. What I've been saying all along - that modern tech allows one to pack a bigger punch with a much smaller ship.

History is moving from Cruisers to destroyers to frigates to now corvettes. If we miss understanding this evolution of naval combat, we end up building giant sized blunders. Which is criminal for a navy with such a low budget, facing impossible odds.

Will PN continue to be blind? Will they keep building a conventional navy that is unable to meet the challenge when war comes? Appears to be so.

If Israel could build subsystems such as SAMs that can significantly increase its capability, why is Pakistan lacking? A clear insight into how incompetent and slow PN is where it matters.

Let's again focus on some big ship so big navy officers can gloat about it and float it around like a giant swan. Let's keep focusing on some MPA that will get shot down without adequate air cover, on platforms that are different from similar sized planes in the PAF. Wow, what professionalism this is, each service just buys willy nilly whatever it fancies, no sense of collective responsibility.

PN is missing the boat of constructing a local 1000 ton corvette, a veritable JF-17 of the seas. It is missing the boat of using UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles) that can go target every Indian coastal base, putting IN on the defensive. It is missing out on meaningful deployment of UAVs. It is missing out on building an effective air cover. It is missing out on a strike aircraft that will divert Indian resources to the defensive, defending the South rather than attacking Pak.

Now, on 23rd March they will do their swan dance. Come next 1971 or 1965, they will be caught again with their pants down.

Victory for a nation does not come from copying and wearing fancy uniforms. It comes from a deep ideology and sense of self-respect. For Pakistan that is Islam, the reason for the Partition of India. It comes from being true to that deep ideology, not making a mockery of it by being wannabe goras and copy paste monkeys.
 
Few points to takeaway:

The hull design is suitable for the Mediterranean but is not suitable for the Indian Ocean.
This is better armed than any ship in the PN, basically a near Destroyer capability in the size of a corvette. What I've been saying all along - that modern tech allows one to pack a bigger punch with a much smaller ship.

History is moving from Cruisers to destroyers to frigates to now corvettes. If we miss understanding this evolution of naval combat, we end up building giant sized blunders. Which is criminal for a navy with such a low budget, facing impossible odds.

Will PN continue to be blind? Will they keep building a conventional navy that is unable to meet the challenge when war comes? Appears to be so.

If Israel could build subsystems such as SAMs that can significantly increase its capability, why is Pakistan lacking? A clear insight into how incompetent and slow PN is where it matters.

Let's again focus on some big ship so big navy officers can gloat about it and float it around like a giant swan. Let's keep focusing on some MPA that will get shot down without adequate air cover, on platforms that are different from similar sized planes in the PAF. Wow, what professionalism this is, each service just buys willy nilly whatever it fancies, no sense of collective responsibility.

PN is missing the boat of constructing a local 1000 ton corvette, a veritable JF-17 of the seas. It is missing the boat of using UUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles) that can go target every Indian coastal base, putting IN on the defensive. It is missing out on meaningful deployment of UAVs. It is missing out on building an effective air cover. It is missing out on a strike aircraft that will divert Indian resources to the defensive, defending the South rather than attacking Pak.

Now, on 23rd March they will do their swan dance. Come next 1971 or 1965, they will be caught again with their pants down.

Victory for a nation does not come from copying and wearing fancy uniforms. It comes from a deep ideology and sense of self-respect. For Pakistan that is Islam, the reason for the Partition of India. It comes from being true to that deep ideology, not making a mockery of it by being wannabe goras and copy paste monkeys.
In terms of the corvettes, could go for a 'hi/lo' mix so to speak...e.g., a 1,000 to 1,500-ton low-cost ship with a steel superstructure with full multi-mission capabilities, and a 2,000-2,500-ton high-cost, low-RCS, low-acoustic, and low-thermal design with long-range SAMs. Agreed re: UUVs, especially AUVs primed to linger along territorial buffers, and on the first act of war told to go terminal against targets.
 
Not sure about 90 m and 1,900 tons, but I hope the Pakistan Navy designs and constructs a 2,000 to 2,500 frigate with similar capabilities (e.g., 16 AShM, 32 VLS SAM, 2x3 ASW LWTs, CIWS/PDMS, etc). Let's hope the Jinnah-class (MILGEM) leads us to this direction, and that too with additional radar and thermal concealment than current. @Rafi @Armchair @Tank131 @cabatli_53

There is very good news in the works, there are a few technical and as always financial hurdles, but if it does come to pass........there are also some development in start of negotiation for fleet SAM capability.
 
In terms of the corvettes, could go for a 'hi/lo' mix so to speak...e.g., a 1,000 to 1,500-ton low-cost ship with a steel superstructure with full multi-mission capabilities, and a 2,000-2,500-ton high-cost, low-RCS, low-acoustic, and low-thermal design with long-range SAMs. Agreed re: UUVs, especially AUVs primed to linger along territorial buffers, and on the first act of war told to go terminal against targets.

I believe the Royal Navy is currently following this plan for a 'hi/lo' mix of corvettes and frigates. I posted this in the Bangladesh Navy sticky thread. I will post the link.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/bangladesh-navy.168818/page-344#post-12061869
 
In terms of the corvettes, could go for a 'hi/lo' mix so to speak...e.g., a 1,000 to 1,500-ton low-cost ship with a steel superstructure with full multi-mission capabilities, and a 2,000-2,500-ton high-cost, low-RCS, low-acoustic, and low-thermal design with long-range SAMs. Agreed re: UUVs, especially AUVs primed to linger along territorial buffers, and on the first act of war told to go terminal against targets.

That would be interesting.

There is always a play between a well spread fleet and mass production. The US used mass production of ships to amazing effect in WW2. The idea is that, if you take a standard simple design, say (for argument's sake) a 1000 ton ship, which has air defense, anti-ship and anti-submarine capability, and you mass produce it for say, 20 units, the unit cost falls to half of what it would otherwise cost if one bought the ships for 5 units.

So, basically, you could end up at a cost of around 50-60 million USD per ship. Of course, the other side of the coin is that a variety of ships can give its own advantages.
 
That would be interesting.

There is always a play between a well spread fleet and mass production. The US used mass production of ships to amazing effect in WW2. The idea is that, if you take a standard simple design, say (for argument's sake) a 1000 ton ship, which has air defense, anti-ship and anti-submarine capability, and you mass produce it for say, 20 units, the unit cost falls to half of what it would otherwise cost if one bought the ships for 5 units.

So, basically, you could end up at a cost of around 50-60 million USD per ship. Of course, the other side of the coin is that a variety of ships can give its own advantages.
its not true... engine, air deffence missiles are very expensive
 
its not true... engine, air deffence missiles are very expensive

If you study Economics or Industrial Engineering, you will inevitably learn about something called "economies of scale". Good luck in your research.
 
If you study Economics or Industrial Engineering, you will inevitably learn about something called "economies of scale". Good luck in your research.
The 'ship' part can certainly be low-cost, even without a domestic industry.

Basically, you need to construct the hull and superstructure along commercial lines, i.e., as an OPV. The Damen OPVs the PN is getting likely cost about $50 to $60 m per ship (not including sensors and weapons).

These ships are comparatively lower-cost because they're not using design cues for low radar/acoustic/infrared signatures. So, they're fundamentally different from say the Sa'ar 6 or MILGEM, which do incorporate a range of design elements to make them 'stealthy' -- but also much more expensive.

However, the point of a low-cost corvette isn't to hide, actually, it's the opposite. It's meant to be shown in serious numbers, and for that you need to control the cost. The challenge isn't the hull or engines, but the electronics and weapons. This is where the low-end and high-end (e.g., Sa'ar/MILGEM) are fundamentally the same: cost of radars, anti-ship missiles, anti-sub torpedoes, surface-to-air missiles, etc are all identical.

If you don't know what you're doing, you could end up with a ship that lacks the 'stealth' benefits of the high-end corvettes, but only costs marginally less. In other words, you have to figure out a low-cost (but good enough) on-board weapons and sensor package to control the cost, but maintain capability.
 
The 'ship' part can certainly be low-cost, even without a domestic industry.

Basically, you need to construct the hull and superstructure along commercial lines, i.e., as an OPV. The Damen OPVs the PN is getting likely cost about $50 to $60 m per ship (not including sensors and weapons).

These ships are comparatively lower-cost because they're not using design cues for low radar/acoustic/infrared signatures. So, they're fundamentally different from say the Sa'ar 6 or MILGEM, which do incorporate a range of design elements to make them 'stealthy' -- but also much more expensive.

However, the point of a low-cost corvette isn't to hide, actually, it's the opposite. It's meant to be shown in serious numbers, and for that you need to control the cost. The challenge isn't the hull or engines, but the electronics and weapons. This is where the low-end and high-end (e.g., Sa'ar/MILGEM) are fundamentally the same: cost of radars, anti-ship missiles, anti-sub torpedoes, surface-to-air missiles, etc are all identical.

If you don't know what you're doing, you could end up with a ship that lacks the 'stealth' benefits of the high-end corvettes, but only costs marginally less. In other words, you have to figure out a low-cost (but good enough) on-board weapons and sensor package to control the cost, but maintain capability.


The idea that ships can be stealth, as you know, doesn't mean you can't see them on radar, simply shows a smaller radar signature. The stealthiness of a ship has some major components:
1. Emission
2. Cleanliness of the superstructure particularly the radar mast and other communication masts
3. Shape of the ship
4. Materials used (naval steel / aluminum / composites)

Emission
It doesn't matter if your entire ship is as stealthy as an F-22, if you emit, you become the guy in a dark room with a torch. Everyone and their dog can see you.
Emission control is difficult to manage for a ship as it has to scan a giant area with low frequency radar that can be picked off from thousands of kms away.

For our cheap 1000t corvette, we are hoping to use a simple AESA radar and leave out long range detection capability to off platform sensors.

Cleanliness of superstructure
With the large number of radars and antennas, ships provide a giant RCS particularly because the higher the mast and antennas, the far greater the detection by enemy ships and radars.

For our cheap 1000t corvette, a very clean superstructure is possible as we are essentially proposing using a multimode AESA radar that would attempt to replace multiple type of radar and leave out added capabilities to offboard platforms. Again, a very stealthy and financially favorable choice.

If we tie in the radar as a related development to the radar of the JF-17, we may be able to find economies of scale and scope.

Shape of the Ship
RCS reduction is a great deal about shaping. Now, this shaping can be the same for a cheap or an expensive ship, shape has little to do with materials when we are discussing faceted corvette designs.

Materials
Even the US navy cannot afford to make its ships out of composites. Most Western navies use steel for their hulls and aluminum for their superstructure. This is a little more expensive than an all steel structure. There have been some ships designed as all aluminum structures and some smaller ships using composites.

But we can probably all agree either on a steel hull and aluminum superstructure or an all steel ship. Recently I learned how to cast aluminum and make my own backyard alloys using copper, zinc and Silicon. Its surprisingly easy and one can actually source aluminum from waster material like aluminum cans.

Interestingly, many ships and submarines use an alloy which is about 78 percent copper and 12 percent aluminum for their screws. Now, interestingly I am now able to make this metal and cast objects with it in my backyard. Here are some fun things I've found - 90 percent aluminum and 10 percent copper makes a very strong and light alloy.

Anyways I seem to have wandered off a bit. What I am trying to get at is that if we can source the aluminum superstructure from recycled aluminum, that may be a cheap way to go about doing it. Or one could go with an all steel structure. I don't really care much either way. Or one could go to the ship breaking industry in Pakistan and source aluminum or whatever else from old ships.

Bottom line

A light 1000 ton corvette with a clean mast, an AESA radar.
AShMs
A Camcopter type UAV helicopter
9x SAM
CIWS
Hull mounted and towed sonar (sonars have become increasingly more potent and smaller and cheaper in recent years)
armed UUV

You have an anti aircraft, anti surface and anti submarine capability in a small 1000 ton ship right there, with the capability of a destroyer from the 1980s.
 
There is very good news in the works, there are a few technical and as always financial hurdles, but if it does come to pass........there are also some development in start of negotiation for fleet SAM capability.
1607048674029.png


Good news in real sense would be heavy Frigate and Destroyer which have VLS to carry and fire long range cruise missiles. Also hopefully we would develop may be a naval version of Babur which has range of 1800 KM.
 
Back
Top Bottom