Top 10 Frigates

[Penguin]

Really then why not classify them as corvettes instead of having a New Hull Classification? An example can be made for admiral gorshkov , though the West classified it as an aircraft carrier. The Russian Term it as an Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser

Littoral combat ship (LCS) is a role description (for a type of ship not falling in traditional categories), the successor Small Surface Combatant (SSC) is a size descriptor and will result in a frigate. These are names given to US government ship programs. Likewise, the Dutch Zeven Provincien class frigate comes from the LCF program (Luchtverdedigings en commando fregat > air defence and command frigate). In a sense, the Danish StanFlex comes closer to LCS than any other, but this covers the systems carried and not so much the ship(s) themselves.

On what grounds would you classify the Freedom LCS or Independence as corvette? I.e. by what classification system?

Really then why not classify them as corvettes instead of having a New Hull Classification? An example can be made for admiral gorshkov , though the West classified it as an aircraft carrier. The Russian Term it as an Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser

On the basis of what criteria? LCS is a new type in that it can 'swing role' between MCM, fast patrol, ASW, ASuW, ISR, SpecOps, logistics etc. Due to its modular design, the LCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships such as minesweepers, fast attack/patrol boats, and larger assault and logistics ships. In a sense, the Danish STANFLEX is the closest analogy, but that switched hull rather than systems.

• Generally, a destroyer is considered to be a ship that has all of the sensors (including a sophisticated phased-array radar), combat systems, and weapons needed to operate in a high-threat environment.
• A frigate is generally the smallest surface combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment.
• Corvettes are generally the smallest platforms capable of accommodating the sensors, weapons, and combat systems needed to operate in a medium threat environment. Corvettes are sometimes referred to as light frigates (FFLs).

https://defence.pk/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-frigate-and-destroyer.33514/#post-474928
Originally from http://www.amiinter.com/nspd_sample.html (no longer exits)
Currently http://www.amiinter.com/pagex.php?pg=vesseltypes

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

Each Navy of the world designate/classify their ship differently.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Ships of like size, armament and mission are typically classified in accordance with other like class of other navies.

Others don't follow this rule. Norway's Skjold Class is classified as a Motor Torpedo Boat by some, but the Norwegians themselves classify it as a Corvette.

In the US these would be fast attack craft.

Same with the Hauk Class Patrol Boats. They are well armed for patrol duties and would be either motor torpedo boats or fast attack craft in any other navy. But in the Norwegian Navy they are patrol boats.

Likewise, the Nansen Class has been referred to both as a destroyer and a frigate.

There's no international class convention, but nations generally follow a similar template to one another.

Really then why not classify them as corvettes instead of having a New Hull Classification?

It's as much politics and budgeting as it is mission and capabilities.

Corvettes have a negative connotation in the US' budget halls. Smaller, less capable ships confined to near shore waters. Being a nation with global concerns, such a ship class doesn't seem to fit what the US needs internationally and budgeting is more difficult to secure as a result.

Littoral Combat Ship suggests the same thing as Corvette, but without classifying the ship as such and without admitting that's what the ship is.

It's an odd dynamic.

 

[GuardianRED]

Littoral combat ship (LCS) is a role description (for a type of ship not falling in traditional categories), the successor Small Surface Combatant (SSC) is a size descriptor and will result in a frigate. These are names given to US government ship programs. Likewise, the Dutch Zeven Provincien class frigate comes from the LCF program (Luchtverdedigings en commando fregat > air defence and command frigate). In a sense, the Danish StanFlex comes closer to LCS than any other, but this covers the systems carried and not so much the ship(s) themselves.

On what grounds would you classify the Freedom LCS or Independence as corvette? I.e. by what classification system?




On the basis of what criteria? LCS is a new type in that it can 'swing role' between MCM, fast patrol, ASW, ASuW, ISR, SpecOps, logistics etc. Due to its modular design, the LCS will be able to replace slower, more specialized ships such as minesweepers, fast attack/patrol boats, and larger assault and logistics ships. In a sense, the Danish STANFLEX is the closest analogy, but that switched hull rather than systems.

• Generally, a destroyer is considered to be a ship that has all of the sensors (including a sophisticated phased-array radar), combat systems, and weapons needed to operate in a high-threat environment.
• A frigate is generally the smallest surface combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment.
• Corvettes are generally the smallest platforms capable of accommodating the sensors, weapons, and combat systems needed to operate in a medium threat environment. Corvettes are sometimes referred to as light frigates (FFLs).

https://defence.pk/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-frigate-and-destroyer.33514/#post-474928
Originally from http://www.amiinter.com/nspd_sample.html (no longer exits)
Currently http://www.amiinter.com/pagex.php?pg=vesseltypes

The StanFlex + LCS is fascinating when a single hull can have a swing role via module weapons and sensor load. This does explain the need for the crew of the LCS to be qualified in multiple discipline, sensor and weapons system. Do you see such a system employed for the the IN?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Ships of like size, armament and mission are typically classified in accordance with other like class of other navies.

Others don't follow this rule. Norway's Skjold Class is classified as a Motor Torpedo Boat by some, but the Norwegians themselves classify it as a Corvette.

In the US these would be fast attack craft.

Same with the Hauk Class Patrol Boats. They are well armed for patrol duties and would be either motor torpedo boats or fast attack craft in any other navy. But in the Norwegian Navy they are patrol boats.

Likewise, the Nansen Class has been referred to both as a destroyer and a frigate.

There's no international class convention, but nations generally follow a similar template to one another.



It's as much politics and budgeting as it is mission and capabilities.

Corvettes have a negative connotation in the US' budget halls. Smaller, less capable ships confined to near shore waters. Being a nation with global concerns, such a ship class doesn't seem to fit what the US needs internationally and budgeting is more difficult to secure as a result.

Littoral Combat Ship suggests the same thing as Corvette, but without classifying the ship as such and without admitting that's what the ship is.

It's an odd dynamic.

Thanks, This also explains the Russians for their Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser ! . Also i'm fascinated by the kuznetsov having 12 AShm under her flight deck ! Not ur traditional aircraft carrier!

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

Thanks, This also explains the Russians for their Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser ! . Also i'm fascinated by the kuznetsov having 12 AShm under her flight deck ! Not ur traditional aircraft carrier!

No problem. It's also why this is both an Aircraft Carrier and an Amphibious Assault Ship.

And why there's a muddled difference between a Battlecruiser and Guided Missile Cruiser.

it all depends on who you ask.

Thanks, This also explains the Russians for their Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser ! . Also i'm fascinated by the kuznetsov having 12 AShm under her flight deck ! Not ur traditional aircraft carrier!

And then there's Kiev, A.K.A floating apocalypse.

Honestly, I think Baku was more intimidating before its conversion in the IN.

This does explain the need for the crew of the LCS to be qualified in multiple discipline, sensor and weapons system.

This is also because there's too few people to have dedicated teams for certain tasks.

We'll see the same on Zumwalt with its high degree of automation and small crew.

Zumwalt has a compliment of 140 sailors.

It's 30 feet longer then a Ticonderoga class cruiser which has a compliment of 410.

More people means a greater ability to specialize roles.

 

[GuardianRED]

No problem. It's also why this is both an Aircraft Carrier and an Amphibious Assault Ship.

And why there's a muddled difference between a Battlecruiser and Guided Missile Cruiser.

it all depends on who you ask.


And then there's Kiev, A.K.A floating apocalypse.


Honestly, I think Baku was more intimidating before its conversion in the IN.




This is also because there's too few people to have dedicated teams for certain tasks.

We'll see the same on Zumwalt with its high degree of automation and small crew.

Zumwalt has a compliment of 140 sailors.


It's 30 feet longer then a Ticonderoga class cruiser which has a compliment of 410.


More people means a greater ability to specialize roles.

Thanks for the Explanation, except for the Kiev .A.K.A floating apocalypse. If i decide to be Blofled tomorrow. it would be the Deathstar of the Seas - The Kirov!

 

[Penguin]

The StanFlex + LCS is fascinating when a single hull can have a swing role via module weapons and sensor load. This does explain the need for the crew of the LCS to be qualified in multiple discipline, sensor and weapons system. Do you see such a system employed for the the IN?

I think the experience is that in practise swing-roling is much less easily accomplished than in theory. Also, Stanflex/swingroling leads to a situation where you have comparatively fewer hull, but lots of weapons/systems containers or 'mission payloads' of which only relatively few are used at any given time (i.e. that makes it expensive). But StanFlex does allow for a lot of commonality between very different shiptypes. For modular approach, MEKO is top of the bill.

Thanks, This also explains the Russians for their Aircraft carrying Heavy Cruiser ! . Also i'm fascinated by the kuznetsov having 12 AShm under her flight deck ! Not ur traditional aircraft carrier!

Designed originally for 'bastion'-defences for SSBNs. Interestingly, the Chinese have not adopted anything similar in their ex-Varyag/Liaoning and thus far it does not appear to be the case either with their first domestically built 'clone' (Chinese members: I use that term loosely, don't get all excited: pic show the new carrier to not differ in the hull, possibly later only/mainly in island structure).

 

[GuardianRED]

I think the experience is that in practise swing-roling is much less easily accomplished than in theory. Also, Stanflex/swingroling leads to a situation where you have comparatively fewer hull, but lots of weapons/systems containers or 'mission payloads' of which only relatively few are used at any given time (i.e. that makes it expensive). But StanFlex does allow for a lot of commonality between very different shiptypes. For modular approach, MEKO is top of the bill.


Designed originally for 'bastion'-defences for SSBNs. Interestingly, the Chinese have not adopted anything similar in their ex-Varyag/Liaoning and thus far it does not appear to be the case either with their first domestically built 'clone' (Chinese members: I use that term loosely, don't get all excited: pic show the new carrier to not differ in the hull, possibly later only/mainly in island structure).

Does the 001A have larger Elevators and Hangar openings? Seeing plenty of pics where is J15 is a too large of an aircraft to maneuver easily on the liaoning

 

[Penguin]

Does the 001A have larger Elevators and Hangar openings? Seeing plenty of pics where is J15 is a too large of an aircraft to maneuver easily on the liaoning

Did those pics include folded wings? Nose and tail cone can also fold.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/comme...khoi-su-27-flanker-russias-eagle-killer.html1

With deckedge elevators, though, it is not a problem if the aircraft sticks out over the outside elevator edge a bit, as seen here: http://globalmilitaryreview.blogspot.nl/2013/09/chinese-j-15-flying-shark-naval-fighter.html

Likewise Kuz.

Mig-29 v Su-27

 

[Blue Marlin]

In both tonnage, armament and mission (standard loadout, not including special missions payloads like Griffin or Hellfire for surface warfare) the United States Navy's Littoral Combat Ships are essentially heavy corvettes in everything but their name.

Freedom more-so than Independence.

The Ada Class of Turkey is 1000 tons lighter, but its armament and mission are identical to the LCS. It's classified as a corvette.

China's Type 056 is even lighter then either Ada or Freedom, but it too holds to the same mold as the above.

In both tonnage, armament and mission, India's Kamorta Class best parallels the LCS.

Like Littoral Combat Ships, as their name implies they were designed for close to shore operations, Corvettes excel in this domain as well.

The LCS as it is right now is a Heavy Corvette in everything but name. Future developments will enlargen the design and up-arm it, turning it into a frigate.

i sence there is a fox upon us.
@Vergennes what do you think.

 

[Penguin]

F/A-18E Super Hornet on CVN elevator

RA-5 Vigilante (compare to elevator pit)

A-5 Vigilante

• Length: 23.32 m
• Wingspan: 16.16 m
• Height: 5.91 m

A-3 Skywarrior

• Length: 23.27 m
• Wingspan: 22.10 m
• Height: 6.95 m

As compared to Su-33

• Length: 21.94 m
  
• Wingspan: 14.70 m
  
• Height: 5.93 m

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

RA-5 Vigilante (compare to elevator pit)

Fun fact. The RA-5 Vigilante was the failed F-108, with a few wing modifications of course. The A-5 doesn't retain the F-108's delta design.

Developed to escort the XB-70, after that program was cancelled due to rising cost and dwindling necessity, rather then junk the F-108's airframe, it was converted into first a bomber then a recon aircraft and thus the Vigilante was born.

Massive aircraft, but seeing as how the airframe was designed to be a fighter, it's also surprisingly agile.

 

[Penguin]

Fun fact. The RA-5 Vigilante was the failed F-108, with a few wing modifications of course. The A-5 doesn't retain the F-108's delta design.

Developed to escort the XB-70, after that program was cancelled due to rising cost and dwindling necessity, rather then junk the F-108's airframe, it was converted into first a bomber then a recon aircraft and thus the Vigilante was born.

The North American XF-108 Rapier was a proposed long-range, high-speed interceptor aircraft designed by North American Aviation intended to defend the United States from supersonic Soviet strategic bombers. The aircraft would have cruised at speeds around Mach 3 (2,013 mph; 3,240 km/h) with an unrefueled combat radius over 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi), and was equipped with radar and missiles offering engagement ranges up to 100 miles (160 km) against bomber-sized targets.
To limit development costs, the program shared engine development with the North American XB-70 Valkyrie strategic bomber program, and used a number of elements of earlier interceptor projects. The program had progressed only as far as the construction of a single wooden mockup when it was cancelled in 1959, due to a shortage of funds and the Soviets' adoption of ballistic missiles as their primary means of nuclear attack. Had it flown, the F-108 would have been the heaviest fighter of its era.
During the early 1950s, the USAF proposed a very high-performance, long-range interceptor. On 20 July 1955, formal development of what became known as the Long-Range Interceptor, Experimental (LRI-X) was approved, planned as a F-102 Delta Dagger/F-106 Delta Dart replacement. The specification was laid down on 6 October 1955. Political and budgetary difficulties led to the cancellation of the program on 9 May 1956. After considerable confusion, the program was reinstated on 11 April 1957 with North American awarded a contract for two prototypes. The designation F-108 was issued. From September 1958, substantial engineering and design changes were implemented; however, SAC had lost interest in the escort fighter concept. On 30 December 1958, YF-108A preproduction aircraft on order were reduced from 31 to 20 test aircraft and the first test flight was delayed from February to April 1961. The eventual design, which was built as a full-sized XF-108 mockup, was displayed to Air Force officials on 17–20 January 1959. Cancelled (1959)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XF-108_Rapier

(R)A-5 Vigilante
First flight 31 August 1958
Introduction June 1961
Retired 20 November 1979
The North American A-5 Vigilante was a carrier-based supersonic bomber designed and built by North American Aviation for the United States Navy. Its service in the nuclear strike role to replace the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior was very short; however, as the RA-5C, it saw extensive service during the Vietnam War in the tactical strike reconnaissance role.
In 1953, North American Aviation began a private study for a carrier-based, long-range, all-weather strike bomber, capable of delivering nuclear weapons at supersonic speeds. This proposal, the North American General Purpose Attack Weapon (NAGPAW) concept, was accepted by the United States Navy, with some revisions, in 1955.A contract was awarded on 29 August 1956. Its first flight occurred two years later on 31 August 1958 in Columbus, Ohio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-5_Vigilante

Actually, I think the Vigilante predates the Rapier....

F-108 Rapier would have been even larger than Vigilante.

• Length: 27.2 m
• Wingspan: 17.5 m
• Height: 6.7 m

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

Actually, I think the Vigilante predates the Rapier....

Even as the XF-108 program was progressing well, there were signs that would ultimately lead to its eventual cancellation. Unconfirmed Soviet bomber threats, the overwhelming trend toward offensive and defensive nuclear missiles in the late 1950s and early 1960s, as well as rising costs, contributed to the termination of the XF-108.The cancellation was announced on 23 September 1959.

North American continued refining the design through 1960 in hopes that the program might be revived. Despite the extra money and time spent on the Rapier, it was not wholly in vain; the North American A-5 Vigilante supersonic reconnaissance bomber developed for the U.S. Navy retained the fuselage/weapon package and systems design of the Rapier. In many ways the Vigilante could be seen as the successful application of the Rapier design principles in a Mach 2 supersonic design.

The Rapier came first. Many of its design elements, including its fuselage are found in the A-5.

XF-108

A-5

The info's from the same F-108 Wiki article you posted.

 

[Penguin]

Does the 001A have larger Elevators and Hangar openings? Seeing plenty of pics where is J15 is a too large of an aircraft to maneuver easily on the liaoning

See pic above: I think not as regards elevators. Possibly more internal hangar space.

Su-33 in Kuznetsov

 

[Olaf One-Brow]

There were some big aircraft operating off carriers back in the day. Next to the A-5, the A-3 was another 70+ footer.

I always thought the A-6 was large until I saw it next to the A-3.