What's new

What's next warship designs for Vietnam Navy in future?

In the Saar 5 upgrade, the 64 cell Barak 1 was replaced with a 16 cell Barak 8. The MF / STAR was specifically designed for Barak 8.
What happened to the 2x4 Harpoon and 2x 4 Gabriel AShM fit?
Where are the (much longer) VLS for Barak 8 fitted?
 
That could be done, but the whole idea for that type of ships is to be small and fast.

question is how much bigger can you make it without hindering those attributes to much.


thinking add about 8 meters in length and tonnage to 800 tonnes.
 
The Buyan-M is a very nice ship, personally, I like it a lot, but Vietnam checked it out and rejected it because it was designed for the Baltic (If I remember correctly) and it will not be able to handle the rough waters of the South china sea..
Interesting, since they (the Vietnamese) DID take the smaller 1241.8 Molnya/Tarantul.
Displacement: 480 long tons (488 t) standard, 540 long tons (549 t) full load
Length: 56.0 m (183.7 ft)
Beam: 10.5 m (34.4 ft)
Draught: 2.5 m (8.2 ft
 
What happened to the 2x4 Harpoon and 2x 4 Gabriel AShM fit?
Where are the (much longer) VLS for Barak 8 fitted?

I don't think they changed the anti ship missiles at all.

The Barak 8 goes in the same place as the Barak 1 but they can only fit 16 because they can only use the deeper center line of the ship.

Interesting, since they (the Vietnamese) DID take the smaller 1241.8 Molnya/Tarantul.
Displacement: 480 long tons (488 t) standard, 540 long tons (549 t) full load
Length: 56.0 m (183.7 ft)
Beam: 10.5 m (34.4 ft)
Draught: 2.5 m (8.2 ft

I know but that's what they said, there were many in the Viet navy that really like the Buyan-M.
 
question is how much bigger can you make it without hindering those attributes to much.


thinking add about 8 meters in length and tonnage to 800 tonnes.
Nanuchka is about 560 long tons (569 t) standard, 660 long tons (671 t) full load > 12 Yakhoint
 
question is how much bigger can you make it without hindering those attributes to much.


thinking add about 8 meters in length and tonnage to 800 tonnes.

Yeah, that may be enough.

Nanuchka is about 560 long tons (569 t) standard, 660 long tons (671 t) full load > 12 Yakhoint

When it comes to anti ship punch per ton, the Nanuchka is tops, absolutely tops.
 
There're some humors about next warships designs for Vietnam Navy.
Also there're demonstration of France, South Korea, UK ... frigates, even destroyers. Don't forget Japan and India nice ships. @Nihonjin1051

Let's make our analysis for which is suitable to Vietnam need, including the intergrated weapon system.

Shivalik
Indian+stealth+frigate+INS+Shivalik+visits+Vietnam+2.png


20454d1271933114-ins-shivalik-project-17-shivalika.jpg


Gowind L'Adroit
OPV_GOWIND_HERMES_005.jpg

HMS Daring
type45viet_kienthuc_01_cgox.jpg


Choi Young
Choi_Young_%28DDH-981%29_cropped.jpg




Next time: Procure 2 Destroyers. Add some 'umpft' to the Surface Fleet.
 
Next time: Procure 2 Destroyers. Add some 'umpft' to the Surface Fleet.

2 destroyers make no difference at all. A dozen would, but there is no money for that and it would still be a challenge for them to survive, they would require a whole fleet and a whole ecosystem such as a good surveillance network of satellites, AWACSs, MPA / ASW aircraft, etc, etc. 3 dozen Nanuchka ships would be more cost effective.
 
That's a nice system too, but myself, I like the Israeli combo.

Saar 5-class corvette upgraded with MF / START & Barak 8. 1400 tons ship.
View attachment 198618
The same one with three AESA panels forward plus one rearward-facing aft.
View attachment 198619

Would be nice. And a three way production of Barak 8s between India, Israel, and Vietnam.
 
2 destroyers make no difference at all. A dozen would, but there is no money for that and it would still be a challenge for them to survive, they would require a whole fleet and a whole ecosystem such as a good surveillance network of satellites, AWACSs, MPA / ASW aircraft, etc, etc. 3 dozen Nanuchka ships would be more cost effective.

2 destroyers could serve as the command ships for the Vietnamese Navy. And I agree with you that a direct confrontation is never and should never be a strategy , but focused on defense and surveillance. Vietnamese maritime concerns also needs to focus on her southern flank, and excessive concern on China is taking resources necessary for her southern quadrant.

A confrontation with China is close to 0% now, and Vietnam should take advantage of this by adding more heavy surface fleet ships. Afterall, i am in the position that a considerable naval force is as much as a deterrent to conflict as much as it will increase surveillance and situational awareness for one's territory.

Future anti-piracy responsibilities outside Southeast Asia / Pacific should also be considered. Vietnam as well as many nations in Southeast Asia need to look beyond their direct spheres. Especially as their economies expand.
 
more than destroyer, Vietnam need OTHT platform like MPA and ASW aircraft. ASW helo is fine though their number (currently in Vietnam services) and endurance is insufficient to covering the large swath of South China Sea
 
more than destroyer, Vietnam need OTHT platform like MPA and ASW aircraft. ASW helo is fine though their number (currently in Vietnam services) and endurance is insufficient to covering the large swath of South China Sea
or maybe fast missile boats armed with sophisticated radar and anti-ship missiles could hide well between Spratly rocks. Hit and run tactics.
 
The ship's main dimensions are named in the types itself
SIGMA 9113 means length of 90.71m, beam of 13.02m and draft of 3.60m. Displacement 1,700t
SIGMA 9813 means 97.91m in length by 13.02m wide. Draught 3,6m. Displacement 1950 tons.
SIGMA 10513 means 105.11 meters in length by 13.02 meters wide. Draught 3.6m. Displacement 2185 tons
SIGMA 10514 means 105.11 meters in length by 14.02m wide. Draught 3,7m. Displacement 2365 tons

110abo.jpg


Deck height is 2.75m. Depth 2-deck is 6m. I see a max. of 3,5 decks depth available for weapoms accommodation: i.e. about 9.6m, plus a bit because a) depth 3-deck will be larger than 3x 2,75 and b) some protrusion above deck. Which might just fit the Russian Universal VLS

Universal%20launcher%20of%20vertical%20launching%20S%20-143_02.jpg



url
355110.jpg


By comparison, Russian project 20385
20385provornyy.jpg


Onyx/Yakhont on the Gremyashy (Project 20385).
picturebbb1.png


Type: Project 2038.5
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 343 ft (104.5 m)
Beam: 36 ft (11.0 m)
Draught: 12 ft (3.7 m)

Vietnam version of Sigma-class:
2,150 ton
Length: 99.91m
Beam: 14.02m
Draught: 3.75
sigma_kienthuc%20(3)_jmks.jpg
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom