Our proud stealth frigates fleet now fully operational
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
an all composite ship must be pretty expensive isnt it ?
Not necessarily. GFRP is a common ship building material and technique. I'm not sure about the exact costing difference, but the pervasion of GFRP (Fibreglass) in small leisure craft hulls will be an indication that either it's (i) outright cost isn't too bad vis. wood/metal costs or (ii) lifecycle cost is actually less than wood/metal hulls.
-
Main justification for use of fibreglass in military ships is that it is non-magnetic. That's why its mainly used for minehunters.
The formidable FFGs are made from steel.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Not necessarily. GFRP is a common ship building material and technique. I'm not sure about the exact costing difference, but the pervasion of GFRP (Fibreglass) in small leisure craft hulls will be an indication that either it's (i) outright cost isn't too bad vis. wood/metal costs or (ii) lifecycle cost is actually less than wood/metal hulls.
i see.
i heard from someone before that GFRP glass fibre reinforced plastic is ok for smaller vessels but not larger ones.
difficulty in joining and putting together large chunks to form a hull for vessels of a certain size. which dosent give much cost savings over steel for larger vessels but its generally cheaper for small vessels.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
i see.
i heard from someone before that GFRP glass fibre reinforced plastic is ok for smaller vessels but not larger ones.
difficulty in joining and putting together large chunks to form a hull for vessels of a certain size. which dosent give much cost savings over steel for larger vessels but its generally cheaper for small vessels.
The reason is simple but Kotay must have missed it. Steel rust. Glass fiber reinforced plastic doesn't. Ever seen a Rusting ship? Go find pics of abandoned Russian ships. Rusting like mad.
-
Originally posted by kotay:
Wow F_N! Very authoritative statements couched in very strong terms ... except that you seem to be indulging in sensationalistic rhetoric rather than realistic analysis ...
"There was a Norwegian mine hunter that was an all composite ship and the end result after a fire was the ship literally burnt itself out to ashes very very fast"
Gee, "burnt itself out to ashes" indeed ... let's look at a picture of the salvaged wreck of the HNoMS Orkla ...
Hardly burnt to an ash is it?
The accident report on the fire on the Orkla attributed the fire and resultant sinking to ...- Poor understanding of Composite ship building requirements and technology by the Norwegian shipbuilding industry. The Atla Class was the first ever composite ship constructed by Norwegian shipyards. The fast buildtime between vessels of class meant that no error feedback was obtained to rectify the intrinsic errors in the design that led the fire and sinking.
- Poor maintenance and design in the Lift Fan Room led to the cause of the fire.
- Unprotected flammable soundproofing materials were installed in the LFR, which was classed as a non-fire hazard area. This provided fuel for the fire to set.
- Failure in the Hydraulics system further flash fed the fire, providing even more fuel for the fire to set.
- Failure to classify the LFR as a fire hazard area also meant that the composite material there was not treated with a flame retardant/protectant.
- Failure of the shipboard fire fighting pumps led to a period of loss of water pressure for ~10mins when the fire fighting was critical.
- Flaw in design of superstructure (lack of reinforcements) contributed to failure of vessel and ultimate sinking.
Quite unlike the simplistic picture painted where if you build a GFRP vessel, heavens help you if it burns. FYI, almost all MCMVs are pretty much built of GFRP or composites. Our guys in the Bedok class must be crapping their pants now. Or are they? After all, according to the report you so kindly posted, a british minesweeper suffered and engine room fire that blazed for a few hours but didn't sink? Instead of headlining and sensationalising "Composites are combustible", why didn't you tell us of the incident, just a few pages further?
To quote your report ... "Because composites are such good insulators, fires often don’t spread to adjacent compartments. When a British minehunter suffered an engine room fire that lasted several hours, fuel that was in a composite day tank failed to ignite."
In reality, composites can be made safer by a variety of treatment and construction methods. While they may not as good as Steel with regards to Ship Board Fire and Damage Control, the risk may be outweighed by considerable benefits to vessels such as MCMVs and other small, stealth focused vessels. Besides, there are already plenty of fire & smoke hazards on a ship ... wire cladding materials, POLs, paints, furniture padding, crew personal effects, etc to be just focusing on composites as the root of all evils.
On an aside, I think it may be worth considering that the RSN/Mindef/DSTA may have weighed the cost/benefits and decided that ... the better SBF&DC benefits of steel outweigh the stealth benefits of a composite structure. Rather than that composites are fire hazards and to be avoided at all cost ... after all we do operate 4 Landsort/Bedok MCMVs.Obviously you must have missed the part where I mentioned the Visby had a fair number of fire retardation methods to make sure it doesn't catch fire. But yeah, in your bid to find fault in what I wrote, you decided to cherry pick what I wrote. I said it was a bad idea and I stand by it. Not to mention, none of the above fires involved rocket fuel with oxidizers which most anti-ship missiles have and that burns really really hot.
Also, to nit pick, doesn't "Fire" go out when it has sank into water? The ship burnt a huge hole in the hull and sank before the fire spread across the entire ship. Obviously it wouldn't burn all to ashes. The engine room definitely did reduce itself to nothing.
It also does not change the fact that composites are combustible ON THEIR OWN. Which is why I mentioned the Visby example and to further expand that, there are water vents at the side of the helicopter hanger to put out any fire due to fuel leaks etc. on the hanger deck.
And you give too much credit to people working in DSTA to know what the fuck really goes on there and you definitely have no fucking clue as to what goes on there. So shut the fuck up. The only thing what DSTA Is good for is to compare this and that without knowing the technical specifics. If they even need a morsel of help, they have to run to DSO to get an education.
With regard to the Bedok ship, I will believe it when I see the data reports on
1. The temperature tolerance of the composite material
2. How thick is the material
But wait, I don't think you have those don't you?
Another bone to pick with you on sensationalising issues. "You do realise that for all that stealth, when the ship is rocking away in uneven waters, or when water is splashing about, the RCS goes up by a few orders of magnitude." You do realise what is an order of magnitude right? A mutiple of x10. A Formidable giving a radar return of a fishing boat ... that's about an order of magnitude. A Formidable going up 1 magnitude, looks like a non-stealthed Formidable. A Formidable going up 2 magnitudes, looks like an aircraft carrier. A Formidable going up 3 magnitudes, looks like the world's largest Super-Tanker. Since you said "a few" OoM, I'd assume you meant 3 or more OoM. Really now? I know this is sgforums where a lot of crap gets thrown around. But really, if you want to sound authoritative, don't sling so much BS lah. Care to tell us what you realy understand about Radar Signals, RCS, RCS-SM issues in high Sea States and how a ships radar return actually gets amplified by a few order of magnitudes in high sea states? Quite a few people, including myself, are quite interested to know.
I'm sorry, but obviously I was talking in terms of a hyperbole. It doesn't change the fact that water splashing around increases the RCS. Now, assuming you wish to go continue burning strawmans away, by all means. I'm not interested in talking to an idiot who goes around "sensationalising" issues himself. ALso, it is also obvious you are exaggerating all the above since short of encasing the ship in ice, there's no way the a frigate far less than the size of a Nimitz would ever have an RCS of a Nimitz.
-
I think I know what you're getting at now. That rough seas will bounce the boat around, exposing more of its surface to radar. Is that right?
I was not thinking in terms of RCS alone but rather the clutter from rough seas, as well as the already low RCS. In that, the frigate might still not be easily detected as the operator still has to adjust radar gain to compensate for rougher seas.
This is a paragraph I found off the net that probably knows more about sea clutter than I do.
The significant increase in sea clutter reflectivity in rough seas with strong winds, together with relatively small radar cross section (RCS) of small boats (e.g., yachts, ski boats, and rigid inflatable boats (RIBs)), has often been blamed for disasters at sea where large ships collided with these small boats [7]. In certain cases, the marine radar could not discern the boat signature from the clutter, while in other cases there were too many false tracks established leading to the subsequent disabling of the automatic tracker.
http://www.hindawi.com/GetArticle.aspx?doi=10.1155/2008/347518&e=html
Hence, its not all about the ships RCS, but the reflectivity of rough seas as well.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
I'm not sure about what modes you're talking about. I've messed around with civilian surf search radar only.
Longer wavelengths = longer distanceShorter wavelenths = shorter distance
As far as I understand, shorter wavelengths also throw up more clutter but is also more likely to pick up small craft.
The radar is not confined to just one mode.....each mode has its abilities and disabilities.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
Obviously you must have missed the part where I mentioned the Visby had a fair number of fire retardation methods to make sure it doesn't catch fire. But yeah, in your bid to find fault in what I wrote, you decided to cherry pick what I wrote. I said it was a bad idea and I stand by it. Not to mention, none of the above fires involved rocket fuel with oxidizers which most anti-ship missiles have and that burns really really hot.
Me Cherry Pick ... ? I beg to differ. Let's pick apart your entire post shall we?
You laid out your stand quite succintly, right from the start, by stating that "Actually composites for a ship is a very very bad idea". When there are actually a lot of ships/boats out there built out of composite materials. Yes, Fibreglass is a GFRP and a composite. There are shipping standards for GFRP constructed vessels ... imagine that standards for bad ideas?
You then sensationalised your claim by pointing out an example of a Norwegian minesweep (Orkla) that "literally burnt itself out into ashes very very fast." Missing the point totally that the design flaws in the Orkla was what contributed to it burning and sinking. Not really because it was a composite per se. Let's not even mention the allusion that the ship burnt into ashes when in reality only a section of the hull was burnt out. Or that in one of your cited sources, there was an example of a composite minesweeper that survived an engine fire for several hours ... where the properly treated composite material was cited as a factor in containing the fire.
You then contrasted that with the Visby where the "Swedish put in a lot of effort to make sure the Visby has a lot of fire retardation". This as a follow on statement to the Orkla which seems to make it that you are implying that Composite ships have to go through extraordinary lengths to be safe. FYI, even Aluminum/Steel used in Ship Building have to be fire proofed using intumescent coatings or fire proof insulation. So what is so extraordinary about composites having to be flame proofed? Fire proofing of composite materials is a standard process for all composite vessels. The Orkla suffered from poor design, the Visby is implementing good design ... nothing extraordinary about that.In case you try to argue that fire proofing for steel is easier, the USN is dissatisfied with the weight required for fire proof cladding material/blankets for fire proofed steel. They issued a request for alternatives and noted that current lightweight, spray-on passive flame retardant materials do not work for steel apliques, they work pretty well for GFRP surfaces.
Then the final non-sequitur, "when it gets hit by a anti-ship missile, all that rocket fuel with oxidizers is simply going to burn the ship up." All ships regardless of composite/aluminum/steel construct are going to be in trouble if it gets hit by an AShM with leftover fuel. HMS Sheffield burned merrily despite being an all-steel construct.
Your second post continues along the same vein,
Your first line is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black ... "Notice one of the first few lines on the article: Composites are combustible." What about just a few pages later where an example was cited of the British Minesweeper (HMS Cattistock)? So who's cherry picking now?
I'm not even going to go into the rest of the 2nd post. "Keep the composites out of the superstructure" ... so composites for the engine room is okay now? After all your cautionary rhetoric of the first post?
You go around making grand claims in a very authoritative tones, and when called to put up, you backtrack, qualify your statements as being "clearly hyperbole", bluster and get abusive. Purlease ... sounds like you're a sock puppet for someone.Also, to nit pick, doesn't "Fire" go out when it has sank into water? The ship burnt a huge hole in the hull and sank before the fire spread across the entire ship. Obviously it wouldn't burn all to ashes. The engine room definitely did reduce itself to nothing.
Nitpick all you want, it doesn't change the fact that a lot of shipboard fires, even on steel ships have reduced the compartments to nothing ... a twisted mess basically. What does that tell us about your attempt to convince a lay audience with smokes and mirrors?
It also does not change the fact that composites are combustible ON THEIR OWN. Which is why I mentioned the Visby example and to further expand that, there are water vents at the side of the helicopter hanger to put out any fire due to fuel leaks etc. on the hanger deck.
Yes, composites in raw state can burn .. but so can a lot of materials including all fixtures and fittings (and these are the main fire hazards). The issue with material safety for shipbuilding is not just combustability but also the materials ability to limit the spread and prevent growth of the fire. Untreated steel, likewise, fails in both regards due to the temperature on the backwall going above the flashover point of attached fittings/fixutres. So steel needs to be treated. Composties need to be treated. So untreated composites burning is a be-all and end-all to ship fire safety? Good thing you don't write building codes.
And you give too much credit to people working in DSTA to know what the fuck really goes on there and you definitely have no fucking clue as to what goes on there. So shut the fuck up. The only thing what DSTA Is good for is to compare this and that without knowing the technical specifics. If they even need a morsel of help, they have to run to DSO to get an education.
With regard to the Bedok ship, I will believe it when I see the data reports on
1. The temperature tolerance of the composite material
2. How thick is the material
But wait, I don't think you have those don't you?
Gee ... that speaks for itself doesn't it. You know best, with no credentials, no proof, no data ... and when asked for proof, turn it around and ask others to show proof? Dude, you made the claim in the first instance.
Yeah .. throwing in a few choice swear words is going to intimidate others enough to make them back down.
I'm sorry, but obviously I was talking in terms of a hyperbole. It doesn't change the fact that water splashing around increases the RCS. Now, assuming you wish to go continue burning strawmans away, by all means. I'm not interested in talking to an idiot who goes around "sensationalising" issues himself. ALso, it is also obvious you are exaggerating all the above since short of encasing the ship in ice, there's no way the a frigate far less than the size of a Nimitz would ever have an RCS of a Nimitz.
Since we're talking about technical issues, it may be prudent not to engage in too much hyperbole. Given the supercilious tone in your post, please then continue to treat me like an idiot.
Oh great and all knowing F_N ... please explain how much the RCS actually gets expanded by in rough seas and how that is so, amidst all the increased random noise from whitecaps.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
And you give too much credit to people working in DSTA to know what the fuck really goes on there and you definitely have no fucking clue as to what goes on there. So shut the fuck up. The only thing what DSTA Is good for is to compare this and that without knowing the technical specifics. If they even need a morsel of help, they have to run to DSO to get an education.
dude.. be nice, that was really uncalled for.
kotay happens to be the resident wise old man of the other local milnut forum. his knowledge of military stuff is really formidable
this isnt meant to rub anybody right or wrong way. its just stating a matter of fact
so lets be civil about our discussions. its not as if we are talking about lionnoisy.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
dude.. be nice, that was really uncalled for.
kotay happens to be the resident wise old man of the other local milnut forum. his knowledge of military stuff is really formidable
this isnt meant to rub anybody right or wrong way. its just stating a matter of fact
so lets be civil about our discussions. its not as if we are talking about lionnoisy.
Old my ass. :p
MN'ers will tell you I'm the resident clown and that I come to sgforums to indulge in a bit of looser posting standards. ;)
But yes ... I'd like to deal in facts.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Longer wavelengths = longer distanceShorter wavelenths = shorter distance
As far as I understand, shorter wavelengths also throw up more clutter but is also more likely to pick up small craft.
The radar is not confined to just one mode.....each mode has its abilities and disabilities.
R u referring to the radar wavelength band?
Shorter wavelengths also suffer from more attenuation to atmosphere, hence the range is also significantly shorter. Longer wavelengths are less subject to attenuation, but don't have the resolution that shorter wavelengths can offer. Hence, its back to the same problem thats not all due to the waves, but how the machine displays the return signal as a visual indication to the man.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
With regard to the Bedok ship, I will believe it when I see the data reports on
1. The temperature tolerance of the composite material
2. How thick is the material
But wait, I don't think you have those don't you?
Ask and you shall be given ... go download ASM International's Handbook - Vol 21 Composites. It contains 2605 pages of on the various composites used for manufacturing. You tell me what the composition of the Bedok/Landsort Hull is and you will (most prob) find the specs in there.
The USN uses a GFRP with a Vinyl Ester Resin (0.25in) with a Balsa Core (3.0in) - total 3.5in. Kockums Landosrt/Bedok material composition is supposedly a proprietary mix but if you can tell me what it is, I'm sure you can extrapolate from the ASM Handbook.
For comparison, the 0.25in untreated mild steel typically used in shipbuilding for internal structure has a UL-1709 Back Face temperature (@ 30 min) of ~730 deg C. It's UL-1709 Time to Failure is <1 minute. Which is why I said that untreated steel has no fire mitigation property. An untreated steel wall does not stop the spread of fire, even if it is itself non-combustible. Make the effort to fireproof steel and you will be putting in as much if not more effort compared to fireproofing composites.
This is not an argument that composites are more fire proof than steel. It's just a clarification that Composites are not as bad as you make them out to be.
-
''In the past, for instance, it would have taken several minutes with many crew members involved to accurately track and determine the best way to deal with potential threats detected by the vessel's sensors in the air, on the surface and underwater.
Now, thanks to sophisticated sense-making systems incorporated in the indigenously developed Combat Management System (CMS), this process has been cut down to mere seconds, shared COL Giam.''http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/publications/cyberpioneer/features/2009/feb09_fs.html
4 More
@@@@@2
how the frigate deal with exhaust and smoke ?
can u see the smoke or the image edited?
i read that the infra red lights is used.
also,in a separate news,ST Marine?? use a new paint to reduce
ship temperature by few degree.
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:Same ole' useless crap
And who summoned the moron to post in here? -
Originally posted by lionnoisy:"blah blah blah"
what is the purpose of this post ?
-
how the frigate deal with exhaust and smoke ?
can u see the smoke or the image edited?
Sorry, but if i can see the ship's smoke and exhuast, wouldn't the ship be in my visual range as well already ??? -
Throw in the confiscated cigarettes at the checkpoints into the diesel boiler, then funnel the exhaust within the ship into a compartment.
Attract the Orchard Road and Bugis Ah Bengs to sign on in the navy and promise them free smokes.
Put them in that compartment. =D
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Throw in the confiscated cigarettes at the checkpoints into the diesel boiler, then funnel the exhaust within the ship into a compartment.
Attract the Orchard Road and Bugis Ah Bengs to sign on in the navy and promise them free smokes.
Put them in that compartment. =D
cannot leh dude !
how do we draw a yellow-box then ? no yellow box = no smoke.
so i conclude that to see smoke from the frigates, we must put yellow boxes around them.
-
Just repaint the Helipad from white to yellow can liao lar ...
-
future frigate and corvette from ST Marine,displayed in
Asia Aerospace 2006 .There is no need spend billions of dollar
to buy steath ship.
below--top--''' Tiger Shark, a future frigate design, and the 'Blue Shark'
, a future corvette design''--ST Marine
http://www.sgforums.com/forums/1164/topics/208699
AA 2006
-
re photo above--ST Engineering Shapes New Dimensions At Asian Aerospace 2006
''Network centric, stealthy platforms - indigenouslly designed naval platforms, such as the 'Tiger Shark', a future frigate design, and the 'Blue Shark', a future corvette design.''
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=927
if u think ST is jus a copy cat,then pl tell me where is the source..
-
Corvette also can have mini-helipad ah?
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Corvette also can have mini-helipad ah?
Sg always do things not according to the books.
BTW,why we shall follow the books?
Some one like wear a big hat and call some new platform a funny name.
NVM the name,the effectiveness counts!!
ST said:
ST Engineering Shapes New Dimensions At Asian Aerospace 2006
''Network centric, stealthy platforms - indigenouslly designed naval platforms, such as the 'Tiger Shark', a future frigate design, and the 'Blue Shark', a future corvette design.''
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=927
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
Sg always do things not according to the books.
BTW,why we shall follow the books?
Some one like wear a big hat and call some new platform a funny name.
NVM the name,the effectiveness counts!!
ST said:
ST Engineering Shapes New Dimensions At Asian Aerospace 2006
''Network centric, stealthy platforms - indigenouslly designed naval platforms, such as the 'Tiger Shark', a future frigate design, and the 'Blue Shark', a future corvette design.''
http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=927
Doust villian, have thee flown here?
in pursuit i follow, to the ends of my hair
a corvette and helipad
you say are there
green frogs on lillypads
sprout out from you hair
spammeth not, O king trashtalkalot
i am an autobot, pwn youalot.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Corvette also can have mini-helipad ah?
Can.I forgot which country. But I think there's at least one country using the corvette based on the same MCV as ours with helipad.