| Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Old new again; second-hand bargains | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 3 2005, 06:31 AM (8,065 Views) | |
| israeli | Aug 3 2005, 10:34 PM Post #11 |
![]()
|
speaking of second-hand vessels that should be considered by the PN, i suggest that the Navy re-open negotiations with France for the possible purchase/transfer of four to six D'Estienne D'Orves (A-69) class corvettes.![]() ![]() from Opus' website: D'Estienne d'Orves (A-69) Class Corvette Offered for lease by France. Displacement: 1,100 tons Length: 262.5 ft. Speed: 23.3 knots Range: 4,500 miles at 15 knots Endurance: 15-20 days Armament: 4x MM-40 or 2x MM-38 Exocet anti-ship missiles 1 100mm Model 1968 gun 1 Simbad surface-to-air missile system (2 Mistral missiles) 2 20mm Oerlikon cannons 4 torpedo tubes for L3 or L5 ASW torpedoes Noted for being very economical and seaworthy. Designed primarily for coastal anti-submarine and patrol missions. 17 entered service with the French Navy, 2 more were built for South Africa but were embargoed and sold to Argentina, which ordered 1 more. All were built between 1972 and 1983 and France has been slowly retiring them. There was a plan to outfit two of the class with helicopter facilities but this was not implemented. To date France has 10 remaining in service. Six of those retired were sold to Turkey, reportedly for US$60 million, plus an additional US150 million for refit and modernization. According to Jane's Fighting Ships 2000-2001 ships of this class were offered for lease to the Philippine Navy but they have not been taken up. The Model 1968 100mm gun has a maximum effective range of 15km against surface targets, 8km against aircraft. Rate of fire is 78 rounds per minute. The entire mount weighs 22 tons. The MM38 Exocet carries a 165kg warhead at Mach 1 over a range of 42km. The MM40 Exocet has a range of 65km, uses a lighter launcher, incorporates improved seeker and electronics counter-countermeasures technology and better sea-skimming ability. |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| GKB02 | Aug 4 2005, 12:29 AM Post #12 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
sadly erap and his pals were still in power
|
![]() Golden Knight Battalion | |
![]() |
|
| possible | Aug 4 2005, 02:03 AM Post #13 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
israeli: is it possible to obtain those A69s from Turkey? or is that impossible since Turkey is an OIC member? :aberet: entertaining posts as always, horge. too bad you didn’t read mine before writing it. first of all, my only two caveats are that the possible acquisitions posted here be a. second-hand and b. suited to Philippine requirements, there is no “c. they must be technically OPVs”. again, this thread is a take-off from what I and others posted about second-hand ships on datu’s OPV thread, not a continuation of the topic on OPVs. feel free to post about amphibious transports, submarines and any type of naval vessel on this thread, but please do read the previous posts first: “though the Ulsan is technically a frigate”? – horge, you didn’t even read the first word of the first sentence of the first paragraph after the pics of the first post, please, a little less condescension and a lot more analysis, my friend. second: “neat pointy stuff”? – uhm, what neat pointy stuff? do you see any pointy stuff as in missiles on those Korean ships pictured, horge? again, if you had bothered to click the link to datu’s thread, you’d have instantly seen that none of the ships I posted mounted SSMs, in fact I suggested removing the SAMs on the Italian MINERVA-class to make room for a helipad. speaking of “making room”: prudence dictates that any candidate second-hand combat vessel have room for or be fitted for SSMs should a need for the latter be perceived later (ergo the ORKAN upgrade sidebar), but prudence also dictates that it is more important to obtain hulls than weapons at this time...which reminds me: “export restrictions on sensitive defense articles are presumed waived” - have you read the SEA WOLF thread? I presume the same considerations would apply here, since this thread is also about second-hand vessels - regardless, pics and posts are there to be seen and read, horge, not mistaken for ornaments. third: “Philippine OPV's…are perhaps best served by a CODAD or possibly a CODAG propulsion arangement ---to allow slower speeds for a longer haul, and a better chance of at-sea repair of less-involved technology” – my previous choices, the Italian MINERVA and CASSIOPEA and the Spanish DESCUBIERTA have CODAD or COmbined Diesel And Diesel propulsion, whilst the Korean vessels have CODOG or COmbined Diesel Or Gas propulsion which is better than CODAG or Diesel And Gas since at high-speed the diesels are shut down (unlike CODAG) leading to smoother gas turbine/transmission/propeller shaft operation and zero diesel fuel consumption, vice-versa for slow speeds. again, obviously you didn’t read. fourth: “I'd rather build an OPV…Those ARE available on the world market” – way ahead of you there, horge, obviously you (again) didn’t read my little analysis on the other thread about the Irish ROISIN-class OPVs, how the Mauritians got an identical design for 1/3 what the Irish spent simply by building their unit in a non-European/North American shipyard, the ROISIN design is available from Aker of Finland along with a truckload of other commercial-standard OPV designs, there’s also an account of the ROISIN rescuing that Canadian sub in terrible weather, also that little find about this German FAC design adapted by the Taiwanese into a fisheries patrol vessel. and please note the question: “does the PN still need to look at brand-new combat vessels?” – I for one do not consider an OPV a combat vessel, obviously I have no objection to obtaining bnew (cheap) OPVs but equally obviously I do not hold the same view with regard to bnew frigates, corvettes, and other combat vessels (seen the F-16 ADF thread?) fifth: “a short discussion on whole-life cost…one of the most expensive warships to build might be a CVN” – horge, a short discussion on relevance: obviously, the through-life costs of a nuclear aircraft carrier is no fit basis of comparison for the through-life costs of a sub-2,000 ton corvette or light frigate, given that the former has at least 50 times greater displacement, has 50 times the manning requirement, assuredly several orders of magnitude larger fuel consumption (uranium and aviation fuel for the embarked air wing), and is undoubtedly many, many, many x more complex in terms of mechanical, electrical and electronic systems (nuclear reactor, steam catapults, elevators, piping for on-deck aircraft refueling, flightdeck management system able to handle multiple/simultaneous aircraft landings and take-offs, ad infinitum…) – obviously, the figures for a CVN would be "skewed" by the peculiar requirements of a CVN in comparison to a corvette. again, not an objective – as in, ceteris paribas – basis for comparison, find something else…here, this one’s closer… sixth: “a thing is what it does” – absolutely right, a thing is what it does, not what it’s called. the Italian MINERVA and the Spanish DESCUBIERTA are called corvettes or light frigates but that should not imply tired-old traditional labels such as “corvettes…are designed for both speed and lethality”, since these are diesel-powered vessels with comparatively low top speed (means they have endurance as a design factor) and are roled for ASW escort (means seakeeping built-in), whilst the Korean vessels as indicated in the (insert) about conditions in Korean seas are purpose-built for more than the usual share of wave battering, though usually employed in Korean coastal waters, Korean coastal waters are exposed to the effects of the Arctic and Siberian weather systems not to mention extreme tides (trivia that MacArthur used to his advantage at Inchon) and are thus more comparable locally to the waters around Batanes and the Eastern Philippines than to, say, the generally-benign waters around Manila Bay, which is to say that, obviously, the Korean vessels would have no problems straying deep into our EEZ should the necessity (“anyone adrift on the ‘laot’”?) arise. and as also pointed out, they have the option of turning-off their gas turbines and switching to diesel for economy. bottom-line: both European and Korean types are very much capable of the “offshore patrol” task you described, in fact the DESCUBIERTA-class are at present assigned to patrol the Canary Islands in the Atlantic, 100 kms off Africa and 1100 kms away from Spain. again, see earlier posts. this is a forum for exchanging ideas and your ideas are very much welcome, horge, but again, please, share them with a little - ok, a lot less condescension and a lot more prior reading next time. |
|
War. What is it good for?--James Brown What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner Only the intelligent are brave. | |
![]() |
|
| datu | Aug 4 2005, 02:22 AM Post #14 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Manokski said:
Makes alot of sense. The US did forced-retire alot of 60s era ships during the 90s, including the CFAdams, Farragut destroyers. So the guns from them would be ideal. Any more information on this project, especially why it was cancelled i.e. funding, military machismo wants all new hulls, closure of the bases? horge said:
For visual purposes the USCG has something similar in thier new Maritime Security Cutter, Large and their Offshore Patrol Cutter, basically , a helo deck and a RHIB launch and recovery area behind it. ![]() ---the helicopter deck cant be seen entirely but is this what you had in mind? |
|
"F*ck it, Dude. Let's go bowling." ---The Big Lebowski | |
![]() |
|
| GKB02 | Aug 4 2005, 02:29 AM Post #15 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
didnt we buy the skematics(im not sure whats it called??) of the then peacock class corvettes?? sir possible how much would it cost the PN for a locally built ship, possibly from FBMA inc. of that class of ship? im not much Knowledgeable about specific ships specs, so could you give an example on the "FBMA corvette" tnx... |
![]() Golden Knight Battalion | |
![]() |
|
| possible | Aug 4 2005, 03:31 AM Post #16 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
datu, whatever happened to "out of the question"? sheesh, heto lang pala
guess I don't read my own links too ![]() GKB02, don't call me "sir", i'm not in the military. don't know about FBMA, but i hope this helps CONTINGENCY PRODUCIBLE CORVETTE (PDF file!) the idea is to design a warship that can be built as cheap as cheap can be, so that as many as possible can be made in as many shipyards as possible, civilian yards included - as in, a mass-produced ship. the point is to quickly build ships that can guard the US mainland in an emergency, while the US Navy's major vessels are off to the frontlines. |
|
War. What is it good for?--James Brown What's love got to do with it?--Tina Turner Only the intelligent are brave. | |
![]() |
|
| GKB02 | Aug 4 2005, 03:38 AM Post #17 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
ok thanks
|
![]() Golden Knight Battalion | |
![]() |
|
| datu | Aug 4 2005, 06:10 AM Post #18 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whats out of the question? |
|
"F*ck it, Dude. Let's go bowling." ---The Big Lebowski | |
![]() |
|
| horge | Aug 4 2005, 06:44 AM Post #19 |
|
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
datu, Hi. Not quite, but almost close enough. Many thanks for the graphic. possible, I do not have time right now to figure out exactly what in my last two posts were so personally offensive to you, so I have removed them in toto to avoid dragging this thread down... although Manoks' quote of the first is still up there. I'll try to be brief, though it may sound as if I am being curt (not so!). I had differentiated between your proposed vessels' concepts and mine (by the builders'/users' own designations, actually, so no attack there) to beter define my proposal, while noting that your vessels could obviously be pressed into OSP missions. I then described qualities I thought appropriate/unavoidable for my proposal, not yours. CODAD and other features, greater displacement, non-confrontational appearance, attached helo and IB assets, etc, whether or not they are common (as they must be) to other vessel classes. I had no graphics to aid me, hence graphic descriptives like 'ugly' (opposite 'pretty'), and 'pointy things'. You effectively understood what components I meant via 'pointy things', and it was in the context of defining my proposal (particularly the hostile-appearance-politics of the high seas) that my descriptives were made, not in the context of commenting on yours. ---- The second post's RAND cite was addressed primarily to Manoks. I felt he'd echoed my desire for a lower tech-level applied to a merch-hull OPV. The RN internal, RAND and Thales papers on the CVF programme have parts directly relevant to tech-level: attempting a high degree of automation to reduce complement size and cost. However the studies suggest no change in the breakdown of overall whole-life vessel cost! I thought he might be interested in that general near-paradox of technology-vs.-complement-cost-reduction (and thought other readers likewise, in the general idea of whole-life accounting). A 'flattop' is certainly worlds apart from a 'fig', but I did not perceive the thread to be restricted in relevance to your proposed vessel-types, or mine. The principle of offship costs being substantial remains. Besides, you never know, someone could summon the willie to propose a CVN here: THAT would be entertaining, though still a fair venture for discussion. Thread topics can digress a little in their course, and you'll never get 100% agreement with your ideas. More importantly, not everything posted on this thread is going to be commentary/critique upon your proposals. If you view posts that way, it is possible to see in them negative criticism, dismissive non-acknowledgement, or condescension towards you and yours. Not the case here at all. Causing anyone distress is furthest from my intent. Entertainment certainly charts very close, though. . |
![]() |
|
| israeli | Aug 4 2005, 05:07 PM Post #20 |
![]()
|
possible: France still has 10+ Type A-69 corvettes with them. if we really intend on getting them to equip the Navy, then we can start negotiations with the French. who knows? we might get those A-69s equipped with four MM40 Exocet SSMs, one twin Simbad SAM launcher for two Mistral missiles and other stuffs. ![]() more photos of D'Estienne D'Orves (A-69) class corvettes from netmarine.net: http://www.netmarine.net/bat/avisos/destie...ves/photo08.htm http://www.netmarine.net/bat/avisos/destie...ves/photo11.htm http://www.netmarine.net/bat/avisos/evjacoub/photo02.htm http://www.netmarine.net/bat/avisos/cdtducui/photo04.htm |
| "To secure peace is to prepare for war." - Carl Von Clausewitz | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic » |











![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





8:33 AM Jul 11