Jump to content
tanknet.org

Fincantieri's Ffg(X) Entry


Recommended Posts

Interesting that they had to add about 300 tons of steel to the Italian design to meet the USN's survivability standards. I take it that there's no NATO standard for this sort of thing?

 

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/07/05/fincantieris-fremm-frigate-design-bulks-up-for-the-us-ffgx-competition/

 

interesting read.

 

i wonder how the aluminum hull based on the Independence class meets those same requirements?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is famously good at damage control - to the point that the RN sent people to be trained by the USN in damage control post-Falklands war. Look at the difference in outcome between Sheffield and Stark.

 

Sheffield, a Type 42 destroyer displacing almost 5,000 tonnes, is hit by a single Argentinian-fired Exocet and is lost.

 

Stark, an Oliver Hazard Perry frigate displacing 4,100 tonnes, absorbs two Iraqi-fired Exocets and survives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Agree on the differences in environmental conditions, but its worth looking a bit deeper into some other stats.

 

Stark had 21% of its nominal complement killed (37 of 176), with a further 12% injured. According to para 2.5 of the JAG report (https://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20STARK%20BASIC.pdf), the second Exocet (which detonated) severed a fire main junction, disabling the port fire main.

 

Sheffield had 7% of its complement killed (20 of 287). Damage to the fire main is absolutely unlucky.

 

Im not saying one crew is better than the other, just that the smaller of the two ships was hit by two of the same type of missile, losing a greater proportion and number of its crew, and survived. That Stark wasnt in a declared war zone - and was presumably less prepared than Sheffield - is also of interest.

 

Both crews fought and endured horrific conditions. Thankfully both navies learned from the experiences.

Edited by 2805662
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

 

Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]

 

Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not knocking what the crew of the Stark achieved, but did one of the missiles knock out the main water main, preventing fire fighting, as happened on Sheffield? I don't think so. The Sheffield also sank in heavy seas under tow to South Georgia, days later. The Stark was operating in a relatively calm and confined area of ocean.

Also, the warhead on the Stark did not detonate. Modern opinion is, the war head on the Sheffields Exocet in fact did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Sheffield_(D80)

The initial Ministry of Defence (MOD) Board of Inquiry on the sinking of Sheffield concluded that, based upon available evidence, the warhead did not detonate.[17] However, some of the crew and members of the task force believed that the missile's 165 kilograms (364 lb) warhead had detonated.[12] This was supported by a MOD re-assessment of the loss of Sheffield, which reported in summer 2015. In a paper delivered to the RINA Warship Conference in Bath in June 2015, it was concluded that the Exocet warhead did indeed detonate inside Sheffield, with the results supported by analysis using modern damage analysis tools not available in 1982 and evidence from weapon hits and trials conducted since the end of the Falklands campaign.[18]

 

Id REALLY like to read a copy of that if anyone has one handy....

The warhead on Stark*s **first** Exocet didnt detonate, the second Exocets warhead did.

 

Hadn*t seen the study you mention to: thanks for that.

Edited by 2805662
Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally most powerful damaging force in Exocet was leftover fuel as it started very hard to extinguish fires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Exocet had a better fuzing system, then things may have taken a different course.

There were so many things that could have gone wrong with the Falklands War. Honestly in retrospect it is mildly surprising that the British won. Better bomb fusing would have changed everything, for instance.

Edited by Brian Kennedy
Link to post
Share on other sites

A contributor to Rapier's shortcomings was the abbreviated prep. It had been planned to conduct test firings at Ascension to check reliability, but there was no time.

 

There was no time at the other end to test and maintain them before they were needed, so some were below par.

 

There is a reason why a very large part of weapon system development is focussed on reliability growth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape).

 

I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many what if's from the Falklands. What if we fitted Phalanx? What if Atlantic Conveyor didnt get hit? What if we had put a life extension on Ark Royal (alright, very unlikely it could have done, but Eagle was in good shape).

 

I guess the most important what if would be, what if we had adopted RIM 66, instead of developing our own, largely ineffectual, ship based missiles like Sea Dart? I guess politically that was impossible at the time.

 

What if the Argentinians had offered to buy the islands?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...