stealth ship

[Crumz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1215022,00.html
Dose anyone have any info on this? Pics maybe?

[Uncle Sam]

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/corvette.jpg

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/20020811180744.jpg

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/images/visby4.jpg
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/images/Visby_10.jpg
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/index.html

[budanski]

Nice looking ships. Too bad they won't be invisible to submarines which would be the ones sinking them. p-)

[BlackRain]

Arsenal Ship


Arsenal ship was a joint Navy / DARPA program to acquire a moderate cost, high firepower demonstrator ship with low manning as soon as possible.

The Arsenal Ship was planned to restore the naval support of the land battle, the modern day equivalent of the firepower that battleships provided during World War II and in Korea.

The plan was to produce the demonstrator ship for initial operational capability (IOC) by the year 2000. Based on successful demonstration, a total force of four to six Arsenal ships would be funded. The goal was to develop an Arsenal Ship (AS) functional design by the end of FY97. This timeline from concept design (FY96) through fabrication (FY00) represented half the development time of previous naval vessels of this complexity.

The Arsenal Ship would contains four times the VLS cells found on a CG-52 class ship, have a fixed unit sailaway price of $450 million, and a life-cycle cost 50% less than that of a naval combatant.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal2.jpg


But in early 1997 the House National Security Committee concluded that the Arsenal Ship and the SC-21 were two separate major warship development programs, and that the cost of carrying out two such programs would be unaffordable, while the requirement for both had been validated by the Secretary of Defense.

On 24 October 1997 the House-Senate conference committee on the FY1998 Defense Authorization Bill on refused additional funding for the Arsenal Ship. With only $35 million appropriated, the Navy needed an additional $115 million to sustain the program. That day the Secretary of the Navy announced that the program would not be pursued. Some of the design work has been incorporated into the SC-21 and DD-21 program.

On 01 December 1997 the National Defense Panel report criticized the cancellation of the Arsenal Ship, noting that the ship could have reduced the need for aircraft carriers.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/arsenal_72.jpg

Armament 500-cell Vertical Launch System (VLS)
Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAMs)
Army Tactical Missile System

Crew ~~ 50; designed to be highly automated
Design Low radar signature ("stealthy")
double hull
possible length 500-800 feet
Estimated Number Six vessels
Cost $500-800 Million each
missiles will cost ~~$500 million

[perdurabo]

Visby good good
looks a bit like Skjold

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Nice looking ships. Too bad they won't be invisible to submarines which would be the ones sinking them. p-)
The Visby class have a low acoustic signature and if running quiet they would be very difficult to detect amongst the surface noise of the Baltic if the sub was using passive sonar. Using active sonar the sub would only red flag its own position to every anti-sub unit in the area.

[budanski]

Nice looking ships. Too bad they won't be invisible to submarines which would be the ones sinking them. p-)
The Visby class have a low acoustic signature and if running quiet they would be very difficult to detect amongst the surface noise of the Baltic if the sub was using passive sonar. Using active sonar the sub would only red flag its own position to every anti-sub unit in the area.

How do they eliminate that pesky wake?

[Tane Angle]

Here's my one problem-where are the .50 cal mounts? Can they be set up when near shore/port?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

How do they eliminate that pesky wake?
Lower speeds for starters they may have masking but since its a water jet drive they may not need it at a low rate of knots as they can sometimes be very quiet at low revolutions and I suspect the Visby has great sound proofing.
It will be a lot quieter than your folks shrimp boat. :)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm

[budanski]

Lower speeds for starters they may have masking but since its a water jet drive they may not need it at a low rate of knots as they can sometimes be very quiet at low revolutions and I suspect the Visby has great sound proofing.
It will be a lot quieter than your folks shrimp boat. :)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/prairie.htm
We keep our shrimp boats in dock to avoid detection. p-)

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Here's my one problem-where are the .50 cal mounts? Can they be set up when near shore/port?
Mmm..dunno there does not seem to be any visable fixtures for near shore defence, what irks me is that most of the littoral combat ships either launched or on the the drawing board are of composite construction and do not seem to have a great deal of armouring for ships working close to shore and within range of 20-30mm weapons or the longer range anti tank weapons.