Monday, March 24, 2025

Visby As The Model

ComNavOps has frequently cited the Swedish corvette Visby as the model for future WARship designs based on the extreme (compared to current standards) radar stealth of the ship.  Radar stealth, while not the be all and end all of WARship design, is, without a doubt, the minimum price of admission to the modern naval battlefield.  Stealth, alone, won’t guarantee success or survival but the absence of stealth will guarantee failure and destruction.  Visby is the only existing, functional high stealth WARship that I’m aware of.  Yes, there are other experimental prototypes that claim high stealth (Sea Shadow, for example) but they aren’t functional WARships – they’re experiments that emphasize one attribute not the entire WARship package.
 
What does it mean to call for Visby as the model for future US Navy WARship design?  Well, it doesn’t mean to make an exact copy and just add a hundred feet of length – though that would likely produce a much better ship than what we have now!  What it means is to take the conceptual attributes of the Visby and incorporate them into a clean sheet design.  However, even that is not the end of it.  Visby, while decently (not great) equipped and armed for a corvette, lacks many attributes that a high end WARship will need for the future naval battlefield.  So, what should we take from Visby and what do we need to add? 

 
Visby


Stealth – Visby’s radar stealth is due in large measure to its angular, uninterrupted shape with very few protuberances.  Compare Visby’s look to our latest Burkes and the Constellation and you’ll instantly see just how obsolete the Burkes and Constellations are in this regard.  They’re jokes and will stand out on the battlefield like the radar beacons they are.  Several decades ago, the Burke was notable for its stealth but that time is long since passed.
 
Electromagnetic Stealth – Radar stealth is not enough, by itself.  We need extreme emissions control across the entire spectrum.  Not a single stray electron can be emitted if a ship hopes to survive.  Visby may or may not have this – I suspect not.
 
Acoustic Stealth – This is how you gain a degree of immunity from submarines.  A ship cannot allow any avoidable noise to escape.  Note that this likely means downgrading other attributes such as speed (no giant waterjet trumpets – looking at you, LCS).  I have no idea to what extent, if any, Visby has this.
 
Visual Stealth – This is an ignored aspect and we need to incorporate modern coatings and processes (electrochemically reactive coatings, for example).  Old fashioned camouflage, adapted to disrupt optical seekers, is necessary and we’re not talking about the idiotic, crew-designed camo schemes on the LCS.  Visby does not have this, at all.
 
Infrared Stealth – Modern ships cannot emit a significant infrared signature.  Active cooling systems are mandatory and engine exhaust must be significantly cooled even is this means downgrading performance (underwater exhaust, for example, which creates backpressure and decreases engine performance).  The current nuclear washdown systems, adapted to infrared cooling, would be a good start towards heat signature management.  Non-heat absorbing coatings and materials should be developed.  Visby does not have this.
 
Weapons Density – We’ve talked at length about the extremely sparse weapons density on modern ships and Visby is as guilty of this as anyone.  We need to load the new ship with weapons appropriate for its size and purpose.  To offer one ballpark example, no major WARship should sail without a minimum of 8 close in weapon system (the Burkes have 1 – what a joke).
 
UAV – We’ve talked at length about ships needing to be able to operate many dozens of small, stealthy UAVs for situational awareness.  This means the ship needs a small catapult/launcher of some sort, a recovery mechanism, and storage for many dozens of UAVs.  Visby has no such capacity.
 
Electronic Warfare – Todays EW is a joke.  We need ten times the capacity, antennae, power, and sensitivity of existing SLQ-32/SEWIP systems.  We also need to emphasize offensive/active EW, not just detection and defensive.  Again, this means output power.  Visby does not have this.
 
Optical/Passive Sensors – To emit is to die.  The modern WARship’s sensors must be optical/passive and incorporate automated search/tracking and fire control … in other words, an optical/passive Aegis system.  Visby does not have this.
 
Range of Weapons – The modern trend towards nothing but VLS missiles is idiotic.  Naval warfare demands flexibility which demands a wide range of weapons.  The modern ship needs missiles, of course, but it also needs large caliber guns (appropriate for its size and role), medium caliber guns, and small caliber guns, heavy torpedoes, ASW RBUs, small anti-drone weapons, lasers (because, they’re just around the corner of being ready, right??), etc.  Visby does not have this to an effective degree.
 
 
Conclusion
 
It is obvious from the preceding discussion that Visby is the only logical starting point for modern WARship design but it is not the end point.  It lacks many of the required attributes for a survivable, effective WARship.  Think of the Visby as the USS Monitor - it’s a great first step towards a truly modern WARship but nowhere near the end product of the required development.

66 comments:

  1. Visual stealth. The latest example of the CV90120 T uses the BAE ADAPTIV camo system called "ghost", that claims to make the vehicle invisible to thermal and visual imaging. Made up of small tiles that can be heated or cooled to match the surrounding area. Might be worth looking into as part of the total camo/stealth package.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't aware of that one. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. The adaptive tiles are actually quite simple. Tiles that so the same thing can be bought for less than a dollar per square inch tile. It uses the thermoelectric effect. Put electricity through the tile and it generates a temperature difference; hot on one side and cold on the other. If you subject the tile to a temperature difference then the tile will generate electricity. Of course I don't actually have any inside knowledge about the product but thermoelectric tiles are well known and are really the only device that could realistically be used

      Delete
  2. Your weapon density is going to take a hit in the holy trinity of ship design when you need the ship to self deploy, or based on the size aviation asset you decide to / need to employ. Keep in mind Visby is finally getting an AAW missile at the cost of its unused aviation capacity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Your weapon density is going to take a hit in the holy trinity of ship design"

      You say that and yet we managed to achieve heavy density of weapons in WWII while retaining speed and range. How do you account for that since you seem to believe it's no longer possible?

      Delete
    2. Using your logic I'll point out weapon density is even greater on the U.S.S, Constitution. The answer is because we live now not then, and the tech needed changes. For one, the entire premise of your article. Stealth takes space and weight that could have been other things. Same with C4ISR.

      Delete
    3. "I'll point out weapon density is even greater on the U.S.S, Constitution."

      Thanks. You're making my point for me!

      "The answer is because we live now not then"

      No, the answer is because we've forgotten how to design WARships. Now, we design cruise ships with a few weapons as an afterthought.

      "the tech needed changes."

      The tech changes but the requirements for a WARship - high weapon density - do not.

      "Stealth takes space and weight that could have been other things. Same with C4ISR."

      Everything takes space and weight. You figure out what you MUST have and then you design a ship that can fit it. For example, crew comforts are not a must have; weapons are.

      Delete
  3. So, agree with this to a large extent- but, I wonder about the true effectiveness of the stealth shaping, and how much it will matter (radar absorbents, are a different, seemingly vital part of this). Looking at even the Visby- the sharing is to mainly avoid detection by what?? Seaborne radar? (another ship) High altitude airborne radar? Low altitude airborne??
    It just seems to me theres no way to shape a ship that would do well Vs one, without becoming a huge failure Vs the others. Seems like its a matter of picking the biggest threat, optimizing against it, then shrugging off the rest.
    Now, about sound, visual, and thermal stealth, just, yes....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ship radar stealth is one of the great unknowns. There's just no public information about detection ranges as a function of stealth.

      You bring up the excellent question of who/what the stealth is directed towards. Any slanted surface, regardless of degree of slant, is a slab-sided, right angle reflector against a radar source at the perpendicular angle. It seems to me that ships have been optimized against low angle airborne radars such as an aircraft at a great distance ... but who knows?

      I would think that by the time two ships are close enough to detect one another on radar (the radar horizon), stealth won't matter much since you're within visual range.

      Great question. Sorry I have no definitive answer.

      Delete
    2. Im going to try and do a lil research on what angles are being used on current US ships, and see if we can't get at least a high-school level answer... a quick, rough attempt using (admittedly imprecise) methods showed that Zumwalt, Burkes, and trimaran LCS (I can never remember which is which, lol) showed a big spectrum of angles, which of course translates to huge variance in what radar altitudes would register a "hit"... Im going to keep fiddling with this next couple days, because I'm genuinely curious...

      Delete
    3. "research on what angles"

      What you'll instantly realize is that you can use the slanted side of a ship - the Zumwalt, for example - to project a perpendicular line outward which is the line of maxium detection (being perfectly perpendicular to the ship's superstructure). With that, you can then use the Pythagorean Theorem to calculate altitude/distance for an airborne radar source that would have maximum detection capability of the ship.

      What comes of all that is that at extreme ranges, you realize that radar sources, even at high altitudes, are more or less horizontal (30,000 ft alt, 50 miles from the ship, is probably just barely over the horizon due to the curvature of the Earth), thus making the slanted sides effective at reflecting radar away from the source. Of course, when the radar source gets close enough to intersect the perpendicular line, then the ship is at its least stealthy but, by then, both ship and aircraft have probably long since seen each other.

      Reading over what I just wrote, it's confusing but I can't think of a better way to describe it without using figures to illustrate. Let me know if you have questions.

      as the base of a right triangle. From that, using the Pythagorean theorem, and constructing a perpendicular line from the base, you can then simply calculate the distance and altitude of a radar source (airborne) that would have maximum detection of the ship.

      Delete
    4. Thanks... I understand the concept as you'd described, and it won't be difficult. I'd been hunting for some hard numbers on the angles used on the ships, but finally am just using published blueprints and overlaying with a protractor, LOL...
      What's interesting is the wide spread of angles used- from roughly 11° to 25°- which, out at range, is a pretty big spread of detection altitudes. Which makes me wonder- are the specific slopes chosen by the Navy with specific detection threats in mind, or are they a generic attempt to "let's add slope", which is ultimately determined by the internal volume (or lack of) required to meet ship equipment requirements??? Likely somthing qe will never have a dependable answer to, but, still makes me wonder!!!

      Delete
  4. A big advance would be hybrid diesel-electric engines like the US Navy already has on its ocean surveillance ships. Maybe it can only propel the ship at 8 knots on only electric, but:

    1. Back up in case the main engines are out.

    2. Can go quiet with far less heat and noise when needed, like when approaching shore at night. Or if missiles or torpedoes are inbound.

    3. Can kick in with the other engines for a bit more emergency speed.

    4. Great for sub hunting to run quiet.

    This is great for near shore ships like corvettes as I once suggested.

    https://www.g2mil.com/LCS.htm


    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't these requirements contradict each other since offensive EW means radiating and thus revealing your position?
    Electronic Warfare – Todays EW is a joke. We need ten times the capacity, antennae, power, and sensitivity of existing SLQ-32/SEWIP systems. We also need to emphasize offensive/active EW, not just detection and defensive. Again, this means output power. Visby does not have this.

    Optical/Passive Sensors – To emit is to die. The modern WARship’s sensors must be optical/passive and incorporate automated search/tracking and fire control … in other words, an optical/passive Aegis system. Visby does not have this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Don't these requirements contradict each other since offensive EW means radiating and thus revealing your position?"

      Offensive/active emissions are used when the enemy has already located you and missiles are inbound. At that point, radiate to the max!

      Delete
  6. One sweeping solution to the problem of stealth is the simple policy of "buy submarines".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The USN could do with some SSK.

      But the USN is in the 'sea control' business. Submarines are a tool of 'sea denial' . Submersible ships don't seem to work as an idea.

      Delete
    2. Agree build more subs, nuke and conventional. Maybe we should try something new like a semi submersible design. Just throwing it out there.
      Another aspect of warship design and stealth that most forget about is size. Smaller ship, smaller area to detect. You have ships in a lot of the worlds Navies that are approaching cruiser size, but called destroyers or frigates (EU). I've served on Gearing/Sherman/Adams class. A Gearing was 3400 ton / 390 ft LOA. ( a true semi submersible in anything but flat calm seas, they could be pretty wet.) Adams class 4500 ton / 437 ft LOA. Burke Flt 3 around 9700 tons / 509 ft. Compare that to the Virginia class CGN at 11,600 tons / 586ft LOA. you're starting to get cruiser size ships that are "destroyers". Smaller single purpose ships should be what the Navy should be looking at. Every ship does not need to be an aircraft carrier. (can't see how you make a hanger / door stealthy.

      Delete
    3. "One sweeping solution to the problem of stealth is the simple policy of "buy submarines"

      Nothing wrong with submarines and we should have more of them but sometimes you want to launch aircraft, board ships, launch amphibious assaults, conduct surveillance and all the other things that only a surface ship can do.

      Come on, you know this.

      Delete
    4. "The USN could do with some SSK."

      You (and everyone!) need to be cautious about calling for SSK. While they certainly have their uses and advantages, they also come with significant drawbacks. For example, they would require and entire new supply/support/logistics organization. Do the benefits justify that kind of support expenditure? Maybe ... it all depends on what the CONOPS is - something the Navy adamantly refuses to develop.

      I'm fairly ambivalent about SSK for the US Navy.

      Delete
    5. "(can't see how you make a hanger / door stealthy."

      How to make a stealthy carrier would be a fascinating post. I may have to do that.

      For example, a stealthy carrier wouldn't have conventional hangar doors and external aircraft elevators. They would be completely internal, opening momentarily at deck level to load/unload the aircraft.

      Sponsons would be eliminated and replaced by retractable or 'slide open' or embedded VLS cells.

      The island (if still needed) would be slanted like typical surface ship deckhouses.

      And so on.

      Delete
    6. "all the other things that only a surface ship can do."

      If nobody has ever designed a submarine to do some of them then indeed those must be tasks that only a surface ship can do. How much effort has been expended on working out how many tasks a submarine could do?

      Delete
    7. "How much effort has been expended on working out how many tasks a submarine could do?"

      Come on, now. You can figure out for yourself what tasks a submarine can and cannot do given its various constraints.

      Delete
    8. "How to make a stealthy carrier would be a fascinating post. I may have to do that."
      Please do!

      Delete
    9. "Please do!"

      Maybe you'd care to offer some initial thoughts on the subject? Ideas about aspects of a carrier that you think can or cannot be made stealthy? Give me some ideas!

      Delete
  7. I thought LCS was the USN trying to do a Visby on a large scale?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. LCS was an attempt by the Navy to maintain budget slice and cut manning costs. Visby - and combat - had nothing to do with the LCS.

      Delete
  8. Corruption in our Navy reaches new highs. The V-22 has a serious issue with its rotorheads. Tilting the engine upward causes extreme stress and may cause them to begin chipping away. This caused crashes so they developed a chipping warning system that tells the pilots to rotate the engines forward to lessen stress and land as soon as possible. After the CV-22 crash in Japan a year ago caused by this they decided to safety restrict V-22s from operating more than 50 miles from a runway.
    
    This forced the Navy to keep their old C-2 Greyhounds in service for deployments while their new CMV-22 COBs are rarely used. No solution to the rotorhead issue has been found. A C-2 variant, the E-2 is in production, so new C-2s are the solution that also have greater range and payload than the Navy V-22s. But what just happened?
    
    "The U.S. Navy has awarded a $590 million contract to the Bell Boeing Joint Program Office for the production and delivery of five CMV-22B Osprey aircraft."
    
    https://defence-blog.com/us-navy-buys-more-ospreys-for-carrier-missions/
    

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm unable to view your link. It takes me to a dead page warning. Maybe you could recheck it?

      I'm aware of several known, severe problems with the V-22, such as icing which apparently accounts for 44% of mission failures, but I've not heard of a chipping problem and a quick search failed to find any info on the subject. Again, do you have a link that discusses chipping?

      Delete
    2. I read lots about chipping a year ago. They claim to have found yet another metal alloy that will fix the problem they've struggled with for 20 years. For some reason the link doesn't connect, but you can find it with google:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=https%2F%2Fdefence-blog.com%2Fus-navy-buys-more-ospreys-for-carrier-missions&oq=https%2F%2Fdefence-blog.com%2Fus-navy-buys-more-ospreys-for-carrier-missions&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg60gEIMTIzOGowajSoAgCwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      Also, USNI did a story about this a month ago. The new Navy V-22s are considered so unsafe they can't carry passengers until they do 400 hours.

      https://news.usni.org/2025/02/11/navy-marines-learning-to-make-do-as-v-22-restrictions-endure

      C-2s are much better since they can taxi and fold their wings within a minute after landing. The V-22 fouls the deck as it must very slowly fold up and then get towed to a spot. It matches the C-2 range only when it carries an internal fuel tank that takes up one-third its payload. And no, it can't carry the F-35 engine, only components.

      Delete
    3. Okay, now I understand what problem you're referring to. It's an INTERNAL gearbox issue wherein gears wear and create debris (chips) that can foul the gears. I incorrectly interpreted your description as some sort of EXTERNAL chipping issue. My bad.

      Yes, the C-2 is far superior to the V-22 which was chosen for pretty obvious political reasons rather than performance.

      Delete
    4. I don't want to hijack this thread, but a C-2 can also use E-2 pilots, maintainers and parts aboard a carrier. The CMV-22 needs entire career fields just for 48 aircraft. They tried a KV-22 refueler version, but it was a bit too slow and its huge proprotors bounced around aircraft behind. I'd like a new C-2 with the new engines and props and other new stuff found on the new E-2s, and with a removable internal fuel tank like the KC-130 has. This would allow a carrier to embark several KC-2s for refueling when needed without using expensive fighters for refueling.

      Note the Navy selected the CMV-22 without competition because it would clearly lose against new C-2s. The V-22s are not pressurized and have no cabin heating so must stay below 8000 feet and fly through denser air and bad weather.

      Delete
  9. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1999/march/swedish-navy-mixes-evolution-and-revolution-launch-stealth
    Interesting artcle from 1999.
    One of the potential uses for the Visby is for MCM
    "The Visby's MCM system thus consists of a combination of stealth and of sensors and weapons. One ROV-S (S for search) equipped with a high-resolution minehunting sonar and a television camera operates in front of and on the side of the ship's track for detection and classification. A number of ROV-Es (E for expendable) will then be used for identification and destruction of found threat objects. The hull-mounted sonar also will have mine-hunting capabilities."
    Other potential missions:
    "Mine countermeasures (MCM) operations with an alternate payload for antisurface warfare
    Antisurface warfare operations with an alternate payload for MCM
    Antisubmarine warfare
    Defensive/offensive mine laying
    Patrol
    Escort"
    My Take : These missions were envisioned for the Visby corvette, but not sure if the MCM suite is still a viable option.
    But each Visby could not have all missions in one platform .
    PB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fundamental flaw in all Western MCM vessels/assets is that they are mine hunters instead of sweepers. This means clearance rates on the order of one or two per hour which is totally useless in the type of clearance scenarios the US Navy cares about. For clearing a few stray mines in a country's home waters, mine hunting is acceptable. For combat ops, it's useless.

      As far as all the other claimed mission areas, Sweden and the manufacturer can claim anything they want and be technically correct but will those kind of modular approaches work in combat? No! Anything that is not optimized will be destroyed and modular approaches are not optimized for anything. So, technically correct and combat-wrong.

      Delete
  10. In a prior post you mentioned a foreign mine mitigation platform which could hold promise. I have read your stance on modularity in combat vessels and found the article interesting,
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm glad you found it interesting. Was there some particular aspect you wanted to comment further on?

      Delete
    2. Just wonder how much of the 1999 Visby is compared to the 2025 Visby & what would the US Navy mods be? Stealth, accoustic signature look good and may be a fit for your ASW corvette. However it would seem that this ship would be more littoral. due to size but I may be wrong.

      Delete
    3. "it would seem that this ship would be more littoral. due to size but I may be wrong."

      You are wrong! You either didn't read the post or failed to note that the Visby was only referenced as a conceptual starting point for a clean sheet design, NOT A FINISHED PRODUCT for the Navy to tweak.

      Delete
    4. "accoustic signature"

      Do you know any details about the Visby acoustic signature? I've found nothing authoritative and useful.

      Delete
    5. radar cross section
      Infrared signature
      Magnetic signatures (direct current, alternating current, eddy current flux)
      Hydroacoustic signature
      Hydroacoustic target strength
      Visual signature
      Airborne acoustics
      Laser cross section
      Electrical signatures
      Hydrodynamic pressure
      Wake
      Directional emitted signals
      PB ( From the above 1999 USNI article )

      Delete
    6. You're simply repeating the list presented in the article you cited. The article offers zero details about the extent of any of those claimed capabilities. Have you read the claimed capabilities of the US LCS, by the way? They're awesome! None work, of course, but the claims are simply stunning!

      By the way, the article's author is Captain Engevall who was the Deputy Program Manager for the Visby-class stealth corvettes. That's about as biased and 'cheerleaderly' as you can get. What I'm saying is that the article is, generally, a worthless piece of marketing and spin.

      Delete
  11. Zumwalt has radar, infrared, and acoustic stealth features. If the Zumwalt is not a template for a viable warship design, then neither is the Visby. The available hull volume took a nosedive in service to those special stealth features, while cost increased to unsustainable levels, which is why we quite building them. If a Zumwalt is ever hit, the same thing will happen to it that happens to all other modern warships. They're rendered completely helpless because they have no real armor and they're functionally disabled as warships the moment their advanced sensors or computers are damaged or lose electrical power.

    The idea that you'll emit nothing, yet somehow remain protected by stealth, is a little bizarre. Radar and sonar is what enables you to "see" anything out there that might sink your ship, regardless of weather conditions. Infrared and optical sensors are greatly affected by atmospheric water vapor. If you want to deliver radar and infrared sensor data using off-board data-linked systems, fine, but you still have emissions taking place. Whatever radar / infrared / acoustic / visual stealth features you employ, you still cannot hide the wake of a ship. Ships are like supersized main battle tanks. You're not hiding them from anyone for very long.

    A New Automated Ship Wake Detector for Small and Go-Fast Ships in Sentinel-1 Imagery: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/14/24/6223 <- Why you're not hiding your wake signature, and how wakes identify different kinds of ships

    Infrared Signature Analysis of Surface Ships: https://shipjournal.co/index.php/sst/article/view/121/371 <- Why there's no effective way to hide your ship's infrared signature (because it's not necessarily based upon what temperature the ship is, relative to the background; meaning the mere presence of a ship can make the background appear warmer or cooler to the sensor)

    Shape Optimization of an Integrated Mast for RCS Reduction of a Stealth Naval Vessel: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/6/2819 <- Notice how they selected specific threat frequency bands (L, S, and X) to optimize against? You cannot optimize against all of them.

    A better use of available money would be a conventional ship hull with lots of real armor, more missiles and guns, especially point defense weapons, using both short and long wavelength radars so that any radar stealth features of a ship which are optimized against one are not optimized against the other. Optimize the superstructure signature. Forget about the hull signature, unless having a functional warship is unimportant.

    X-band is useful for air search and intercept. VHF-band is more useful for over-the-horizon search for enemy ships. The loss of accuracy with lower bands matters a lot less when the target is moving at 30mph vs 600mph.

    kbd512

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Almost nothing you said is correct and meaningful. I debated for some time whether to delete your comment as totally false or leave it as an example for others of how not to comment. I'll leave it for the time being.

      I suspect you'll have no idea why your comment is so completely incorrect and, frankly, I have neither the time nor interest in educating you.

      We'll leave it at that. I'll delete any debate about this.

      Delete
  12. Stealthy is only one of many factors. Integrating various antennas and preventing their interferences with one another is another factor. Rather than rush to build something, perhaps, people can learn from China on building a stealthy test ship:

    https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/china-technology-demonstrator-stealth-ship

    Although type 055 has good integration of radars and other antennas, China continues developing this technology. It has a strong civilian wireless communication tech base to tap.

    Drone ships may rely more on stealthy as they are planned for risky missions. For instance,

    http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-JARI-USV-A.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "rush to build" ??????

      Visby is decades old, now, and Burke, LCS, and Zumwalt are also old technology. We've built lots of real stealth (to varying degrees) ships and experimental extreme stealth ships (Sea Shadow, for example). We're well past any 'rush to build'. We've accumulated umpteen decades of stealth experience and just need to get off our lazy butts and design a new ship that incorporates all that we've learned.

      Delete
  13. Warship design has a lot of lessons learned that are seemingly ignored in the current age. The use of nuclear weapons against ships seems to have caused designers to reduce the survivability of the current designs. The following is an interesting paper on the use of design software and design choices to reduce the cost of a design while still retaining the functions of a warship. The final design has 2 -five inch guns, 2 -61 cell VLS (really 128 cells if you get rid of the at sea replenishment), 2 -CIWS, and stealth shaping
    https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA275002.pdf
    MLW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The use of nuclear weapons against ships seems to have caused designers to reduce the survivability of the current designs. "

      This is completely unsupported by any documented evidence and is likely false.

      "an interesting paper"

      The paper is from 1993 and is not much more than someone's flight of fancy. There's no mystery to how to build a better WARship. I've posted on it. The only mystery is why the Navy always chooses not to use best practices.

      Delete
    2. From 2024
      "Throughout much of the 20th century, a presumption that warfare at sea could involve the employment of nuclear weapons underpinned force design. The staying power of vessels against missile attacks, for example, was deprioritised partially because of an assumption that on a nuclear maritime battlefield, should vessels fail to intercept incoming targets, they would largely become non-survivable"

      https://euro-sd.com/2024/04/articles/37574/nuclear-weapons-at-sea-is-their-use-viable/#_ftnref1
      From 1947
      "Conventional naval design is based upon the capital ship as the highest type of naval vessel, capable of absorbing a maximum amount of punishment and still remain a fighting ship. A capital ship is expected to absorb multiple hits from any weapon without sinking. Yet, it now appears that no vessel can survive even one hit from an atomic weapon. Hence, much of the protection now a part of capital ships may prove superfluous, and the devotion of weight to this protection uneconomical in the design. This weight might better be devoted to increasing the speed, the range, or the offensive power of the vessel. Too, smaller vessels may prove to be the best solution under the new conditions."
      Walmer Elton Strope
      Mr. Strope graduated in 1942 with honors from the Webb Institute of Naval Architecture, and has been civilian architect for the War Damage analysis group of the Preliminary Design Section, Bureau of Ships, Navy Department, Washington, D. C.
      https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1947/october/navy-and-atomic-bomb

      MLW

      Delete
    3. "a presumption that warfare at sea could involve the employment of nuclear weapons"

      This quote is taken from Hughes' Fleet Tactics book, as noted in the linked article's footnotes. Referring to my copy of Hughes book, the quote is unattributed and unsupported despite an extremely extensive and comprehensive set of references on most other topics in the book. It is clear that Hughes was offering his view rather than quoting or referencing any DOCUMENTED rationale about a link between nuclear weapons and armor. Thus, he is offering his opinion - no better or worse than anyone else's and totally unsupported, as I've repeatedly stated.

      "Conventional naval design is based upon the capital ship ..."

      As with Hughes, the author of this article is offering his own interpretation of the implications of the atomic bomb on naval matters and his view is completely unsupported by any documentary evidence. In fact, Strope seems to offer a criticism of the view that atomic bombs would render naval vessels helpless and that armor would be pointless with the following statement taken from the linked article.

      "One of the most obvious conclusions which may be drawn from the extensive tests conducted at Bikini may be stated thus: The atomic bomb is not at present, nor will it be for some lime to come, a practical weapon for use against a fleet at sea."

      You have presented two people's opinions about why the Navy abandoned armor but their opinions are unsupported by any documentary evidence that the belief is true. In case, you unsure what I'm looking for, I'm looking for documentation that ship designers explicitly eliminated armor due to atomic weapon considerations. Documents from BuShips, for example, would be the primary source, one would think.

      We are looking at the Navy's abandonment of armor with puzzlement and no documented reason why. In the absence of any authoritative documentation, many people are offering their own interpretation - a plausible one, without a doubt - but an interpretation that has no documentary evidence to support it. This doesn't necessarily mean that atomic fears are not the reason why armor was abandoned but it does mean that we have no direct proof that was the case.

      Equally puzzling is the Navy's refusal to re-adopt armor after the establishment of MAD which rendered atomic concerns irrelevant for naval vessels. No one would use atomic weapons (due to MAD) and, if they did, the world would quickly descend into nuclear annihilation and the fate of some ships would be irrelevant. In other words, once MAD was established the chance of atomic encounters with ships was 0.001% or so while the chance of conventional weapon encounters was 99.999% and should have been the overwhelming driving force in ship design ... and yet was not and, indeed, still isn't. Why? Bafflingly stupid on the part of Navy ship designers!

      Delete
  14. "Note that this likely means downgrading other attributes such as speed (no giant waterjet trumpets – looking at you, LCS). I have no idea to what extent, if any, Visby has this."

    Per Wiki, the Visby-class has a CODOG propulsion system powering 2 x 125SII Kamewa waterjets.

    One key design feature of the Visby-class is its composite hull which reduces its thermal, magnetic, and radar signatures. But, I'm not sure how well a composite hull would fair against a torpedo or antiship missile. But, as they say, you can't hit what you can't see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "composite hull which reduces its thermal, magnetic, and radar signatures."

      I don't know whether that claim is true but that, for sake of discussion, let's assume it is. The question, then, becomes to what extent does the composite reduce those characteristics? For example, a hull temperature reduction of one degree is a reduction but would be utterly insignificant. Do you have any information on the extent of reductions? Lacking any data, the claim sounds more like a marketing claim - possibly technically true but practically irrelevant.

      Delete
    2. Per Saab, "Visby-class corvette leads the world in naval stealth reduction across the full signature spectrum, including radar, infrared, acoustic and magnetic design."

      I don’t know what's in their secret sauce, but composites are known for their thermal insulation properties and carbon fiber can absorb or reflect radar energy. Since composites lack metallic materials, it stands to reason that magnetic signature is reduced as well. Granted, metallic components are probably used in the hull to some degree.

      Materials and coatings play a larger role in improving a ship's stealth characteristics you're willing to give them credit for.

      Delete
    3. There are limits to how big composites can get, so far at least. One challenge is that Visby has a very shallow draft. Great for littorals, but I've never heard of one leaving the Baltic. Here are the largest composite ships.
      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1RjQAW2FPNOmsIF7pb00SenL1tI95AGZI0K1ONCThSw4/edit?usp=sharing

      Delete
    4. "larger role in improving a ship's stealth characteristics you're willing to give them credit for."

      I'm willing to give them all the credit they deserve ... once I see some actual data. Lacking any data, it's just manufacturer's claims and we know what those are worth.

      Again, for example, let's say, for sake of discussion, that composites do reduce temperatures. However, they are just one part of the overall ship and if the overall ship's temperatures swamp the composite's reduction then the composite has no practical value in reducing the ship's thermal signature. Do you understand the point? Put it another way ... suppose we use one gram of composite in a 10,000 lb steel structure. Yes, we could say that composites reduce temperature but, in that application, it would be so trivial as to be meaningless.

      Until someone produces data showing the infrared signatures of, say, a similar sized metal corvette and Visby, I leave any claims in the unproven pile.

      I'm inclined to believe the Visby has some degree of various signature reductions but the question is, is it to a combat-significant degree? At least in the public domain, no one knows.

      So, I'm neither saying the Visby is superior nor inferior in signatures. I'm saying they're just unproven claims and I've disproven so many claims on this blog that I've come to a default position of disbelieving claims until proof is offered.

      Beyond that, there are the structural/strength, flammability, damage control, repair, toxic smoke, etc. aspects of using composites, especially in a vessel larger than a small corvette. A composite canoe might be a great idea but that doesn't mean a composite destroyer or carrier is automatically a good idea.

      Want to persuade me? Find some data!

      Delete
    5. "Here are the largest composite ships."

      I see that the largest vessel listed in your spreadsheet is 890 (tons?) which is 39% larger than Visby. The question would be is 890 (tons?) the largest possible application for a composite vessel or is it just a matter of no one has yet had a desire to build an even larger vessel?

      Delete
  15. Maybe you should add to the stealth, emcon ... requirements a better control by politicians of their discussions of military operations eg. avoid non protected media, avoid inviting unauthorised participants ... etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a political issue and we don't address politics. Thank you.

      Delete
  16. Thank you for another interesting post. I am quite fond of this little ship so I will try to add some useful info.

    One of the sometimes overlooked fesatures is that all protruding elements can be removed in case of war. In fact, the central mast is referred to as the "peace mast". The radar visibility will be reduced by quite a lot (no, no numbers) if the captain so wishes.
    The exhaust is indeed underwater. If you look at images of videos of the ship in motion, you'll notice that it seems to move through a cloud sometimes. This is an effekt of cooled exhaust gases. (If memory serves me, attempts were made to use this as a radar reflector so tha the ship coult increase its signature suddenly and then "disappear".)
    Visby does have a low magnetic signature (because of its material), low em signature, low acostic signature and low ir signature. There is a dedicated unit in the Swedish navy dedicated to frequently monitor these signatures. Exact numbers are secret but if it wasn't by a useful amount the poor Sw navy would never have this unit and its facilities. I would like to point out that stealth is also relative to the training of the captain and crew. One of the tasks of this signature reduction unit is to teach the captain and crew how various activities affect different signatures and show them how to use the ship to their benefit.
    In the Swedish navy the Visby is largely considered a success but a few disadvantages can be noted. First is the lack of air defence missiles. Due to budget constraints they were built for but not with a missile airdefence system. Fortunately, this is currently being rectified and they will now receive modern camm in addition to the earlier 3p cannon airdefence.
    Also because of budget constraints the Swedish navy only received one class of modern warships which meant that the Visby is encumbered with submarine warfare equipment. Other ships could have done that at half the price.
    (Sources are Swedish wiki, Sw navy homepage and some public articles in Swedish.)

    IED

    ReplyDelete
  17. the spelling ... Apologies. IED

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Note that this likely means downgrading other attributes such as speed (no giant waterjet trumpets – looking at you, LCS)."

    Waterjets are usually used to reduce radiated noise. At equal speeds waterjets are quieter than propellers.

    "Radiated Sound of a High-Speed Water-Jet-Propelled Transportation Vessel"

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26611054/

    https://www.rivieramm.com/news-content-hub/news-content-hub/waterjets-contribute-to-quietness-of-corvettes-51332

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen the opposite reported. For example,

      "A Navy press release said that the Mk-1 will reduce maintenance costs and increase the engine system’s lifespan, though some critics have said that the new jets will be extremely noisy and make it difficult to the LCS to carry out littoral anti-submarine operations."

      Perhaps it has to do with the specific type of waterjet? Perhaps it has to do with what specific propellor system it's being compared to? Naval props have been optimized for as silent as possible operation and reduced cavitation.

      Looking at videos of the LCS waterjet in operation, it's extremely hard to believe that they aren't massive noise beacons. The whole idea of optimized props is to reduce cavitation and the waterjets produce enormous, frothing, bubble streams.

      I couldn't read either of your citations, only the abstracts so I couldn't examine the details.

      Delete
  19. Impressive specification, but immediate thought is if NAVSEA tasked with overseeing the design to meet the above specs whose mentality is crossing all the t's and dotting the i's it with continuous non-stop changes would be easily adding another $billion plus to the cost of ship as happened with Constellation, so question is how do you impose a discipline so the costs do not get out of control from day one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congress controls the money, you tell them you have x amount of money per ship and that's it. No over runs or ad on frills. Build within that budget period, if not people get canned.

      Delete
    2. "so question is how do you impose a discipline so the costs do not get out of control from day one."

      I've addressed this repeatedly in various posts. A good summary is this post: "How to Build a Better Aircraft"

      It's about an aircraft but the guiding principles would apply to a ship. I've also posted on how to build a cheaper carrier - you can look that one up yourself. I've also repeatedly described the characteristics and philosophy of ship design to control costs and schedules.

      Could the Navy screw it up? Of course they could! However, that doesn't stop us from presenting good ideas.

      Delete
  20. #ConNavOps
    Forgive me for my Ignorance,
    but is Visby class or ships having similar design of Visby class tested in real life Battle Scenarios ?

    1) do we know by how much a Ship's Stealth profile changes wrt the damage it takes ?

    2) Maritime Patrol Aircraft carries a wide range and types of Radars, does Visby ship have low observability for each and every type of them ?

    3) Also are the ship's critical systems redundant ?
    older gen ships often featured backup steering controls or switches on the opposite side of the ship, a design that ensured continued maneuverability even if the primary controls failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The short answer to all your questions is we don't know. Other countries tend not to publish details of their programs, tests, and exercises. If there's data, it's not in the public domain. All we have is manufacturer's and the Swedish navy's claims.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.