Israel's Sa'ar 6 class corvette

The ship is incredibly well-armed for its size. It almost sounds like an exaggeration. The ship's weight is 1900 tons yet the specs are these:

75 man crew
30 day endurance
2500-4000 nautical miles range (changes from resource to resource)
26 knot top speed
4 faced AESA with a range of 250+ km against fighters.
EO/IR
EW, and decoy launchers
SATCOM
Datalink
Integrated combat system
Radar, infrared, magnetic, acoustic signature reduction
Hangar and helipad for a single 11-ton class helicopter.
76 mm gun with 120 rpm (AHEAD and guided munition capable)
2 x 25 mm remotely manned guns
32 VLS for Barak 8 SAM (100 km range)
40 smaller VLS for C-Dome (naval iron dome, 17 km range)
16 Gabriel V AShM (280 km range, 220 kg warhead, subsonic)
2 x 3 tube 324 mm torpedo launchers for Mk. 54 torpedo



What are your opinions on this? Do you think we will see a ship this densely packed from China?

BoraTas said:

The ship is incredibly well-armed for its size. It almost sounds like an exaggeration. The ship's weight is 1900 tons yet the specs are these:

75 man crew
30 day endurance
2500-4000 nautical miles range (changes from resource to resource)
26 knot top speed
4 faced AESA with a range of 250+ km against fighters.
EO/IR
EW, and decoy launchers
SATCOM
Datalink
Integrated combat system
Radar, infrared, magnetic, acoustic signature reduction
Hangar and helipad for a single 11-ton class helicopter.
76 mm gun with 120 rpm (AHEAD and guided munition capable)
2 x 25 mm remotely manned guns
32 VLS for Barak 8 SAM (100 km range)
40 smaller VLS for C-Dome (naval iron dome, 17 km range)
16 Gabriel V AShM (280 km range, 220 kg warhead, subsonic)
2 x 3 tube 324 mm torpedo launchers for Mk. 54 torpedo

View attachment 73653

What are your opinions on this? Do you think we will see a ship this densely packed from China?

Click to expand...

Why would China build this when it has actual destroyers (cruisers)?

siegecrossbow said:

Why would China build this when it has actual destroyers (cruisers)?

Click to expand...

I am asking about weapons density, not the ship itself. For example, the light armament of American ships compared to Russian ships of equivalent size was/is a topic of discussion among defense industry watchers. This ship takes this discussion to another level. I wonder will China ever pack weapons this densely.

I would wonder about the sea keeping of this ship once it is in the Atlantic. I wonder how much mass it has on high, its center of gravity, its metacritical and the ability to right itself during rough seas.

Highly dense ships likely to not leave much room for crew space. Uncomfortable for long journeys. But then its a corvette, does not expect to stray long from its port.

I wonder how much battle damage will the ship sustain. This sounds to me like a glass house. A single hit and everything goes kaput.

The cost of making a ship larger, having a larger hull with more space and a higher displacement, is the least expensive part of a warship.
If you cram this specs into a 3000 ton, or even a 4000 ton ship, the price increase is going to be small --- the real cost of the ship is in the systems --- and while it does not sound as impressive, you probably get a much more sea worthy, much more livable, and a better damage absorbing ship.

The Russian ships are more densely packed with weapons because they have fewer of them and they aren't mean to do long distance missions but protect the Russian coastline and maritime economic zones. Much the same, but even more, applies to this Israeli ship.

Tam said:

I would wonder about the sea keeping of this ship once it is in the Atlantic. I wonder how much mass it has on high, its center of gravity, its metacritical and the ability to right itself during rough seas.

Highly dense ships likely to not leave much room for crew space. Uncomfortable for long journeys. But then its a corvette, does not expect to stray long from its port.

I wonder how much battle damage will the ship sustain. This sounds to me like a glass house. A single hit and everything goes kaput.

The cost of making a ship larger, having a larger hull with more space and a higher displacement, is the least expensive part of a warship.
If you cram this specs into a 3000 ton, or even a 4000 ton ship, the price increase is going to be small --- the real cost of the ship is in the systems --- and while it does not sound as impressive, you probably get a much more sea worthy, much more livable, and a better damage absorbing ship.

Click to expand...

That is good observation as I remember Singapore victory class corvette suffer from Top heavy mass making it unstable in rough water. Built by Luerssen werft in Germany. As you said it has limited endurance and sea keeping ability. The tendency is to built bigger ship



The mast of the Victory-class MCV is so tall and is crammed with so many electronic devices that it has a tendency to make the corvette seem top heavy and perhaps contribute to a higher tendency to roll in adverse weather conditions. Having said that, the MCV has been known to roll more than 40 degrees both ways during a tropical storm, causing pots and pans to tumble in the galley and lookouts on the bridge to have to grip the railings tight. Yet, miraculously the corvette would right itself after each swell to see another day. After all the MCV hull is constructed of light gauge steel built around a special longitudinal framing system for ruggedness and good sea keeping characteristics, with the superstructure being constructed using marine grade aluminium alloy. Accordingly, the MCV is able to withstand conditions up to sea state 5. Kudos to the naval architects who designed the ship.

BoraTas said:

What are your opinions on this? Do you think we will see a ship this densely packed from China?

Click to expand...

Only in a export model to a minor but ambitious client state.

BoraTas said:

The ship is incredibly well-armed for its size. It almost sounds like an exaggeration. The ship's weight is 1900 tons yet the specs are these:

75 man crew
30 day endurance
2500-4000 nautical miles range (changes from resource to resource)
26 knot top speed
4 faced AESA with a range of 250+ km against fighters.
EO/IR
EW, and decoy launchers
SATCOM
Datalink
Integrated combat system
Radar, infrared, magnetic, acoustic signature reduction
Hangar and helipad for a single 11-ton class helicopter.
76 mm gun with 120 rpm (AHEAD and guided munition capable)
2 x 25 mm remotely manned guns
32 VLS for Barak 8 SAM (100 km range)
40 smaller VLS for C-Dome (naval iron dome, 17 km range)
16 Gabriel V AShM (280 km range, 220 kg warhead, subsonic)
2 x 3 tube 324 mm torpedo launchers for Mk. 54 torpedo

View attachment 73653

What are your opinions on this? Do you think we will see a ship this densely packed from China?

Click to expand...

No, because it's bad design.

Israelis have such ships because they are limited by their port infrastructure. The Israeli Navy has one main naval base in Haifa and smaller bases in Ashdod on the Med coast and in Eliat by the Red Sea. The base in Haifa is where all the Sa'ar ships and submarines are kept and the other two bases have only patrol squadrons with Dvoras.

This is what the base in Haifa looks like:



Now draw imaginary lines of ship movement during rapid deployment or - especially - during evacuation which will also involved any civilian vessels being evacuated at the same time. Just imagine that the Sa'ars at the piers are moving out at the same time as the civilian ships at the other side. You'll see why the piers are placed the way they are and why there's barely any space left to enlarge them. Naval bases are designed to facilitate the quickest possible maneuver into the open sea. The situation in the other harbors is even worse than here. The size of the infrastructure means that either the Israelis build completely new facilities in all three bases to have a base each in both seas and one spare base in case Haifa is neutralized or find a way to make a ~90 meter hull work for them.

It's much easier to build four cramped ships than expand a single harbor let alone two or three.

Another reason is the sudden change in doctrinal requirement. The Sa'ar 5 built in the 90s has short-range Barak 1 missiles because it provides air defense for missile boat squadrons. The rest is provided by individual EW systems. Sa'ar 6 is really an air defense frigate in the hull of a corvette that is meant to provide air defense for civilian ships and infrastructure serving the gas fields in Israeli EEZ and that requirement came about in the last decade and a half. This is why it has both Barak 8 and Tamir missiles and why it is being built at such a fast pace, years after previous surface ships were built.

Singapore had the same problem before it expanded its infrastructure. The difference is that Singapore serves as a crucial hub and geopolitical safety valve in world's busiest waterway and has done so for decades now so there would be no problem with finding more space for larger ships. But this is why the Victory-class that @Hendrik_2000 mentioned is so small. It was ordered in the 80s.

Some of the data on the Sa'ar 6 is also incorrect. It will not have 30 day endurance. The German Braunschweig corvettes which served as the basis for the design have endurance that is estimated to be around 14 days maximum. Those ships are almost the same size as Sa'ar 6 and they have more free space as well as their crews are 65 nominal standard and fewer per usual operations. They still get Elbe tenders to service them just not as often as the missile boats in the past and they rarely go past a week of operations without port visits in the Baltic. Russian Stereguschy corvettes have similar limited endurance. They are essentially coastal defense ships of the same class as old Soviet Grisha class just updated for contemporary battlefield.

The reduction of signatures will not be great either. It's easiest to reduce radar signature. Magnetic signature could be lowered if the ship is built using austenitic steel which is amagnetic. Germany has very good technology in this field so it is possible that they built the hulls with amagnetic steel. I don't know, I haven't checked. However acoustic and thermal reduction will be very limited because those require space for proper reduction and there's simply not enough space to do it well, especially with modern and future sensors in mind. It's not going to happen.

Stability is also a major question although the bulb was extended to something resembling the bow of the new Italian di Revel class. But if you look at the size of the hangar which is supposed to fit a SH-60 and the landing pad - it's just bad.





The cost of building the ship is primarily in the combat systems. The hull is the least problematic part and also hull provides survavibility and space for additional systems like various signature reduction technologies. Hull is also where your future-proofing is. Just look at what happened to Arleigh Burke class. If you are building a new ship, especially in Asia where cost of hulls are going to remain low for some time, you are not going to skimp on the one thing that provides the biggest benefit for the lowest cost. It's not even counter-intuitive. It's counter-productive.

I hope that answers your question.

Hendrik_2000 said:

That is good observation as I remember Singapore victory class corvette suffer from Top heavy mass making it unstable in rough water. Built by Luerssen werft in Germany. As you said it has limited endurance and sea keeping ability. The tendency is to built bigger ship

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 73655

The mast of the Victory-class MCV is so tall and is crammed with so many electronic devices that it has a tendency to make the corvette seem top heavy and perhaps contribute to a higher tendency to roll in adverse weather conditions. Having said that, the MCV has been known to roll more than 40 degrees both ways during a tropical storm, causing pots and pans to tumble in the galley and lookouts on the bridge to have to grip the railings tight. Yet, miraculously the corvette would right itself after each swell to see another day. After all the MCV hull is constructed of light gauge steel built around a special longitudinal framing system for ruggedness and good sea keeping characteristics, with the superstructure being constructed using marine grade aluminium alloy. Accordingly, the MCV is able to withstand conditions up to sea state 5. Kudos to the naval architects who designed the ship.

Click to expand...

You can get a good self righting forces using a well designed flared hull. Kudos to the ship designers. This obviously looks like a MEKO hull.

However, imagine what will the crew be like after such a trip. They will be exhausted, nauseous and sick. Imagine that happening to your crew's morale and efficiency. I know that you don't expect to work in a cruise liner when you signed up for a navy, but crew morale, fit and conditioning still matters at the end of the day for efficiency. Bad things happen when a crew is distracted, demoralized and feeling sick. Like I said, steel is the cheapest part of the ship.

This corvette also probably has low level of survivability and damage tolerance.