Indonesia Indonesian Navy, Tentara Nasional Indonesia-Angkatan Laut (TNI-AL)

AlphaMike

Experienced member
Moderator
Indonesia Moderator
Messages
4,249
Reactions
2 6,949
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
The original Itver Huitveld class is already has space for 32 mk41 +24 mk56 VLS plus space for the harpoon Missiles up to 4x4 config. They are already enough....
Exactly, imo that small stretch doesn't worth the extra cost in effort, money and most importantly time.
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
3,816
Solutions
1
Reactions
20 15,300
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The original Itver Huitveld class is already has space for 32 mk41 +24 mk56 VLS plus space for the harpoon Missiles up to 4x4 config. They are already enough....
Just to show, 24 Mk56 VLS does not equal 24 Mk41 VLS:
12-cell Mk56 unit in fact is smaller than 8-cell Mk41 unit and does not penetrate as deep as Mk41 into the hull. (one is 3 meters, another is nearly 5~6 meters into the hull)
A single unit Mk41 requires more clearance than a single unit Mk56 as well.
1653555898399.jpeg


1653556063011.jpeg
 

Synders

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
3
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Just to show, 24 Mk56 VLS does not equal 24 Mk41 VLS:
12-cell Mk56 unit in fact is smaller than 8-cell Mk41 unit and does not penetrate as deep as Mk41 into the hull. (one is 3 meters, another is nearly 5~6 meters into the hull)
A single unit Mk41 requires more clearance than a single unit Mk56 as well.
View attachment 44248

View attachment 44249
The total height should be similar, no???
MK.56 vls need 1.9m depth + 4.65m height exposed. So the total is 6.55m tall, or 7.15m tall if we use Stanflex 2.5m depth requirement...
Tactical ver. of MK.41's height from wiki is 6.8m, while A70 is 7m tall...

IMHO, based on the width Iver should be able to fit 3 16 cells vls side by side for a total of 48 cells...
MK-56-VLS-02.jpg
 

Synders

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
3
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I actually kinda thinking of Daring class config
Sylver-VLS-012.jpg

with Iver class orientation and spacing. The space with side wall probably will be similar to current Iver setup with 32 MK.41 + 24 MK.56...

But if we could fit Hobart class config with different orientation like Iver without stretching the hull, IMO it'll be better. Afterall more space with side wall = safer, right???:LOL:
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
3,816
Solutions
1
Reactions
20 15,300
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The total height should be similar, no???
Their above-deck height is nearly close, i think the "height" listed on the brochure is the total height. Mk41 occuppies another 2 decks below the top deck. Also AH140 has multi-deck access RHIB bay there which is envised for future USV operations.

2 row 3 column is possible with hull extension from amid-ship, or it cancels 2x of the AShM launchers, but as far as i have seen AH140's flexible design approach is not based on that. Maybe they are extending hull to add another 16 behind the main gun.
 

Synders

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
3
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Their above-deck height is nearly close, i think the "height" listed on the brochure is the total height. Mk41 occuppies another 2 decks below the top deck. Also AH140 has multi-deck access RHIB bay there which is envised for future USV operations.
TBH it doesn't make sense if the total height is only 4.65m. If we reduce it with 1.9m for the controller, it'll have 2.75m left which is less than ESSM(3.66m) itself...
But if you mean tactical MK.41 need more than 6.8m depth under deck, I dunno because I don't have access to the hidden spec. I only commented based on wiki and internet. This thread is also helpful for me...
https://defencehub.live/threads/naval-vls-solutions.5553/

As for the second set of RHIB bay, AFAIK it could be removed based on this video...
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
3,816
Solutions
1
Reactions
20 15,300
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
TBH it doesn't make sense if the total height is only 4.65m. If we reduce it with 1.9m for the controller, it'll have 2.75m left which is less than ESSM(3.66m) itself...
But if you mean tactical MK.41 need more than 6.8m depth under deck, I dunno because I don't have access to the hidden spec. I only commented based on wiki and internet. This thread is also helpful for me...
https://defencehub.live/threads/naval-vls-solutions.5553/

As for the second set of RHIB bay, AFAIK it could be removed based on this video...
Controllers are placed on the side, the system looks like this;
1653666543375.png



Bottom is the under the deck part which fits into Stanflex, then deck integration and then the above deck-exposed part (where canisters are replaced via).
It occupies far less space than MK41 in depth thus it was favored as ESSM only solution. Otherwise any logical Navy would opt for Mk41 and use quad-packed ESSM.

1653666838248.png


total height: Missile + exhaust ~ foundation for the unit.

No need secret information for this.

I have no idea how far that multi-deck access RHIB bay penetrates or whether Mk41 could be integrated in there or whether it would be feasible. Again the most viable option is to separate launchers.
 

Synders

Member
Messages
12
Reactions
3
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Controllers are placed on the side, the system looks like this;
View attachment 44283


Bottom is the under the deck part which fits into Stanflex, then deck integration and then the above deck-exposed part (where canisters are replaced via).
It occupies far less space than MK41 in depth thus it was favored as ESSM only solution. Otherwise any logical Navy would opt for Mk41 and use quad-packed ESSM.

View attachment 44284

total height: Missile + exhaust ~ foundation for the unit.

No need secret information for this.

I have no idea how far that multi-deck access RHIB bay penetrates or whether Mk41 could be integrated in there or whether it would be feasible. Again the most viable option is to separate launchers.
So that Iver's photo only shown ~2m of the launcher??? That's too bad then. I thought it could fit another two universal vls modules...:(

But if (and only if) its possible, do you think something like Iver's config is safe considering the space to side wall is small compared to other ship model???
 

Anmdt

Experienced member
Naval Specialist
Professional
Messages
3,816
Solutions
1
Reactions
20 15,300
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
So that Iver's photo only shown ~2m of the launcher??? That's too bad then. I thought it could fit another two universal vls modules...:(

But if (and only if) its possible, do you think something like Iver's config is safe considering the space to side wall is small compared to other ship model???
2 x column , 3 x row of 8-cell is more viable with a hull extension than trying to reuse the Mk56 space. It wouldn't be efficient to let 3-4 decks occupied by VLS almost in 80% of the Beam of the deck.

32 Mk41 / A70 + 16 AShM + 16 / 24 CAMM-ER (front) is a decent payload for this kind of a vessel.
 

Madokafc

Experienced member
Think Tank Analyst
Messages
4,298
Reactions
7,538
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Oh btw, the French have admitted the exocet is no longer fit for modern warfare


Not only that

French Navy surface combatant warships doesn't employ a single CIWS, the Italian would do better as they are using oto melara strales or DARDO CIWS for point' Defense weapon for every Warships they have. The other issue is Marine Nationale point' Defense weapon relied only on what fitted in La Fayette class by using either crotale or Mistral sadral. That's not enough
 

satria

Committed member
Messages
255
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom