F310 vs F100

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

LCF (DZP class) supposedly equipped in such a way as to be able to fire Tomahawk (though these have not been purchased: planned procurement of the missile got cancelled ). That pretty much rules out the Tactical length VLU as the standard VLU on these ships (unless a single strike length module were to be installed as the 6th VLU module, or – absent additional VLU modules – a tactical module were to be swapped out with a strike module. In both cases, however, there would either have to be below deck space available for the extra length of the strike module (7 feet worth > 1 deck), or an external enlargement (7 ft) would have to be built at the level of the main deck. Neither option is very likely.)
See: here and here

Wanshan

The MK41 VLS on the De Zeven Provinzien class are indeed tatical lenght, no doubts on this one.
I do have severall sources for this, including the page of Royal Schelde (http://www.damennaval.com/nl/company_product-range_air-defence-and-comand-frigate.htm), several articles on a few magazines and a direct talk with two officers, one from the Koninklijke Marine and another one from the Marinha Portuguesa who visited the Ship (De Zeven Provinzien).
You are Dutch, if you have any contact with a officer/sailor who has embarked on any on the LCF ships they are going to confirm what i am saying.
When the Tac-Tom and SM3 were looked by the Koninklijke Marine, the solution was to install a single additional 8 cell Strike lenght MK41.

An old 2002 article from Naval Forces, “Two of a Kind, New Dutch and German Frigates Compared” specifically states that the LCF used tactical length modules. It could be wrong, or it might just be outdated info.

LCF VLS modules when it was built originally are tactical length, and would have required upgrading if Tomahawks were ordered. I’m not sure if they have been upgraded, which they might do since they are looking to get into the BMD game.

Interest in adding Maritime Tactical Ballistic Missile Defence (MTBMD) capability is not recent, nor is that in adding Tomahawk capability.

A navy study of 2005 mentions both in relation to Mk41. It at least suggest current VLUs are capable of launching BMD-versions of Standard missile and Tactical Tomahawk block IV (TacTom). There is no mention of any modification of current launchers or their swapping out for (a) strike length module(s).
Marine studie 2005 (dutch) see p.13-14
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/Kamerbrief_marinestudie_tcm46-114383.pdf

If indeed fitted with Tactical Mk41, then unless the LCF was designed with space and weight reserved for Strike Mk41, there will have to be structural modifications to the ship. Surely this would be noted in policy docs. (as it would increase the cost of any such projects)

The 2003 ‘state of the union’ adress by the Queen (troonrede) states that the Mk41s on the LCF can fire Tactom.
http://www.hcss.nl/en/download/62/file/20031015_ccss_survey_1.pdf (see p5)

So does this DoD study:
Studie “Grote Oppervlakteschepen Koninklijke marine”
Deelstudie 3 Ondersteuning landoptreden door LC-fregat
en
Deelstudie 4 Vergelijking kruisvluchtwapens en stand off wapens
http://www.defensie.nl/_system/handlers/generaldownloadHandler.ashx?filename=/media/DS34_Studie_GOSKM_tcm46-114897.pdf (see p 12)

If it can fire TacTom, it is strike length.

Indeed, this is what Lockheed Martin says:
“All four new Dutch “LCF” Air Defense and Command frigates will be equipped with Lockheed Martin’s MK41 Vertical Launch System to launch SM2 and ESSM missiles. Each LCF ship has five strike-length launch modules installed. “
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/europe/netherlands/

LCF VLS modules when it was built originally are tactical length, and would have required upgrading if Tomahawks were ordered. I’m not sure if they have been upgraded, which they might do since they are looking to get into the BMD game.

And the MK41 VLS on the “Sachsen” and “De Zeven Provinzien” are tatical lenght.
Cheers

The basic module is available in three sizes: Strike, Tactical and Self-
Defense. The Strike module is approximately 25 feet (7.6 meters) long and
capable of launching the largest missiles such as those that support sea-based midcourse ballistic missile defense and long-range strike. The Tactical module is approximately 22 feet (6.7 meters) long and capable of accommodating the same missile types as the Strike, except for the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile and those missiles designed for a SMD role. The Tactical module is currently being integrated and installed in ships of the Turkish and Australian navies. The Self-Defense module, at just more than 17 feet (5.2 meters), is ideal for meeting the mission requirements of offshore patrol vessels, corvettes, small frigates and amphibious ships.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/ms2/pdf/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

LCF (DZP class) supposedly equipped in such a way as to be able to fire Tomahawk (though these have not been purchased: planned procurement of the missile got cancelled ). That pretty much rules out the Tactical length VLU as the standard VLU on these ships (unless a single strike length module were to be installed as the 6th VLU module, or – absent additional VLU modules – a tactical module were to be swapped out with a strike module. In both cases, however, there would either have to be below deck space available for the extra length of the strike module (7 feet worth > 1 deck), or an external enlargement (7 ft) would have to be built at the level of the main deck. Neither option is very likely.)
See: here and here

Unfortunately, no. I’ll paste the section of the article here, only small part so I don’t think copyright sensitivities will be tripped. The article title is “Picture perfect: system integration is the prime enabler for Dutch LCF frigate” IDR May Issue, if you want to find the article.

Software certification
Commander Oscar Boot, the ship’s weapon engineering officer, noted: “Ownership is very important, because without certified software you don’t have a ship anymore. Also, it is better for us, through CAMS-Force Vision, to bear the development and integration risk. Otherwise you must pay for it from industry, and that is not cheap.”
As might be expected from such an advanced and relatively new-to-service ship, there are still some fragilities in the combat system.
“We do still experience some problems, these in the main being associated with specific equipment interfaces,” Cdr Boot said.
“But stability is generally good, functionality is close to 100 per cent, and with each successive release of CMS operational software it gets more reliable.
“As for the radars, the reliability of SMART-L matches its outstanding performance. We rarely have issues.”
The picture on APAR is not as straightforward. “It is a very complex radar to maintain and operate, and is not yet as reliable as we would like it,” said Cdr Boot.
“What we have seen though is evidence of APAR’s huge potential, not just against air threats but also in its ability to detect very small surface targets.”

Apparently the Dutch are also facing problems with their CMS too, or rather, some of their equipment interfaces. This is separate from the problems they are having regarding the reliability of the APAR. These came from a Jane’s interview with the Provincien’s Weapon Engineering officer as recently as this May, so they are probably still facing this problem at this moment. SMART-L seems to be working very well though.

did they give any detailed information about this problems?

The RAN wanted CEC capability which i’m not sure the Sachsen class has. In addition, the F-100 is a much larger ship with 48 Strike length Mk.41 VLS rather then 32 Mk.41 which again, i’m not sure if they are strike length.

I also don’t know how APAR compares with the AN/SPY-1D(V) that Hobart will be getting.

One of the RAN AWD requirements was the AN/SPY-1, there was never the possibility of using the APAR/SMARTL (or something around Sampson/1850) combination.
HDW offered a “F-124/SPY-1 Frankenship”, it was rejected.
And the MK41 VLS on the “Sachsen” and “De Zeven Provinzien” are tatical lenght.

Cheers

Apparently the Dutch are also facing problems with their CMS too, or rather, some of their equipment interfaces. This is separate from the problems they are having regarding the reliability of the APAR. These came from a Jane’s interview with the Provincien’s Weapon Engineering officer as recently as this May, so they are probably still facing this problem at this moment. SMART-L seems to be working very well though.

The Nansans have Aegis, the first class of ships to be fitted with SPY-1F IIRC.

Apparently the Dutch are also facing problems with their CMS too, or rather, some of their equipment interfaces. This is separate from the problems they are having regarding the reliability of the APAR. These came from a Jane’s interview with the Provincien’s Weapon Engineering officer as recently as this May, so they are probably still facing this problem at this moment. SMART-L seems to be working very well though.

Well, even now the APAR seems to still be sufferring from reliability problems. That might have been a serious factor in the Aussies selecting the AEGIS/SPY combi over the APAR then.

from my understanding it’s not an issue of apar. the german cms has some problems but i didn’t heard anything from the dutch. afaik the de zeven and the sachsen class does not use the same software for their cms. without having facts for this i heard that the german cms is more advanced. it would be interesting to get some facts for this.

but beside this both classes already did some live firings with great success.

It was a case of ‘What now?’ for the RAN and the USN. The USN had just provided assistance with resolving some of the Collins submarines issues. Once this was over (very successfully on both sides), the two sides asked the question of ‘Where next?’ The answer was Aegis.

Before the platform (ship) was selected it had already been decided that the combat system would be based on the Aegis/SPY-1 system. A version of the Sachsen was offered with Aegis, but the F100 bid was considered lower risk.

Anymore on the APAR issues?

F100 –
Length Overall 146.7m
Length Waterline 133.2m
Maximum Beam 18.6m
Full Load Displacement 5,800t
Full Load Draught 4.84m

F124 –
Length overall 143m
Length waterline 132.15m
Bean 17.44 main deck (16.68 beam DWL)

I wouldn’t call that “much” larger. Very slightly larger. Full load displacement is given as about the same.

Whether the F124 has room for more VLS cells, I don’t know, but if not, I think it would be due to the arrangement of the ship, rather than overall size.

For comparison –
De Zeven Provincien –
Overall Length 144.24m
Maximum Beam 18.80m
Beam at Waterline 17.15m

Hobarts are modified from the original F-100 to give a maximum full load displacement of up to 7,000t as a margin for later upgrades i believe. It might simply be a desire to get Aegis as i’m not sure if the F-124 has Aegis as such.

Of course it could also be that the Meko-200 design used for the ANZAC’s was too small and because of later updates they are having topweight problems for future upgrades. They might just want to keep away from Meko, ANZAC replacements will be 7,000t destroyers.

… In addition, the F-100 is a much larger ship …

F100 –
Length Overall 146.7m
Length Waterline 133.2m
Maximum Beam 18.6m
Full Load Displacement 5,800t
Full Load Draught 4.84m

F124 –
Length overall 143m
Length waterline 132.15m
Bean 17.44 main deck (16.68 beam DWL)

I wouldn’t call that “much” larger. Very slightly larger. Full load displacement is given as about the same.

Whether the F124 has room for more VLS cells, I don’t know, but if not, I think it would be due to the arrangement of the ship, rather than overall size.

For comparison –
De Zeven Provincien –
Overall Length 144.24m
Maximum Beam 18.80m
Beam at Waterline 17.15m

going off onto a diffrent subject but why did Australia go with the F100 over the German F124.. i dont blame them for not going American but the F124 seems like it would of been very competitive and it would probably have more commonality with the Anzacs

Well, even now the APAR seems to still be sufferring from reliability problems. That might have been a serious factor in the Aussies selecting the AEGIS/SPY combi over the APAR then.

going off onto a diffrent subject but why did Australia go with the F100 over the German F124.. i dont blame them for not going American but the F124 seems like it would of been very competitive and it would probably have more commonality with the Anzacs

The RAN wanted CEC capability which i’m not sure the Sachsen class has. In addition, the F-100 is a much larger ship with 48 Strike length Mk.41 VLS rather then 32 Mk.41 which again, i’m not sure if they are strike length.

I also don’t know how APAR compares with the AN/SPY-1D(V) that Hobart will be getting.

going off onto a diffrent subject but why did Australia go with the F100 over the German F124.. i dont blame them for not going American but the F124 seems like it would of been very competitive and it would probably have more commonality with the Anzacs

The Norwegian frigates are a derivative of the F-100 class but have a different command system (a development of the Kongsberg MSI-3000) and the French Spherion bow sonar. The Norwegian ships, however, will retain the AEGIS/SPY-1 system of the F-100. They will use the new SPY-1F lightweight version controlling Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles.

In March 2002, the existing F-85 (Norwegian frigate) and F-100 (Spanish frigate) members of the family were joined by a new Izar-Lockheed Martin design, a 2,600-ton AEGIS corvette. It was the smallest AEGIS ship yet
designed, made possible by the introduction of a further downsized version of the SPY-1 radar, the SPY-1K.

http://www.forecastinternational.com/samples/F670_CompleteSample.pdf
page 6/7 (14/15)

Ok i have a question why does the Norwegian F310 Nansen have that crown over the bridge where the Aegis sits? From what I understand the F100 Bazan and the F310 Nansen were built on the same hull by Navinatina but why did the superstructers change so much?

It kind of looks like a huge brain on the Nansen…

Also i know the F310 Nansen is configured for ASW and the F100 Bazan is AAW.

thanks

for what I know the AEGIS of the F-100s is much superior than the one on the F-310s

No offense, but the eurpopean air defense ships such as F100, Horizon and Sachen would more probably be labelled as Destroyers or Cruisers then as frigates.

They are called Frigates for political reasons.

Probably, but the point was that F100 does not have the same version of SPY-1 as F85.

Destroyers (DD or DDG)

A destroyer is smaller, and less capable than a cruiser, but is also capable of operating independently in a high-threat environment. Destroyers have steadily grown in size (now 5,000 to 10,000 tons), expense (nearly US$700 million apiece) and capability. Generally, a destroyer is considered to be a ship that has all of the sensors (including a sophisticated phased-array radar), combat systems, and weapons needed to operate in a high-threat environment. A number of world navies are currently building ships that, while called frigates, more accurately represent destroyers in size and capability. Examples include the Spanish F-100, the German F-124, and the Dutch De Zeven Provincien classes (all are highly capable ships displacing over 5,000 tons and carrying phased-array radars).

Frigates (FF or FFG)

A frigate is a medium-sized surface combatant (between 2,000 and 5,000 tons) that is either suited for one specific role (anti-submarine warfare or anti-air warfare), or has lesser all-around capabilities than a destroyer. A frigate may be less capable than a destroyer, but is still a relatively sophisticated and expensive (averaging around US$325 million apiece) platform. A frigate is generally the smallest surface combatant that can conduct extended blue-water missions in a high-threat environment.

Vessel Types (AMI International)