How would you equip the LCS-2?

Add Poland and Malaysia for “light frigates” of the current generation (Meko A100s). Which is of course a rather contested market section too that e.g. DCN with the Gowinds has been a bit less successful in, and Navantia’s AFCON has yet to make a sale.

Except that Poland has Meko A100 and Malaysia the Meko 100, which is a beefed up OPV.

Fitz,

But it does matter because it impacts everything else regarding the size and characteristics of the ship. More space for essentially the same payload means you need a bigger boat. A bigger boat might be slower so now you need more power to drive it at the required speed. But then it might not have enough endurance so your going to have to push something else off or make the boat bigger again.

I seem to ask this a lot on here these days…..you are serious arent you???.

I thought it was already established that the Mk41 was a physically bigger installation than Sylver?. The spacers on Sylver are inconsequential in terms of ship impact.

Look at the figures, assuming that the 6m2 figure for a Sylver module is 2m breadth by 3m deep for ease of calculation (it matters little if those relative dimensions are off by a few cm’s one way or the other), a 2 module wide x 3 deep row of Sylver A50, as found on T45, with a 1m space between the rows has a deck footprint of 9x5m or 45m2. For the Mk41 ‘block’ installation, oriented the same way, is 5.2m x 10.2m or a little over 53m2.

Even with the spacing between the rows then the Sylver installation is the more compact and lighter one, but, not to any degree that would be meaningful in a propulsion calculation for the kind of vessel that would fit such a large VLS!. Of much greater significance would be the kind of sensors that would be required to employ the contents of the VLS, masthead height requirements and the beam necessary to maintain stability etc.

Hull size increases owing, solely, to the few sq.m difference in VLS fits would be utterly inconsequential compared to above-maindeck weights and the effect they have on the designed beam. THAT has impact on the installed propulsion in the hull. Switching from Sylver to Mk41, even if it did have a lesser ship impact, is hardly going to mean you could leave off a GT shipset!!!.

What?!!. The number of cells required in the VLS will be determined at the design stage not after the ship is built to then try and squidge the maximum number of cells in????. If the requirement is for 48 cells and the space is left in the design to spread smaller VLS modules with a metre spacer rather than larger (deck area) VLS modules flush fitted what does it really matter?.

But it does matter because it impacts everything else regarding the size and characteristics of the ship. More space for essentially the same payload means you need a bigger boat. A bigger boat might be slower so now you need more power to drive it at the required speed. But then it might not have enough endurance so your going to have to push something else off or make the boat bigger again.

And yes before everyone starts whining at me again keep in mind that little things can make a difference. Take for example the 15,000 ton DDG-1000. Not exactly a small boat but the U.S. Navy was willing to accept a reduced rate of fire for her AGS guns – to the tune of 2 rpm – to save 20 tons!

Besides, you have not demonstrated any maintenance advantage for Sylver at all – rust run with the assumption.

Add Poland and Malaysia for “light frigates” of the current generation (Meko A100s). Which is of course a rather contested market section too that e.g. DCN with the Gowinds has been a bit less successful in, and Navantia’s AFCON has yet to make a sale.

I would call them corvettes, the Gowind is the favorite, if it has not already been selected, for Bulgaria. IIRC Morocco and Indonesia have both ordered Sigma’s from Schelde but you are right it is a very contested market.

The only Frigates B&V can claim to have sold is the ships that went to South Africa.

Add Poland and Malaysia for “light frigates” of the current generation (Meko A100s). Which is of course a rather contested market section too that e.g. DCN with the Gowinds has been a bit less successful in, and Navantia’s AFCON has yet to make a sale.

Rubbish and lies.

Of the 3 shortlisted proposals for SEA 4000 (hey, where’s the mightly DCNS?) B&V’s proposal was never expected to be competitive in Australia and everyone pretty much knew it at the time. No surprise it fell out early. The only real shocker out of that one was that Australia picked the less capable (cheaper) Navantia proposal over the Gibbs & Cox design it had previously listed as its preferred choice. But hey, Navantia did some great PR on that one – including the around the world cruise – and pulled it off. More power to em’. Personally, I think Australia chose the wrong boat, but I understand why they did. That’s how the export market works – they went for cheaper/less capable/better offsets, not technical ability.

What flawed logic is it exactly that I have supposedly shown that says B&V was a slam dunk for this or any other program? Ineed I seem to recall stating quite explicitly that I was using B&V in the context of what it takes to achieve broad export success. Only in your imagination have I said anything different. Or is this still just part of your master plan to find some new way to trip me up and put words in my mouth for your own personal form of ego appeasment?

Many had expected the GFC to win the Norwegian contract and they nearly did so that was a bit of a surprise. The choice of Bazan/Izar/Navantia was certainly met with a very large amount of controversy in Norway due to the yards government subsidies, and questionable labor practices. The merits of the individual ship designs seem not to have been a factor here but rather the details of the individual proposals. Specifically, Navantia promised to meet Norway’s delivery schedule and budget, the GFC said they couldn’t. Given some of the financial and quality control issues that have come up since building began GFC were probably right but whaddya gonna do? The Spanish government also promised to procure NASAMS and Penguin missile systems as well as other commercial arrangements as part of the offset agreements, opening up a lucrative new market for Norwegian industry. Such are the things that frequently determine export success. But this brings home the point that talking about export prospects just in terms of slapping some sexy new weapons on an existing hull is just the Chimpanzee part of the brain working.

Singapore I did not forget. They just don’t matter. DCNS was practically alone in the bidding for that one, B&V as I recall did not participate. Since you have attempted to make the supposed inadquacies and failures of B&V the subject of this thread, hijacking it for reasons no one can probably fathom, there was no reason to mention it. They weren’t there! Like I said in the last post, the French have tended to succeed where they have no competition – Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco which combined with Singapore result in the lions share of major French naval export success in the last 2 decades. This does not a change in market trends 😮

Since you brought it up, the Formidable’s give another good example of the inefficient packaging of Sylver I mentioned earlier.

Check out the spacing of that VLS installation. I bet you could get at least 2 more Mk 41 modules in there. :diablo:

OTOH Notwithstanding the cancelled order for 10 ships from Chile for budgetary reasons the Thyssen recent order book speaks for itself. 4 for South Africa, 6+21 for Malaysia, whatever Poland ends up paying for, the ANZAC’s, etc, etc, etc,.. (and I won’t count ships built for the home navy).

In the final analysis, and desperately trying to bring this back on-topic… one, or even two or three competitions does not make a trend. Several non-competitions certainly do not make a trend. No one vendor is going to win every contract anyway and no one, particularly myself ever said they would. And finally, none of this has anything to do with export prospects or lack therof for LCS.

There. We managed to get LCS back in there. Successfully back on topic.

They all matter, B&V has lost presence on the export market becouse it has not been able to offer the required designs and it has lost out to France and Spain, fact. The Anzacs dont count as they are effectively previous generation. The only Frigates B&V can claim to have sold is the ships that went to South Africa. The market trend certainly favors france and spain at the moment.

I dont remember anybody saying that one vender won all contracts but you seem to have a habit of arguing against points no one made.

Oh and it was you who raised B&V not me.

That is all well and good if that’s what its for and there is in fact such a need. But what if it isn’t? My suspicion is the space is utilized for other below-decks equipment associated with the launcher, not maintenance access. With no moving parts there shouldn’t be a lot of maintenance anyway. Reliability does not seem to have been an issue so far with Mk 41. From a maintenance standpoint Mk 41 certainly is a huge advance on what came before.

To state that a VLS is lower maintenance than any mechanically-trained launcher is an obvious truth. That does not mean that there isnt basic maintenance to perform – just that there is little, although not none, mechanical maintenance. Having all your missiles hidden away in cannisters inside VLS cells is naturally less desireable, from a serviceability standpoint, than having them on shock mounted racks in magazine spaces.

VLS silos are conveniently placed, usually, in a wonderful spot in the hull to take poundings from heavy seas and electronics do not always take too well to vibration. For illustration grab hold of your PC’s base unit and give it a damn good shake…most of you will be ok….some will not be back on the net for a little while!.

Now missile damage will have to wait til the boat is alongside no matter what, but, cannister or launcher physical/electrical damage or accident effects will be something that the engineering team will be trained to look for and it is very much easier to do that when you have some space to work in.

Otherwise the issue is, you can’t compare Mk 41 and Sylver based on the specs of a single module but rather have to consider the ship impact of the entire installation. With launcher modules more spread the apparent volume advantage of a single Sylver module would appear to be diminished. It may even disappear. Certainly there are ramifications in terms of available volume within the ship. The question really is, how many cells can we get within X footprint, not how big is an individual Mk 41 module as opposed to a Sylver module.

What?!!. The number of cells required in the VLS will be determined at the design stage not after the ship is built to then try and squidge the maximum number of cells in????. If the requirement is for 48 cells and the space is left in the design to spread smaller VLS modules with a metre spacer rather than larger (deck area) VLS modules flush fitted what does it really matter?. Personally I’d rather serve on the Sylver-equipped ship….especially if some bright spark hung some ballistic curtain material between the VLS modules to stop accident/battle damage causing a rather unfortunate chain reaction!.

Choosing to criticise the smaller, more space/weight efficient Sylver launcher on the strength that the in service modules aren’t as tightly packed as Mk41 installations is a bit of a stretch Fitz. Stick with the angle that Mk41 offers quadpack and hope that MBDA/DCNS dont announce a quad or dual pack for VL MICA with the A43 or A50 modules anytime in the near future!.

Yes I did. 1 missile per cell for anything fired out of Sylver. 4 missiles per cell firing ESSM out of Mk 41 or 2 per cell out of Mk 56. A single Sylver module may be somewhat smaller than a Mk 41 module but the ability to quad-pack self-defense missiles puts a decided edge in favor of Mk 41.

As I keep asking, what relevance has that to VL Mica or Sea Wolf? Neither is launched from Sylver A43 or A50. An 8-cell GWS26 is less than 25% of the weight of a tactical length Mk 41, & its volume is less in proportion. I don’t have the exact weight of SDL, but it should be over 3 times the weight of GWS26.

Your comparison is certainly relevant to a comparison of Sylver + Aster vs Mk 41 + SM2 & ESSM, but that’s not being discussed.

A35 shouldn’t really change anything. It apparently only comes in packs of 4 and the main difference other than that to A43 would seem to be length from what I have been able to gather.

Do you have any evidence for that? I’ve not seen any measurements for Sylver A35 except an approximate height. DCNS developed a much lower cross-section VLS (Quadrax), which could hold 8 VT1 missiles quadpacked in 2 cells. It would seem perverse to go from that to a much wider launcher for the same missile (VT1), & another of almost the same diameter (Mica). If you have any figures, I’d be grateful.

Sylver A35 seems much more geared towards CIWS requirements. One can see it being used in the same way as RAM, Goalkeeper or Phalanx, not really as a substitute for a system with limited area defense potential like ASTER or ESSM. I imagine a typical ship installation would be on a small vessel (1,000 tons or less) with maybe two 4 cell launch groups. The Omani OPV’s come to mind as the type of installation that might be typical for this system. ….

Sort of agreed (with a range of 20km it has a wider envelope than the above systems, but that’s more extended self defence than area defence), which is why I’m baffled by your insistence on comparing it with ESSM (a longer, fatter, & 2.5 times heavier missile), & bringing up Sylver A43/A50 & Mk 41.

Thanks for the pointer to FAs, but I found the United Defence Mk 41 factsheets there long ago. Couldn’t find one for SDL, though. Mk 48 & Mk 56 are also easily found.

I’m trying to understand what the issue is with leaving a gap around the specific VLS modules and why its assumed that this is a necessity?. If the ship requirement is for 32 VLS cells and they can be mounted in such a fashion to leave a good metre plus gap around each module fan-bloody-tastic!. That means the weapons lads can get in there and actually make an inspection or attempt repairs if necessary.

That is all well and good if that’s what its for and there is in fact such a need. But what if it isn’t? My suspicion is the space is utilized for other below-decks equipment associated with the launcher, not maintenance access. With no moving parts there shouldn’t be a lot of maintenance anyway. Reliability does not seem to have been an issue so far with Mk 41. From a maintenance standpoint Mk 41 certainly is a huge advance on what came before.

Otherwise the issue is, you can’t compare Mk 41 and Sylver based on the specs of a single module but rather have to consider the ship impact of the entire installation. With launcher modules more spread the apparent volume advantage of a single Sylver module would appear to be diminished. It may even disappear. Certainly there are ramifications in terms of available volume within the ship. The question really is, how many cells can we get within X footprint, not how big is an individual Mk 41 module as opposed to a Sylver module.

The deck footprint of the A50 and A43 modules and, I believe, the 8.15m length A70 module is 6m2. The weights I have information on go up to about 8 metric tonnes for the A50. From memory these values compare very, very favourably with the old Mk41 system – which, given the length of time Mk41’s been around for, they should do!

I’m trying to understand what the issue is with leaving a gap around the specific VLS modules and why its assumed that this is a necessity?. If the ship requirement is for 32 VLS cells and they can be mounted in such a fashion to leave a good metre plus gap around each module fan-bloody-tastic!. That means the weapons lads can get in there and actually make an inspection or attempt repairs if necessary.

Try that on a faulty cell in the middle of a huge Mk41 block installation and you are probably waiting til you are alongside and can get a crane to lift the module out!. If that faulty cell is quadpacked then youve just lost 4 missiles from your inventory as well….quadpack brings curses as well as benefits!.

BTW, you’ve still not explained the relevance of Sylver A43/A50 packing density to VL Mica, or why you think that a ship can carry far more ESSM in the same space & weight than it can Sea Wolf or VL Mica.

Yes I did. 1 missile per cell for anything fired out of Sylver. 4 missiles per cell firing ESSM out of Mk 41 or 2 per cell out of Mk 56. A single Sylver module may be somewhat smaller than a Mk 41 module but the ability to quad-pack self-defense missiles puts a decided edge in favor of Mk 41. A35 shouldn’t really change anything. It apparently only comes in packs of 4 and the main difference other than that to A43 would seem to be length from what I have been able to gather. Given the limited options and growth potential of things one can launch out of A35 I have a hard time understanding the appeal anyway.

Sylver A35 seems much more geared towards CIWS requirements. One can see it being used in the same way as RAM, Goalkeeper or Phalanx, not really as a substitute for a system with limited area defense potential like ASTER or ESSM. I imagine a typical ship installation would be on a small vessel (1,000 tons or less) with maybe two 4 cell launch groups. The Omani OPV’s come to mind as the type of installation that might be typical for this system.

As for this packing density question: it’s interesting, & I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it. Does anyone out there have any hard information? Do Sylver modules need, for any reason, to be further apart than Mk 41 modules, & if so, why? And does anyone have accurate information on the weights of Sylver modules, or the measurements (height, deck footprint) of Sylver A35? I have manufacturers figures for Mk 41 (everything except weight of SDL – anyone know it?), Mk 48, Mk 56 & Mk 57, & for the dimensions of Sylver A43 & A50 modules, but only rather round figures for the weights of the last two.

I too would like an answer to this question. The American stuff is of course very well documented in the public domain. The French as usual are cagey, illusive and/or deceptive (not that I have anything against the French mind you). The wide spacing of Sylver modules seems to be present wherever they are mounted though good detailed photographs are hard to come by. It may be part of the reason why Horizon had 1/3 of its VLS chopped, I don’t know. But it is things like this that make it dangerous to simply compare the size of individual module blocks – you don’t get the big picture.

PS

I think FAS still has the old United Defense datasheets for the Mk 41. I could swear the Mk 41 SDL figures were in there too.

…
Since you brought it up, the Formidable’s give another good example of the inefficient packaging of Sylver I mentioned earlier.

…

I’m not sure that’s an entirely accurate drawing. Compare it with a photograph (e.g. this one), & you’ll see the spacing in the drawing appears to be exaggerated.

BTW, you’ve still not explained the relevance of Sylver A43/A50 packing density to VL Mica, or why you think that a ship can carry far more ESSM in the same space & weight than it can Sea Wolf or VL Mica.

As for this packing density question: it’s interesting, & I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it. Does anyone out there have any hard information? Do Sylver modules need, for any reason, to be further apart than Mk 41 modules, & if so, why? And does anyone have accurate information on the weights of Sylver modules, or the measurements (height, deck footprint) of Sylver A35? I have manufacturers figures for Mk 41 (everything except weight of SDL – anyone know it?), Mk 48, Mk 56 & Mk 57, & for the dimensions of Sylver A43 & A50 modules, but only rather round figures for the weights of the last two.

This demonstrates your problem, we are not looking woodland but at the international frigate market. History there is not as important as you seem to think it is because of the time scales involved. Hence why DCNS and Navantia have managed to take so much ground from B&V in the last few years.

You missed out Singapore, I assume deliberately, then there was the Nansens for Norway. By your own flawed logic they should have walked the Australian AWD project but it went to spain with B&V nowhere to be seen. The one on the horizon to watch is the Greek Anti Air Warfare project.

Rubbish and lies.

Of the 3 shortlisted proposals for SEA 4000 (hey, where’s the mightly DCNS?) B&V’s proposal was never expected to be competitive in Australia and everyone pretty much knew it at the time. No surprise it fell out early. The only real shocker out of that one was that Australia picked the less capable (cheaper) Navantia proposal over the Gibbs & Cox design it had previously listed as its preferred choice. But hey, Navantia did some great PR on that one – including the around the world cruise – and pulled it off. More power to em’. Personally, I think Australia chose the wrong boat, but I understand why they did. That’s how the export market works – they went for cheaper/less capable/better offsets, not technical ability.

What flawed logic is it exactly that I have supposedly shown that says B&V was a slam dunk for this or any other program? Ineed I seem to recall stating quite explicitly that I was using B&V in the context of what it takes to achieve broad export success. Only in your imagination have I said anything different. Or is this still just part of your master plan to find some new way to trip me up and put words in my mouth for your own personal form of ego appeasment?

Many had expected the GFC to win the Norwegian contract and they nearly did so that was a bit of a surprise. The choice of Bazan/Izar/Navantia was certainly met with a very large amount of controversy in Norway due to the yards government subsidies, and questionable labor practices. The merits of the individual ship designs seem not to have been a factor here but rather the details of the individual proposals. Specifically, Navantia promised to meet Norway’s delivery schedule and budget, the GFC said they couldn’t. Given some of the financial and quality control issues that have come up since building began GFC were probably right but whaddya gonna do? The Spanish government also promised to procure NASAMS and Penguin missile systems as well as other commercial arrangements as part of the offset agreements, opening up a lucrative new market for Norwegian industry. Such are the things that frequently determine export success. But this brings home the point that talking about export prospects just in terms of slapping some sexy new weapons on an existing hull is just the Chimpanzee part of the brain working.

Singapore I did not forget. They just don’t matter. DCNS was practically alone in the bidding for that one, B&V as I recall did not participate. Since you have attempted to make the supposed inadquacies and failures of B&V the subject of this thread, hijacking it for reasons no one can probably fathom, there was no reason to mention it. They weren’t there! Like I said in the last post, the French have tended to succeed where they have no competition – Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco which combined with Singapore result in the lions share of major French naval export success in the last 2 decades. This does not a change in market trends 😮

Since you brought it up, the Formidable’s give another good example of the inefficient packaging of Sylver I mentioned earlier.

Check out the spacing of that VLS installation. I bet you could get at least 2 more Mk 41 modules in there. :diablo:

OTOH Notwithstanding the cancelled order for 10 ships from Chile for budgetary reasons the Thyssen recent order book speaks for itself. 4 for South Africa, 6+21 for Malaysia, whatever Poland ends up paying for, the ANZAC’s, etc, etc, etc,.. (and I won’t count ships built for the home navy).

In the final analysis, and desperately trying to bring this back on-topic… one, or even two or three competitions does not make a trend. Several non-competitions certainly do not make a trend. No one vendor is going to win every contract anyway and no one, particularly myself ever said they would. And finally, none of this has anything to do with export prospects or lack therof for LCS.

There. We managed to get LCS back in there. Successfully back on topic.

You’d know best, you started posting here first

This is not helpful, so please stop it. This forum is meant to be a friendly place to exchange ideas and opinions, not an opportunity to mud-sling.

You’d know best, you started posting here first.

Exactly, allot more experience of people like you.

Hey, why don’t you regail us with more of your fascinating, if utterly fictional accounts of the history of LCS and DD(X) like you did in post #49. TThat’s great stuff.

Nothing fictional there at all ad seeing as how you have plagerised at least one of my posts before I would stay quiet if i were you.

I could give a rip what Navantia or DCNS did last week. Once again you keep looking at the trees and have no idea where the forest is. I am neither cheering for nor defending Thyssen Marine Systems. Like I said they were used as the most obvious and convenient example of the point I was trying to make, which is to point out that they have the export market well figured out and are better able than any other yard to tailor their product to the needs of the client. Because they have so much real-world experience in the export market, they know the people, they have the relationships, they can back up what they claim with a proven track record, this makes them a tough nut to crack in the frigate export business. American yards don’t have those connections, that history, that experience and with LCS they don’t have the product either.

This demonstrates your problem, we are not looking woodland but at the international frigate market. History there is not as important as you seem to think it is because of the time scales involved. Hence why DCNS and Navantia have managed to take so much ground from B&V in the last few years.

Since you continue to feel the need to deviate from the subject at hand I’ll throw you this bone. Sure Navantia has had a couple of recent export success but only in one of those was B&V truly competitive – and nobody wins them all. The French as they always do sell to markets they already have largely locked up. It is pretty hard to get excited if Morocco or Saudi Arabia buy a French ship. So what? That does not a trend make. What any of this has to do with the exportability of LCS I don’t have a clue. The exportability of LCS will depend on the marketing skills and experience of the contractors (little to none), the particulars of the platform (of which weapons are about the least interesting), price and after sales service and support.

You missed out Singapore, I assume deliberately, then there was the Nansens for Norway. By your own flawed logic they should have walked the Australian AWD project but it went to spain with B&V nowhere to be seen. The one on the horizon to watch is the Greek Anti Air Warfare project.

It is amusing when children start posting here.

You’d know best, you started posting here first.

Hey, why don’t you regail us with more of your fascinating, if utterly fictional accounts of the history of LCS and DD(X) like you did in post #49. TThat’s great stuff.

The last few decades are really rather irrelevent, there have been very big shifts in the Frigate export market with both French and Spanish yards becoming big players and high end well equipped GP frigates doing quite well. A well tricked out LCS has the potential to compete if marketed properly.

I could give a rip what Navantia or DCNS did last week. Once again you keep looking at the trees and have no idea where the forest is. I am neither cheering for nor defending Thyssen Marine Systems. Like I said they were used as the most obvious and convenient example of the point I was trying to make, which is to point out that they have the export market well figured out and are better able than any other yard to tailor their product to the needs of the client. Because they have so much real-world experience in the export market, they know the people, they have the relationships, they can back up what they claim with a proven track record, this makes them a tough nut to crack in the frigate export business. American yards don’t have those connections, that history, that experience and with LCS they don’t have the product either.

Since you continue to feel the need to deviate from the subject at hand I’ll throw you this bone. Sure Navantia has had a couple of recent export success but only in one of those was B&V truly competitive – and nobody wins them all. The French as they always do sell to markets they already have largely locked up. It is pretty hard to get excited if Morocco or Saudi Arabia buy a French ship. So what? That does not a trend make. What any of this has to do with the exportability of LCS I don’t have a clue. The exportability of LCS will depend on the marketing skills and experience of the contractors (little to none), the particulars of the platform (of which weapons are about the least interesting), price and after sales service and support.

B+V has been floating a “Meko 200 AAW” in its portfolio – same hull with a 40-cell Mk41, SPY-1F or APAR/SMART-L combo, 2x RAM for CIWS, 8 SSM, one ASW helo, no TAS.

Never seen a price quoted for that though, but i’d suspect that to be at least $180-200 million extra in comparison to the ASW version just based on the sensor outfit.
For a breakdown… say $120 million just for switching out the TRS-3D/16 for APAR+SMART-L, another $30 million for integrating the Mk41 instead of Umkhonto, and $10 million for a new 127mm gun. $20 million for the RAM launchers in place of the 35DPGs. Maybe a decent sonar in place of the Kingklip budget system for another $10-15 million.
A couple other improvements budgeted for up to $25 million – meh, for that we could add TAS and a number of other goodies as well; EDO’s ALOFTS 980 comes at $7 million per unit. Perhaps also a MASS-ISS instead of Super Barricade, another $3-4 million.

Would put this Meko A200 AAW at around $490 to $520 million.

Given Norways experience with the Nansen I would suspect a bit more.;) roughly $600million.;)

The only point I would dissagree with you on is the cheaper Meko, I would love to see a break down for comparable systems not the absurdly spartan South African ships.

B+V has been floating a “Meko 200 AAW” in its portfolio – same hull with a 40-cell Mk41, SPY-1F or APAR/SMART-L combo, 2x RAM for CIWS, 8 SSM, one ASW helo, no TAS.

Never seen a price quoted for that though, but i’d suspect that to be at least $180-200 million extra in comparison to the ASW version just based on the sensor outfit.
For a breakdown… say $120 million just for switching out the TRS-3D/16 for APAR+SMART-L, another $30 million for integrating the Mk41 instead of Umkhonto, and $10 million for a new 127mm gun. $20 million for the RAM launchers in place of the 35DPGs. Maybe a decent sonar in place of the Kingklip budget system for another $10-15 million.
A couple other improvements budgeted for up to $25 million – meh, for that we could add TAS and a number of other goodies as well; EDO’s ALOFTS 980 comes at $7 million per unit. Perhaps also a MASS-ISS instead of Super Barricade, another $3-4 million.

Would put this Meko A200 AAW at around $490 to $520 million.

Again, right back at ya.

Yeah whatever.

It is amusing when children start posting here.

Don’t recall you being real forthcoming with the sources either pal. I have not pressed the matter because I don’t care enough about any of this. None of this matters. Which is why I’m not rushing out to appease you either.

That is becouse I have not made any claims that require sources, you have and swerve has systematically destroyed your arguments as you have not provided those required sources.

But if you compare the export success of Blohm and Voss over the last several decades to any other yard, nobody else comes close. But of course as usual you miss the point – B&V/Thyssen is just an example and I only have time for one example as I write between annoying destractions at work. I use them as an example because I think more than any other yard they understand and cater to the needs of the export market – and it has paid off for them. Vospers held that title for a while before B&V and someone else may take it over at some later time. American yards however have had scant recent export success even after attempts in the 90’s to design ships specifically for the export market. The current offering – LCS – doesn’t really help. It is at best, an uphill battle.

The last few decades are really rather irrelevent, there have been very big shifts in the Frigate export market with both French and Spanish yards becoming big players and high end well equipped GP frigates doing quite well. A well tricked out LCS has the potential to compete if marketed properly.

Sure. $710 million, Morocco deal. Afaik without Aster missiles. Now take the heavily undervalued dollar at the moment into account, and we’re getting rather close.

LCS2 is projected for a cost of what, around $640 million right now for the prototype? Slap 15% off for unit cost in a serial production run, to be fair.

To bring this to equivalence to a FREMM, let’s say $40-50 million in ASW equipment, and another $40-50 million for at least two Mk48s (without missiles) and CEAFAR. Wouldn’t be quite equivalent, but still not bad for a GP frigate. Add Harpoon. Under FMS, those are around $15 million.

Where are we now… $650 to 670 million. Sure, could be competitive. But that’s a ship that has no growth space left, doesn’t look as “big” as a FREMM (and that is important), is slightly deficient in AAW comparison, and needs good ties to the USA. And of course that B+V would bid against with a fully decked-out Meko A200 with similar specs for $100 million less at least.

—

B+V currently holds 25% of the worldwide frigate export market btw, according to the German government [1]. Not what i would call a “lock” either, but it’s a rather significant share.

[1] – Naval Industry Coordinator Dagmar Wöhrl at this conference

The problem is that Meko has not been doing well lately, they have lost allot of ground to Navantia and Thales/DCNS/France in general. It will be interesting to see what happens when the next big contest comes up.

On the issue of LCS, It is worth noting that the new Barak missile will use Mk-41 and will be intended for Frigate sized ships along with associated radar. This could provide a reasonably priced and effective alternative to SPY-1F.

The only point I would dissagree with you on is the cheaper Meko, I would love to see a break down for comparable systems not the absurdly spartan South African ships.