Improved FREMM

To whom understand french.

The proof that there is something strange.
The same source report 2 differents price for the Horizon:

Here is 2.7 bilions € for 2 Horizons:
En définitive, le coût des deux frégates françaises, les Forbin et Chevalier Paul, atteint 1.9 milliard d’euros, auquel il faut ajouter le coût du système d’armes. La Marine nationale estimant le budget total à 2.7 milliards d’euros, le prix de ce dernier serait donc d’environ 800 millions d’euros

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=105325

Here is 1.6 bilion €. There’s written 800 milion € at unit:

La commande de la troisième Horizon était d’ailleurs prévue dans la loi de programmation 2003-2008. Le coût très élevé de ces navires (800 millions d’euros pièce) est la raison principale de cet abandon.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=144

Tmor, could u help us to translate from french to english?
Thanks.
😉

Ultimately, the cost of the two French frigates, Forbin and Chevalier Paul, reached 1.9 billion d’ euros, for which it is necessary to add the cost of the weapon system(s). National marine estimating the total budget at 2.7 billion euros, the price of this last would be thus approximately 800 million; euros

2 ships at 1.9 billion > 950 million apiece plus the cost of weaponry.
cost of weaponry: 800 million for 2 ships.
total per ship: 1.35 million

The ordering of the third Horizon was d’ elsewhere envisaged in the law of programming 2003-2008. The very high cost of these ships (800 d’ million; euros part) is the primary reason of this abandonment

this would be in line with the 950 million excl weapons (when you build more units, the price per unit comes down e.g. because development costs can bespread out over more units).

You also need to factor in whether or not the amount is monetary units of a particular year (compare ‘constant dollar’): to get the same value as 1 dollar in year X, one might have to spend 1,1 dollar om year Y=X+1). Your first article is from 2007 and your second from 2005 > some effects of e.g. inflation?

Cool video of the team radar Herakles – Aster missiles of the French FREMM . This link has been known by s7seas in the forum warships1discussionboards.
http://media.thales-nederland.nl/ (Herakles box)

To whom understand french.

The proof that there is something strange.
The same source report 2 differents price for the Horizon:

Here is 2.7 bilions € for 2 Horizons:
En définitive, le coût des deux frégates françaises, les Forbin et Chevalier Paul, atteint 1.9 milliard d’euros, auquel il faut ajouter le coût du système d’armes. La Marine nationale estimant le budget total à 2.7 milliards d’euros, le prix de ce dernier serait donc d’environ 800 millions d’euros

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=105325

Here is 1.6 bilion €. There’s written 800 milion € at unit:

La commande de la troisième Horizon était d’ailleurs prévue dans la loi de programmation 2003-2008. Le coût très élevé de ces navires (800 millions d’euros pièce) est la raison principale de cet abandon.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=144

Tmor, could u help us to translate from french to english?
Thanks.
😉

The italian navy will do the same?

Marine : Lancement des études pour une FREMM antiaérienne

A standard FREMM with Aster 30, the detection range of the radar allows that the ship will be used only in littoral warfare …

Is not an Empar 😀 … but an herakles :diablo:

Heracles pic

Found this interesting pic. While caption says that it is EMPAR, it looks exactly like Herakles…

I still have to wonder if the inclusion of a S1850M radar is planned?

No S1850M. French Fremm will have only the multifunction Herakles.

Herakles is not so powerful for AAW ship like someone says :diablo: :diablo:

Comment réaliser une FREMM antiaérienne ?

Sorry, that’s not what is written. :p

Herakles is not so powerful for AAW ship like someone says :diablo: :diablo:

Comment réaliser une FREMM antiaérienne ?

It sounds as if it isn’t practical to increase the elevation of the HERAKLES antenna, due to topweight issues? Instead, they will increase the power?

I still have to wonder if the inclusion of a S1850M radar is planned?

I also wonder how the overall number of hulls be effected? Is it to be assumed that the 2 anti-aircraft derivative will replace 2 other FREMM hulls? Are overall numbers already reduced below the projected 17?

7seas or others, one more question.

I still dont completely understand advantages that offer antena with Lunenberg lens against traditional antennas, could it someone explain to me please?
Also what are its disadvantages…

As a matter of fact I’m not so sure it’s a Luneberg lens at all, atleast I can’t seem to find anything looking like one on the pictures in this thread. It looks like your typical space-fed passive array to me. Mind you, I’ve seen that type of array referred to as an ‘electromagnetic lens’ in sometimes, perhaps that’s where the confusion comes from.

Herakles is not so powerful for AAW ship like someone says :diablo: :diablo:

Comment réaliser une FREMM antiaérienne ?

7seas or others, one more question.

I still dont completely understand advantages that offer antena with Lunenberg lens against traditional antennas, could it someone explain to me please?
Also what are its disadvantages…

Herakles is an active array rotating at 60 rpm in the S-band (range) – the beam can search against the direction of rotation for longer dwell times.

7seas, thanks for quick reply. I was reffering to this post, that active confused me…

Hmm, to your point, mayby simultaneously means only for the surveillance mode with multi-beam (quad-beam) and then jump for few miliseconds to single pencil-beam radar for target tracking and again back to surveillance …..

And that means that Herakles is PESA radar….

Time on target

No, it’s not an active phased array, but an electronic scanning array (Lunenburg lens, see post before).

Still: rotation time is one second, so not much time on target.
If you interleave that with tracking, it becomes even worse.
Because the track beam “eats” from the surveillance budget.
The more targets to track, the less surveillance time.

Stealth incoming small objects need a lot of energy pumped towards, to reflect a little back. Pumping energy cost time (integrated power) or one extreme high power pulse (that’s not very likely with the Lunenburg lens, because energy goes 2 times into air: from TR to lens and from lens to target)

simultaneously as they are inter-leaved

It’s simultaneously or inter-leaved but not both.
This says something as: it happens in parallel but after each other ??

What they mean is inter-leaved: search-track-search-track-search.

Or am I wrong ?

Some new info on Herakles

Find this stuff on defencetalk forum:

To quote from Jane’s IDR June 2005 issue, “Doppler processing is used for clutter rejection, and the radar (Herakles) is claimed to be capable of initiating most tracks within one second (the first rotation after detection) — or, in highly stressful cases such as an incoming sea-skimming missile, within two seconds (the second rotation after detection).”

“The Herakles is basically operated as a multibeam radar for surveillance modes and as a pencil-beam radar for target tracking — activities that are happening simultaneously as they are inter-leaved by the radar’s space-time management unit. “To cover a volume out to 250 km and up to 80,000ft; 360° around; up to an elevation of 70°, every second, there has to be a secret, and the secret is that we use the multi-beam concept,” a Thales engineer said.”

The Herakles has 4 independent reception channels operating up to 4 beams concurrently.

The Herakles antenna unit weighs just 3.5 tons.

Gents I am not sure about some features of Herakles. Is it really AESA radar? The number beams generated concurrently seems to be very low for AESA radar. Compare it for example with APAR, its claimed that APAR can generated hundreds of beams concurrently… :confused:

Work share is the key

Like the Horizon’s where also, FREMM is a work share project.
Initially a share based on 27/10, but I think now 8/2.
That’s a share of costs but also a share of work.
That means for the first 10 ships, 80% of the value of the common work will go to France and 20% to Italy. Where Italy claimed the work for the license build GE engines, the counteroffer from FR was the more powerful, more efficient MT30 but that would not lead to French employment.
Much more important for the French are the missiles. While you buy one time an Italian gun, missiles are consumables. Their part in the missile profit is much larger then the Italian.
It’s like the printer from HP, affordable when you buy it, expensive to use.
That’s why at a first glance Italy has a reasonable part of FREMM, but if you count it for the lifetime ….?

Back to an improved EMPAR, wouldn’t it be logical to launch the improved EMPAR on a project of 27+10 or more realistic 8+2 (France never built the number of ships they initially announced for the last 9 projects).
A series of 10 could carry the initial development costs of an improved EMPAR.
That would be more worth than the license production of a GE engine IMHO.

The French FREMM is indeed more a shipbuilding employment program to fill up DCN’s order book for merger and take over value counting, than a well balanced choice to solve the weaknesses of the MN.

The preferred propulsion system from the French point of view would have included the Rolls Royce MT30 marine gas turbine. However Italy pushed for license produced General Electric LM2500+. A CODAD variant may have been discussed in the initial stages, but not for quite a while now.

Absolutly not!
French pushed for a full diesel engine.
After the rumors of a common aircraft carrier CVF/PA2, then french dropped for Rolls Royce MT30 to show ‘good action’ to UK.

Italy didn’t accept. Why to pay brits engines in an italian-french project??

FREMM wil be “a state of the art” frigates, diesel propulsion is good for patrol vessel 😀 … we have push on LM2500+ because all our ship with gas turbine have this …

The Italian government is barely able to scrape together funds for the first two FREMM, let alone asure a full run of 10 ships as planned. Yet they will invest more money into a new radar variant? We will see what happens.

The preferred propulsion system from the French point of view would have included the Rolls Royce MT30 marine gas turbine. However Italy pushed for license produced General Electric LM2500+. A CODAD variant may have been discussed in the initial stages, but not for quite a while now.