The FREMM thread.

comparison

Fair enough, I must have been thinking about earlier Otomat versions but you are right of course both models are more or less comparable, at least until Otomat gets its new engine. Even so SCALP remains an advantage for the French version. What is the view from Italy on their respective combat systems? The French seem quite proud about SETIS.

True but not the actual version (mk2 blockIV).

MMI (italian navy) plans to keep in service Otomat at least until 2040.

To do this, the old Otomat must be:

1) Fully digitalized, and this was done with the block IV

2) Change engine, since the new engine is so old that it’s no longer in production. This upgrade is planned, but has not actually taken place yet. It will be done in any case. MBDA reports that by combining the better performance of a new engine (as fuel consume) plus the smaller dimension (that allows for more fuel to be carried onboard) the missile will actually obtain a range in excess of 300km

I know.

Its engine will be the F107-WR-402 and this new version will be employed by MM’s most modern destroyers and destr… ehm… frigates.

However, the sense of my statement does not change: the Exocet will be outranged by Otomat… again! :diablo:

C) Range.

Exocet Block 3: in excess of 100 nautical miles.
Otomat Block IV: in excess of 100 nautical miles as it has been until now? No. It has been reported that FREMM’s Otomat Block IVs are getting new turbofans which extend their range by near 100%: they will reach a range in the class of 300 kms, so.

True but not the actual version (mk2 blockIV).

MMI (italian navy) plans to keep in service Otomat at least until 2040.

To do this, the old Otomat must be:

1) Fully digitalized, and this was done with the block IV

2) Change engine, since the new engine is so old that it’s no longer in production. This upgrade is planned, but has not actually taken place yet. It will be done in any case. MBDA reports that by combining the better performance of a new engine (as fuel consume) plus the smaller dimension (that allows for more fuel to be carried onboard) the missile will actually obtain a range in excess of 300km

BTW are you sure on the Italian FREMM fitting one NH90 and one EH101 in its hangars? I always thought it was only capable of 2 NH90s.

Mr. Rick86 is right.

Take a look at this, it’s from Italian Navy’s website: http://www.marina.difesa.it/uominimezzi/nuoviprogetti/Pagine/LeFregate.aspx

Due elicotteri NH-90 o 1 NH90 + 1 EH-101 con sistema di movimentazione assistita

DCN might […] point out that French units have […] a better antiship missile in the form of Exocet MM.40 Block 3

Why do you think Exocet Block 3 is better than Otomat Block IV?

Let’s compare these two MBDA’s missiles with most recent details from specialized magazines, official websites and operative personnel.

A) Guidance.

Exocet Block 3: Active radar homing, GPS and inertial guidance.
Otomat Block IV: Active radar homing, GPS, inertial guidance and in-flight revectoring (through a data-link with the launching ship).

B) Warhead.

Exocet Block 3: 165 kg, shaped charge fragmentation.
Otomat Block IV: 210 kg, delay-fused semi-armor-piercing.

Both utilize new explosives to increase their explosive power.

C) Range.

Exocet Block 3: in excess of 100 nautical miles.
Otomat Block IV: in excess of 100 nautical miles as it has been until now? No. It has been reported that FREMM’s Otomat Block IVs are getting new turbofans which extend their range by near 100%: they will reach a range in the class of 300 kms, so.

D) Speed.

Exocet Block 3: 315 mps.
Otomat Block IV: 300 mps (with the old engine).

I’m sorry but I really don’t know why you consider the last Exocet “better” than Italian FREMM’s Otomat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/c/c5/Nave_bergamini5.JPG

Please open the link. It contains an high-res picture of the rear of the Bergamini.
As you can see the hangar door on the left is smaller than the hangar door on the right.

Regarding the antiship missile, the missile is the new Otomat/Teseo Mk 2 block 4: it is a fully digitalized version, it supports tridimensional navigation with way points, land attack (with GPS) and has the capability to attack again a ship if it misses the first time, finally it can perform evasive manuevres.

Range is somewhere around 200km (officially “in excess of 150km”).

Hmmm… I think it all depends on who you ask. DCN might point out that building FREMMs on a budget has allowed France to order 11 vs maybe 6 for Italy. It might also point out that French units have 16 Scalp cruise missiles, a better antiship missile in the form of Exocet MM.40 Block 3, and a new design combat system: SETIS. BTW are you sure on the Italian FREMM fitting one NH90 and one EH101 in its hangars? I always thought it was only capable of 2 NH90s.

I found a document on the differences between FREMM-IT and FREMM-FR.

The document is old, the active version of the Empar (a possibility in the document) has in the meantime becomed a reality.

Regarding propulsion:

1) FR uses CODLOG, IT uses CODLAG.

2) Both IT and FR operates electric motors (2x 2.2 MW for silent search in ASW). Howeve the IT motors can be used as trailed generators when the ship is operated by the gas turbine. FR max speed in silent search is 15kn, IT max speed in silent search is 15.6kn)

3) There is a significant difference in the propeller: the “Bergamini” class units are fitted with two five-blades controllable-pitch propellers,
whereas the French units operate fixed-blades propellers which are more economic but easier to detect and analysed by submarines

4) French units forward diesel-generators exhaust is on the side just above the waterline to minimize IR signature. IT maintains the traditional exhausts towards the superstructure, to avoid any risks of water-radiated noise, and the forward diesel generators have a reduction gear.

Regarding Radar

1) the “Bergamini” fitted with the RAN-30X (RASS) for surfaced
search, low altitude air search, and target indication, while the “Aquitaine” class will only feature the HERAKLES.

Regarding Sonar

The suite is very good for both ships and includes (ASW variant, in GP is FFBNW except for the hull sonar):
– THALES Type 4110 hull-mounted sonar.
– VDS with Low-Frequency Active Sonar (LFAS) transmitter (CAPTAS Mk2)
– A Multi Function Towed (MFTA) Array (THALES Type 4929) acting both as a receiver for LFAS (including in the multi-static operating mode) as well as torpedo detector for the torpedo-defence system (The MFTA is towed independently from the VDS array.)
– IT only has also a dedicated Mine avoidance sonar (likely an additional HF active set)

Regarding helicopter (this is new for me, regarding FR)

FR can carry only 1 NH-90 + a TAUV in a single hangar

IT can carry two helicopter (1 NH-90 + 1 EH-101) in two separate hangars

Dimensions

5800t FR, 6000t IT
Flight deck 520m FR/500 m² IT
Lenght 137m FR, 140m IT
Beam 19m FR, 19.7m IT

http://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hartmut%20manseck%2C%20in%20un%20bellissimo%20articolo%20edito%20sul%20n.%202-3%20del%202009%20di%20naval%20forces&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orizzontesn.it%2Fdownload_file.php%3Ffname%3DNO%25202-3%25202009%2520-%2520NAFO%2520-%2520SPECIAL%2520SHIP%2520-%2520The%2520FREMM%2520Frigates.pdf&ei=l05_T63ENeHE4gT5qdT5Bw&usg=AFQjCNFZmBe7ikYqVlOitTNymy6CvIQ8BQ

To open the document, select “open” and then select “open with PDF”

French units are built “al risparmio” 🙂

Yes, I agree Jonesy with almost all of your post.

Logically the longer is the range of the missile, the more sophisticated it becomes a CMS able to perform a local area defense.
So in case of Aster-30 (that requires midcourse guidance), even if the beta angle is not so much different from zero, the capabilities required are very different from a system that employs a shorter range missile, as the FLAADS. And it’s not just a matter of sophistication but, given the range of the missile, you need an AESA radar of the Sampson class.

Two different things basically.

Regarding the strales, obvioulsy that is the inner layer, but it is a good complementary capability, far better than a smaller caliber CIWS expecially with supersonic missiles.

Rick

However any modern AAW missile, even the most sophisticated such as the Aster-30, cannot lock the target with its radar from the beginning.
The flight trajectory and a midcourse update must be performed, and calculated.

This is the case for a full area defence capability with a long range missile and a target that you can track at range i.e an altitude target or something CEC-linked. The midcourse is, naturally, needed to update the outbound SAM as to the correct seeker capture point as it changes through the flight profile. A local area capability realistically need not have this though. The inbounds will be plotted as they cross the horizon and even a Mach2 inbound at 12 miles, with a M3 interceptor, is going to give the system ample time for two salvoes with shoot-look-shoot a real possibility.

Then, of course, I don’t know the CMS capability of the new type 26, but, since this is A VERY COSTLY THING, I really don’t understand why building a local area defence CMS and not using a missile in the Aster-30 class.

As earlier described though FLAADS is being designed expressly to provide local area defence off a shorter range ‘cheap’ missile and a conventional 3D TI capable Medium Range Radar – you have to assume that to meet that requirement the combat system is going to be capable of the number crunching. At the shorter range you dont need frequent updates from pencil beamshifting high-end radars etc anyway as your SAM goes seeker active near enough at tipover anyway!. All you need is the initial steer to align the seeker head to put the target in its field of view. So why bolt on the expensive AESA set?.

Also because up to 8km, the best AAW defense is with guns (and guided ammo) and not with missile.

All well and good, but, we are talking about AAW capabilty out to 12 nautical miles here…over 20km…not point defense under 8km. If the frigate wants to mount a Strales gun for point defence inside the FLAADS envelope I’d say those would be complimentary capabilities.

I forget…

The Italian Navy has 4 destroyers, not 2.

As it always happens since the ’70s, we have a couple of modern destroyers (the Horizon) and a couple of modernized destroyers (the De La Penne).

The De La Pennes will be substituted in the 2020-2025 timeframe with a new class of two ships.

Ah yes, I forgot about the De La Penne class. SM1-MR/RIM-66E? Just coming up to 20 years old, so got some life left.

Jonesy,

I do not completely agree with you here

engage a crossing target all you need is that kinematic performance and the Target Indication radar to provide is the intercept point to allow for the missile seeker to ‘capture’ the target when it activates

You said that, in order to engage a missile not aimed to the frigate itself, all you need is:
1) A missile with kinematic performance long enough to perform the engagment
2) A radar able to “see” the hostile missile

However any modern AAW missile, even the most sophisticated such as the Aster-30, cannot lock the target with its radar from the beginning.
The flight trajectory and a midcourse update must be performed, and calculated, by the ship’s combat management system.

I have no doubt that, using a manual command, a CAAM equipedd ship may engage an aerial target regardless of the beta angle, as you said the “cross range ability”.

The discriminant here, at least as I know, is that an area defence capable ship may do this task in a full automatic mode while engaging at the same time a great number of targets.
Since everything (tracking, attack solution, firing and updating) must be done in the space of seconds in case of a saturation attack with supersonic missiles, doing this fully automatic as the AEGIS or the PAAMS does is a truly discriminant capability between area and point defense capability.

Then, of course, I don’t know the CMS capability of the new type 26, but, since this is A VERY COSTLY THING, I really don’t understand why building a local area defence CMS and not using a missile in the Aster-30 class.
In Italy we say “fatto 30, fai 31”, that is “if you have done 30, do 31”: if you have spent say 80m€ for an AESA radar and a local area defense CMS, it is a nonsense to save some few millions and mounting a much lower capability missile.

Also because up to 8km, the best AAW defense is with guns (and guided ammo) and not with missile.

Rick,

Here two concepts are being discussed both which hinge on whats called ‘cross-range’ ability. You term it ‘beta angle’ but its the same thing. They are area defence and local area defence. You are of course quite right in your definitions of point defence and area defence.

Quite often, especially recently, missiles defined as point defence like ESSM and Shtil have the kinematic cross-range performance to engage a non zero-bearing-rate target. The difficulty in getting this performance is in the shipboard illuminator and seeker head. A SARH missile seeker effectively looks for the the RF return gradient off the target and flies for the highest return. With a crossing target the highest gradient is always going to be tracking along the targets flightplan. The missile seeker therefore has to plug in some angular offset value to lead the target. A zero bearing rate target doesnt require this. So missiles dependent on shipboard fire channels are less able to cope with ‘area’ targets despite the missile itself having the performance to manage it. Long-range area weapons with TVM/SARH etc do not suffer this limitation as, at range, the bearing rate change to lead the target is far smaller…even for a very fast inbound.

With the advent of active seekers on PDMS’s though the guidance limitation disappears and to engage a crossing target all you need is that kinematic performance and the Target Indication radar to provide is the intercept point to allow for the missile seeker to ‘capture’ the target when it activates. You can do that at 50km downrange if you have the OTH ability or an altitude target….or you can do that at horizon range with a fast enough missile.

Sea Ceptor has the advantage of being a fast missile with, apparently, the kinematics of an ESSM type weapon….plus it will be ‘cheap enough’ to be provided on every frigate in the escort group. So suddenly every ship in the escort is capable of overlapping missile engagement zones so that any threat axis in a rough 12nm radius is covered by mutiple intercept vectors. Put 3 or 4 frigates in a 3nm seperated formation round a hvu group and you have a lot of defensive fire options in the local area zone to get the sea ceptor the lead angle to make the crossing intercept.

The point about the AESA array without the VSR is that volume search from this kind of radar often takes a lot of the radars processing power and operational capability. That can degrade its abilities to run concurrent functions. The VSR offloads the MFR and allows it to focus on the high-resolution tasks that its best at.

I forget…

The Italian Navy has 4 destroyers, not 2.

As it always happens since the ’70s, we have a couple of modern destroyers (the Horizon) and a couple of modernized destroyers (the De La Penne).

The De La Pennes will be substituted in the 2020-2025 timeframe with a new class of two ships.

Indomito class (Impetuoso and Indomito) – 1957
Impavido class (Impavido and Intrepido) – 1964
Audace class (Audace and Ardito) – 1974
De La Penne class (De La Penne and Mimbelli) – 1993
Andrea Doria class (Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio) – 2010

As you can see we always build a couple of DDGs per time.

Ahh okay so the new AESA is doing the VSR job without any reduction in capability in horizon scan, target track, surface scan modes etc???.

Forgive my English in case of mistake since what’s follow is quite technical.

A long range radar performs mainly the “search” part of an air to air engagment, that is it provides an early warning capability typically for a carrier battle group.
In this sense, the lack of an LRR does not limit the capability of the Aster itself. It means that the Aster missile is in no way limited in the engagment of a low flight or supersonic or stealth target.

The limiting factor in the SAAM-ESD is the combat management system, that is of course cheaper than the extraordinary sofisticated PAAMS (actually the best system in the world to perform ship based anti missile defense).

If the main radar (the Kronos NVER in this case) has enough power to detect the incoming missile, the Aster can be fired at any distance, even at 100km, and this is the case since we are dealing with a radar with probably 300+km range.
IT IS NOT THE RANGE OF A MISSILE THE DISCRIMINANT FACTOR BETWEEN POINT DEFENSE AND AREA DEFENSE

A point defense system is able to engage a target only if the target is directed toward the system itself (technically the beta angle between the ship and the missile direction is zero). Of course you can engage a target not directed against the ship, but only in the manual mode. Can be done for one missile, there’s not enough time in case of a salvo.

An area defense system is able to engage any target regardless of the beta angle. A Daring can probably shoot down 12 Brahmos aimed to a QEII carrier that is navigating 50km away from the destroyer. This can be done in a complete auto mode.

A local area defense is something halfway, in the sense that the beta angle can be different from zero, but not too much different. The requisite of the italian navy that the SAAM-IT was not able to perform (thus leading to the decision to develop the SAAM-ESD) was that a FREMM must be able to defend a ship navigating at a distance of 4-6km. The SAAM-ESD exceeds this requisite, but none knows how much it exceeds.

—————

You can, in theory, develop an area defence CMS for the CAAM missiles, but it is a waste of money. Engaging a target aimed to a different ship requires a long range missile (recall the example of the Daring engaging the Brahoms to protect a QEII carrier 50km away, with may be the enemy missile at 80km of distance) and the CMS itself is the must expensive thing, not the radar or the missiles.
Ah, Sampson and Kronos NVER are not too different 😉

Because you don’t have an AAW destroyer available. SAAM-ESD & FREDA are meant to make up for not having enough Horizons to be sure of having one available when it’s needed. If you don’t have a Horizon to send (e.g. one in refit, & the other escorting the carrier on another task), what’s better, FLAADS & CAMM or SAAM-ESD & Aster 30/15? It’s not a choice between Type 45 & SAAM-ESD.

SAAM-ESD and FREDA are half-assed make-and-mends lashups of the vessels that both services should have ordered more of in the first place…the Horizon DDG’s. What you are left with is a lesser capability combat system on a less capable hull trying to fill the boots of the vessel optimised to do the job. Again I make the point that if you are facing the air threat that is greater than that a FLAADS type ‘cheap’ system can handle then you need more than a solitary SAAM-ESD ship. Its claiming a capability where only a percentage of it exists

Budget, budget, budget. A Type 26 with SAAM-ESD equivalent/SAMPSON should be much cheaper than Type 45 or Horizon, & more capable than SAAM-ESD/KRONOS-NVER.

Unless BAE are going to fire up the SAMPSON run again and not pass on sunk costs it has to be an expensive option. The metric that UKPAAMS/Viper comprised near half the cost of T45 is well known…that did of course include development costs which you would assume they’d have recouped now, but, its still an expensive system. To my mind if you have a threat that requires Sea Viper then you have a threat that justifies the full system bolted to the platform it was meant to be deployed on!. If you want to play at having a sort-of area missile capability SAAM-ESD on a frigate should be fine for the keeping-up-with-the-neighbours effort.

The problem with sticking a straight Italian SAAM-ESD fit onto Type 26 & trying to sell it in competition with an Italian-built FREMM is, why not just buy the Italian FREMM? Bigger, as well (i.e. better suited, according to the criteria you’ve just given), IIRC.

Absolutely. To me though a T26 with SAMPSON is a logical non-sequitor in the first place. If you want extra AAW capability on the T26 bolt in 24 VLS cells and embark 96 Sea Ceptor on each frigate. Three frigates would have the capability to comfortably missile soak the entire ‘few dozen’ AShM’s in most smaller threat states inventories and stop anything closing to within range to employ dumb ordnance. Forget the stupid spend on bells and whistles wide area capability. Obviously if you are planning to go toe-to-toe with the PLAN you might need to look again, but, would the answer to that kind of a high air-threat be FREDA?. Answer is no!.

It looks to me as if Type 26 could have a major competitive disadvantage anywhere that an area AAW (albeit limited, compared to T45) ability is desired. I fear we’re in danger of painting ourselves into a too-specialised, too-RN-centric corner – again.

I think local area AAW off a ‘cheap’ missile like FLAADS/Sea Ceptor with quadpack potential is going to be a damnsight more attractive to many than the ‘golden bullet’ approach of Aster30’s on a couple of frigates.

Agreed to a point. If you are facing a developed air threat why would you send the poor substitute non-VSR equipped and limited missile load AAW frigate?. Surely you want to send the full strength AAW destroyer and augment that with the inner zone cheaper weapons system on the, cheaper, frigates. Put an expensive AAW suite onto the frigate and at what point do you get a ‘cheap limited’ hull, as a frigate is meant to be, that you suddenly cant risk in waters that are too high threat?

Because you don’t have an AAW destroyer available. SAAM-ESD & FREDA are meant to make up for not having enough Horizons to be sure of having one available when it’s needed. If you don’t have a Horizon to send (e.g. one in refit, & the other escorting the carrier on another task), what’s better, FLAADS & CAMM or SAAM-ESD & Aster 30/15?

It’s not a choice between Type 45 & SAAM-ESD.

With SAMPSON out of production and this Italian array rolling an export SAAM-ESD fit on a T26 is more likely. Why you would pay the money for SAMPSON and then stick it on a ‘budget hull’ would beat me. After seeing the nonsense that was the Greek FREMM concept though who’d be surprised!. If you think you are facing the air threat that requires more than FLAADS you need a hull which raises the radar masthead, adds VLS cells to permit a decent area missile onload in addition to local defence needs and has spaces and systems to act as AAWCS for a group. In short you need to buy an AAW destroyer!.

Budget, budget, budget. A Type 26 with SAAM-ESD equivalent/SAMPSON should be much cheaper than Type 45 or Horizon, & more capable than SAAM-ESD/KRONOS-NVER.

Maybe it would be prohibitively expensive to put SAMPSON back into production, but I doubt it. It was built in such small numbers that I expect the fixed costs & start-up costs are pretty small.

The problem with sticking a straight Italian SAAM-ESD fit onto Type 26 & trying to sell it in competition with an Italian-built FREMM is, why not just buy the Italian FREMM? Bigger, as well (i.e. better suited, according to the criteria you’ve just given), IIRC.

It looks to me as if Type 26 could have a major competitive disadvantage anywhere that an area AAW (albeit limited, compared to T45) ability is desired. I fear we’re in danger of painting ourselves into a too-specialised, too-RN-centric corner – again.

I’m going to post anything more about possible T26 configurations in the T26 thread.

Two points.
I don’t think the RN needs to put a SAMPSON SAAM-ESD version on some Type 26s, & I could only see it being justifiable if we had spare SAMPSONs going to waste,

On that, what happened to the test rig on the barge?

Two points.

1. I don’t see anyone using Aster 30 for low-altitude targets just popping over the horizon if they had a shorter-range, cheaper missile able to cope with them – and that’s one of the reasons for Aster 15 (though I expect it’s not vastly cheaper).

This is quite the point Swerve. Sintra’s comment was that the Aster30 capability was something the RN should put into the Frigate fleet. The point is that for the RN its not as FLAADS provides the ‘cheaper missile’ you talk about.

2. None of your arguments support the contention that FLAADS is equivalent in capability to SAAM_ESD. They support the contention (which you did not make) that it’s plenty good enough, when there’s also a Type 45 around. But that’s not what SAAM-ESD is meant for. It’s a lower-budget & lower-capability alternative to PAAMS, not a FLAADS alternative. It’s for when there isn’t a Horizon around, because there are only two of them in the fleet.

Agreed to a point. If you are facing a developed air threat why would you send the poor substitute non-VSR equipped and limited missile load AAW frigate?. Surely you want to send the full strength AAW destroyer and augment that with the inner zone cheaper weapons system on the, cheaper, frigates. Put an expensive AAW suite onto the frigate and at what point do you get a ‘cheap limited’ hull, as a frigate is meant to be, that you suddenly cant risk in waters that are too high threat?.

I don’t think the RN needs to put a SAMPSON SAAM-ESD version on some Type 26s, & I could only see it being justifiable if we had spare SAMPSONs going to waste, but it might be a rational choice for an export customer which lacks AAW destroyers & wants its frigates (or some of them) to have more AAW capability than FLAADS. In that case, one could assume a mix of Aster 30 & CAMM (I hate the name Sea Ceptor. Ceptor is not a word).

With SAMPSON out of production and this Italian array rolling an export SAAM-ESD fit on a T26 is more likely. Why you would pay the money for SAMPSON and then stick it on a ‘budget hull’ would beat me. After seeing the nonsense that was the Greek FREMM concept though who’d be surprised!. If you think you are facing the air threat that requires more than FLAADS you need a hull which raises the radar masthead, adds VLS cells to permit a decent area missile onload in addition to local defence needs and has spaces and systems to act as AAWCS for a group. In short you need to buy an AAW destroyer!.

Two points.

1. I don’t see anyone using Aster 30 for low-altitude targets just popping over the horizon if they had a shorter-range, cheaper missile able to cope with them – and that’s one of the reasons for Aster 15 (though I expect it’s not vastly cheaper).

2. None of your arguments support the contention that FLAADS is equivalent in capability to SAAM_ESD. They support the contention (which you did not make) that it’s plenty good enough, when there’s also a Type 45 around. But that’s not what SAAM-ESD is meant for. It’s a lower-budget & lower-capability alternative to PAAMS, not a FLAADS alternative. It’s for when there isn’t a Horizon around, because there are only two of them in the fleet.

I don’t think the RN needs to put a SAMPSON SAAM-ESD version on some Type 26s, & I could only see it being justifiable if we had spare SAMPSONs going to waste, but it might be a rational choice for an export customer which lacks AAW destroyers & wants its frigates (or some of them) to have more AAW capability than FLAADS. In that case, one could assume a mix of Aster 30 & CAMM (I hate the name Sea Ceptor. Ceptor is not a word).

“Local” in this case means eight ASTER 30 in the air at the same time with a detection range of 180 km´s versus a RCS of a fighter. Think of the French FREDA´s but with the anti submarine hardware still on the ship.

Ahh okay so the new AESA is doing the VSR job without any reduction in capability in horizon scan, target track, surface scan modes etc???.

The limiting factor, as I’m sure you know, on antiair missile engagements is horizoning effect so, without CEC, against a lo-lo profile attacker whether you are on a Daring or an IT-FREMM you are shooting Aster30’s a long way inside their maximum range. In terms of deliverable effect, i.e looking at real capabilities and not raw numbers, whether you are shooting a smaller number of Aster30’s at a 10ft ASL skimmer from 20nm or salvoes of Sea Ceptor at 10nm is largely academic.

Principally then the big, expensive, area missile becomes a denial weapon as opposed to an actual interceptor and is primarily in place to prevent closure of wide area surveillance/cueing platforms at altitude or is a system to shoot down the big clunky hi-lo profile supersonic weapons favoured in some quarters at a healthy standoff distance. If you have that in your escort group on a nice big, VSR equipped, destroyer or two why do you need to spend the money to duplicate the capability on the frigates?.

No, the capability is not the same, and the Italian ships are not “AAW-optimised”, they are GP frigates with a realistic ASTER 30 capability. The only way that we can say the capabilty is the “same” is we dont look at specifications

So unchanged CDS to handle the new radar and area missile?. Again with nearly all of these area SAMs, discounting CEC, you will spend more time ‘shooting at the arrows not the archers’. That will be true with Aster/Sea Viper as much as for Sea Ceptor. Functionally engaging inbound missiles targetted on your fleet/assembly area is the ‘same’ task despite the difference in performance and cost specs.

And no one was asking to delete the CAAM´s capability in every Type 26, quite the contrary, do an “Italian” on three or four ships, and you get a very decent AAW area capability that can suplement the “Darings”. If three or four sets of SAMPSON and C2 kit are too expensive, ask Selex how much they want for the KRONOS, its a less capable, smaller piece of hardware, should be cheaper.

Three or four sets of SAMPSON would be, likely equal to the cost of a couple of T26 hulls….too expensive by far. As would inducting a completely new radar system, and establishing its support infrastructure, to plug into a few of the 26’s. Especially when FLAADS/Sea Ceptor is already intended to be providing the ability to missile-soak for high-value units.

You have to consider the wider picture – even a very modest RN escort group of a Daring, a T26 and a pair of 23’s is going to be sporting, if we assume just 48 Sea Ceptor as a min, nearly 200 active-seeker SAMs with precious little by way of a fire-channel limitation anywhere. You look at a likely threat state with a few squadrons of modern strike fighters and air launched antiship capability tasked, perhaps, to one or two squadrons supported by modest marpat capability that, modest, group is plenty tough enough to stay on station for a few days.