Hi,

last year (or was it 2006 already?) I read in a German defense magazine that Bremen based Lürssen yard was to negotiate the sale of these vessels. I don´t know whether it was in name of the Brunei navy or for BAE though. I think it was at the same time when the rumor about Type 23 frigates for Algeria surfaced.

Regards.

Hi,

recent new images (at least for me) validate the resurrection of this thread (I hope:-). This November-December 2007 issue of the Australian Defence Buisness Review has a CGI shot of the CEAFAR equipped Halifax frigate. It also shows a “new” configuration of the CEAFAR equipped Anzac frigate (the third configuration if I am not mistaken).

First configuration

Second configuration

There is also this corresponding image on the CEA website.

Now I understand all this talk about the difficulties of mounting the Harpoon launchers in their “usual position” behind the bridge. If you want to install such a high and surly top heavy new mast module you have to save all the weight you can and mount every piece of equipment as low as possible. Reminds me a bit of the Know class (from the silhouette I mean).

It is interesting to note that on all three ships depicted, CEAFAR replaces different sets of radars: Halifax -> only the long range AN/SPS-49; Hydra -> both the long range as well as the short range radars (and with CEAMOUNT the STIRs); Anzac -> only the short range radar.

Sadly the General Dynamics team gave up its tender for the FLEX program otherwise we might have seen this Thales SeaPAR/Smart-S equipped beauty come to life:

Hope you like the drawings.

Regards.

Hi,

first I like the discussion and I greatly appreciate the analysis even if I have to disagree on some points. Well done. As someone who likes to make ship drawings as well I also compliment you on your graphics.

I would love to go into more details but am pressed for time (maybe later). Just some small things:

1) ASW
It is pretty unfair to compare the LCS without their mission packages those ship were specially designed around. With the ASW mission package (two RMS with towed sonar, two USV with towed sonar or some form of light weight ASW weapon + two helicopters) the LCS would win that category easily.

2) Defense against aerial threats
LCS-1 has a slight advantage over LCS-2 in my opinion because of the 21-round launcher.

3) Offensive anti-surface warfare / Shore bombardment
I don´t really know whether NetFires could be used here but both LCS could carry either 60 NetFires (4 launchers carrying 15 missiles each) and two 30mm guns or 180 NetFires (and no guns). Each missile as the equivalent punch of a 155mm shell. That should count for something.

4) Defensive anti-surface warfare
Those two 30mm guns on the LCS should be figured in here. Should even be a closer call that way. F125 has more remotely operated systems though which I think are preferable. However here the speed advantages of both LCS will really come to bear.

5) Littoral agility/accessibility
What about range and endurance?

6) Logistics support

The more troops and equipment an LCS can carry the better. The more equipment, landing craft (light) the better. The bigger hospital (sparse figures so excluded below), the more humanitarian aid…

Ok, this is a bit too much in one spot for me. First these ship were not really meant to be troop carriers (except perhaps Absolon). All can carry decent numbers of special forces (with Absolon and F125 a bit better than the LCS). Only LCS-2 and Absolon can really carry vehicles. But than again that isn´t their primary duty either. Absolon can carry two 11m boats (perhaps it can even carry more but the crane arrangement is only for two), F125 and LCS-1 can carry four 11m boats and LCS-2 may carry even more (losing the ability to carry TEU containers). F125 will be able to carry 2 TEU, LCS-1/2 at least six and Absolon probably more. F125 will come with a very extensive medical bay where as Absolon can embark an containerized hospital on its flex deck (losing all other transport capability).

7) Sensors, communication, control and ESM…. and mine warfare
Last things first: With the MCMW mission package the LCS are the only contender here.
Regarding sensors, etc. the F125 will win even if we don´t know the specs of the new TRS-3D/NR main radar yet, it is safe to assume that a fixed phased array arrangement will give a more permanent “view” than a rotating version. It will also come with two MIRADOR and a 360° IR/O surveillance system. No other contender can match these systems.

Nope. 76mm Super Rapid turrets are listed as “system-specific imports” in this document (page 52).

One has to consider though that this list also includes items never really bought:
– Triton G surface search radar
– AN/SPS-67 surface surveillance radar
– Sirius IRST

and items clearly not bought new:
– Two 20mm guns
– Two MK 32 triple tubes
– Rolling Airframe Missile
– Lynx helicopter

To my knowledge the 76mm guns were reused from stock. According to a pdf file I have somewhere all German 76mm guns were already modernized in the 90s (bringing them close to SR standard).

Best regards.

Hi fitz,

though I agree with most parts of your statement regarding the mission and equipment of the USN LCS your are wrong regarding the following:

Of course VL MICA does IIRC use the VL Sea Wolf launcher, not Sylver which is at the very least no better.

That was the original plan as per the MBDA website. However the VL Mica will now use a small Sylver launcher labeled A35. Most recent example is the offer for a Greek FREMM:

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=107575

Sylver’s wieght problems are well-documented and resulted rather famously in a reduction in the number of cells carried by certain European warships.

I have never heard that before. “Recent European warships” can only mean the Horizons and Darings. Their lack of further cells has nothing to do with weight problems with the Sylver launcher but with the stated recquirement for 48 cells in the design phase. In fact these ships have weight and space reserves for further cells.

The fact that a Mk 41 can quad-pack ESSM where Sylver can not quad-pack Aster compounds the issue by at least a factor of 4.

Sylver and Mk-41 VLS are almost identically in physical size (except the varying length of course). The fact that Aster cannot be multi-packed is not the fault of the launcher but of the missile design. The booster is simply to wide for multi-packing. I am pretty sure that a slimmer booster and a different wing arrangement could have been designed for Aster as well. It wasn´t however called for by the contracting nations.

Regards.

That´s true. There are no official plans for the inclusion of any VLS cells.

However (!my speculation!) if you consider that the place forward of the bridge was supposed to house the GMRLS and at least in the “export version” will house the VLS it MAY be possible to refit VLS at a later stage if the operational requirements call for it.

Regards.

I really like this thread. Perhaps it can be resurrected.

Here is a 1986 concept sketch of a Blohm & Voss Meko multi purpose frigate, something that eventually became the F123 (kind of at least):

Than there are two CGI shots depicting early versions (1992?) of the Meko A family:

Hope to see some more of your treasures soon:-)

Regards

Hi

La Fayettes for example are much better thought-out designs.

I think the FREMM is the modern day La Fayette.

FREMM’s close-in air defense is weak. A couple of cells VL Mica wouldn’t hurt. Or Millennium 35mm, and remote controlled 25mm turrets.

It will have remote controlled secondary guns (MMI) which are not CIWS however. VL Mica and Aster 15 have a kind of overlapping capability. A Millennium gun would be great of course. But who said that such a design should be bought unmodified for the export customer?

It’s also not a good design to cluster the cell launcher and the gun together at the bow.

Oh, that´s why all modern VLS equipped ships have their missile silos in the front, right?

To call a half a dozen Scalp Naval “Land Attack” is a little optimistic.

Yes, if seen on its own. It is not if you see them as contribution to other assets (as I described) or in a joint environment.

What about fitting GMLRS and ATACMS instead of the flight deck? Does a AAW/land attack version need a flight deck?

Every modern ship should have a flight deck. A helicopter is by far the most valuable multi-mission piece of equipment available. As for GMLRS, the German navy took a look at it and deemed it financially to risky.

And why didn’t they size the aviation complex of the ASW version for two AW101?

Simply because there aren´t enough helicopters available anyway. Besides the trend goes for Aves which can be accommodated in addition to the helicopter.

A brand new ship and too small from the very beginning. If you look at that 6000 tons ship, it has very little pro-active capability and it isn’t really good in defending itself, either.

If that´s your opinion, fine. I disagree.

Compared to what we need – which is something like an 8-9000ton DDH – FREMM does not make the grade.

Ok, I see your point. If compared with such a (fictional) design the FREMM will loose in all capability areas. But how realistic is such a design inn sufficient numbers? I think it is virtually non existing.

Interesting you say that the FREMM hangar can be extended – would you expect the aviation fuel stores, air ordnance stores, chopper maintenance facilities to be equally extendable on a 6k ton hull?

Well the F124 and the F123 and even the F122 carries two helicopters with all the necessary equipment on smaller hulls.

Why bother inducting and modifying a circa 6k ton hull to take extra choppers when we will have a class of circa 8k ton hulls already in the fleet, with a support infrastructure offering a far more suitable chopper platform?

Do you mean the 8.000 t hull which can carry … wait…. ONE helicopter only? And which is so expansive that the RN will get 6 ot of its envisioned 12 unites?

The closest requirement we have to AVT is C2 and the whole point of C2 is to be a littoral patrol presence that we can deploy cheaper than the T23’s we have sat alongside today for want of operational budget. AVT is not going to be any cheaper to run than a Duke as the key factors, crew size, sensor/weapons and propulsion fit are all present.

Ok, if C1 is only slated to be the ASW follow on design, I stand correct. But than again C2 is supposed to be “a big fitted for not with” empty hull, preferably the same general design than C1, right? Not a simple OPV either.
BTW, FREMM will be cheaper to run and maintain, e.g. because of its smaller crew (but not by much I agree).

Anyway, I don´t see the RN going FREMM and by the time C1 is due (2020+) I think the design will be already to old. But I still think that a version would suite the C2 (“enhanced”) role perfectly and at a bargain price. The other example would be the new F125 which offers less (visible) combat capability and is much more expansive per unite.

Regards.