Hi Wanshan,

thanks for the post. Did you want to encourage me to draw them as well or “just” add some more info?

Next up will be the US and Korean boats.

Regards

Hi,

No, no, no! EH-101 & NH90 are different enough to keep for different roles. EH101 is quite a lot bigger.

I knew that this would stir up some emotions:-))) It is bigger, it has a longer range and it is more expansive. Fact remains do we need both especially do countries like the UK and Italy need both (or in case of the UK Lynx and EH-101) or wouldn´t reduction in models make a lot of sense for them too? I think the later. Besides NH-90 with Merlins ASW set would be great as well, don´t you think? Anyway …. (see below)

Since any sensible all-European naval co-operation deal would involve completing the CVFs & PA02 to the same CTOL standard, why go to the trouble & expense of developing a Sea Typhoon? Rafale as the carrier fighter, Typhoon as the land-based fighter. Commonality of systems where appropriate. Otherwise, we’re re-visiting procurement decisions from 20 years ago, which I think is going back a bit too far.

Ok I can agree on all that especially considering the last sentence which is also true for the choppers above. For the sake of argument though (sorry cannot resist ;-)) one fighter in two configurations would have been better than two different models.

Thanks for the good discussion,

Regards.

Hi again,

great input, thanks a lot.

One quibble there: developing a new Aster 15 booster would take some time, so would put that outside your timescale as well.

You are right. I would just assume that the two different boosters were envisioned from the onset of the project:-))

Yes, NSM looks like a good candidate for a single replacement for all the heavy missiles. I disagreed with it as a replacement for Sea Skua because they’re in complementary classes, rather than competing. …
My only caveat is whether NSM has significant US components. It would be unwise to subject the only anti-ship missile to US restrictions. That’s also an overwhelming disadvantage of Hellfire as the light missile for helicopters & a UAV missile, & RAM as the sole short-range naval SAM. What about exports?

I hadn´t considered that for NSM because I didn´t know. That would indeed be disadvantageous for exports. Ok, than if we choose another all European missile that will end up larger anyway increasing the need for a smaller helicopter launched ASM even more. A Brimstone derivate is fine with me. What about the heavy SSM than. I really like the RBS-15 mk3 though it wouldn´t fit in my idea of spreading work share between partner nations since Sweden isn´t a partner. MM-40 block 3 Exocett is looking good too, though it would mean even more work share for the French industry. Leaves the outsider Otomat Teseo mk2 block IV (?). That would work since I´d really like to have a VL Milas for the ASW ships;-))

Regarding RAM, you are right of course. But what are the alternatives for a ILMS? Mistral, no thank you. I think RAM would be good as an interim solution until Iris-T SL is fully operational in the next decade. Besides there wont be many exports for these high-end ships anyway as shown in the real world. Those would have to make due with the PAAMS and the Sea Guard systems.

Thoughts?

Regards.

Hi,

thanks for responds.

NSM isn’t really a suitable replacement for Sea Skua. NSM weighs 3 times as much as Sea Skua, which is a light, short-range weapon for blatting small vessels. Could be replaced by a development of Brimstone, perhaps.

Yea I know that it is much larger. It also has a much longer range. It is also the only large SSM that can be launched by the NH-90 helicopter. My goal was to replace as many different systems with as few as possible to make each new developed system affordable. You are right that the need would be there for an additional smaller missiles that could also be launched from UAVs. Brimstone is a good example, Hellfire or PARS 3 LR would be another. Still I thing that NSM would be a great European replacement for air and surface launched SSMs like Harpoon, Exocett, Otomat, Kormoran etc.

I’m pretty sure you can’t dual-pack Aster 15 into Sylver A50. A50 is the same width as A43, which is the Aster 15 launcher, & AFAIK the Aster 15 booster is the same width as (but shorter than) the Aster 30 booster. You might be able to quad-pack a smaller missile, e.g. VL Mica or Iris-T.

You are right. Aster 15 cannot be dual packed. I should have added that the Aster 15 booster I envisioned is the same LENGTH as the Aster 30 booster but much smaller in width. I tried to convey that in the drawing but I should have told you, sorry.

BTW, the Iris-T SL might be a better candidate for a German short-range SAM than RAM, which is rather American.

Well first of all RAM is a 50/50 joint venture between Germany and the USA. So it is more European than ESSM is right now. Iris-T SL is a great concept and would fir in nicely with my idea of generalizing land and sea based AAW assets. Sadly Iris-T SL would not have been ready for the generation of warships I presented here. I would suggest that Iris-T SL replaces RAM on the next generation of ships.

What about Scalp Naval?

Nice drawings.

Scalp Naval would not be ready for those AAW ships as well. Besides I think there would be little space left for additional vls cells (look at the real world F100, LCF or F124). But in my opinion that is not really a drawback. Let those AAW ships be AAW ships. The next Generation should be oriented toward land attack and asymmetric warfare, just as my alternate F125:

Looking forward to your answer.

Regards.