radarjust as i wouldn’t underestimate the ssk threat, i would also not overestimate a aegis ship especially if there is no aew-shield. for a group of supersonic ashm in a sea skimming profile there is a good chance to penetrate the aegis shield and to hit the ship. where is the radar horizon for a burke if the target is flying below 10 m? less than 30 km?
radarAs to the performance comparisons you dont need specifics to see the gulf in capability between the AW101 and MH60 variants. AW cite a mission endurance, for its naval variant, of nearly 5hrs. No Seahawk variant is going to compete with that and that time-on-station is the characteristic that will matter to us the most.
the maximum endurance for the nh-90 is quoted with 4,75 hrs and round about 4 hrs for the s-70b. for me this is no reason to switch to a 15 t heli on frigates and destroyers. i would prefer two have two 10 t helis on my ships instead of a single 15 t type.
radarDistiller
USN has lots of choppers and lots of platforms to deploy them on. RN doesnt. Look at the mission endurance differential between the Merlin and on of the new Seahawk variants. Merlin is a significant ASW force multiplier for us.
for me it’s a little bit confusing to see people speaking about the great endurance of a merlin on one side but then speaking about a lynx as a second heli onboard on the other side.
for me this looks like having a nice big truck with a lot of space but unfortunately the parking spaces in the city are to small to go shopping with it, so a second smaller car is needed.
for me it does not make much sence to have two different types of helis on a destroyer, so i need trained pilots, mechanics, spare parts, … for both of them on board. personally i would prefer two 10t helis like the nh-90. the eh-101 is imho a nice heli but more for a carrier and other through-deck ships. for a frigate or destroyer sized ship i would prefer a 10t class heli like the nh-90.
btw: afaik it’s very hard to get reliable numbers to compare the endurance of e.g. the nh-90 the s-70/mh-60 and the eh-101. there are a lot of numbers around for all of them but not for a similar asw-mission profil.
radarimho the meko x is a good point to start. it meets most of the requirements and with a displacement of 8000 t there is some room to play with.
radar(g) it fits well to the choosen tactom and sm-3 ->mk-41
(i -> other) sm-6 in addition to (g)
radarvoting for a lot of different aspects of a ship design is an interessting idea but imho this can’t work well because a lot of this votes affect each other. fitting everything in a destroyer sized hull is only one point. if we choose a 155mm main gun it would be a better idea to have a strong secondary gun (35, 40, 57, 76mm) than using a 114 or 127 mm main gun. if we choose sm-3 and tomahawk it might also be a good idea to go for all the us-systems (essm, sm-2, sm-6), …
it’s a little bit late now but after the primary ships role was fixed imho first the votes for this roles (aaw and asw) should have been started (e.g. 1 or 2 helicopter and/or uav, aaw systems, ..).
another point is, that choosing the systems with major design influence first, would make sense. choosing a ciws before chossing the vls-type, the main gun, .. is not that easy because at the end it has to fit to all of this.
radar1. b (fitting well to the sm-3 in a mk41)
2. c (only if used in a anti ship and land attack role; mk 4 preferred)
radara using a mk41
radarf) for an aaw and asw ship imho this is the best allrounder and right now it’s also hard to get a better land attack gun.
radarBought pretty much. Germany. The F125 gun deal included an “upgrade” to the 76mm guns of the F124 ships (yet to be installed). Since the only available such “upgrade” from Finmeccanica at the moment is Strales…
kato can you give us the source for this please? maybe it’s only a modernisation? from my understanding the german 76 mm oto’s are old guns from other ships which are reused now on the sachsen class.
maybe they decided to go for a stealth enclosure or to upgrade to 120 rpm (afaik the german oto’s are only upgraded from 80 to 100 rpm so far). it might also possible that they want to use the new 3ap fuse (which also needs a upgrade on the gun) but imho it is highly unlikely that they will use strales/davide/dart on their f-124.
Thirded! Excellent post, and very good conclusions, notably in terms of the emphasis on actual capabilities (weapons fits etc…) rather than assumptions that speed is a defence. I have always been troubled by the US concept that somehow being capable of 40-50 knots in open waters is an almost total defence. Speed has pretty much always been a poor defence, especially when the enemy has weapons that are faster still – and lets admit it, an anti-ship missile travelling at 500mph or more is not going to be bothered whether you are making 30 knots or 50 knots!
i do not agree with you here but the point a another one. from my understanding the us-navy claimed to need the high topspeed for the lcs not to improve the selfdefence but to be able to defend other high value units with the lcs:
Sprint Speed: Analysis shows that there is a marked decrease in the capability of LCS to
protect a high value unit against a small boat raid if the LCS sprint speed falls below 40 knots.
The threshold value for this KPP is 40 knots and the objective is 50 knots. High sprint speed is
less important in the anti-mine or anti-submarine areas.
(from a us-navy doucment)
so this requirement fits to a very special role for the lcs in the us-navy, a absalon would not be very useful here.
radarHowever (!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.
i guess that there will be no export of the f-125.
radarIIRC, one the MEKOs with an Aspide launcher in the rear, these could carry up to 24 rounds: 8 in the launcher, 2×8 reloads stored vertically in a loading system underneath the launcher. I think that whole package was the size of a single weapons container. This space fits 2×1 8-cell Mk41 tactical.
afaik the aspide launcher is reloaded from a magazin which is directly under the long range radar and the aft fire control radar. there is a large hatch which is lowered towards the launcher to close the distance to the launcher. the magazin with 16 missiles is than driven towards the launcher. afaik the hole process fully automated.
radari don’t think that 3a plus undermines dart. from my understanding the primary goal of dart is to increase the effective range of the 76 mm against fast and maneuvering anti ship missiles (eff. range > 5km). because of the problem with the flighttime of the rounds this can only be achieved with guided ammunition. the new fuse further improves the hit and kill probability of dart.
on the other hand it is highly unlikely the a lot of customers will backfit their guns with dart and (imho) only a few new customers will buy dart/davide for new guns, so 3a plus is a logical decision to keep up with bofors 3p. to backfit a gun with 3a plus should be a lot easier than to implement dart/davide. personally i would only accept dart/davide for a gun mount with dual feed mechanism because i would be able to choose between dart and other rounds without the need to unload all the ammunition first. maybe oto melara is thinking the same because there are some notes that there is a dual feeding device available for the super rapid.
i don’t know which mount i would prefer because i like both the 57 mm and the 76 mm. the 76 mm might be the better choice if you want to use it as “long range” gun based ciws with dart but i would prefer a missile based system in this role.
the only thing i don’t like at the 57 mm is the ammunition feeding. the gun is only able to fire 40 rounds without stop. after the first 40 rounds are fired it has to reload another 40 rounds from within the gun mount which takes about 20 or 30 sec. i would prefer a “endless” feeding with a magazine which can be reloaded in any condition.
radaroto melara is already walking down the same path:
pdf brochure
they call the fuse “3a plus” (great marketing)
3a plus is able to be used in air burst mode with timed activation (besides a lot of other functions). and 3a plus is also used with dart/davide/strales (but maybe not in an airburst mode)
radaraccording to the mbda page the vl-mica (land) has a maximum range of 20km.
a mbda presentation quotes min range 0.7 km and max range 20km.
janes says:
VL MICA uses the existing MICA air-to-air missile, available with either active radar or imaging infrared (IIR) seekers, fired in a lock-on-after-launch mode to provide protection out to a maximum range of 20km. Because the system uses vertical launch, and does not require dedicated target trackers, it offers a true 360° engagement capability against multiple simultaneous targets.
According to MBDA, the missile is able to execute manoeuvres of up to 50g at up to a 7km range and up to 30g at 10km. The active radar variant uses the same Thales AD4A pulse Doppler seeker as the Aster missile family, while the IIR version uses a dualwaveband imaging seeker.
so from my point of view 20 km is a confirmed value but it is also more theoretical. against a maneuvering target 10 km should be no problem for vl-mica.
on the paper it looks like a potent system, like a vertical launched ram with radar or ir-seeker and a data uplink but the real ram is a lot of tests ahead.
they should start to test the vl-mica to catch up. if at the end of the day the vl-mica is as effectiv as ram i do not see the need of a gun based ciws.
Sign In
