Frigates & Naval Vessels Part II

File: vmfcnab4kyda3qusvzqf.jpg (54KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x518px

>>33727541

That depends heavily on what you mean by "small multipurpose carrier." The America-class is surely the best small carrier out there right now in terms of aviation, but it lacks amphibious capability compared to other LHA's. Also, the America isn't really "small." It weighs in at over 40,000 tons.

File: mistral_2.jpg (445KB, 1000x670px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1000x670px

>>33727578

This was intended as a reply to: >>33727452

As far as truly small carriers go, I'd say the mistral class seems like a safe bet.

File: JSS_Karel_Doorman_in_Den_Helder.jpg (993KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 3000x2000px

>>33727541
Dutchies produce maximum aesthetics

>>33727589

>Cant even carry jets

dont think so m8

>>33727665
>calls helocarrier shit because it can't carry planes
Are tanks also shit for not being capable of flying?

File: 1024px-US_Navy_120207-N-YF306-086_A_French_landing_catamaran_(L-CAT)_pulls_into_the_well_deck_of_the_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_WASP_(LHD_1).jpg (127KB, 1024x692px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x692px

>>33727589

with the EDA-R looks like a good combo

>>33727720
Where did I say it was shit? Can you maybe into comprehension?

>>33727789
woops, misread that. maybe I should stop drinking

File: bon-09.jpg (319KB, 800x387px)

319KB, 800x387px

dumping hot Canuck naval aviation action

>tfw in 10 years we'll be doing punitive raids along the barbary coast from the HMCS Bonaventure II

File: Bonaventure16 (1).jpg (158KB, 667x500px)

158KB, 667x500px

>>33728084

File: bonnie.jpg (66KB, 576x425px)

66KB, 576x425px

>>33728097

File: 1483774957741.jpg (124KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1024x680px

>>33728105

File: 14589737_1331389320214103_1306935922250502953_o.jpg (341KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 2048x1536px

>>33727624
Holland-class a cute

File: N7LTVRF.jpg (123KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1600x900px

>>33728141

Best looking naval vessel in the world.

>>33728533
Wish we had more DESU, the navy is screaming for more ships.
Looks like our military will get more money though

>>33728533
No. Zeven Provinciën or Saxony class is the sexiest.

File: 4904102975_01cc7aee15_o.jpg (182KB, 1600x1200px)

182KB, 1600x1200px

>>33728874

File: 1280px-Fregatte_De_Zeven_Provincien_2494.jpg (232KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1280x853px

>>33728886

>>33728533

Stretch this out and you have what the LCS should have been.

File: [email protected] (79KB, 1060x529px)

79KB, 1060x529px

>>33728943
I love the FREMM
can't wait for pic related to join her

>>33729047

Why does France never use CIWS? It just always seems to be that one big thing they keep dropping to save money or something. I remember ages ago they had something about some Phalanx being planned, but then it got dropped.

Can only suspect it's due to the "nothing that isn't in some way French" approach for marketing.

>>33729065

Likely them being cheap, given they opted for PESA on their AAW DDs when the option for ASEA was easily there.

>>33729181

It stuns me that Charles de Gaulle is going in for a replacement radar in its refit, and they STILL can't find money to give it a proper AESA. They're "upgrading" from a mechanical to a (small) PESA. Technical upgrade yes, but it's still ridiculous.

When I look at the Americans that have an AESA going into the Fords, and the British are putting an enormous PESA and second AESA radar on theirs, then I see that one tiny PESA that they're calling an "upgrade" for the Charles de Gaulle?

Said it before. Saying it again. Fuck the Armée de l'air. They seem to get every bit of the money that WE need in the Army, and the Navy aren't much better off.

File: SHIP_CV_PA2_Concept_2006-06_lg.jpg (190KB, 1000x500px)

190KB, 1000x500px

>>33729283

Even worse that CdG could have gone for an early retirement and thus allowing for PA2 to be brought forward. Would have resulted in massive cost savings freeing up budget and people for other things.

>>33728886
Looks german

File: Baden July 1st.jpg (225KB, 1600x1062px)

225KB, 1600x1062px

>>33730043
Apropos German, why is she so beautiful guys?

>>33730819

Does Germany recycle WW2 names for ships the way that Japan does?

File: baden front.jpg (286KB, 1161x1600px)

286KB, 1161x1600px

>>33730845
Not really, you won't find a Bismarck etc in the Bundesmarine. Traditionally the ships are named after Bundesländer, capital cities, animals or in the case of Rommel, Mölders and Lütjens after famous persons of the military.

>>33730900
I forgot river names.

>>33729404
Do they really need two islands? It seems backwards for an carrier much less a CATOBAR

File: Trieste LHD.jpg (80KB, 1440x620px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1440x620px

>>33730972

Conventionally powered carriers don't use one small island, they use a long "building" of sorts due to the requirement for the exhausts. Two separate, smaller, towers saves a crapton of deck space compared to the kinds of "buildings" you see on things like the Invincible class, Kuznetsov, that new 2nd Chinese carrier and the Cavour. It's why out of all of them, the QE was able to have no aircraft lift being deck penetrating. All its lifts can fit on the sides.

Additionally, it allows the conventional power system to be divided between two locations and provides some redundancy. One island takes ship control, the other flight ops. Both islands can perform the other's role if required.

So for a conventional carrier, it saves deck space; helps out with damage control and provides nice dedicated designs for each task found in an island. Note that the new Italian carrier and even the Russians seem to like this idea of twin islands for conventional carriers. It is most definitely a step forward in design. Multiple countries wouldn't be going for this in native designs if there wasn't a good reason, and generally its due to the above.

Except Russia for some reason thinks that twin islands on a nuclear is a way forward. I have no fucking idea why they went in that direction for their carrier. Either they're just being retarded when it comes to naval matters again, or they don't have much confidence in it being a nuclear powered one in the end.

Pic related on the Italian design.

>>33728943

That's a funky looking helio

File: NAVY-leader class 5.jpg (214KB, 1600x605px)

214KB, 1600x605px

well played, but best ship coming through

File: 20170417ran8107930_698.jpg (387KB, 1200x779px)

387KB, 1200x779px

Jiangkai II is pretty

A E S T H E T I C

actually

>>33729065
It's a mix between tough budget constraints and doctrinal emphasis on as low RCS as possible to make their ewar and decoys that much better by contrast. Besides, look at the radiation shields each side of the Nettuno jammer on the FREMMs, that something i've never saw on any ship using them until now, even on the Horizon class where they are much closer to sensitive electronic equipments. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they are not the standard thing but have some serious emergency power mode or something. If they ever get to CIWS that will probably be missile-based anyway, the french FREMMS have an empty space left of hangar for Sylver A35 silos for 24 missiles. Now imagine they drop the okay-but-not-so-stellar VL Mica for quad packed CAMM off the shelf, or the planned VL-Mica New Generation if they ever come to order it, that would solve the terminal defense problem quite nicely for a somewhat constrained budget.

File: FREMM modified pic.jpg (181KB, 1113x742px)

181KB, 1113x742px

>>33733699
Forgot my pic

File: VOQRoXs.jpg (244KB, 1273x751px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1273x751px

>>33730819
THICC

File: FREMM-Corvette-01.jpg (100KB, 1280x640px)

100KB, 1280x640px

>>33732098

It's the NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFA) variant of the NH90

>>33734177
>FREMM
>Corvette
what?
Also, dear god i like the simple shapes of those frog ships.

>>33733364
ABC detected

>>33735517
>money_pit.jpg
aesthetic tho

>>33729065
CIWS has been proven to be useless shit, the closer it came to shoot down a target was a malfunction where it almost shot down a friendly F-18

>>33736003
CIWS is not a gun, but a system. The Phalanx might be shit, but the concept of CIWS guns works.

>>33732523
Only real ships comrade, none of that pipe dream shit.

>>33736003
>CIWS has been proven to be useless shit

It really hasn't. Neck yourself.

>>33732523
vaporware models don't count

>>33736003
I dunno about that, one went full darlek on a poo in a loo ship and wiped out a bunch of them for no reason at all.

File: 300px-AntonovA40.jpg (12KB, 300x171px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x171px

>>33727720
>tanks
>not being capable of flying
Not so fast, comrade.

>>33736945
Population control.

File: MBDA CAMM.jpg (103KB, 1942x1392px)

103KB, 1942x1392px

>>33733699

That'd implying that no-one else has low RCS and EW though. German, Dutch, Danish, Italian, British and now American ships all have high end stealth and EW too, often just as good, and many of them have CIWS on top of that. I guess thats just the budget we have to deal with...

The MICA wouldn't be CIWS, thats just SHORAD, not the same role as having a Phalanx or Goalkeeper on board with the remotely operated fire control.

Having MICA or CAMM would be great for them though. Only 16 SAMs is just far too low for a first rate frigate. Quadpack CAMM sounds like a damn good solution, although good luck getting our government to buy it because "not muh workers".

>>33737053
Well, french-brit MBDA is practically undiscernible these days, with a common direction, that wouldn't be the first time one country orders missiles developped or assembled on the other side of the Channel, the Lancaster House agreements are still holding strong so far, so that doesn't seem much of a problem.

I agree that 16 AA missiles is waaaay too low of a stock, with the doctrine demanding 2 Aster 15 launched for each incoming ASuW missile, a FREMM would empty its store against another EU frigate typical load, not even considering the usual 16+ load on south east asian ships. Thankfully it would be easy enough of an upgrade as far as I can tell and wouldn't require too much additional work and advance warning before of a potential crisis justifying such a move.

>#EUNaviesUnitedForMoreWeapons

>>33736971

Sparky please.

>>33737053
The FREMM were supposed to have mistrals as antimissile weapons at first.
Sadly, like the 100mm guns, it seems the french navy is going away from this.

File: 1st-nation-hunger-strike-121112_lead_media_image_1.jpg (32KB, 620x349px)

32KB, 620x349px

>>33733715
highly likely that Canada will chose the FREMM as the next surface combatant ship, replacing the retired Tribal-class air warfare destroyers and the Halifax-class patrol frigates

>tfw we have no proper air-warfare capability and North Korea is getting frisky

>>33738501

Why FREMM?

>>33738593

While I'd love them to choose the Type 26, the reality is that the FREMM exists and can sail over to go "look, this is what we got".

While Type 26 is an extremely powerful ship, it's yet to hit the water because the UK focused on its submarines and carriers first for the budget priorities. As such, FREMM has a powerful advantage of "I'm here, I work and you know what you're getting."

>>33727624
My nigga

>>33738593
modern MOTS

File: FREMM-ER.jpg (27KB, 724x405px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 724x405px

>>33738593
The Canadians may be lucky to get new FREMMs with Seafire radar
the positives of getting it is that the French always propose technology transfer which every country love to have it

Smexy af.

File: lpdhmascanberra20140313ran8538476026_ran.jpg (151KB, 1200x821px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1200x821px

>>33738677
I would have liked the Type 45/Horizon/Hobart to replace the Tribals in air defence role, but we'll see what the FREMM-ER look like, going to a common hull makes sense for a smaller navy

Australia seems to have their naval procurement sorted out...

>>33738776
>>33738815
https://youtu.be/QEiOOAYwNTE

File: DCNS-FREMM-ER_Thales_Sea_Fire_SF_500_Euronaval_2012.jpg (164KB, 640x372px)

164KB, 640x372px

>>33738776
>>33738815
>>33738908
The FREMM-ER was designed with a focus on Air Defense and Anti Ballistic Missile Defense. The hull and general platform of the vessel is almost identical to the French Navy's and DCNS' FREMM class. However the two masts (Herakles radar and electronic warfare) found on the current FREMM (such as the Aquitaine frigate) is replaced by a new radar by Thales called SF 500 (or Sea Fire 500).

DCNS told us that a FREMM-ER would be able to fulfill the exact same missions as the current FREMM. Indeed, FREMM-ER has the same multi-mission capabilities as FREMM, in particular extensions capability can be installed on FREMM-ER such as:
- Increased ASW capabilities with a VDS (variable depth sonar)
- Increased land attack capabilities with MDCN (Scalp Naval by MBDA)

FREMM-ER's CIC (Combat Information Center) shares the same characteristics as the CIC found on FREMM:
- Large workstations
- Multipurpose Consoles
- Modular configuration

The SETIS modular CMS (Combat Management System) developed by DCNS and the CIC area can implement new and future innovations as they become mature. In FREMM-ER, sailors for example will be able to use augmented reality in the fight against asymmetric threats.

>looks like a good candidate, other sources say the Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate is also in the running...

>>33739072
>Iver Huitfeldt-class

Meme class with a hidden price tag. The company took a lose in producing them.

>>33739135
>lose
**loss

File: Type_45_Destroyer_HMS_Dauntless_Entering_Portsmouth_MOD_45153565[1].jpg (1MB, 2709x1806px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2709x1806px

move out the way, best anti-air destroyer coming through

File: 015-HMS-Duncan.jpg (121KB, 1400x743px)

121KB, 1400x743px

>>33739215

File: Tromp_(F-803) sails past(CVN-75).jpg (4MB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3008x2000px

>>33727541
>>33727624
>>33728141
>>33728533
>>33728905
mijn negers

>>33739072

Pity we're not getting this for FREDA instead of the thoroughly ship tier "FREMM with no real new radar and reduced silos" they're trying to spin as an air defense ship to say they have 4 in total.

Fuck our government.

>>33739288

thoroughly shit tier, rather

>>33739215
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/royal-navy-to-lose-anti-ship-missiles-and-be-left-only-with-guns/
I suppose it'll need those Anti-Air weapons since it'll be fucking useless at everything else.

>>33739329

Way to post inaccurate and outdated news.

There's already a program for an interim weapon been announced. Of course, the media can't spin that into a "sky is falling" story, so of course they don't talk about it.

>>33739344
The French Sea Venom missile is the Harpoon's replacement, and it's not coming into service until 2020 - It's also not going to be mounted on ships, only on Lynx helicopters.
Point still stands, Royal Navy is completely cucked once again because noone wants to spend money on it.

File: USS_Ticonderoga_Firing_a_Harpoon_Missile_MOD_45138928.jpg (324KB, 1383x954px)

324KB, 1383x954px

>>33739329
>>33739344
>>33739385

hahaha muh royal Navy. muh rule the seas

>>33739385
>The French Sea Venom missile is the Harpoon's replacement

uh no it isn't

First off, Sea Venom is a joint missile. Secondly, Sea Venom is replacing Sea Skua.

>>33739406

You do know that the latest flight of Burkes don't carry Harpoon either?

File: F222_Waffen_1280.jpg (1MB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x960px

>>33739417
I give a flying fuck about burkes

>>33739215
>when this (>>33739259) ship was half the price, was commissioned 9 years earlier (after being in the same NFR-90 program), carries more anti-air missiles (32 quadpacked ESSM, 32 SM-2), has a strike length VLS with a larger selection of missiles (ESSM, SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, TLAM, ASROC), has actual tested BMD capabilities (getting the SMART-L EWC with a max range of 2000 km and already tested against ballistic missiles during Demonstration At Sea 2015), has a non-rotating AESA instead of a rotating one, carries torpedos and are all fitted with Harpoons

Really makes you think

>>33739385

>The French Sea Venom

It's British/French

> is the Harpoon's replacement

No, it's replacing the Sea Skua

> It's also not going to be mounted on ships, only on Lynx helicopters.

No, it's to be mounted on Lynx, Wildcat and NH90.

>Point still stands

Except it doesn't. You have demonstrated you know quite literally fuck all. The Type 26 is coming with the FOSW and NGLAW programs, the first being "Future Offensive Surface Weapon". Given there is a separate program for an anti-ship missile in 2030 called the FC/ASW, and it's listed within the 10 year plan announced in SDSR 2015, that means the FOSW will becoming between 2015-2025 sometime. Given they're making a big purchase of Harpoon Block II for the P-8 Poseidon in 2019, right after the Harpoon Block I retires in 2018, you do the fucking math on why they're holding off an announced purchase until thery can make a larger, mass produced, cost saving purchase in 2019.

It's almost like going purely by news headlines for the memes gives you shitty information or something.

>>33739487

>has actual tested BMD capabilities

Source on them being fitted and in service with the EWC?

>has a non-rotating AESA instead of a rotating one

Thats very disengenous. The Sampson has 2,500 modules facing in a 360 viewpoint due to its dual sided, spherical design on rotation. The APAR has only a few hundred modules facing any one direction. Just because it rotates doesn't mean it leaves gaps, it's a dual facing radar with adaptable beams from an AESA, it isn't some single face slow ration like before. Sampson is a vastly more powerful radar face in any given direction.

And the Type 45 has tested BMD, they did it out in the Pacific with the USN where the Sampson performed it just fine.

The De Zevens also don't use IEP, which is part of why the Type 45 was so expensive, very new and fancy propulsion.

>>33739487
>(getting the SMART-L EWC with a max range of 2000 km and already tested against ballistic missiles during Demonstration At Sea 2015)

Are you retarded?

They both share SMART-L.

>>33739556

He's referring to the new SMART-L EWC, which is an AESA variant of the normally PESA SMART-L.

I don't recall any solid source of it being fitted and already at sea though. That was a while back ,so something may have changed.

File: 9e9.gif (621KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 500x281px

>>33739135
good to know, based on canada's military procurement track record I'm sure that's the way we'll go then. cheers

>>33739513
>The Sampson has 2,500 modules facing in a 360 viewpoint due to its dual sided, spherical design on rotation. The APAR has only a few hundred modules facing any one direction
Actually 3424 for each direction on the APAR

>>33739641
S1850M is still a PESA radar, SAMPSON and APAr are the active component on the both the British and Dutch/German ships

>>33739651

Not bad, seems the source I had on it was quite inaccurate, now that I go check more.

Guess it's a toss up then, Sampson has built in BMD and a higher place above the ship to watch for sea skimming theats, while APAR has a bit more power per face.

>>33739702

Read my post.

SMART-L/S-1850M is PESA.

SMART-L EWC is AESA.

>>33739513
>Source on them being fitted and in service with the EWC?
The EWC is still in testing on the HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën, they're planned to enter service in late 2017/2018.
https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2015/04/22/defensie-en-thales-onderhouden-samen-luchtruimverdediging

>The APAR has only a few hundred modules facing any one direction
Each APAR array has >3000 t/r modules.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/fr/worldwide/defense/apar-active-phased-array-multifunction-radar
Anyway, my comment was more about the fact that a non-rotating radar is simply more expensive than a rotating one.

IEP might have added some to the price but the concept itself is not new or fancy, hell it's been used on SSKs for dozens of years. I won't mention the reliability issues with the gas turbines on the Type 45 because that's simply bad luck :^)

>>33739556
Uh, I am talking about a newer version of the SMART-L, the SMART-L EWC. Which is vastly more powerful GaN-enabled AESA version of the old one.

>>33739822

> I won't mention the reliability issues with the gas turbines on the Type 45 because that's simply bad luck :^)

Or not mention them because it's literally "F-35 can't fly in the rain" tiers of defense reporting. A fault that only occurs during peacetime operating economy mode, when in specific conditions, which isn't possible during combat operations stance, and which has several solutions on board already for a vessel that has never once had to cancel a deployment or exercise.

>https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2015/04/22/defensie-en-thales-onderhouden-samen-luchtruimverdediging

That source only says that they will, and shows an artists impression, I don't see it stating conclusively that it is fitted to the ship itself yet?

>IEP might have added some to the price but the concept itself is not new or fancy

It is for an escort. Also bear in mind that The Type 45 uses PAAMS, an Aegis equivilent system, that entire thing was one of the biggest cost sinks in the program. Basically, the Type 45 took some really specific, "new design" angles. New propulsion, new radar, PAAMS, new silos and missiles (for the time on that development) that ended up costing a lot to gain some very niche capabilities.

They also have massive growth potential, remember. That extra steel costs money.

>>33739487
>32 quadpacked ESSM

I think that's pretty weak in using a quadpackable missile to say that a ship has "more" missiles.

I mean, would you rather have 32 + 16 of high end interceptors or 32 high end interceptors + 32 so so interceptors?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (431KB, 2134x1201px)

431KB, 2134x1201px

>>33739948
Well it's serious enough that the Type 45 needs a major overhaul and extra diesel generators added.

And it is not fitted yet. The Dutch Navy tested the interim version of the SMART-L EWC (then called SMART-L ELR) against ballistic missiles in 2015:
https://magazines.defensie.nl/defensiekrant/2015/22/06_at-sea-demonstration

Thales Nederland showed some pictures of the production version of the SMART-L EWC on their test site. There are some minor differences on the outside.

>>33740121
I don't think so. It's simply a layered air defense. What makes Aster 15 more capable than ESSM? ESSM has a longer range + higher speed and Block II will get an active seeker like the Aster 15.

File: 1418241697226.gif (2MB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x400px

>tfw I might get to see true battlecruisers return to the sea in my lifetime

>>33740276

>Well it's serious enough that the Type 45 needs a major overhaul and extra diesel generators added.

Again, massive misreporting. The "major overhaul" is whats called a "standard refit" which all RN vessels go through. They're putting the additional diesels in during that already scheduled refit, thats literally it.

The diesels also have performance enhancements too, so it's not entirely about "the issue" either.

>What makes Aster 15 more capable than ESSM?

Aster-15 is vastly more agile and agressive in chasing targets, and already has an active sensor. When the ships were built the ESSM didn't have one. That was over a decade ago and it still doesn't have it. Thats over 10 years of active sensor use they got out of it that they wouldn't have otherwise gotten.

>>33732535
SPASU BATRRASHIPPU REANDORO!

these are the kinds of recurring threads that are worth it

now just wait till the trips show up and start circlejerking

File: substandard.jpg (210KB, 620x400px)

210KB, 620x400px

we need to get rid of these pieces of hot garbage the pikey/bongs unloaded on us, and get the latest SSKs with AIP

>>33740550
imo active means shit unless you engage over the horizon and have fixed wing coop engagement ability.

If given the choice for a point defense I go with semi-active due to TVM guidance. Ships will always carry better computers.

>>33739385
The Harpoon/Exocet replacement should be broadly based on the CV401 Perseus in terms of characteristics. Development officialy started a couple of months ago in france, no idea what's happening on the other side of the Channel in terms of allocated budget. It should also replace the SCALP in air to ground roles but not in surface to surface ones at least initialy, due to the difficulty to cram all the range you need in the missile when the prime objective is multi-mach speed.

>>33739288
On the plus side, if I were to choose between the french and italian version for ASW work i'd go for the french without hesitation, it is so much more silent in the 15knot range thanks to its propulsion. There a reason they sold two of them on the export market while the italians sold none. Besides, if you want to get your ASW crews trained, i'm willing to bet the frogs have much more experience than the italians who don't do much with their ship theses days but glorified coast guard job in the mediteranean sea.

>>33745193
>If given the choice for a point defense I go with semi-active due to TVM guidance. Ships will always carry better computers.

Clearly the argument of active vs semi-active has been won by active if the upgrade path or already existing higher end missiles have it?

this is a nice thread, even the requisite Type-45 argument has been polite. We should have more Euro/Commonwealth threads.

>>33744785
>So poor you're competing with Portugal and Chile for the purchase of subs
>Stall because you aren't even willing to pay the price that those two poorfag nations are considering
>wtf why aren't our subs top of the line

>>33744785

>Buy perfectly good sub
>Are told ahead of time about one thing it doesn't have due to the age of the vessel
>Proceed to sail it home, break it en route due to crew error
>Need to wail to the UK to come rescue you
>Canadian government accepts blame was the fault of Canadian crewmen who didn't properly seal the ship
>Canada pays for the recovery costs

The meme of "British sold us things that don't work!" is pretty much like buying a laptop, tossing it on the ground then complaining that Dell broke it.

>>33746323

>On the plus side, if I were to choose between the french and italian version for ASW work i'd go for the french without hesitation, it is so much more silent in the 15knot range thanks to its propulsion.

Citation?

>>33748903
Its a nice break from the F-35 treads

File: zumwalt.jpg (29KB, 480x360px)

29KB, 480x360px

>>33749487

Happens all the time in here.

>Contractor builds shiny new Zumwalt
>equipment is brand-new errythang
>Ship sails fine
>give ship to Navy
>Navy cannot into new
>Navy breaks ship
>"LOL BOONDOGGLE HURR"

erryfuckintime

>>33748674
An active seeker is simply an extra function, useful in OTH engagements and certainly a big upgrade for Aegis-equipped ships still using mechanically steered illuminators. For multibeam/CWI radars like APAR it does not really matter since they can do terminal guidance for multiple missiles at the same time anyway.

>>33749487
>Citation?
30 seconds of wikipedia research would have given you the answer: the french propulsion is CODLOG while the italian one is CODLAG, which means it can run on pure electric for a while.

>>33750593
Full electric with diesel generators running yes. Both CODLOG and CODLAG can do that. The only difference is that with CODLOG (French FREMM) you can't use both the electric motors and gas turbines at the same time, so at higher speeds it will use its gas turbines only. CODLAG (Italian FREMM) can use both at the same time, hence why it has a slightly higher top speed.

>>33748674
>Clearly the argument of active vs semi-active has been won by active if the upgrade path or already existing higher end missiles have it?

Leaning towards that conclusion myself. Strictly speaking the benefit of full-active is a true OTH engagement capability as >>33750228 says, but not a hands-down superior replacement simply because of cost. Cost-efficiency is a major consideration for SAM systems due to the mathematics of missile attrition wars, so modern semi-active/track-via-missile SAMs offer incredible bang for the buck, meaning you ideally want a mix of weapons available...

... but I'm starting to wonder. The ESSM is a "point defense" missile (though it outranges most point defense missiles handily) and can be quad-packed in cells, which means its an ideal candidate for semi-active guidance to keep them affordable - and yet the upcoming Block II ESM is slated to receive its own dual-mode X-Band active radar seeker. The SM-6 (which is mostly an SM-2ER with the active radar seeker of the AIM-120 added) has demonstrated OTH, CEC, and OTH/CEC anti-surface AND ABM engagement capabilities all in one weapon - and when you consider that limited magazine space on a ship is the biggest limit on their combat duration you can see how flexibility can more than make up for a high price tag really, really quick.

Then there's near/medium future tech like HVP shells, railgunz, lazorz and all that shit to consider - if those take over the cost-efficient intercept role, than the missiles will all be high-end, active guided, because we'll be able to afford it.

File: ASTER-20.jpg (115KB, 1120x592px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1120x592px

>>33750911

Good point on the cost-efficiency. There's not really a huge difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30, it's just mainly the booster. It's also only just a software update for Aster to gain duel conventional-ballistic capability.

>>33750593

Except CODLAG lets you run in either mode. It's a drawback of the French ship to not have it, not a bonus. It's literally the same as people claiming the one way datalink on the Rafale is a "unique advantage", except that two-way linked aircraft can use either one or two.

ie - French shills trying to turn something into some non-existent advantage, again.

>>33751063
>There's not really a huge difference between Aster 15 and Aster 30, it's just mainly the booster.

Pretty much. SM-2 (50nm range) and SM-2ER (130nm range) is just an additional booster as well.

>It's also only just a software update for Aster to gain duel conventional-ballistic capability.

Unfortunately the normal blast-frag warhead on an ASTER-30 (or SM-2ER or SM-6 for that matter) isn't very effective against re-entry vehicles. However a small maneuvering kinetic hit-to-kill warhead will weigh a lot less than the ASTER-30s warhead (for reference the SM-2ER warhead is 137 pounds but the LEAP kill vehicle in the SM-3 is only 44 pounds/20kg.) Hence an ASTER-30 so equipped would have even more delta-V than a normal one, with no actual change to the missile.

I doubt it'll have enough oomph for exo-atmospheric intercept, but ASTER-30 is likely capable of high-altitude terminal intercept, which would be excellent for ship/fleet self-defense. Only the US really requires the mobile ship-based area-ABM defense ability, so that's no real drawback. I wonder if the PAAMs partners are working on it; god knows the baguettes and bongs have the technical ability...

File: 027.jpg (39KB, 640x512px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x512px

>>33751266

No disagreement there.

There does exist a program for PAAMS, both Italy and France have gone ahead with their Aster BMD and PAAMSs whilst the British have been a little lackluster in getting Aster (as SM3 or SM6 might be on the table for buying), but have been upgrading their PAAMS with BMD capability.

Link below is a little British focused, but a good source of info on the BMD stuff if you're interested.

>ASTER 30 Block 0; In service with the Royal Navy and others.

>ASTER 30 Block 1; Part of the Italian/French SAMP/T land-based air defence system with dual capability against ballistic and conventional missiles. This version has updated seeker software not found in Block 0 and proven as part of previous SAMP/T development activities.

>ASTER 30 Block 1NT (new Technology); Currently in development for France and Italy, utilising a new seeker and other improvements to provide enhanced capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles and some capabilities against medium-range ballistic missiles. ASTER 30 Block 1NT is fully compatible with existing SYLVER A50 VLS cells. It is anticipated to enter service with France in 2022.

>ASTER 30 Block 2; yet to be developed but reportedly capable of addressing 3,000km range ballistic missiles

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/uk-complex-weapons/sea-viper-aster/

File: learning.jpg (26KB, 443x327px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 443x327px

>>33751380
>the British have been a little lackluster in getting Aster (as SM3 or SM6 might be on the table for buying)
>but a good source of info on the BMD stuff if you're interested.

I am indeed, thank you!

File: 1280px-Flickr_-_Official_U.S._Navy_Imagery_-_120508-N-KD852-679.jpg (195KB, 1280x720px)

195KB, 1280x720px

>>33727589

Wasp class is superior on every level. Mistral's also aren't built to .mil standards.

>>33739417

Because they have SM-2 and SM-6 which both have anti surface ability and are getting LRASM in the next couple years.

>>33739513

Type 45 doesn't carry a BMD capable weapon and its VLS cells (perhaps the most laughable decision regarding the ship) can't carry SM-3. The Aster missiles have a very short range for a modern anti air missile. The Type 45 is a frigate's worth of armament loaded on an oversized vessel- perhaps just so the royal navy could at least technically claim to still have destroyers.

>>33751380

The stepchange is though, both the French and Italian Horizons don't have BMD capable radars unless they buy a new one for them. The UK is just focusing on the radars first, as thats by far the most complex part of it when you know France and Italy are putting together a missile that'll fit

>>33752295

>Type 45 doesn't carry a BMD capable weapon

Except for Aster-30. The missile is BMD capable, it's just the additional software and booster changes with a new tip coming with the Block 1. The ship can already fire the mission and the radar has tested BMD.

It's no different from that the De Zeven doesn't have SM-3 either. Both ships have BMD capability, both are just waiting on missiles for it. Difference is the Type 45 actually has a developmental contract for purchasing them in future. I haven't seen any such commitment from the Dutch to SM-3 yet.

>The Aster missiles have a very short range for a modern anti air missile

120km is more than enough for the role.

>The Type 45 is a frigate's worth of armament loaded on an oversized vessel- perhaps just so the royal navy could at least technically claim to still have destroyers.

>The sheer salt to go after displacement
>From a navy that doesn't even pass 200k tonnes

The reason it's so big is to fit the higher radar mast, the additional PAAMS anti-air warfare system (which is an Aegis equivilent, something that is hilariously large to just ignore in offering anti-air enhancements), a much larger future growth program and much more power generation. Remember it can gain 12-16 extra Mk41 VLS and CAMM is on the way for quadpacking. When you're a larger navy, these programs are much longer term for greater overall gain. When you've only got four fucking escorts for your navy, of course you're going to be more agile to get them running. Same reason the USN still mostly uses PESAs.

It's about a ship you know you're going to have for decades, and giving it the space to do what it needs now and in future.

>>33752205
These carriers are such a waste
All because the Marines want to play fucking rambo, and also have their own air support.

>>33755062
>All because the Marines want to play fucking rambo, and also have their own air support.
Are you not aware that the Marines operate F-18 squadrons off the CVN's?
The LHA/D classes exist as land assault/incursion vessels that can keep up with the rest of the fleet. Any fixed wing assets they have are there to supplement the airwings of the carrier in their strike group.

>>33727578
>Also, the America isn't really "small." It weighs in at over 40,000 tons.
Compared to a Nimitz or Ford, that is small.

>>33727589
>tfw the RCN wanted to buy Mistrals but the feds said no

America can you cut us a deal on your mothballed carriers?

>>33728084
We'll never operate carriers ever again, liberals fucked up the military budget so much in the past 50 years.

>>33738501
We could still stomp NK despite being crippled anon.

>>33744785
The trick is to not let the Liberals into office since they always buy from the bargain bin or they slash the budget in half again.

You'll notice when the Conservatives got in we bought 150+ Leopard 2A4/6's.

>>33751252
Not trying to shill, i simply misunderstood the description of CODLAG and assumed you couldn't disengage the gas turbine.

>>33752295
>frigate's worth of armament loaded

If you define a warship solely on the weapons it carries, you are retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ZC8wyp44w
Are carriers obsolete /k/?

>>33744785
From a RCN buddy who deployed twice in those subs:

Oh sweet summer child, I too remember my innocence. Let me tell you a story about Babcock and how the Canadian Armed Forces buys things that it needs.

So back in the day, Canada made the smart decision to buy submarines and serendipitously the British were getting rid of their Upholder class, not because anything was wrong or they were old, but because they wanted to concentrate on nuclear. They gave us a price tag of $750 million, which is a fucking bargain. Even at today's dollar value you will notice that 4 god damn submarines are costing us less than the 2.6 billion dollar price tag of each individual ship Irving is building us. And the price tag for the sub included trainers and training the crew. Like we got a fucking bargain on these subs and they are good subs. After that everything goes to shit because the successive governments have just fucked everything up when it comes to acquisitions.

So these subs were designed to fire British torpedoes. We (smartly) decided that if there was a war on we didn't want to have to buy torpedoes from overseas. The American torpedo is better and it allows us to lease them (pay a very low monthly fee to hold on to them and only pay for a torpedo in full if we blow it up) which again is a smart move, especially considering we only needed 18 months of work across all four boats to make this happen. They did a cost benefit analysis and things checked out. Here's where shit hits the fan.

First mistake, when we brought the subs over the British offered us all the spare parts, we said no. Babcock said "Hey, if they don't want them can we have them?" and the British sold the (now useless to them) spare parts and manuals to Babcock at a very low price. (Side note: The older guys say that we bought a spare periscope from them and that's it, but a LogO lost it and it sat on a runway in Winnipeg until about 2008, I can't verify that, but it's a good dit).

1/3

>>33744785
>>33758569

Anyways, so now the subs are back in Canada and the gov't puts out a tender to Canadianize the subs. But this contract is done in two parts, the first part is to tear it apart and the second is to put it back together. So the first contract goes to the lowest bidder and the sub gets torn apart. Tender is out for the second part of the job and the company that tore it apart and has all the corporate knowledge puts in a bid, but it's a high bid because they now have knowledge necessary for this job. They are not the lowest bidder so they take all their things and leave.

Second company comes in and tried to get to work, but can't. They don't know where anything goes, and all of the detailed logs of who took what from where and put it where left with the first company. Like it's so bad that guys are coming down to the boat first thing in the morning measuring the gap in the pipe, machining a new segment, coming back and realizing that the length is off because they measured in CM but cut in inches. Putting the subs back together again is a fucking shit show, and there are a lot of problems. Very costly problems. The expected $750 million on Canadianizing just balloons to crazy amounts, and the subs are stuck in the dry dock, or on lifts in Halifax, just sitting there. Very visibly not going in the water with press saying how stupid the purchase wasn't (To recap so far, the purchase was amazing and subsequent contracting post purchase is the issue).

2/3

>>33757356
>If you define a warship solely by its capability to wage war, you are retarded.

Literally a liberal way of thinking.

>>33744785
>>33758578

Anyways so now the subs are mostly put back together so they go in the water and start to do sea trials. As a surprise to exactly no one, things start to break and need repairs. Anyways Canada realizes it needs spare parts and needs them yesterday to make these subs do something as political pressure mounts. So Canada calls up England and they say "Sorry 'ole chap, we sold those to Babcock when you said you didn't want them. Toot toot Cheerio!" So Canada calls up Babcock and says we need what you got.

So Babcock, ever business savvy, realizes they are in a position to be set for life and they capitalize. They essentially "negotiated" (and by negotiated I mean dictated) the greatest deal for them of all time. Their contract essentially states that if anything needs to be fixed on the sub they always get asked first, it doesn't go to anyone else unless they say no and they set the price. Canada agreed. And by they get asked first I mean if something breaks and the sub isn't at sea our guys, who are trained to fix everything, have to call Babcock to have them come in and fix it, no matter how small the job.

So our guys are watching their former co-workers do the job they are trained both trained for, but without duty watches, without having to sail and at 4 to 8 times the pay. Oh and that overtime they have to stay and supervise the Babcock guys for? Yeah Babcock gets paid and time off. Our guys stay late and are still expected in and shaven at 0745. So we lose more guys to Babcock. The more guys we lose, the more Babcock can charge as we get more desperate for people and they gain more expertise.

3/4 (oops)

>>33744785
>>33758586

And although I'm most familiar with the story of subs, every single one of our procurement efforts have a similar story. Like if we're in desperate need of new choppers and our old ones keep being forced to land near grocery stores or if the air force has to raid a museum for spare parts or if the navy has to rent tankers because we can't get our shit together or if we can't even buy fucking boots that do what they are supposed to. FUCKING BOOTS! BOOTS!

And with everyone of these bad press stories pressure mounts and we enter into another short sighted contract.

The point is the military procurement process is economically focused. Meaning the gov't will gladly pay through the nose as long as the money goes to Canada, because economy and jobs! And we can't earmark money for anything other than stop gap repairs to keep our military limping along from one fiscal year to the next because our gov't signs these fucking ridiculous contracts. We don't know how much money we're going to get every year and we also don't know how much we'll be contractually made to pay to contractors for repairs we've spent money on training our guys how to do.

4/4

>>33731044

In the era of cameras, networked computers and automation, it won't be long until we see a return to flat top carriers.

File: Type_26-1024x576-2.jpg (87KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1024x576px

>>33738501
>highly likely that Canada will choose the FREMM as the next surface combatant ship

This goes against all the leaks and announcements we've had so far.

>>33758584

Fantastic response my dude, you really addressed what was said, rather than what you think was said.

A warship is a system of systems, some of which are highly dependent other things. The weapons are one of those systems.

But sure, there's no difference between a pseudo-stealth shaped merchant ship painted grey with a large VLS and an actual warship.

>>33735517
There's nothing on the picture.

File: Piotr-Velikii.jpg (90KB, 900x500px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 900x500px

Is she pretty /k/?

>>33759930
Yep!

why is there always that one shitty small naval gun, go full yamoto or remove it, its embarrassing

>>33761349
Cheap and effective way of removing small watercraft at moderate to long range that takes up very little space and weighs almost nothing.

Why get rid of it?

>>33761349

Because a pop gun is useful?

>>33728533
>best looking
>it's wearing a dunce cap
Rest of it is fucking gorgeous though, will give it that. Such clean lines.

This is a surprisingly civil tread. Truly enjoyable

>>33761794

Goes to show when people can, for the most part - avoid the /pol/ tier shitposting.

>>33728097
What bird?

>>33762424
bumperango

>>33762424
Some kind of MD Banshee model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Bonaventure_(CVL_22)#Aircraft

>>33739215

*breaks down infront of you*

>>33768417
>In all matter except value, i contribute
>*shitposts*

All the damn ramp-treads keep killing decent treads. Not on my watch

File: f4e6a4881dbd2ba2b2c720c551ee4464.jpg (377KB, 2128x1416px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 2128x1416px

>>33739406
>>33739417
DID SOMEONE SAY MISSILES?

>>33752267
SMs can't replace a dedicated anti-ship missile.