Sea 5000 Future Frigate

The navies of nations spawned by Great Britain.
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 1:10 pm

February 6th, 2018, 1:40 pm #111

Spoz wrote:The rumours suggest sometime around late March/early April as the likely time, but there has been nothing official.
Does anyone have odds on who will likely win? Haha

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2014, 3:57 am

April 14th, 2018, 4:27 am #112

I was thinking, what is the maximum number of MK 41 silos that can be fitted to a Type 26 global frigate?

The RAN proposal has (hard up against the front of the bridge) 8 across the beam x 4 rows fwd. = 32 Mk 41 silos total all strike length?

The RN –Type 26 will have (hard up against the front of the bridge) 12 across the beam x 2 rows fwd. = 24 Mk41 silos total all strike length.
Just forward of these silos on RN ships are smaller 24 single sea ceptor silos spread out over about the same area as the 24 Mk41’s.

Therefore can one assume the existing 24 single sea ceptor silos could be replaced with 16 Mk41 strike length silos plus
One 3-cell ExLS system outboard port and starboard, = 24 sea ceptors.

This configuration could replace the existing 24 single sea ceptor silos spread over an identical area just aft of the stack.
The 16 Mk 41 would have to be tactical silos if they would fit as the mission bay is below.

Just my thoughts I realize there are weight and freeboard considerations etc.

I would appreciate any feedback.

Jonesbry.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2014, 6:37 pm

April 14th, 2018, 11:08 am #113

My understanding

The Mk 41 VLS comes in three lengths, Strike, Tactical & Self Defense, long to short in length
Australia wedded to the ESSM and cannot see them buying Sea Ceptor, 
You can fit four ESSM per Mk 41 VLS cell, therefore 32 ESSM per 8 cell module.
(NZ with ANZAC frigate update taking out Mk 41 VLS and fitting Sea Ceptor with own smaller special to type VLS.)
Not sure if any Self Defense Mk 41 have ever been sold/installed, the longer the Tactical and Strike popular as can fit much wider number of types of missiles, fitting the longer Strike gives greater flexibility for missile loadout if ship has the space to fit. 
Would expect the Strike cost only nominally more than the Tactical, Feb. 2018 Finland paying $70M for four Strike length Mk 41 VLS 8 cell modules $17.5M each, for its four new corvettes.  

There may be an option with Type 26 Sea5000 version to reduce the size the mission bay on weapons deck and insert more VLS modules midship.
 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 9th, 2015, 10:05 am

April 15th, 2018, 2:21 am #114

Wouldn't Self Defence Mk41 be roughly equivalent to the A35 Sylver VLS used by Euro navies? Looks like the extended range Sea Ceptor would need the A43, but British presumably using the A35. Pretty sure theres no point setting up your VLS for a full load of bigger missiles since self defence isnt optional and always has to be a layered defence.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 15th, 2014, 3:57 am

April 16th, 2018, 12:00 am #115

Looking at the comparisons below, given the available space, extra 2.2m beam & greater volume of the hull over the Hobart class I would say the Type 26 could take the loadings of 48 Mk 41 silo tubes with ease.
 
Type:  Hobart class Air warfare destroyer.
Displacement:   7,000 tonnes (6,900 long tons; 7,700 short tons) full load
Length: 147.2 metres (483 ft)
Beam:   18.6 metres (61 ft) maximum
Draught:  5.17 metres (17.0 ft)
Armament  fwd, of bridge: 48-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch System
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type: Type 26 frigate or City-class
Displacement:   6,900 t (6,800 long tons; 7,600 short tons ) 8,000+ t full load.
Length: 149.9 m (492 ft)
Beam:   20.8 m (68 ft)
Draught: ?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 18th, 2014, 6:37 pm

April 18th, 2018, 12:17 pm #116

"Special Report: Sea 5000 and ASW capability – making sense of a complex picture" A very good article written by Katherine Ziesing on australiandefence.com
 
Very informative on current state the art on ASW re. Mono-static, Bi-static and Multi-static, and associated torpedo defense systems with Thales and Ultra Systems.
 
After reading slightly surprised the Australians have not specified ASW fit as they have with radar - CEAFAR 2 and the CMS - Saab Australia 9LV with associated Lockheed IAFCL, International Aegis Fire Control Loop, for integration of SM-2 and radar, to create common systems with Hobarts.
 
Re. The Navantia F5000, update of F100/Hobart for SEA5000, expect to be the basis of the design for BIW FFG(X) bid, may be propulsion changed from CODOG to CODLOG as F5000 prime mission is ASW, few details of design have been disclosed.
 
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/sea ... ex-picture
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 17th, 2003, 3:13 am

Today, 11:13 am #117

What is the date by  which we need the ships operational?

Might also consider the question of how many ships we need?

Simple truth, we may need them sooner than we would like. I would suggest that the time of delivery may have become a major consideration when selecting a design.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 30th, 2003, 5:00 pm

Today, 11:37 am #118

Although I agree with you Jim as to time table, might I ask what influences your point off view?
Without communications, all I control is my desk, and that is not a very lethal weapon."
Gen. T.S. Power, CINCSAC, May 1959
Quote
Like
Share