I don't get the advantage of having the VLS located inside another container that is then bolted to the deck. You are then further constrained by the deck space (you take up more deck space), reduced top weight (its now higher up and heavier) and you need additional weight and support for that structure.
Things like harpoons (or NSM/JSM) are already in boltable box modules. Phalanx and SeaRAM are already modular and can be moved when needed.
Weapons can be unloaded and loaded in VLS tubes. So unless we are going to save a lot of money by buying less VLS launchers I don't see the advantage. VLS launchers are fairly cheap compared to the missiles inside them.
Looking at any of the Sea5000 ships I don't see where there would be an appropriate spot to put any of these modules without eating space/weight already dedicated to other purposes.These ships are using their spaces pretty effectively.
If we want to talk about upgunning then there are options:
Include more VLS perhaps tactical or self defence. The F-105 is rumored to be able to take 64 VLS, obviously taking space currently used for other purposes.
Changing the two 25mm bushmasters to 30mm with anti-air munitions.
Changing Phalanx to SeaRAM or perhaps an additional mount.
Upgrading 8 Harpoon to 12 NSM
Installing SM-6 and SM-3
ESSM Block II
On the Sea1180 the Fassmer has space for 3 containers in a somewhat open rear deck area. It might be possible to put torpedo launchers, possibly even NSM launchers etc in this space. The Fassmer OPV80 Naval has space for a 8 missiles and seaRAM or CIWS and can mount a 76mm (and is more like a frigate). I would imagine it would be possible to mount nulka decoys and underwater decoys onto an OPV. But I also feel spending too much upgunning the OPV is not effective use of money. There is almost always more capability we can buy for the AWD and Sea5000 ships.
I suspect Fassmer is the only one offering complete hanger and deck suitable for operating real helicopters.
Harald Fassmers comments can be found by googling "Germans bullish on patrol vessel bid" and opening in an incognetio window in chrome.
A recent Australian Strategic Policy Institute report has argued Defence’s proposed requirements for the vessels should have included capacity for a helicopter. The report, by former Defence Department analyst Ben Coleman, said the boats would be used to fight armed coastguard vessels, state-sponsored harassment by fishing vessels, pirates and armed terrorist groups. A lack of heli*copter facilities would restrict the navy’s ability to use the boats to fight future threats such as piracy, maritime terrorism and weapons proliferation, he said.
...
Mr Fassmer said the ships’ helicopter capabilities set their design apart. “We have a helicopter hangar, which is different,” he said. “You cannot have it outside without being protected from the harsh environmental conditions — with the salty seawater you need to have a helicopter hangar. I think that gives it great advantage.”
I do think the helicopter hangar should have been part of the requirements. I think we would have gotten 3 much more capably similar tenders. The fact ASPI and others are picking up on this I think will add pressure.
That being said, the Fassmer OPV80 meets everything I would want as an armchair nitwit. Good ship. If we were to pick them, I think the RAN would be very, very happy with what they get.
