so few Horizon class frigates in French and Italian Navies

[harryriedl]

why are their so few horizions in the french and itailien navys it only 5 ships total between the two navys.

it seems strange that their should so few ships for covering HVT is their any resons for this

 

[contedicavour]

why are their so few horizions in the french and itailien navys it only 5 ships total between the two navys.

it seems strange that their should so few ships for covering HVT is their any resons for this

Well, budget constraints are clearly a problem

Horizons will be 4 or 6 if you include the modified design that the Italian Navy still plans to order in 2015 to replace the 2 De la Penne DDGs.

The French are short of money since they opted for a 2nd carrier and for a strong fleet of 4 LPD/LPH. We Italians had only 2 old DDGs to replace (the 3rd and 4th entered service in 1993) and our priority is now to build the 10 FREMM to replace the Lupos and Maestrale frigates.

Last but not least, our version of the FREMM is equipped with EMPAR aegis-type radar and the 32 VLS are A50 type capable of embarking Aster 30 as the Horizons. So, if 1 Horizon is around with its S-1850 long-range radar, each nearby FREMM becomes an extra DDG.
This and the Harrier Plus embarked on the Garibaldi and the Cavour carriers are enough for AAW (or at least are enough given our limited budget).

:italy

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

I was forgetting one important thing : commonality between Horizon and FREMM is very high : from the turbines to radars to missiles to artillery most equipment is identical.
So building only 4 or 6 Horizons isn't too much of a waste of R&D spending.

Having said this, if the RN had abstained from building on its own the T45 Daring class (which is so similar to Horizons...), we would have saved even more money...

cheers

 

[ren0312]

Well it does not help that European defence budgets are ridicoulously low for the most part, except for France and the UK, the other members of NATO excluding Greece, Turkey and the US all spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence, which is below the NATO requirement, and clearly below a moderately reasonable defence posture also, with regards to not only being able to provide home defence, but also being to provide expeditionary forces and also credible conventional naval warfare capabilities as well, maybe the problem with these countries, including Australia and New Zealand, is their welfare state, which sucks out the funding needed to maintain an adequate defence budget for defence and force projection, I studied the budgets of Western European nations and forund out that spending 2 per cent of their GDP on the military will only take up 7 percent or so of their budget, since almost all European countries have government budgets above 30 per cent of GDP, which makes me wonder what exactly are the Europeans thinking, 7 per cent of your budget devoted to militarry spening is very achievable if you can mnage to get rid of that welfare state mind state that your electorate have, if you can have a larger defence budget, then you do not have to ration your weapons among your ships, and can buy better protection for your fighting men, thus saving lives, the reason why I included politics in my post is because war and military policies are just an extension of politics, and it will be unrealistic to expect significant improvements in European defence capabilities, or indeed to suggest changing procurment plans, from say, Rafales to Eurofighters, without first considering the political climate in that particular country, so politics and domestic policy cannot be uncoupled from discussions about procurement options and weapons choices. The increases in funding that I suggested, like having New Zealands military budget be at around 2 percent of GDP by 2010 to 2015, while they may entail drastic increases of 15 per cent or more in the short term, are very achievable and fiscally reponsible, and be be funded by cutting non defence spending, while also increasing taxes in a 70/30 ratio, while at the same time having no effect on the fiscal deficit. A country can in fact sustain a military budget of up to 5.5 per cent of GDP, as is shown in the case of Singapore, with no long term damage to its economy or fiscal stability, as long as non defence spending is also brought under control, as Singapore has done. While 0.2 per cent difference in spending as a per centage of GDP may not buy a FREMM frigate, it can sure buy a extra CIWS mount for all FREMM frigates that Italy is planning to purchaseplus upgrades for the SAMs, thus resulting in less loss of manpower tbecause of battlefield casualties.:ar15

 

[Big-E]

Was cracking on the dole really necessary?

 

[contedicavour]

Well it does not help that European defence budgets are ridicoulously low for the most part, except for France and the UK, the other members of NATO excluding Greece, Turkey and the US all spend less than 2 per cent of GDP on defence, which is below the NATO requirement, and clearly below a moderately reasonable defence posture also, with regards to not only being able to provide home defence, but also being to provide expeditionary forces and also credible conventional naval warfare capabilities as well, maybe the problem with these countries, including Australia and New Zealand, is their welfare state, which sucks out the funding needed to maintain an adequate defence budget for defence and force projection, I studied the budgets of Western European nations and forund out that spending 2 per cent of their GDP on the military will only take up 7 percent or so of their budget, since almost all European countries have government budgets above 30 per cent of GDP, which makes me wonder what exactly are the Europeans thinking, 7 per cent of your budget devoted to militarry spening is very achievable if you can mnage to get rid of that welfare state mind state that your electorate have, if you can have a larger defence budget, then you do not have to ration your weapons among your ships, and can buy better protection for your fighting men, thus saving lives, the reason why I included politics in my post is because war and military policies are just an extension of politics, and it will be unrealistic to expect significant improvements in European defence capabilities, or indeed to suggest changing procurment plans, from say, Rafales to Eurofighters, without first considering the political climate in that particular country, so politics and domestic policy cannot be uncoupled from discussions about procurement options and weapons choices. The increases in funding that I suggested, like having New Zealands military budget be at around 2 percent of GDP by 2010 to 2015, while they may entail drastic increases of 15 per cent or more in the short term, are very achievable and fiscally reponsible, and be be funded by cutting non defence spending, while also increasing taxes in a 70/30 ratio, while at the same time having no effect on the fiscal deficit. A country can in fact sustain a military budget of up to 5.5 per cent of GDP, as is shown in the case of Singapore, with no long term damage to its economy or fiscal stability, as long as non defence spending is also brought under control, as Singapore has done. While 0.2 per cent difference in spending as a per centage of GDP may not buy a FREMM frigate, it can sure buy a extra CIWS mount for all FREMM frigates that Italy is planning to purchaseplus upgrades for the SAMs, thus resulting in less loss of manpower tbecause of battlefield casualties.:ar15

I fully understand your point. The European Union has long last agreed to take military investment out of the accounting that forces our budgets to maximum 3% yearly deficit. The Italian government is using budgets from R&D spending in the Industry & Development ministry to fund what the Defense Ministry cannot fund. Here is an example : the FREMMs are being built with a mortgage payment by the Industry Ministry, while up to 2008 the Defense Ministry will not pay anything for them.
Cutting social spending when you have 7.7% unemployment and with a fast ageing population would be a recipe for disaster... so we've got to think and act smartly to find budgets for the highest priority programmes and only send troops when there's enough resources to equip them correctly.
One last detail : FREMMs don't need any additional CIWS or SAM upgrade. The Aster 15s are perfectly suited for anti-missile targeting, and the FREMMs have 3 76-mm mounts shooting 120 3-kg guided ammunition rounds a minute.

cheers

 

[harryriedl]

so is the FREEM more french or itailen. they are about the same size as a type 42?

 

[contedicavour]

so is the FREEM more french or itailen. they are about the same size as a type 42?

They are same size as a Type 42 Batch III , 140-metre long, 5000 ton ships.
The Type 42 Batches I and II were much smaller ships (125 metres).

FREMMs exist in 4 versions, French ASW, French land-attack, Italian multi-puropose and Italian ASW. What they all have in common are the hulls (the French building in Lorient, the Italian in Riva Trigoso near Genova), the turbines (Fiat Avio - GE LM 2500), the VLS cells (A43 for France, A50 for Italy, the first being for Aster 15 only, the second compatible with Aster 30 - although the French land-attack will have some A50 for the Scalp Naval 250-km range cruise missile), the missiles, most of the artillery (Italian 76-mm super rapid guided ammunition guns). There are strong differences in radars, the French using a cheaper Arabel type radar (to be more accurate it's the version of Arabel initially built for the Delta-Lafayette class for Singapore), while the Italians are using the EMPAR (longer range, capable to track more targets and compatible with 100-km range Aster 30). The Italian multi-purpose ships use also the 127-mm long range guided ammunition gun. ASW systems are different, though both countries' ASW versions will have towed array passive sonars of course. The hangar is capable of housing 1 EH-101 and 1 NH-90. The French don't have the EH-101, they'll probably use Panthers or Cougars.

So to summarize, most systems are common and both countries' industries are developing and building them in a joint-venture organization regrouping Finmeccanica and Fincantieri of Italy and Armaris/DCN of France.
The remaining systems are national, each country using their preferred system.

This explains why the Italian FREMM cost 350 million euro each while the French cost 280 million euro each. Exchange rate 1 euro = 1.3 dollars.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

...the French land-attack will have some A50 for the Scalp Naval 250-km range cruise missile)...

I have seen various ranges for the Scalp Navale, from 750km to 1850km, but never anything "authoritative." Is it the official range of the air launched Scalp EG/Storm Shadow you're quoting or will this actually be the range of Scalp Navale?

Just curious.

 

[harryriedl]

will Scalp Navale be compatible with any ship with an a50 lancher? are there any other langer compatible for scalp navel will ship like the f100 and f125 be compatible the smaller eu warships

 

[contedicavour]

I have seen various ranges for the Scalp Navale, from 750km to 1850km, but never anything "authoritative." Is it the official range of the air launched Scalp EG/Storm Shadow you're quoting or will this actually be the range of Scalp Navale?

Just curious.

French Naval reviews quote the Scalp Naval as capable of 250 to 300 km range against littoral targets. The data is confirmed on the internet site of the MBDA group, the builder of the missile.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

will Scalp Navale be compatible with any ship with an a50 lancher? are there any other langer compatible for scalp navel will ship like the f100 and f125 be compatible the smaller eu warships

For the moment only the Sylver A50 launcher is qualified to launch Scalp Naval, so ships equipped with the American VLS Mk41 for ESSM/SM-2 cannot to date launch this missile.
I am however sure that if a big European Navy such as the Spanish or German ones were to request integration of Scalp onto their launchers, MBDA would find a way. The height of the the Mk41 VLS is enough to house the Scalp.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

French Naval reviews quote the Scalp Naval as capable of 250 to 300 km range against littoral targets. The data is confirmed on the internet site of the MBDA group, the builder of the missile.

cheers

Well, this is why I am confused:

MBDA gives 250 km range for the air launched general purpose version, Scalp EG.

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=120

And Wikipedia says this:

Future development
MBDA are developing a longer range sea-launched variant, to be called SCALP Naval, to be launched from surface and submarines using the A70 version of the SYLVER launcher on the former. The range is to be increased to at least 1200 km according to rumours, thus necessitating the use of A70. This is deemed necessary to make SCALP Naval a credible competitor to the Tomahawk missile.

The range of the TLAM is not an arbitrary number, but chosen as part of a meaningful specification. Thus I would say 250 km range is too short for a shiplaunched cruise missile. The Scalp EG/Storm Shadow has the advantage of being brought into range of the target by a penetrating aircraft, where the launching ship has to be at a further distance away... If the 250 km number is correct, the use of the missile for land attack would severely lack depth IMV.

 

[contedicavour]

Well, this is why I am confused:

MBDA gives 250 km range for the air launched general purpose version, Scalp EG.

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=120

And Wikipedia says this:



The range of the TLAM is not an arbitrary number, but chosen as part of a meaningful specification. Thus I would say 250 km range is too short for a shiplaunched cruise missile. The Scalp EG/Storm Shadow has the advantage of being brought into range of the target by a penetrating aircraft, where the launching ship has to be at a further distance away... If the 250 km number is correct, the use of the missile for land attack would severely lack depth IMV.

Well, changing a missile so that its range can be multiplied by 5 is no easy task ! Just compare the Exocet MM-38 with the larger MM-40, and this only allowed for an increase in range from 40 to 70 km. A SCALP with a 1000+ km range would require boosters that would increase its length by at least 5 o 6 metres (beyond the maximum size allowed on even the Sylver A70 or A50). I remain very sceptic about this.
I would bet more on the feasibility of an extended version of Aster 30 so that the missile can increase its range from 100+ km to something closer to the SM-2 IIIA/B which has a range of 170km.
One last thing, the French (or Italian) navies aren't looking for a weapon with the range of the Tomahawk. If your ship is 50km from the coast, and it can already wipe out targets 250km within the enemy territory, it's already enough. If you need more, launch Rafale or JSF from the carriers, they'll handle targets farther away.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, changing a missile so that its range can be multiplied by 5 is no easy task ! Just compare the Exocet MM-38 with the larger MM-40, and this only allowed for an increase in range from 40 to 70 km. A SCALP with a 1000+ km range would require boosters that would increase its length by at least 5 o 6 metres (beyond the maximum size allowed on even the Sylver A70 or A50). I remain very sceptic about this.
I would bet more on the feasibility of an extended version of Aster 30 so that the missile can increase its range from 100+ km to something closer to the SM-2 IIIA/B which has a range of 170km.
One last thing, the French (or Italian) navies aren't looking for a weapon with the range of the Tomahawk. If your ship is 50km from the coast, and it can already wipe out targets 250km within the enemy territory, it's already enough. If you need more, launch Rafale or JSF from the carriers, they'll handle targets farther away.
cheers

Ok, then. Just noting that the height of the Mk41 SL for the TLAM is 7.7 m and the TLAM goes far beyond the 250 km.

Smaller navies that doesn't deliver by air will, if given a choice, select the US system over the European because of this greater versatility with regard to missiles and range. Just too bad.

 

[contedicavour]

Ok, then. Just noting that the height of the Mk41 SL for the TLAM is 7.7 m and the TLAM goes far beyond the 250 km.

Smaller navies that doesn't deliver by air will, if given a choice, select the US system over the European because of this greater versatility with regard to missiles and range. Just too bad.

Well, few countries will ever be able to procure Tomahawks. Even the Royal Navy needs prior authorization from the US before launching its own Tomahawks ! Such limitations are not acceptable, we are all NATO countries after all

Next, the TLAMs and the SCALP shouldn't cost the same, or else MBDA would have to give some serious justifications to governments... and even the French would stop the programme and try to buy TLAMs instead then. The Italian Navy has considered buying Mk41 and Tomahawks for at least some of the FREMMs, but the cost was rumoured to be 4 times more than installing more A70s for SCALP.

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, few countries will ever be able to procure Tomahawks. Even the Royal Navy needs prior authorization from the US before launching its own Tomahawks ! Such limitations are not acceptable, we are all NATO countries after all

Next, the TLAMs and the SCALP shouldn't cost the same, or else MBDA would have to give some serious justifications to governments... and even the French would stop the programme and try to buy TLAMs instead then. The Italian Navy has considered buying Mk41 and Tomahawks for at least some of the FREMMs, but the cost was rumoured to be 4 times more than installing more A70s for SCALP.

cheers

Well, if true, it would be some justification for the reduced range.

I just have a problem with most of the data if the Scalp is only a 250 km missile...

1. I gotta hunch that the Mk41 is the cheapest system.
2. The only NATO country denied Tomahawk so far is France!
3. 250 km is more of the same, when what is needed is a leap of capabilities ie TLAM range.

The RN has to ask the US before launching TLAM? (Excuse me for my disbelief.)

Cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Well, if true, it would be some justification for the reduced range.

I just have a problem with most of the data if the Scalp is only a 250 km missile...

1. I gotta hunch that the Mk41 is the cheapest system.
2. The only NATO country denied Tomahawk so far is France!
3. 250 km is more of the same, when what is needed is a leap of capabilities ie TLAM range.

The RN has to ask the US before launching TLAM? (Excuse me for my disbelief.)

Cheers

I've read several times in the UK press that the TLAM is a dual-key system, by which I mean the US has to agree before a British TLAM can be launched.
It has something to do with the targeting system.
This is one thing that really angered the UK, the other being the fact that the US doesn't want to share all the software of the JSF F-35 with the UK, while the UK is a solid partner in the programme.
It comes down to this : you want to buy a weapon you can use without strings attached ? Steer clear of the TLAM !

One correction : of course France could buy TLAM, but the whole point is that if there is a NATO country (btw technically France isn't part of the central command of NATO : ) that wouldn't accept this "dual-key" system it is France !

Last thing : the Mk41 system is apparently cheaper than the A50 of Aster, but only if you plan to equip both with relatively short range ESSM and Aster 15. Start putting SM-2 IIIA/B or Aster 30, this evens the cost. Add in TLAMs vs SCALP, you need to cut the size of your Navy to afford this ! Which is exactly what is happening to the Dutch Navy (down to 2 Doorman to fund SM-2 IV, TLAM, and 4 OPVs)

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

I've read several times in the UK press that the TLAM is a dual-key system, by which I mean the US has to agree before a British TLAM can be launched.
It has something to do with the targeting system.

That is certainly news to me. I thought the continental prejudice was that the UK Tridents were dual key . The UK and other NATO countries have other systems with no acces to source code, like the AMRAAM. There's no problem.

This is one thing that really angered the UK, the other being the fact that the US doesn't want to share all the software of the JSF F-35 with the UK, while the UK is a solid partner in the programme..

The UK is deep into the source code through the BUS and ESM suite. They have acces. The row is about licenses, certification and political maneuvering. Not operational control.

It comes down to this : you want to buy a weapon you can use without strings attached ? Steer clear of the TLAM !

One correction : of course France could buy TLAM, but the whole point is that if there is a NATO country (btw technically France isn't part of the central command of NATO : ) that wouldn't accept this "dual-key" system it is France !

We are not talking strategic systems here! And you say France exports with no strings attached? Every deal has strings attached.

Last thing : the Mk41 system is apparently cheaper than the A50 of Aster, but only if you plan to equip both with relatively short range ESSM and Aster 15. Start putting SM-2 IIIA/B or Aster 30, this evens the cost. Add in TLAMs vs SCALP, you need to cut the size of your Navy to afford this ! Which is exactly what is happening to the Dutch Navy (down to 2 Doorman to fund SM-2 IV, TLAM, and 4 OPVs)

Not sure about that the Euro missiles are cheapest... In any case, it is not the VLS alone that has been so expensive that the Dutch Navy has shrunk.

(yes, yes, yes! I know it is a slight deviation from the thread topic )

 

[contedicavour]

That is certainly news to me. I thought the continental prejudice was that the UK Tridents were dual key . The UK and other NATO countries have other systems with no acces to source code, like the AMRAAM. There's no problem.


The articles I read clearly state the issue is with launching TLAMs against targets that the US has not cleared beforehand. This goes well beyond having the source code to modify the system.
The UK is deep into the source code through the BUS and ESM suite. They have acces. The row is about licenses, certification and political maneuvering. Not operational control.


Agree. I'll have to find a more suitable comparison.

We are not talking strategic systems here! And you say France exports with no strings attached? Every deal has strings attached.


By strings I meant that France exports almost to anyone, without going through such a careful selection process as the US does (via Congress). This explains some akward uses of Exocets missiles for instance, be it in the Falklands or in the Gulf ...

Not sure about that the Euro missiles are cheapest... In any case, it is not the VLS alone that has been so expensive that the Dutch Navy has shrunk.

(yes, yes, yes! I know it is a slight deviation from the thread topic )

Yes agree. Though SM-2 IV and TLAMs make up for most of the cuts...