Spain updates AEGIS destroyers

[kev 99]

I am just saying there was a British option to build capable ships in the 90s. They may not have been as good at Aegis but if we decided not to go british we could have had Aegis in 15 years ago. The Japanese got the system then and the UK has a relationship as close.

Yes we could of and all of the designs were thrown out because they were too expensive, so we decided to cooperate with other nations with the NFR 90 programme and then the Horizon, both fell apart for one reason or another and we went our own route but tried to salvage as much of the costs spent on Horizon as we could.

Sea Dart would never have been used as the starting point of a JV development with France as this would not be French.

Good job too, why would we go with an update of an old semi passive missile which has already gone as far down its development path as was possible when we could buy into a next generation design which was already working?

While I am on a French rant, I see these heated debates on F22 v Typhoon, when we know the F22 is the best, but I look at the Rafale land on a carrier and you know who has done the most with the least.

Blame the RAF and inter-service rivalry for that, they had control over the UK commitment to Eurofighter from the very beginning, UK did not require a carrier capable fighter because they didn't want one, therefore UK were not willing to develop and pay for one, this is one of the reasons why the French left the programme.

 

[1805]

I think you missed the point about the F22 v Typhoon it was about the French willingness to accept 2nd best to keep what they consider in the national interest. Your argument seems to centre on an increased defence budget. This is not going to happen so we will face a smaller less effective fleet. If fact it will look a very unbalanced fleet as we have enjoyed a massive increase in Assault and Carriers (assuming not cancelled) at the expense of any AAD & submarines and probably the F35 to fly from the carriers. I guess there is an argument fighters are a safer bet than AAD.

One interesting point on the T82 v T42 debate, I don't understand the "because we had AEW & Fighters" we need a few expsnsive fat AAD, but then we have no fighter & AEW, we need serious AA capability so we pull our figure out and cut the fat and build decent numbers. Because the numbers were greater we get more. The cut down hull is not accepable just bad design you can build a good hull at 4,000 oddly we did have the excellent Leander hull which was the basis of T22.

 

[kev 99]

I think you missed the point about the F22 v Typhoon it was about the French willingness to accept 2nd best to keep what they consider in the national interest. Your argument seems to centre on an increased defence budget. This is not going to happen so we will face a smaller less effective fleet. If fact it will look a very unbalanced fleet as we have enjoyed a massive increase in Assault and Carriers (assuming not cancelled) at the expense of any AAD & submarines and probably the F35 to fly from the carriers. I guess there is an argument fighters are a safer bet than AAD.

What exactly has any of that got to do with what we were discussing? When did I argue that we're going to get an increased MOD budget? You appear to be arguing against points that I'm not making.

One interesting point on the T82 v T42 debate, I don't understand the "because we had AEW & Fighters" we need a few expsnsive fat AAD, but then we have no fighter & AEW, we need serious AA capability so we pull our figure out and cut the fat and build decent numbers. Because the numbers were greater we get more. The cut down hull is not accepable just bad design you can build a good hull at 4,000 oddly we did have the excellent Leander hull which was the basis of T22.

Go and have a read up on T82 and the reasons they were cancelled, they were tied to the CVA project, CVA cancelled, T82 cancelled, simple as that. With no fighters and no AA the fleet is vulnerable in the North Sea to Soviet MPAs and strategic bombers so we needed a ship to crowbar Sea Dart onto, one built to a budget because no AAW means we need more of them. I agree the cut down hull is not acceptable but this IS the reason, they were built to a budget and as a result they were crap, too much top weight and prone to roll because the decision had been made to shorten them. Even the Sea Dart launcher was in the wrong place, they were designed to be placed on the Stern of the T82 where they were not vulnerable to Sea spray, during the Falklands there were numerous issues with Micro switches on the launchers getting gummed up with Salt as they were open to the elements.

If we'd of had the T82 instead of the T42 in the Falklands we would of had proper fleet carriers of well (since they were tied together), chances are if this was the case we wouldn't of lost any ships because it would of been a walkover.

BTW I've never heard anywhere that the Leander hull was the basis for T22 and I'd be surprised if this was actually the case, the dimensions are all wrong and they don't even look similar.

 

[1805]

I have seen mention of the T22 hull was development of the Leander concept, you can also see it's influence in Dutch and Indian ships that follow export (when we use to build attractive designs). If fact with a full hanger at the back you can see a strong common heritiage with some India frigates and the T22.

Forgive me others were saying the UK underfunded defence and I mistakely attributed this. I agree the T42 were to cut down, but a mere 500-1000 tons would have made a big difference but apart from smaller magazines they are a better armed than the T82. I know the argument they are linked to the CVA01 but I just think they where underarmed and expensive and the CVA01 might have been as well served by more T42 (with a better hull). A VLS would have been a great aswell.

Agree it doesn't have much to do with Spanish destroyers but hey we have one of the most lively threads!

 

[kev 99]

500-1000 tons might of made the difference but I'm also pretty convinced they also came in over budget.

I really can't see any link between T22 and Leander hull.

BTW I do think we need a bigger MOD budget, but I certainly wasn't arguing for one and even mentioning it does seem a little pointless because it isn't going to happen short of a major conflict/foreign policy cock up happening.

 

[1805]

I also agree the MOD could do with a bigger budget. But do feel we should get better value.

Can't you see the broken nose of on the Batch 1 T22 and the Kortenaar, and Godavari, the book I saw it in also said they did consider just using a Leander for the T42, but it just wouldn't work. The T42 hull doesn't to my knowledge have any heritage. I would have liked to have seen as an addition to the T42 a really cut down 16/12 missile single TIR surely it would have been better than continuing to send ships to see with Sea Cat (T21) and 76mm cannon instead of the 4.5".

 

[Pedro C]

While I am on a French rant, I see these heated debates on F22 v Typhoon, when we know the F22 is the best, but I look at the Rafale land on a carrier and you know who has done the most with the least. There will be no replacement for the Typhoon/Tornado the field will be left to the French, US and RussiaIndia JVs. Pedro sorry for hi jacking you tread!

No worries. Unsurprisingly we end up talking about T45.... what can I say!

Happy Xmas eve!

 

[radar07]

i just came across this:

AEGIS was't the only option available. You might be susprised to lean that Spain was in the Tri-nation programme that led to the german-dutch APAR-Smart system. However, I was so risky that we moved to AEGIS (we forced the yanks to make it releaseable, in fact). The german-dutch system is not yet fully operational (2010!!!!!). That may draw you to the conclusion that building an AEGIS-like system is not so easy... So. please, don´t be naive. There is NO other working system nowadays. Germans and Dutch may have it soon, but it is still a "lab-like" combat system...

for sure using a already fielded system for a new ship is less risky than using a complete new system. but from my knowledge the dutch lcf are operational quite some time now. i don't know about any problem that will limit there usage. the german f-124 on the other hand is not yet "fully" operational. the problems with the f-124 are mainly caused by the cds-software. the german cds is different to the dutch one. it's a lot more innovative than others but unfortunately the complexity was underestimated and the communication between all the subcontractors and the quality assurance was insufficient. a lot of redesign etc. was necessary and the plan was to reach full operational capability this year. i'm not sure if this already has taken place or not.

on the other hand the sachsen was able to perform a very successful live firing back in 2004 (with a total of 21 essm/sm2 shot). this was 6 years ago and work was going on so i think even the f-124's are operational since years but they may have not reached the performance and the planned targets they want to reach with this new cds.

 

[tatra]

Zeven Provincien Class (LCF)

SEWACO XI combat data command system

The ship is equipped with the SEWACO XI combat data system developed by Thales Naval Nederland. The RNIN's Centre for the Automation of Weapon and Command Systems (CAWCS) has developed the software. The system will use asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network architecture.

The Rohde & Schwarz communications suite includes secure voice and data satellite communications, Link 11 and Link 16.

De Zeven Provincien Class (LCF) Air Defence and Command Frigates - Naval Technology

Sachsen Class (F124)

Command and control

A Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) Sewaco FD combat system using a distributed real-time database and integrated communications network includes 17 multifunction consoles and processors, two large-screen tactical displays, 12 bus interface units, a COSMOS monitor, a redundant databus and distributed processing.

The system uses asynchronous transfer mode-based (ATM) architectures for fast data transmission.

Sachsen Class (F124) Air Defence Frigates - Naval Technology

By contrast, Brandenburg Class (Type 123)

Command and control

The combat data system is built around the Atlas Elektronik / Paramax SATIR action data automation with Unysis UYK 43 computer, Link 11, and Astrium (formerly Matra Marconi) SCOT 1A satellite communications. Weapons are controlled by a Thales Nederland (formerly Signaal) MWCS system with two optical sights.

The German Navy has begun a common upgrade programme for the combat system on the four Brandenburg and eight Bremen Class (F122) frigates. A contract was awarded to Thales in September 2005 to provide a new open architecture system to replace the SATIR.

The upgrade is underway and will be completed by 2011. IBM is supplying and installing the Link 16 capability enhancement and is also installing the EADS defence electronics multifunctional information distribution system (MIDS).

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/brand/

By contrast, F125 Frigate

Command and control
In March 2006, EADS was contracted to supply the F125 command and control and weapons deployment system, FuWES (Fuhrungs-und Waffeneinsatzsystem). The contract covered the development and delivery of the system, including the complete software, hardware and infrastructure and the FuWES testing and performance verification for all four frigates.

The FuWES system has an open and modular structure allowing flexibility to accommodate future additional or modified systems. In order to provide tactical data exchange and a high level of interoperability with other joint and combined military platforms, the communications systems, link 11, link 16 and link 22 are integrated into F125 command and control system. The combat management system is operated from the Atlas Elektronik OMADA consoles, designed specifically for the F125.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/f125-frigate/

 

[tatra]

F. Combat Management System (CMS). The RNlN’s own Center for Automation of Weapon and Command Systems (CAWS) is developing an advanced combat management system (CMS) for the LCF Program, designated the SEWACO XI. Work on SEWACO XI began in August 1998, and operational software will be delivered incrementally until 2003. Early software deliveries, designated Interim Operational Capability (IOC) will allow the first ship of the class to begin sea trials in 2001 (IOC 1), and conduct missile-firing trials in 2002 (IOC 2). On 29 May 1998, Signaal (now Thales Nederland) was awarded a US$74.6M contract to provide most of the equipment needed for the SEWACO XI CMS. Hardware includes 96 new generation multifunction operator consoles, 152 desktop workstations, 144 PROTEC II protective cabinets (36 per ship), and ATM digital data fiber-optic networks (including switches, fiber patch panels, and video bus). The RNlN intends to maintain below-deck commonality with the existing SEWACO VII architecture found in the Karel Doorman class frigates.

Netherlands - De Zeven Provincien Class Destroyer
Per ship:
24 new generation multifunction operator consoles
38 desktop workstations
36 PROTEC II protective cabinets

 

[tatra]

F. Combat Management System (CMS).
The RNlN’s own Center for Automation of Weapon and Command Systems (CAWS) is developing an advanced combat management system (CMS) for the LCF Program, designated the SEWACO XI. Work on SEWACO XI began in August 1998, and operational software will be delivered incrementally until 2003. Early software deliveries, designated Interim Operational Capability (IOC) will allow the first ship of the class to begin sea trials in 2001 (IOC 1), and conduct missile-firing trials in 2002 (IOC 2). On 29 May 1998, Signaal (now Thales Nederland) was awarded a US$74.6M contract to provide most of the equipment needed for the SEWACO XI CMS. Hardware includes 96 new generation multifunction operator consoles, 152 desktop workstations, 144 PROTEC II protective cabinets (36 per ship), and ATM digital data fiber-optic networks (including switches, fiber patch panels, and video bus). The RNlN intends to maintain below-deck commonality with the existing SEWACO VII architecture found in the Karel Doorman class frigates.

Netherlands - De Zeven Provincien Class Destroyer

Per ship:
24 new generation multifunction operator consoles
38 desktop workstations
36 PROTEC II protective cabinets

SEWACO VII. This variant is a major upgrade of the SEWACO concept for use on the new Karel Doorman class frigates now in service with the Netherlands navy.
...
SEWACO XI. SEWACO XI is the new air warfare orientated command system being designed for the proposed Tri-national air warfare frigates. SEWACO XI is seen as a local area defense system based around Raytheon’s Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile. In effect, SEWACO XI is an air defense module that can be interfaced with other command systems for a fully transportable product.

SEWACO XII. This SEWACO derivative is the command system for the LCF, the Dutch portion of the Tri-national Frigate Program. In effect, SEWACO XII is SEWACO XI added to SEWACO VII.
...
SEWACO FD. This is the current, fully distributed version of the SEWACO command system, now being promoted on the export market. It offers distributed processing power to meet requirements for increased availability, simplified system reconfigurations, and extensions. Within SEWACO FD, geographically distributed computers, the nodes, are logically and physically connected in a local area network. Nearly all subsystems and each MOC-Mk2 connected to the system data bus contain such a node.
Together these nodes form the virtual machine on which the command and control software package TACTICOS runs. TACTICOS System Management decides which part of TACTICOS runs on which node. The decision-making process is based on the availability and occupation degree of the nodes. If a node fails, TACTICOS system management will re-allocate the TACTICOS programs to the remaining nodes, a process designated dynamic re-allocation.
SEWACO FD has an elegant solution for the distribution of radar video and TV video. Proven cable techniques are used to transfer multiplexed video signals on one cable (redundant cable is optional) from source to destination. The video signals are modulated at the source and transmitted on a unique RF channel. At the destination each MOC can tune on three radar channels and one TV channel simultaneously. The radar video is used in the tactical picture, while the TV video is displayed in a separate TV window.
Each subsystem that is not SEWACO FD compatible is integrated by means of a dedicated interface cabinet. Depending on the subsystem, usually a weapon, the interface cabinet contains dedicated functionality. Such a cabinet is called a GIC (Gun Interface Cabinet) or MIC (Missile Interface Cabinet). In other cases the interface cabinet contains only a transformation between the appropriate protocol and/or the CATV-standard (Community Antenna Television) as used within SEWACO FD and the existing interface of the subsystem concerned. This type of cabinet is called a BTS (Bus Terminal Server).

TACTICOS. TACTICOS was officially a new command system designed by combining the best features of the Thomson-CSF TAVITAC 2000 and Signaal STACOS systems
...
Early in 1992, Signaal introduced the TACTICOS command system. This is basically an evolutionary development of the earlier STACOS system using the experience gained in the design of SEWACO VII.
...
The TACTICOS system, in its original configuration, was short-lived. It was quickly superseded by the new SEWACO FD command system which utilizes the fully distributed computing architecture developed for SEWACO VII. The TACTICOS operating system software was largely retained but was enhanced with additional facilities and processing capabilities.The two product names remain in use, although they denote the same system.The difference between them lies in the peripherals attached to the command system. Where the bid package has Thomson-CSF as prime and the sensors include the MRR primary radar and Castor II fire control radars, the system is described as TACTICOS. Where Signaal is prime and the sensors include the Smart or MW.08 primary radars and the STING fire control radars, the system is described as SEWACO FD. This is an internal political matter only; the central command system on offer is SEWACO FD.
...
The Tri-National Frigate Program currently includes Germany, The Netherlands, and Spain. Both Germany and The Netherlands are expected to procure a SEWACO variant to install on their frigates. Spain is expected to utilize Aegis systems instead of SEWACO systems.
Germany’s frigates are designated as Sachsen (Type 124) class frigates (FFG) an will include a SEWACO system.
The Netherlands’s frigates are designated as the De Zeven Provincien class destroyers. These four destroyers are expected to include the SEWACO XI system.

http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ws/ws11517.doc

 

[Warwiz]

I admire the Spanish Armada’s admiration of the US Navy