Fair enough. You've had first hand experience of the problems and if the budget isn't available there is not much that can be done. I agree that helos operated regularly at sea should be operated by specially trained naval personnel. I imagine that a lot of army helo pilots would freak out at the thought of landing on a small, pitching deck, in rough sea conditions.
May be less well armed (I mean no AAW VLS), but it would certainly be a good quality/price buy. I wonder if Irish defence companies could get some offset from such a deal, just to motivate Irish politicians a bit more.
Nice concept warship though.
Danish ones have Mk 48 VLS for ESSM (fitted for but not with when built, 2x6). Mica VL would fit in the same slot.
The Absalons have 3 flex positions for 3x12 ESSM in MK56 VLS launchers. It is the yet to be built frigates that will have the MK41 VLS installed.
Who said Mk 41? I said Mk 48The Absalons have 3 flex positions for 3x12 ESSM in MK56 VLS launchers. It is the yet to be built frigates that will have the MK41 VLS installed.
Btw, the Absalons have had their Millenium guns installed... In Danish, but the pics are the interesting part.
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2007/0518_ABSLforsinkes.htm
More pics (MK56 VLS), but still in Danish:
http://www.navalhistory.dk/Danish/SoevaernsNyt/2007/0422_Stoetteskibene.htm
: I don't know how I missed the MK48 in your post!Who said Mk 41? I said Mk 48
Perhaps this page needs correction?
http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/Absalon_Class(2004).htm - clearly says Mk 48, rather than Mk 56. But they're both ESSM launchers -
http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/stellent/groups/public/documents/legacy_site/cms01_048612.pdf
No worries.I don't know how I missed the MK48 in your post!
(I figure I mixed it up with Contes..)
Anyhow, the MK56 is the modded 12 cell ESSM version of the MK48.
Thanks for the link swerve. I agree with what you say about these ships. I think they are excellent vessels that are extremely flexible and also very powerful for their size. It sounds from what has been said about the Irish defence budget that they would be too expensive and unnecessarily sophisticated for Ireland and in the case of New Zealand I suspect their offensive capacity would be too much for PM Helen Clark's liking!
Well, the radar and VLS system for the Patrol ships are settled matters. The danish pages are well up to date, example being on the progress of the fitting out of the Absalon and Esbern Snare.No worries.
So the navalhistory.dk article is wrong? I think its English pages are often a bit out of date, because hasn't the radar issue for the patruljeskibe been settled in favour of APAR & Sampson-L? I'm sure I sure a Thales press release announcing contract signature, but the latest English page I can find* says it's still undecided. Is the Mk 48/Mk 56 thing just another example of old info?
*http://www.navalhistory.dk/english/navynews/2006/0622_patrolships.htm
Not commenting on NZ's choice this time around, I'd say as far as the Absalons are concerned, I'd prefer if the CB90's where deployed from davits on the sides and not from the stern ramp... But I doubt the size and layout of the ships would have allowed for that. Again, AFAIK, the RDN have concepts for deploying these vessels at speed, so perhaps it is the issue I make it out to be. On the positive side, it seems that they do have all round signature management, including acoustic. I have previously had my doubts on the comprehensiveness of this, but it seems everything has been thought of. Example of how off one can be with too much speculation.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. That link's for the "patrol ships", i.e. the armed for bear version. I meant the "command & support ships", i.e. Absalon & Esbern Snare. Same hull, but different internal layout, with significant transport & amphibious capabilities, & lighter armament. BTW, they don't have to carry all the listed weaponry. Depends on role: it's mostly flex fittings, so can be removed - or fitted - in hours.Thanks for the link swerve. I agree with what you say about these ships. I think they are excellent vessels that are extremely flexible and also very powerful for their size. It sounds from what has been said about the Irish defence budget that they would be too expensive and unnecessarily sophisticated for Ireland and in the case of New Zealand I suspect their offensive capacity would be too much for PM Helen Clark's liking!
Cheers
Thanks for the clarification. I realised that for patrol duties these ships would not carry anywhere near this armament. However, the ability to do so would have been valuable for a country like NZ where ships fitted 'for but not with' could have filled the OPV role in peacetime and joined the frigates in wartime with selected items from the available weaponry fitted to meet particular needs.
That's exactly my thinking about the RNZN. The transport capability of the Absalons would enable them to fulfil the transport role of the MRV, but with more flexibility, & they are very capable (more so than the planned ships) of performing the OPV role, while the capacity to be up-armed very rapidly would mean that in necessity, the RNZN could very quickly add two new major warships, without having most of the burden of maintaining (stored weapons need little maintenance) & manning the weaponry in the meantime. Indeed, it could dispense with buying most of it in the short to medium-term, since it would be available off the shelf very quickly. The peacetime costs would be 1) probably a higher initial cost than the current plan (but not too much higher, IMO), & 2) probably a higher operating cost for 2 Absalons vs one MRV & one OPV. For the increased flexibility & capacity, I think the modest extra outlay would be well worthwhile.