You haven't read back through the discussion have you? If you have then you would have mentioned the Ivers, so I would suggest having a real good read through. Secondly, frigates are about a set of systems, so look at the hull as being a specialised transport pod for an interlinked set of systems. Most frigates today are somewhat modular in that the customer can and does stipulate the fit out. Hence, hypothetically speaking if, for example, NZG was to acquire a set of Iver Huitfeld FFG/Hs it would stipulate the sensors and weapons that it wants, not necessarily what the Royal Danish Navy are currently using. So in our case the Ivers would have a 127mm main gun and I would hope that they would keep the two Rheinmetall 35mm Millennium guns. The really good thing that I do like about the Ivers is they way that have been designed and built with their ease of construction, maintenance and upgradability. Things like commercial build practices, open source consoles, IPMS etc., and routing of all cables and pipes so that they aren't hidden behind bulkheads, decks and deckheads entailing major work just to access them.
Our CONOPS require a GP frigate rather than a specialised one, so any frigate that is acquired has to be able to function in all three arenas; AAW, ASW and ASuW to a reasonable degree. Hence it will have a reasonable AAW capability, good hull mounted sonar with ship and helo launched torpedoes and should have SSM capability. To those who say that you can use a non milspec ship with weapons and sensors in a high intensity conflict situation and expect it to survive, you are talking rubbish, absolute crap to put it bluntly. Merchant ship specs have less compartments and damage control capabilities than a milspec one because they are not designed for combat, nor do they have the NBC containment capabilities.
It isn't that I am not aware, it is that I am not going to make a list of all the frigates of that class (which all have very similar radar systems anyway). And singling out specific ships is not the point either, the point is to highlight that although these ships may be 'classed' as 'area-air defense' vessels on paper, in reality they only have local air-defense capabilities due to limitations of their armament and radar systems.
A secondary point was made that even if they were capable of engaging out to their paper range of ~100KM with their SAM it would make no difference from an anti-air perspective as even small glide bombs can be launched safely from outside of this engagement envelope, so enemy planes are never in any danger. And from an air-defense perspective modern missiles are designed to fly below the radar horizon between the Engagement range of CAMM-ER and these 100KM SAMs anyway...
So the main point is that those ships are only paper air-defense ships. The secondary point is that even if they could do what they say they can do on paper, they would provide no more capability over and above that of a frigate armed only with CAMM-ER.
Now I admit you are partially correct upon the customer specified fit-out, but if you are implying that we can take a ship designed and configured with the layout for these rotating local-air defense radar or numerous small radar on the mast (and maybe a long-range area radar like type 45 mounted to the rear) and put a system like the latest SPY Radar, or what would make more sense AMDR (SPY replacement, not 40 years old!) then you are wrong. AMDR is a completely different class of radar, its weight, cooling and power requirements are on a whole other level. You would need to design a whole new ship around a beefy mast... Even the Burkes do not have the space, weight and power requirements for amdr at it's optimal radar size....
Explain to me how 'military specifications' made any difference once the weapons hit, split the ships in half, and then proceeded to be sunk within a minute? And remind me why we are talking about this? We already discussed that ships can be built to whatever spec you want... As is the case with absalon/ivers and with the XO series...
Oh and remind me how any of those other ships is more multipurpose than absalon or xo? Because those two ships can do everything the other ships can do, and they can do it cheaper whilst also having a transport capability and an assault capability for the XO.... So really they are more general purpose....
I think some people here are just generally against the idea of procuring what is percieved to be lower-end vessals because their capabilities are not inflated on paper....
Re. the Damen Crossover series. Please note that it may be necessary to specify not only the length (e.g. 131) but also which 131: there is a Crossover 131 Amphibious, a Crossover 131 Logistic (or Transport), & a Crossover 131 Combatant.
In this case, I presume the XO 131 C is meant, but I can imagine circumstances where it isn't clear.
Acknowledged, as was stated by someone else on the previous page when ordering such vessels there is flexibility as to exactly what capabilities are needed and how they will be configured and equipped to meet these.
In that light I envision the Amphibious version with a 3d radar mast (like the combatant), large NATO STD VLS stations for local defense missiles and attack missiles (Tommahawk, AShM, local missiles i.e. GLSDB which can be quad loaded), built to reduced military standards with a reinforced hull for arctic patrols and an elevator between the aviation deck and hanger below.
I accept that compromises might have to be made to get this combination of capability and would accept a stretched hull variant (which is fine, they have a larger variant on paper anyway) with a 76mm cannon.
This would result in a ship combining the capabilities of a traditional frigate (think OHP) combined with the capability to carry large amounts of equipment and supplies, either in a transport role, or for use by the vessel in some combat role i.e. boats for mine warfare, equipment for amphibious assault, additional helicopters... etc..etc.. I think the alternative to this would be something in the ~2-4K range directly analogous to the OHP but designed around modern technology.... Maybe a corvette... But that sort of ship would be less multi-functional.
And I believe much of the costs are in the systems that go in the ships and in crewing the ships, less so in the fuel bill and the cost of building a bit more ship...
All missiles are not sea-skimming....
Irrelevant. It is the modern missiles I would be concerned about, not slow short-ranged missiles that you have a very long-time to intercept. I imagine any modern navy vessal would be very good at repelling an attack from A WW2 carrier air-wing, or a row boat from ancient times with a battering ram. But we don't measure usefulness of military systems by their effectiveness against an enemy from last century...
