Very good points you all make, but hear me out. If the designs of the T26 and F5000 already point to a minimum of 48 cells and the FREMM's current design are fitted with <32 cells, without a large rejig of the internals the ship would not be able to host 48+ VLS cells. So logic would dictate that only increasing a design by 16 VLS to host a total of 64 (F5000) would make more sense and decrease design risk.
H
It is not clear to me how many Strike length VLS both FREMM and Type 26 can hold for sea5000. The UK only intends to fit 24 strike length VLS, the remaining 24 would be smaller CAMM launchers, which may or may not be suitable for ESSM (may not be able to replace 1 for 1).
FREMM has a similar issue. I am sure there is quite a capacity to fit CAMM all over the place, but strike length VLS are likely to be less than 48, and possibly less than 24.
The F-5000 has the most strike length VLS (48 strike length and rumored to be able to be upgraded to 64), but the question is regarding ASW how does it benchmark against FREMM and Type 26 as well as the risk aspect. It makes sense to look at these three ships very, very closely.
Strike length was not a huge priority for some navies, as the only missiles that used to require it were things like TLAM and SCALP, land strike weapons which most ships would not carry, or not carry in number.
But now anti air SM-6 and SM-3 (and LRASM) are at strike length, those kind of missile are likely to be carried by many ships and in significant numbers. Future missiles are likely to get longer (and heavier) as well. Strike length VLS would be painful to fit because you have to find room through multiple decks as well as have the significant weight margin.
SM-3 capability wasn't really part of the initial sea5000 feature list. Given current circumstances however, it would seem to be a future possibility.
I don't think any of the competitors could be ruled out, FREM is in the water and much more modern than the F-105. Type 26 is still pretty high risk, and it was never exactly clear how a modified F-105 would look and what compromises would need to be made in turning it into a F-5000.
Certainly these days I would be inclined to favor the F-5000 design. Assuming the ASW performance is competitive, the additional strike VLS, the flexibility regarding AEGIS and 9VL, the commonality with the AWD (and to a lesser extent the AOR) and the fact we are already tooled up to make the AWD hull seems like winning capability, to me, a lay person.
Todjaeger said:
I suppose it might be possible to pack more than one NSM or JSM into such a canister, but that would only permit additional missiles to be launched at a target vs. additional shots/salvos at a target. The limiting factor being the finite amount of internal volume and displacement available to carry canisters and/or torpedoes that are 5.8 m x 530 mm and displacing up to ~1,700 kg.
I am not sure but it may be possible to load shorter encapsules. They would certainly be lighter, but I would imagine in a sub you will be volume limited. Its not clear to me how the VLS would go in a shortfin barracuda, so a physically smaller missile might be advantageous there, but perhaps not.
My arguments are very theoretical. It would need to be looked at closely. However, I would think it would be easier to upgun with a lighter and smaller missile than with larger ones. I still see NSM being part of a solution. But I also would not want to rule out LRASM or even TLAM. Bigness and US sources are two huge factors. These weapons will be integrated with everything and be available in significant numbers. NSM and JSM against land targets is pretty marginal, you certainly wouldn't want it to be your first choice against hardened targets (range and payload issues).
If you had a choice between 12 NSM and 12 LRASM on the same platform then the LRASM would likely win out. As the US competition may prove.
