RAN Type 23 based ANZAC Class Frigate

[Volkodav]

The MEKO 200ANZ was selected for the RAN Patrol Frigate Project in the late 80s with the Dutch M Class considered by many to be the preferred option losing out. The other option in the final three was what was termed the Mini Type 23, or even as the "cut and bob tied' Type 23. The Type 23 was highly regarded by the RAN, in particular the ASW community, while the FAA probably also appreciated the fact they could operate a Seaking as required, something the in service FFGs couldn't do. The issue was it was larger and more expensive than the government wanted.

Prior the the Dibb report and following White Paper, the Type 23 had been a logical contender for the one for one replacement in the in service Type 12 derived Destroyer Escorts of the River Class, six high end ASW Frigates, replacing 6 ASW escorts. The White paper listed a requirement for eight lower spec Patrol Frigates and still liking the Type 23 a shortened cheaper version was considered. I do not have specs on this version and would appreciate if anyone else does.

Anyway to the point of this post, while both the full and mini Type 23 options would almost definitely have used existing RN systems with minimal 'Australianisation" I am speculating that an alternate proposal could have been for a Type 23 incorporating US systems, i.e. as was proposed for the RAN County Class DLG and Type 21 Amazon proposals and the actual Type 26 Hunter Class. So I am imagining either a full Type 23 or the Cut and Bob tied version with Tactical or self defence length Mk 41, a Mk 45 5" gun, US or Dutch radars. Mid life update with the CAE radars ESSM and possibly due to the Type 23s greater displacement and the lower hight of the VLS installation, an increase in the size of the VLS installation which was not possible on the actual ANZACS due to top weight issues.

Again this relates to my new house having a hobby room in the granny flat and the trumpeter 1/700 Type 23 kit I saw in the model shop the other day. I already have an assortment of weapons and sensors I can add to produce this notional design. Any thoughts on how realistic this is and suggestions on execution of this notional RAN Type 23 with US systems?

 

[Hood]

The White paper listed a requirement for eight lower spec Patrol Frigates and still liking the Type 23 a shortened cheaper version was considered. I do not have specs on this version and would appreciate if anyone else does.

Sounds very much like it could have been something like the Yarrow OPV: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/british-naval-projects-from-late-70s.11052/#post-412254

A full 32-cell Mk 41 instead of Seawolf VL would give a formidable load-out of 32 Sea Sparrow (even more so when upgraded to ESSM) and perhaps even open the way for Australia to purchase ASROC VL too. Its open to speculation whether the Australians would have with an 8-cell Mod 5 VLS (or maybe two from the outset) or a full 32-cell set up given the cost cutting that occured on the Anzacs.
I don't think the Australian Anzacs ever received a CIWS so the Type 23 probably wouldn't either.
Given the issues with the combat command system in the RN ships Australia might as well use whatever Dutch or US systems it wishes, perhaps for greater commonality with the Adelaides?

Its an interesting AU idea and I hope you keep us informed with how the model progresses?

 

[Volkodav]

The White paper listed a requirement for eight lower spec Patrol Frigates and still liking the Type 23 a shortened cheaper version was considered. I do not have specs on this version and would appreciate if anyone else does.

Sounds very much like it could have been something like the Yarrow OPV: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/british-naval-projects-from-late-70s.11052/#post-412254

A full 32-cell Mk 41 instead of Seawolf VL would give a formidable load-out of 32 Sea Sparrow (even more so when upgraded to ESSM) and perhaps even open the way for Australia to purchase ASROC VL too. Its open to speculation whether the Australians would have with an 8-cell Mod 5 VLS (or maybe two from the outset) or a full 32-cell set up given the cost cutting that occured on the Anzacs.
I don't think the Australian Anzacs ever received a CIWS so the Type 23 probably wouldn't either.
Given the issues with the combat command system in the RN ships Australia might as well use whatever Dutch or US systems it wishes, perhaps for greater commonality with the Adelaides?

Its an interesting AU idea and I hope you keep us informed with how the model progresses?

In the real world when the DDGs were retired without replacement and the FFG upgrade ran off the rails the ANZACs became the backbone of the fleet, something they were never designed or intended to do. The persistent limitation to the evolution of the class was top weight, the upgrades they have received have required plating in the transom and extensive use of ballast, increasing draft. rumour has it they are now barely capable of 25 kt.

The M Class would have suffered similar limitations while the Type 23 through its layout alone should have been able to accept more extensive upgrades. The money was available the weight reserve was not, so i imagine the Type 23 may have found herself with as many extra VLS as would fit and Phalanx port and starboard.

 

[ngatimozart]

G'day Volk,

An interesting idea. I think it was you who said elsewhere about the RAN acquiring Burke DDGs so if we looked at four Burke Flt I DDGs to start with. I think that three DDGs in an RAN context is somewhat underwhelming even back in the 1980 / 90 period.

Now to an Australianised Type 23. I do think that it does have merit because it would have offered far more to the RAN than the MEKO 200 did. It could've quite easily have taken the Mk-45 5in gun but the magazines and feed system would have to been altered. Installation of the Mk-41 VLS would've also required below decks redesign especially if a mixture of strike and tactical cells were specified. But that's nothing that couldn't been sorted during the design phase. The hull design certainly had the buoyancy parameters for that. You wouldn't have got more than 32 VLS on the foc'sle but there might have been room for another maybe 16 tactical length VLS on the top deck behind the bridge and fo'ard of the hangar. You might've had to find another place for the AShM though, just to get the weight lower down the ship.

 

[Volkodav]

G'day Volk,

An interesting idea. I think it was you who said elsewhere about the RAN acquiring Burke DDGs so if we looked at four Burke Flt I DDGs to start with. I think that three DDGs in an RAN context is somewhat underwhelming even back in the 1980 / 90 period.

Now to an Australianised Type 23. I do think that it does have merit because it would have offered far more to the RAN than the MEKO 200 did. It could've quite easily have taken the Mk-45 5in gun but the magazines and feed system would have to been altered. Installation of the Mk-41 VLS would've also required below decks redesign especially if a mixture of strike and tactical cells were specified. But that's nothing that couldn't been sorted during the design phase. The hull design certainly had the buoyancy parameters for that. You wouldn't have got more than 32 VLS on the foc'sle but there might have been room for another maybe 16 tactical length VLS on the top deck behind the bridge and fo'ard of the hangar. You might've had to find another place for the AShM though, just to get the weight lower down the ship.

Keep it simple, Mk-45 5", eight cells in the deckhouse on the forecastle with space and weight for a second set of eight adjacent to it, Harpoon between that and the bridge. Space and weight for Phalanx P & S in place of the 30mms (25mm Typhoon instead of 30mm interim). Sensor fit as per actual ANZAC, SAAB combat system as per ANZAC.

Late 90s ANZAC WIP proposed and fails as per reality, the Type 23, though bigger than the MEKO 200, is still not a viable platform to retrofit AEGIS and SPY-1F.

ASMD proceeds with CEAFAR / ASMD mast and upgraded 9LV CMS, second 8 cell VLS added in provided space, ESSM introduced (64 rounds verses 32, Phalanx 1B fitted in place of Typhoons, one Typhoon relocated to hangar roof.

AMCAP involves some major surgery with the original deck house and harpoons removed and replaced with a new taller one permitting the installation of either 32 or 48 VLS cell, with a mix of either 16 tactical and 16 strategic, or 16 tactical and 24 strategic for ESSM, SM-6 and possibly Tomahawk. Typhoon and possibly Phalanx gives way to either 35mm Millenium or BAE / Bofors Mk4, possibly an integrated Mk 49 RAM launcher on the hangar roof.

 

[ngatimozart]

G'day Volk,

An interesting idea. I think it was you who said elsewhere about the RAN acquiring Burke DDGs so if we looked at four Burke Flt I DDGs to start with. I think that three DDGs in an RAN context is somewhat underwhelming even back in the 1980 / 90 period.

Now to an Australianised Type 23. I do think that it does have merit because it would have offered far more to the RAN than the MEKO 200 did. It could've quite easily have taken the Mk-45 5in gun but the magazines and feed system would have to been altered. Installation of the Mk-41 VLS would've also required below decks redesign especially if a mixture of strike and tactical cells were specified. But that's nothing that couldn't been sorted during the design phase. The hull design certainly had the buoyancy parameters for that. You wouldn't have got more than 32 VLS on the foc'sle but there might have been room for another maybe 16 tactical length VLS on the top deck behind the bridge and fo'ard of the hangar. You might've had to find another place for the AShM though, just to get the weight lower down the ship.

Keep it simple, Mk-45 5", eight cells in the deckhouse on the forecastle with space and weight for a second set of eight adjacent to it, Harpoon between that and the bridge. Space and weight for Phalanx P & S in place of the 30mms (25mm Typhoon instead of 30mm interim). Sensor fit as per actual ANZAC, SAAB combat system as per ANZAC.

Late 90s ANZAC WIP proposed and fails as per reality, the Type 23, though bigger than the MEKO 200, is still not a viable platform to retrofit AEGIS and SPY-1F.

ASMD proceeds with CEAFAR / ASMD mast and upgraded 9LV CMS, second 8 cell VLS added in provided space, ESSM introduced (64 rounds verses 32, Phalanx 1B fitted in place of Typhoons, one Typhoon relocated to hangar roof.

AMCAP involves some major surgery with the original deck house and harpoons removed and replaced with a new taller one permitting the installation of either 32 or 48 VLS cell, with a mix of either 16 tactical and 16 strategic, or 16 tactical and 24 strategic for ESSM, SM-6 and possibly Tomahawk. Typhoon and possibly Phalanx gives way to either 35mm Millenium or BAE / Bofors Mk4, possibly an integrated Mk 49 RAM launcher on the hangar roof.

That would make sense. I would also think about increasing the numbers to nine or ten if possible, funding allowing of course. Of course the original ANZAC Class program included NZ, but I don't know if out stingy pollies would've participated in this mooted program. The then PM, Jim Bolger, was tighter than a seized engine. In fact it's easier getting money out of the taxman than it was from his government.

The ANZAC Class build program was a success and it delivered on time, and IIRC, on budget as well. Using that as the exemplar and ASC as the shipbuilder I don't see why the suggested Type 23 build wouldn't have been as successful.

 

[TsrJoe]

From Yarrow OPV.90 ga. drawing (a scaled down T.23)

 

[zen]

When would this AH RAN Type 23 occure?

A successful license even of a Type 23 variant has implications.....

 

[TomS]

Tactical or self defence length Mk 41,

This might prove difficult. While they have been offered for a long time, no navy actually adopted either Self-Defense or Tactical length Mk 41 (until the Canadian Navy ordered ExLS -- a reimagined self-defense launcher -- in the Type 26), which means the RAN would be stuck funding certification of either option. And both are significantly deeper than the VLS Seawolf silos. Mk 41 Self-Defense is 5.2 meters deep, which could pose some challenges for redesign. What's under the VLS in the current T23? A much simpler and more affordable option would be Mk 48/56 launchers in the deckhouse where the Seawolf sits.

Space and weight for Phalanx P & S in place of the 30mms (25mm Typhoon instead of 30mm interim).

This might also be tricky. Phalanx is ~6.2 tons, versus ~1.2 tons for the DS30s. And at the time, Phalanx lacked a surface mode, so you still need some sort of minor-caliber anti-surface gun anyway. IIRC, there was talk of a Goalkeeper CIWS midships in the RN version, but it required a stretched hull to fit.

 

[Volkodav]

Tactical or self defence length Mk 41,

This might prove difficult. While they have been offered for a long time, no navy actually adopted either Self-Defense or Tactical length Mk 41 (until the Canadian Navy ordered ExLS -- a reimagined self-defense launcher -- in the Type 26), which means the RAN would be stuck funding certification of either option. And both are significantly deeper than the VLS Seawolf silos. Mk 41 Self-Defense is 5.2 meters deep, which could pose some challenges for redesign. What's under the VLS in the current T23? A much simpler and more affordable option would be Mk 48/56 launchers in the deckhouse where the Seawolf sits.

Space and weight for Phalanx P & S in place of the 30mms (25mm Typhoon instead of 30mm interim).

This might also be tricky. Phalanx is ~6.2 tons, versus ~1.2 tons for the DS30s. And at the time, Phalanx lacked a surface mode, so you still need some sort of minor-caliber anti-surface gun anyway. IIRC, there was talk of a Goalkeeper CIWS midships in the RN version, but it required a stretched hull to fit.

You may know the answer to something I have wondered about for a long time, what length Mk-41 cells are used in different classes of ship? I had always assumed shorter self defence types were used in the ANZACs, Type 123, FFGUP Adelaides etc. and tactical in other exports types. The I read at various time that the ANZACs were fitted with Tactical, not self defence length or even strategic length, i.e. that all production Mk-41s were strategic length. The more I dig the less I find.

 

[Volkodav]

When would this AH RAN Type 23 occure?

A successful license even of a Type 23 variant has implications.....

Selection and contract signature late 80s early 90s, build mid 90s to mid 2000s. As per the actual Meko build.

 

[Volkodav]

G'day Volk,

An interesting idea. I think it was you who said elsewhere about the RAN acquiring Burke DDGs so if we looked at four Burke Flt I DDGs to start with. I think that three DDGs in an RAN context is somewhat underwhelming even back in the 1980 / 90 period.

Now to an Australianised Type 23. I do think that it does have merit because it would have offered far more to the RAN than the MEKO 200 did. It could've quite easily have taken the Mk-45 5in gun but the magazines and feed system would have to been altered. Installation of the Mk-41 VLS would've also required below decks redesign especially if a mixture of strike and tactical cells were specified. But that's nothing that couldn't been sorted during the design phase. The hull design certainly had the buoyancy parameters for that. You wouldn't have got more than 32 VLS on the foc'sle but there might have been room for another maybe 16 tactical length VLS on the top deck behind the bridge and fo'ard of the hangar. You might've had to find another place for the AShM though, just to get the weight lower down the ship.

Keep it simple, Mk-45 5", eight cells in the deckhouse on the forecastle with space and weight for a second set of eight adjacent to it, Harpoon between that and the bridge. Space and weight for Phalanx P & S in place of the 30mms (25mm Typhoon instead of 30mm interim). Sensor fit as per actual ANZAC, SAAB combat system as per ANZAC.

Late 90s ANZAC WIP proposed and fails as per reality, the Type 23, though bigger than the MEKO 200, is still not a viable platform to retrofit AEGIS and SPY-1F.

ASMD proceeds with CEAFAR / ASMD mast and upgraded 9LV CMS, second 8 cell VLS added in provided space, ESSM introduced (64 rounds verses 32, Phalanx 1B fitted in place of Typhoons, one Typhoon relocated to hangar roof.

AMCAP involves some major surgery with the original deck house and harpoons removed and replaced with a new taller one permitting the installation of either 32 or 48 VLS cell, with a mix of either 16 tactical and 16 strategic, or 16 tactical and 24 strategic for ESSM, SM-6 and possibly Tomahawk. Typhoon and possibly Phalanx gives way to either 35mm Millenium or BAE / Bofors Mk4, possibly an integrated Mk 49 RAM launcher on the hangar roof.

That would make sense. I would also think about increasing the numbers to nine or ten if possible, funding allowing of course. Of course the original ANZAC Class program included NZ, but I don't know if out stingy pollies would've participated in this mooted program. The then PM, Jim Bolger, was tighter than a seized engine. In fact it's easier getting money out of the taxman than it was from his government.

The ANZAC Class build program was a success and it delivered on time, and IIRC, on budget as well. Using that as the exemplar and ASC as the shipbuilder I don't see why the suggested Type 23 build wouldn't have been as successful.

The builder was Transfield AMECON (later Tenix and since bought out by BAE) but they bid the MEKO, the other finalist was the M Class and I cant recall the build consortium name. I have no idea who was proposing to build the Type 23 as ASC at the time was the newly minted Australian Submarine Corporation a JV between the Australian Government, Chicago Bridge and Iron, and Kockums.

There was a late 80s proposal for a state government shipbuilding initiative to be called Adelaide Ships that was put forward by the them Premier John Bannon, this died or was put on hold when the corporatised, but still publicly owned, Bank of South Australia, became insolvent and basically bankrupted the state. The only bright side of that episode is the MD of the Bank, who basically was responsible for the banks very GFC like collapse, had been suggested as a suitable Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, being snapped up by the sate bank prevented him from bankrupting the whole country.

I would assume the Type 23s would likely have been built in either Williamstown by AMECON, or another conglomerate in the Hunter Region. An outside possibility is Adelaide Ships (maybe Eglos) gets up and they are build in Adelaide. Building them by anyone other then AMECON would likely have resulted in delays and schedule slip as AMECON won the project while the were building the last pair of FFGs so there were already up to speed.

As for increasing numbers it was originally intended that at least four stretched ANZACs would be built to replace the first four OHP/Adelaide Class FFGs, with the just delivered final pair being upgraded with new systems. At various times this extra build was expanded to include replacing the three Perth Class DDGs as well all six FFGs, not just the first four. As far as I know there were no concrete plans for this, just proposals as other options mentioned at the time included Type 123 frigates to replace the four US built FFGs and Burkes to replace the DDGs.

What happened was the replacement of four FFGs and the upgrade of the two newest FFGs became the upgrade of all six to a common standard with enhanced self defence (Mk-41 and ESSM) and SM-2 in the Mk-13, with the deferral of a replacement of the DDGs and the upgrade of the ANZACs with AEGIS, SPY-1F a second 8 cell Mk-41 and SM-2. So reduction in number instead of an increase. ANZAC WIP proved unworkable and ASMD had to be developed instead over a much longer timeframe because AEGIS didn't fit and it wasn't really worth the expense for only 16 SM-2s (assuming sufficient topweight existed), then the FFGUP hit problems resulting in only four ships being upgraded, two retired early without upgrade and the two upgraded US built ships were basically falling apart after only a couple of years post upgrade service.

Extrapolating the stretched ANZAC option to a Type 23 base leads to some very interesting possibilities. Then again, to my thinking the Type 23 is a proper warship while the MEKO ANZACs are seen as pleasure craft in comparison the the FFGs by many wiser and more experienced people than myself. The Type 23 is probably more warship like than the FFG and as such raises the possibility of later ships of the class being completed to a more capable baseline, the other upgraded and the government of the day seeing no need for FFG up and instead going straight onto a DDG replacement build to follow the ANZACs. The FFGs could have been replaced by a more Patrol Frigate like corvette with the ANZACs becoming the primary ASW and GP frigate in the fleet. Maybe even throw in the US offer of the Kidd Class Destroyers.

Four Kidds
Two Australian built FFGs
Eight Type 23 ANZACs
15 PBs

As the Burkes come on line increase the fleet size marginally to:

Three or four Burkes
Eight ASMD Type 23 ANZACs
Eight to twelve Light/patrol Frigates
No waste of space PBs

 

[zen]

Selection and contract signature late 80s early 90s, build mid 90s to mid 2000s. As per the actual Meko build.

Ok so there is obviously a spectrum of possibilities here.
An win for Type 23 in '86 to '89 is one that shifts UK Government opinion. Even as a licensed version with US kit.

A parallel AH that might influence things is if the UK had opted for more potent developments of SAM. Whether that is domestic or US sourced.
Another is the Stretched Variant 2 with 48 Sea Wolf VL and the 5" gun.

Yet another is if the AAW concepts derived from Type 23 technologies was in development. Making it possible for a holistic solution of FFG and DDG. That however means not falling down the NF-90 rabbit hole earlier.

 

[TomS]

You may know the answer to something I have wondered about for a long time, what length Mk-41 cells are used in different classes of ship? I had always assumed shorter self defence types were used in the ANZACs, Type 123, FFGUP Adelaides etc. and tactical in other exports types. The I read at various time that the ANZACs were fitted with Tactical, not self defence length or even strategic length, i.e. that all production Mk-41s were strategic length. The more I dig the less I find.

As best I can find, all actually installed Mk 41 modules are the USN-standard "strategic" length version. I believe the Self-Defense length was never sold (and indeed, it is no longer offered for sale). The only online indication that the Tactical length version might have been sold is Damen's brochure about LCF, which says it has 40 Mk 41 Tactical VLS. However, the RNLN also publicly considered buying both SM-2 Block IV and Tomahawk, which would only fit the strategic length launcher, and they had no other ships with Mk 41 at that time.

Edit: Don't mind me. This is all wrong, very wrong. Sorry.

 

[Hood]

From Yarrow OPV.90 ga. drawing (a scaled down T.23)
View attachment 670836

That is the biggest hint that this was the offering to the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

From Yarrow OPV.90 ga. drawing (a scaled down T.23)
View attachment 670836

That is the biggest hint that this was the offering to the RAN.

The only issue is that the offering to the RAN had Seawolf.

The spec was that the PF operate a Seahawk helicopter so savings may have been made in reducing the hangar size etc. If I recall correctly, and I will need to dig out a very old magazine to confirm, the requirement was for:

• a Seahawk Helicopter,
• a point defence missile systems with a single fire control channel (provision for a second),
• eight VLS cells (provision for another eight),
• a 76mm gun (provision for a 5"),
• a hull mounted sonar (provision for a towed array),
• provision for up to two CIWS,
• provision for up to eight anti ship missiles,
• provision for two triple light weight torpedo launchers.

 

[zen]

What would shift RAN view on a Sea Wolf equipped warship is if the GWS.27 version was being funded. Ironically this could open up Australian participation with them developing the AESA successor to Type 811.

 

[Volkodav]

What would shift RAN view on a Sea Wolf equipped warship is if the GWS.27 version was being funded. Ironically this could open up Australian participation with them developing the AESA successor to Type 811.

A key and often overlooked factor in RAN projects of the 80s and 90s was partners were selected for their build strategies as much as for the capability of their product. The technology and knowhow imported and developed from the Collins and ANZAC builds, as well as the earlier privatization of Williamstown Naval Dock Yards and re-baselining of the Australian Frigate Project (the last pair of FFGs), was transformational, not just for ship building but for the supply chain and industry in general.

These projects introduced many state of the art processes, Total Quality Management, project management, digital tools etc. that had never existed locally before. A sign of how great the change was is that when we started working with Navantia, those of us who had only ever worked on Collins, ANZAC or FFGs were continually confused and unsettled by Navantias more traditional / conservative approach to shipbuilding. Well it wasn't only us, the Bath Iron Works personnel embedded in the project were also disturbed and bemused, as the majority of them had cut their teeth on Ticonderogas, Burkes and SSN/SSBNs.

The irony is, depending who builds and how they build this notional RAN Type 23, Australian ship building and industry could actually be left less evolved than it was in reality. Not necessarily a bad thing because they would have meant more people employed in the industry, hence more votes tied to it, but also less culture shock when having to deal with a more traditional designer/builder.

 

[GTX]

The irony is, depending who builds and how they build this notional RAN Type 23, Australian ship building and industry could actually be left less evolved than it was in reality. Not necessarily a bad thing because they would have meant more people employed in the industry, hence more votes tied to it, but also less culture shock when having to deal with a more traditional designer/builder.

But equally less prepared to face the global market...unless one only worries about the domestic market.

 

[Volkodav]

The irony is, depending who builds and how they build this notional RAN Type 23, Australian ship building and industry could actually be left less evolved than it was in reality. Not necessarily a bad thing because they would have meant more people employed in the industry, hence more votes tied to it, but also less culture shock when having to deal with a more traditional designer/builder.

But equally less prepared to face the global market...unless one only worries about the domestic market.

Our most successful export shipbuilder is also one of our worst builders in terms of design, quality and customer support, while our best builder in terms of quality, design and capability is regarded by the general public as unable to even build a canoe.

Interestingly with both the Collins and AWD, outside experts brought in to "fix things" did so by circumventing quality and build assurance to meet milestones, i.e. they knowing delivered platforms with identified problems that they chose not to fix because of the need to meet the milestone. This is false economy as ignoring an issue, using a work around, or bodging something, leads to greater rectification costs down the track.

 

[Volkodav]

I now have my Trumpeter Type 23 kit, found one of my old Dragon weapon / sensor sprues but am still looking for the higher quality after market bits I know I have somewhere (Mk-45 5", Phalanx etc. I haven't found the ANZAC ASMD masts from Shapeways yet either, if I recall correctly I have some Mk 41 shapes of various configurations somewhere as well.

I will probably use the various kit ECM/ESM bits and bobs. I haven't decided on the helicopter yet either, Sea King, Seahawk, or maybe even the Merlin from the kit.

Been re reading by Brown and Friedman but now the ideas are coming to thick and fast. One interesting point from Friedman, the Argentinian Type 42s were proposed with Mk-45 5" and various other non UK systems, before they settled on the standard RN version. This suggests the mods I'm looking at for a RAN Type 23 are not unreasonable.

I will leave my new idea for an upgraded County with Sea Dart for latter.

 

[starviking]

.

Interestingly with both the Collins and AWD, outside experts brought in to "fix things" did so by circumventing quality and build assurance to meet milestones, i.e. they knowing delivered platforms with identified problems that they chose not to fix because of the need to meet the milestone. This is false economy as ignoring an issue, using a work around, or bodging something, leads to greater rectification costs down the track.

And leads to lost customers in the future.

 

[Volkodav]

.

Interestingly with both the Collins and AWD, outside experts brought in to "fix things" did so by circumventing quality and build assurance to meet milestones, i.e. they knowing delivered platforms with identified problems that they chose not to fix because of the need to meet the milestone. This is false economy as ignoring an issue, using a work around, or bodging something, leads to greater rectification costs down the track.

And leads to lost customers in the future.

Try explaining that to a politician, manager with an MBA, or an ex NCO (some not all, some I have worked with have been brilliant but many have also been among the worst of the worst with an incomprehensible combination of arrogance and ignorance) in a management position. There is an entire subset of people not only with no technical qualifications, but not interest is technical matters, some even pride themselves on their lack of technical knowledge. All that matters is cost and schedule and if anything technical gets in the way it is circumvented or removed all together.

 

[TomS]

You may know the answer to something I have wondered about for a long time, what length Mk-41 cells are used in different classes of ship? I had always assumed shorter self defence types were used in the ANZACs, Type 123, FFGUP Adelaides etc. and tactical in other exports types. The I read at various time that the ANZACs were fitted with Tactical, not self defence length or even strategic length, i.e. that all production Mk-41s were strategic length. The more I dig the less I find.

As best I can find, all actually installed Mk 41 modules are the USN-standard "strategic" length version. I believe the Self-Defense length was never sold (and indeed, it is no longer offered for sale). The only online indication that the Tactical length version might have been sold is Damen's brochure about LCF, which says it has 40 Mk 41 Tactical VLS. However, the RNLN also publicly considered buying both SM-2 Block IV and Tomahawk, which would only fit the strategic length launcher, and they had no other ships with Mk 41 at that time.

And, I was wrong. Edit: Proposed sale here that didn't actually happen (Chile went with Sea Ceptor for the Type 23s instead) but it makes it far more likely that other actual sales also happened.

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Major Defense Equipment (MDE):
Thirty-thirty (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)
Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles
Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII

 

[Volkodav]

I have been toying with the idea some more but may need to put off the physical build as my role has been expanded.

To get Type 23 across the line it needed to offer something the others didn't and thinking on what that could be I hit on the idea of the UK offering Australia a modular design based on the Type 23 by going for an earlier relationship with the Danes and offering the Stanflex System integrated into the base Type 23 design. The idea being the ships could genuinely be fitted for and not with by means of the effected systems being of Stanflex type.

For example maybe as many as six module slots forward of the bridge in place of the Seawolf and Harpoon, seven if the 76mm gun is selected over the 5". One (or maybe two) each port and starboard between the forward superstructure and funnel, one (or maybe two) each side of the hangar and maybe even one or two on the transom.

Another though is they go the Spruance, Kidd, Ticonderoga route and design a ship that can technically remove and replace its initially fitted systems with more capable systems as the threat increases.

Either was the design is sold to Australia as their patrol frigate that could easily be built as a better armed GP frigate, a specialty ASW frigate. or even a full FFG. Using Stanflex the base patrol frigate could be upgraded to GP simply by changing modules, the ASW frigate however would have to be built as such with some of the Stanflex slots removed to create space and weight for the required systems. The FFG would replace most, if not all the forward slots with a Mk-41 VLS.

Australia could also develop a Super Ikara Module, similar to the Harpoon module, four Super Ikaras on each instead of eight Harpoon.

 

[Volkodav]

And, I was wrong. Edit: Proposed sale here that didn't actually happen (Chile went with Sea Ceptor for the Type 23s instead) but it makes it far more likely that other actual sales also happened.

Chile – Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs) | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Interestingly there is a story out now saying De Ruyter will sail to the Pacific in 2024 to test fire a Tomahawk. This suggests sh must have at least some strategic length Mk-41s.

I also recall the original ANZAC WIP was to have installed a second Mk-41 to give each frigate 16 Standard SM-2s suggesting that they must have had Tactical length as well.

 

[Arjen]

there is a story out now saying De Ruyter will sail to the Pacific in 2024 to test fire a Tomahawk

Voor eerste Nederlandse Tomahawk-lancering De Ruyter in 2024 naar Pacific

Tromp naar de Oost

marineschepen.nl

Part translated from Dutch:

Although the LCF's MK 41 launchers are Tomahawk capable, additional equipment and software must be installed on board the frigates. Before this can start, a test launch will first take place. For that, HNLMS De Ruyter was chosen. Work will also have to be done on the frigate for the test launch. That will happen in the US, prior to launch.

Where the launch will take place in the Pacific Ocean has not been announced, but the Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands near Hawaii is a strong contender.

The first frigate must be ready for Tomahawk from 2027.

LCF: Luchtverdedigings- en CommandoFregat (Air defence and Command Frigate)

 

[TomS]

Interestingly there is a story out now saying De Ruyter will sail to the Pacific in 2024 to test fire a Tomahawk. This suggests sh must have at least some strategic length Mk-41s.

I also recall the original ANZAC WIP was to have installed a second Mk-41 to give each frigate 16 Standard SM-2s suggesting that they must have had Tactical length as well.

Yes, I think LCF has all strike-length VLS. They've been talking about Tomahawk for a decade or more.

We did finally figure out that the ANZACs have Tactical-Length VLS.