Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philippines Defense Forces Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
British vs German vs French vs Korean vs Italian; 2nd-hand frigates/destroyers/corvettes
Topic Started: Feb 13 2012, 01:31 AM (16,220 Views)
raider1011


Actually I agree with you. The modernized Adelaides look like great ships and our navy has shown interest in Perry-class ships before (someone complained about all-GT propulsion). But the Maestrales are built to the same standard (if not better since no one's labeled them overweight) and are available now. The Adelaides won't be offloaded until at least 2016 when the first Hobart arrives and more likely will serve beside their replacements for several years. :dunno:

EDIT: Sorry, 2016 not 2014 outdated article.
Edited by raider1011, Aug 5 2012, 11:04 PM.
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
True Raider, but not only that such a ship would cost us way more than the Maestrale's. Even if it does not need to be SLEPed but it's updated armaments could be an arm and a leg. The funding will be an issue and the bottleneck it will encounter in the bicameral. Those Standard 2's are about $5m a pop and SM3's are $10m.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
panzerG
Trainee
[ *  * ]
So if not have money to buy a decent unit of rockets isn't it better to produce cheaper patrol vessels with a medium cannon useful to shell guerillas and to defend ship itself? And all the rest money transfer for acquisition used subs and buy stand-off a-ship rocket for planes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raider1011


Whoa, Santi, $5 million a pop is way too much for the SM-2s on those Adelaides (and I'm not aware their launchers could take SM-3 a much larger missile). If I'm reading this source right Block IIIAs cost ~$1 million. Pricey no doubt but after all they're 90-mile range with anti-missile capability. Thought experiment:

Four upgraded Adelaides up for decomm. Two delivered 1983-1984 the others 1992-1993. Proven ships built to take punishment and the most advanced of their class anywhere. No need to pay for refurbishment.

Lose SM-2 on the older pair and they still have vertical launchers for ESSM a cheaper weapon. The Mk13 launchers have Harpoon capability. Granting American export licenses 32 ESSMs, 8-40 Harpoons, 400 km-range radar, hull and mine avoidance sonar, 76mm + Phalanx, hangar for two helos, Israeli ESM that is still a powerful ship to put beside the Maestrales which run on the same gas turbines.

The other two, the younger pair, they said they're looking at AAW frigates SM-2 makes the Adelaides AAW frigates. I understand the Adelaides' SM-2s aren't VLS-compatible granting US approval Australia will have SM-2s for sale once they lose their only Mk13-fitted warships. 32 ESSMs plus any combination of SM-2s and Harpoons (up to 40 in the shared magazine) available almost immediately from a regional ally is easier to defend before the budget committee than around a billion dollars and several years of waiting for a newbuild SM-2 capable warship. Not so old that future upgrades (like better illuminators) aren't out of the question.

Operating Adelaides leaves an opening for their FFG-7 cousins Spanish Santa Maria-class the youngest two delivered 1992-1993 have an Italian combat system similar to the Maestrales'. Maestrales cousins to Lupos now + Adelaides/Santa Marias FFG-7 family later. Widespread/well-supported warship classes looks like a sustainable fleet to me.

Something similar to what Chile's doing. All major units transferred ex-NATO plus newbuild state of the art submarines and locally built OPVs, logistics and landing vessels. Just a thought experiment.
Edited by raider1011, Aug 6 2012, 05:42 AM.
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
SM-2 Block IIIB = $2.7m in 1998
http://www.deagel.com/Surface-to-Air-Missiles/Standard-SM-2-Block-IIIB_a001148006.aspx

SM-2 Block IV = less than $5m in 2011
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/SM-3-Block-1B-Anti-Missile-Missile-4-21-2011.asp

SM-2 Block 4 is similar to SM-3 (Anti-Ballistic Missile) but shorter range.

I guess I was talking about the high end. Nevertheless, with this capability I doubt the Americans will allow us to have access to such technology (SM-2/3 tweaking of Mk-13). Obviously not in our current state. Down the road hopefully we will be able to. We need to prove ourselves first. It may not be bad to have the Adelaides so when we are ready we have it already. In the meantime, the Maestrales/Soldatis will be a good training ground to be introduced to '80's missile technology and still have some decent deterrence.

Edited by Santi Kampilan, Aug 6 2012, 06:11 AM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raider1011


No amount of "tweaking" will make those SM-2 variants usable with Mk13 and the Adelaides. :dunno: Compatibility stops with the IIIA version and those are already deployed on the Aussie ships no need for modification when 2016 comes along.

Quote:
 
The version being acquired, the Block IIIA, is the last version of SM-2, which can be fired from the FFG's rail launch system. SM-2 Block III introduced an improved Target Detecting Device for better performance against low-altitude targets while Block IIIA came with a new warhead with heavier grain explosive.

Subsequent versions (Block IIIB onwards) are designed for vertical launch systems.

Australian Defence

Edited by raider1011, Aug 6 2012, 09:52 AM.
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
panzerG
Trainee
[ *  * ]
Quote:
 
available almost immediately from a regional ally is easier to defend before the budget committee than around a billion dollars and several years of waiting for a newbuild SM-2 capable warship

I raised this topic(question actually) about Adeleaides couse I am very courious who gonna finally get them. 2 years ago Pakistan probably was intersted in acquisition of Adelaides.
If they can get them (questionable ally) why you cannot?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raider1011


They get to benefit in an emergency if they keep the Adelaides in their neighborhood. They guarantee interoperability with an ally and a reason to maintain friendly relations. Doable and the Adelaides bring something to the table the Maestrales do not. Adelaides AAW Maestrale ASW no need to fit a square peg in a round hole either way. :devilwink:
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Santi Kampilan
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  * ]
Raider, well said! let us pray we can get some funding for these fine ships. These are true AAW's that could serve us well for years to come.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
raider1011


There could be a bonus:

Posted Image

Royal Australian Navy S-70B-2 Seahawk

Quote:
 
In June 2011, Australia announced the Air 9000 project acquisition of 24 MH-60Rs in a deal worth over A$3 billion. The MH-60Rs will replace the Royal Australian Navy's 16 Sikorsky S-70B Seahawks, which have been in service for 20 years.

Australia's first two MH-60Rs are scheduled to arrive in mid-2014 for testing, with operations to commence in 2015.
The aircraft will be deployed aboard Australia's ANZAC-class frigates and new air warfare destroyers. With 24 aircraft, the navy will be able to provide at least eight warships with a helicopter at the same time.

Flightglobal

The US Coast Guard is upgrading S-70 family helicopters about the same age as Australian Seahawks and expects to operate them until 2027. Good or bad deal who knows deserves a look IMO.
God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.

|| Chester W. Nimitz

Loyalty to the Nation ALL the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.

|| Mark Twain
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Philippine Navy · Next Topic »
Add Reply