Dutch 2023 Frigate project

[MihoshiK]

Anyone who thinks the Dutch are going with anything but the missile system families they already have in their inventory, and parts of which will be used (ESSM) for the new ASW frigates, and parts of which can also go into the new air defense ships (ESSM, SM series) is smoking the kind of stuff you can buy in an Amsterdam coffee shop.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

Anyone who thinks the Dutch are going with anything but the missile system families they already have in their inventory, and parts of which will be used (ESSM) for the new ASW frigates, and parts of which can also go into the new air defense ships (ESSM, SM series) is smoking the kind of stuff you can buy in an Amsterdam coffee shop.

Of course they stay within the current ESSM/SM-family missile's but it is a good idea to look what other options are on the market. Also when you enter negotiations with Raytheon you know what the other systems price range is. And maybe more important all other options have to be adapted for use in the Mk41 VLS, this will bring additional risks and budget into the project.

ESSM Block II is 100% confirmed for ASWF and both current and future LCF (FUAD). Both classes will use APAR block II & SM-400 Block II radars. The new LCF or FUAD will also receive SMART-L for the long range detection.

SMART-L MM/N | 3-D D-band Long Range multimission radar | 2000 km BMD, 480 km Air & 60 km surface targets
SM-400 Block II | 4-D S-band multifuction radar | >400 km Air & 80 km surface targets
APAR Block II | X-band multifunction radar | >150 km

In the missile overview we see 4 layers of defense:
- Short Range -> ESSM Block II & RAM Block II
- Medium Range -> SM-2 Block IIIB
- Long Range -> SM-2 Block IV
- Ballistic + Hypersonic -> SM- Block IA

 

[kqcke for you]

In the missile overview we see 4 layers of defense:
- Short Range -> ESSM Block II & RAM Block II
- Medium Range -> SM-2 Block IIIB
- Long Range -> SM-2 Block IV

*SM-6 as there no production for SM-2 Block IV

- Ballistic + Hypersonic -> SM- Block IA

Do you mean SM-3? Or SM-6? Both can / could if given missile enters there reach.

 

[Mc spoilt b’stard]

*SM-6 as there no production for SM-2 Block IV

Do you mean SM-3? Or SM-6? Both can / could if given missile enters there reach.

It will be a longer range SM-2 , the BMD will be done by SM-6.
The Dutch navy recently announced it will not use SM-3 but an other missile capable of lower BMD. The new missiles will be able to destroy the ballistic missile within the earth atmosphere instead of very high altitude of the SM-3.

 

[TomS]

It will be a longer range SM-2 , the BMD will be done by SM-6.
The Dutch navy recently announced it will not use SM-3 but an other missile capable of lower BMD. The new missiles will be able to destroy the ballistic missile within the earth atmosphere instead of very high altitude of the SM-3.

There is no "longer range SM-2" in production. Block IV/IVA production ended ages ago (at least 10, possibly 20 years) and current SM-2 production is entirely the short MR configuration. So if you want extended-range air defense from Standard, it's SM-6 or nothing.

 

[kqcke for you]

There is no "longer range SM-2" in production. Block IV/IVA production ended ages ago (at least 10, possibly 20 years) and current SM-2 production is entirely the short MR configuration. So if you want extended-range air defense from Standard, it's SM-6 or nothing.

SM-6 ist just an extended SM-2 Block IIIC.
We know that for SM-2 there is a new Version called Block IIICU which may even will include new the MK.104 rocket motor in development but even that won't be near SM-2 Block IV/ SM-6

 

[TomS]

SM-6 ist just an extended SM-2 Block IIIC.
We know that for SM-2 there is a new Version called Block IIICU which may even will include new the MK.104 rocket motor in development but even that won't be near SM-2 Block IV/ SM-6

You've got the relationship backwards. Block IIIC is effectively SM-6 minus the booster. SM-6 came first by a long way.

As for Block IIICU, the FY23 DOT&E report says that it is IIIC with a modified Guidance Section Electronics Unit to address obsolescence issues. (The same GS EU is being applied to SM-6 Block IA, converting it to Block IAU) No mention of a new Mk 104 motor.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2023/navy/2023sm-2.pdf?ver=d4DHQ7UhR5MJ0NdK7kCXnQ%3D%3D

The contract announcements for new Mk 104 motor designs seems aimed mainly at qualifying new ways of manufacturing something equivalent to the existing motor (e.g. Ursa Major, X-Bow Systems, and Aerojet Rocketdyne all doing additive manufacturing for energetics).

 

[kqcke for you]

You've got the relationship backwards. Block IIIC is effectively SM-6 minus the booster. SM-6 came first by a long way.

I looked at it from the SM-2 but your right.

As for Block IIICU, the FY23 DOT&E report says that it is IIIC with a modified Guidance Section Electronics Unit to address obsolescence issues. (The same GS EU is being applied to SM-6 Block IA, converting it to Block IAU) No mention of a new Mk 104 motor.

Yes but one can Hope that there fas enough for it.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2023/navy/2023sm-2.pdf?ver=d4DHQ7UhR5MJ0NdK7kCXnQ%3D%3D

The contract announcements for new Mk 104 motor designs seems aimed mainly at qualifying new ways of manufacturing something equivalent to the existing motor (e.g. Ursa Major, X-Bow Systems, and Aerojet Rocketdyne all doing additive manufacturing for energetics).

I have to look into that again but if i remember it right an improvement would be achieved.