they promise it will vastly outclass any surface combatant in the mediterranean
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2023/02/22/future_destroyer_ddx_italian_navy/
what do we think of it?
italy and spain about to launch their new DD project
they promise it will vastly outclass any surface combatant in the mediterranean
https://meta-defense.fr/en/2023/02/22/future_destroyer_ddx_italian_navy/
what do we think of it?
why did they draw it in mspaint?
CAD engineers are hard to come by, please understand.
>you need CAD engineers to photoshop mockups
cause SOVL
http://www.shipbucket.com/
>In other words, these ships will have the firepower of 3 FREMM frigates, one Alsace with 32 Aster 30 missiles and 2 Aquitaines with 16 Aster and 16 MdCN, the Italian destroyer also having to carry SYLVER 70s for this purpose.
yeah frick off you pathetic schizoid Black person, you and whomever "warrriortard" is
>pretending this hard
You are so fricking easy to spot mate
I’ve also learned all of his little quirks and mannerisms. His posting is as damning as a fingerprint
Where do you get that Spain is involved? They are already building the first F-110 frigates.
apparently it's a joint project between navantia and fincantieri.
>International cooperation could also be opened on the DDX, with Spain, given the recent collaboration agreement announced by Fincantieri and Navantia, or with France, given the role of the joint venture between Fincantieri and Nval Group, NAVIRIS. A de-risking study funded by the Ministry of Defense is already underway on DDX
https://www.rid.it/shownews/4730/al-via-il-programma-per-i-super-cacciatorpediniere-ddx-della-marina-militare
A good replacement for Australia's Hobarts.
Why not have both?
They are collaborating in another project, so this panflet says that "maybe" they could collaborate on DDX.
Look I'm happy for Italy but I don't trust an English article on a french site about an Italian ship.
I love the profusion of 3" guns on Italian surface combatants.
This thing definitely looks like a beast. There's some ESL going on here that makes a few of the specs hard to understand. 'Anti "Direct Energy Weapons" System'? So a system to intercept incoming DEWs? good luck with that.... Probably an anti-drone laser or microwave? But that would probably fall under 'Anti "Mini/Micro UAV" System', unless that's something like Coyote.
If we had a proper article in Italian I could feasibly translate it, being a spaghetto myself. If someone finds one post it up.
It seems "Spain" ain't much on this project. Navantia might make some of the work but the Spanish goverment is really not into destroyers. (Spanish frigates are pretty big for their class anyway.) And with the F-110 in production it doesn't seem like they'd want it.
Other than that. This has some strong ESL vibes. (I'm spanish and even I have issues.) But if it says what I think it says its gonna be a good ship. On that note:
I think they tried to translate something that might better "DEW counter-measures" (as in DEW weapons made to counter drones and missiles, don't know the italian term but spain uses Contramedidas) and got that from it. But yeah its probably what you interpreted it as.
Imagine building a Diesel powered ship in 2024
Diesels are efficient at low speeds. I think they're using it to power the electric motors though.
What does CODOLOG stand for? Combined Diesel or Electric or Gas?
That's my read on it. I was wondering about it, too. Does that mean each of the three power systems can drive the propshafts directly? So, mechanical power from the diesel and gas engines, plus the electric motors (which are powered by what? And why not normal CODLOG or CODLAG, which are well-established propulsion systems?). It's also possible, however, that this is a poor attempt to classify "CODLOG with enough batteries to run the drift part of sprint/drift without cranking the diesels". That wouldn't really be anything new, except that it would probably use lithium rather than lead-acid in order to save weight (oof; can you imagine the fire a battery casualty would cause?).
Also, 48 VLS cells on a 10kT DDG is at best half of what she needs. There should be a lot of lessons learned from the last month on magazine size.
>Also, 48 VLS cells on a 10kT DDG is at best half of what she needs. There should be a lot of lessons learned from the last month on magazine size.
This. For whatever reason, Euro navies (incl. Britain) keep lowballing VLS numbers. Even accounting for the AShMs being carried in ABLs, instead of cells, munition capacity is still too low.
The FDI's original design only had 16 cells for a 4.5k ton ship, and it took the Greeks screeching at DCNS over low capacity to increase that to 32.
>The FDI's original design only had 16 cells for a 4.5k ton ship, and it took the Greeks screeching at DCNS over low capacity to increase that to 32.
32vls and 8 AShM is pretty based for a ship that weigh less than 5000 tons
Yes, but it took a lot of pushing from the Greeks to get DCNS (and the French gov't) to accept that.
Ironically, the frogs are planning to upgrade their own ships to the bouzouki standard, given the considerable increase in capability.
Probably cause it's multirole. Italy only uses 4 destroyers, and these are supposed to replace the Durand de la Penne class. The FREMM program highlighted this. While the french wanted more specialized ships for different roles, italians wanted jack of all trades.
>italians wanted jack of all trades.
Navies all over the world are going this root. Singapore, Denmark, Australia are all building ships with modularity in mind. Each country is doing it for the same reason, they cant crew their navies anymore
i'm pretty sure italy can reliably crew everything they have. unlike the US, there is high demand to enter in the armed forces and a strict selection. but this only because of the budget constraints and the greed of the politicians.
>italians wanted jack of all trades.
Fair, but why would you lowball the VLS size? More VLS means more payload flexibility.
>For whatever reason, Euro navies (incl. Britain) keep lowballing VLS numbers
I know for the RN there are 2 main reasons:
firstly, they figured that it was GWOT now, and with no foreseeable near-peer threat on the horizon, they could skimp on getting VLS cells and the missiles to fill them with (not exactly cheap), with the expectation that they could see a war coming in time to buy and install cells and missiles when they were needed
basically it was the 1920s/30s Naval Treaties plus Ten Year Plan all over again
for example, the Type 45 destroyers are getting 24 CAMM VLS cells and 2x4 NSM canisters
another advantage of this approach is that the T45s spent decades not needing to buy (and expend) that number of missiles, and can now buy a more capable type to boot.
the second reason is that accommodation is significantly better in European ships than in American. IIRC it's said that crew accommodation is given as much as half again as much mass as in US ships (ratio varies)
>picrel
>left, Ford class carrier enlisted berthing, 36-man compartment
>right, QE class carrier junior rates berthing, 6-man cabin
I assume this also applies more or less to other Euro navies
>jack of all trades
>modularity in mind
>cant crew
no
it's because everyone is preparing for the UAV, USV and UUV swarm
Can the CAMM(-ER) be quad-packed in A50/A70 VLS? I've seen some MS Paint-tier mockups, but there was an older post on plebbit (yes, I know...) saying that, at least at the time the guy posted, they could only dual-pack them.
the space in which the CAMM is going is directly forward of the existing VLS farm, previously left empty and used as a gym, and was meant for 16 A70 VLS
CAMM is too wide to be quad-packed, and IMHO dual-packing is not worth the cost of developing new launch systems to suit Sylver cells, whereas the CAMM launch cells have already been paid for
>IMHO dual-packing is not worth the cost of developing new launch systems
Keeping the same cell numbers, 32 dual-packed CAMM-ERs (or Albatros NG, whatever the newest moniker) in 16 A70s are more missile than 24 single-packed in their own dedicated cells.
8 extra shots, yes, but for how many million dollars in developing a Sylver-compatible launch cell?
You need to think of this as a percent. 32 shots is an increase of 33% over 24, so a third more capability. That sort of improvement is quite worth the investment cost.
Plus, CAMM-ER cells can only be used for CAMM-ERs, whereas SYLVERs offer more flexibility, and are already carried by a bunch of ships, so it's a wide market.
Furthermore, I've checked CAMM-ER/Albatros NG dimensions. A missile is 4.2 meters long, with a diameter of 190 mm. A SYLVER cell is 600 mm long and 560 mm wide. Assuming folded wings, plus launch gubbins, two side-by-side missiles would just about squeeze in width-wise, and easily fit length-wise. So quad-packing would be theoretically possible (if they skimp a bit on the packaging, admittedly with a decrease in potential blast safety), while dual-packing would be a piece of cake. And it would also fit into an A50, since it has the same length as an Aster 15.
>*as a percentage
IMHO, I think in this case percentage is a false economy. Once again, how many millions per shot is that?
>SYLVERs offer more flexibility, and are already carried by a bunch of ships, so it's a wide market
As it has turned out, no, which is why the RN chose Mk41 instead for the T26s and T31s now building.
I suspect that the French Naval Group formerly DCNS have been up to their usual tricks regarding Sylver
>with a diameter of 190 mm
IIRC you're right
in fact 190mm is inclusive of fully extended fins
>admittedly with a decrease in potential blast safety
and CAMM is cold launched so blast is not a problem
but I think other factors came into play
well, either way, the net result is that the T45 Darings have gone up from 48 missiles to 72 missiles, which is respectable
>which is why the RN chose Mk41 instead for the T26s and T31s
I was talking about offering a hypothetical quad-packed CAMM(-ER) product option to navies already mounting A43s, A50s and A70s on their ships. The RN itself probably chose the Mk41 due to the potential of using Tomahawks and ASROCs.
>Naval Group formerly DCNS have been up to their usual tricks regarding Sylver
I bet it's your garden variety military procurement political moronation. DCNS, who sell SYLVER, are French, but CAMM(-ER) was originally an Anglo-Italian project, even if it's technically under the larger MBDA umbrella. DCNS had previously selected VL-MICA (which is kinda shit) as their short-range SAM offering, instead of Sea Ceptor. I suspect there might be some internal row over who has to pay for the CAMM(-ER) integration. The frogs are demanding that the bongs pay for it, since it's their missile, but the bongs want the frogs to chip in, since it's their launcher, and nobody is budging.
>blast is not a problem
I know CAMM(-ER) is cold launched via a piston and compressed air. I was referring to damage resistance/containment, in case the cell is hit by a munition.
Who cares what the ships are capable of if all they actually do is escort Black person hordes to land?
kek
you really rustled warrioturd's jimmies there
By what i'm seeing navantia is getting contracts left and right for a frickton of new designs. Where does Spain get the money for it, btw? And why do they need them, if not for selling them to aussieland or other wealthier countries with actual threats oversea?
>navantia is getting contracts left and right for a frickton of new designs
such as?
nearly all their projects are simply building ships for their own navy
and they're a Spanish Government-owned company
>Where does Spain get the money for it
They're the 5th largest economy in the EU
>why do they need them
They provide a significant contribution to NATO Europe's fleet, as they should
no reason to turn up one's nose at three amphibs, five air warfare destroyers, and six anti-submarine frigates, anon
>such as?
All of the above, plus this
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/navantia-shows-tasman-corvette-and-destroyer-aimed-at-ran/
And this
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/07/navantia-starts-production-processes-of-bam-is-for-the-spanish-navy-and-one-opv-for-moroccan-navy/
so, like, two pitches, one African patrol boat, and buying their own products?
also, you do realise they're just a shipyard assembling components bought from others?
>Where does Spain get the money for it, btw?
Spain isn't some third world shithole. It's a developed country with a complex economy.
No doubt about it. Yet it's the weakest economy in western europe. Italy is way more conservative on its budget and it has a significantly stronger economy than yours.
>Yet it's the weakest economy in western europe.
among the major western Euro countries, yes. It also has the smallest population among them.
>yours
I'm German, not Spanish.
>and yet can't make a sub for shit
>and yet can't make a ship system, let alone a simple radar or weapon
>and yet made the only western frigate to sank in the last 20 years
The spanish MIC is a fricking joke.
Casa is ok though
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but Norway get all of their larger ships from Navantia.
Coincidentally it was a Navantia designed frigate which collided with an oil tanker and sank in 2018.
The frigate crashed into it with its front and sank within a couple of hours.
The oil tanker suffered just a few scratches.
Apparently Navantia ships are made from cardboard or something
The crew literally fled like rats off a sinking (kek) ship, and left all watertight doors open.
Better yet, the ship had a female US officer on the bridge training to be officer of the watch that night, she apparently was the person tasked with guiding the ship that night, but failed to realise there was a tanker in front of them until the actual officer of the watch started swearing. She had also dismissed two other crew members on the bridge just minutes earlier so they could have a snack.
She recieved no punishment while the person training her got 60 days in prison.
lol
I remember reading that.
She stated in court she blacked out before impact and went into shock and they had to get her off the bridge.
The Helge Ingstad tale is a genuine comedy. The captain and crew managed to violate 53 of the 88 rules meant to avoid collison in the navy's manual, they left all the watertight doors open, after the collision they actually grounded the god damned frigate in their derp ass attempt to get to port then fled the ship without any care, which is why the boat capsized, hence taking in even more water. Honestly, no frigate from anyone would've stayed afloat after that hilarious display of incompetence. Someone should make a movie about it.
As to why the tanker only had minor damage. Do note it was a nord tanker, aka it had extra thick protection for ice collisions, plus yknow, tankers have just absolutely massive superstructures, there's been other incidents with them colliding with other boats (nothing as big as a frigate tho) in the past and they generally turn anything in their path to mush like its nothing, so I'm not surprised. But either way, one thing I did notice is, 99 out of 100 naval accidents are caused by asbolutely enormous amounts of errors and just sheer clown tier crazyness. Its really hard to sink a modern western boat, I dare say impossible if the crew knows what they're doint. Costa Concordia is another tale of utter hilarity.
They grounded it out of a misguided attempt at keeping it afloat. Then the recovery vessels fricked up further by dragging it off the rocks, tearing the already punctured hull even further.
>By what i'm seeing navantia is getting contracts left and right for a frickton of new designs. Where does Spain get the money for it, btw? And why do they need them, if not for selling them to aussieland or other wealthier countries
Spain is a slightly bigger economy than Aussieland, sure they are wealthier because they have half the population with a similar GDP. The logic is build for the military and then sell clones of the ships to the Aussies or whoever, that's what they did with the Juan Carlos class, made their flagship and sold two copies to the Aussies and one to the Turks (With a second one ordered).
Not a bad setup for a state owned company
what the frick is that bottom left picture are those robots
Found this 2022 article in Italian about the DDXs, if machine TL doesn't work I can translate a bit of it.
https://aresdifesa.it/due-nuovi-cacciatorpediniere-per-la-marina-italiana/
Wow looks nice...
>SH90A
WHY DID YOU RUIN IT?!
what's wrong with those?
Apart from the fact that they have 737MAX-tier reliability, nothing.
That's the bridge, and those are gamer chairs for all your OF needs
Only introduced in 2007, but already "retired" by Norway and Australia due to low readiness rates and shit build quality. Several other nations reportedly unhappy with them and considering replacement.