Lord Jim wrote:The RN would really want the whole ship built to true naval standards rather than the pick and choose method used on the IHs. If you want the exact differences then you will need to find a naval ship designer to lay them out. No one else is going to be able to build ships like the Absalons and IHs at the price the Danes paid. They had unique opportunities like the Shipyard will to build the hulls for a knock down price and to the standards the Danish Navy was willing to accept. They also had surplus STANFLEX modules that would be easy to install into the ships once delivered. No other nation to my knowledge has adopted this system though many have looked at it and walked away. The Danes are very happy with their new ships and got a good deal and a leap in capability over the ships they replaced. Yes they are to get BMD abilities but as AAW platforms the T-45 is a better platform with its combination of Sampson and Aster15/30.
Thanks for input, playing devils advocate with your post, need actual specific examples of "true naval standards" not on IH, would as you say really need input of a naval ship designer to list any missing standards and as far as know to date none has come forward despite all the claims IH substandard, it's a big unknown, have you any knowledge of them? Have previously listed all NATO standards IH built to, so at moment these claims appear unsubstantiated. Understand IH HM&E built for 30 year life, don't know T45 figure but think read T26 spec'd for 25 years.
Re the knock down shipyard price result of blocks built by OSS subsidiaries in Estonia and Latvia before ship assembled in Danish shipyard, have commentated before if you can believe the NAVSEA graphic the hull cost is surprising low at 8% of total build cost so even a 50% uplift would not cause major increase in price.
The STANFLEX modules have been successful in the RDN in allowing weapon systems to be transferred from old ships to new ships, the USN Mission Modules for the two LCS classes proved a total failure, an example of how good is Danish design.
The claim T45 is the better AAW system than IH maybe true, would depend on actual operational scenario and missiles fitted, both have pluses and minuses, T45 with its Sampson S-band two antenna array radar and Aster 15/30 missiles with active seekers and 48 VLS cells vs the IH with it's two radars, with advantage of two different radar bands, SMART L-band (as used on the QNLZ) plus APAR X-band four panel antenna and SM-2/ESSM missiles semi-active seekers and 56 VLS cells, IH has possible option of using 32 Mk41 cells option of fitting SM-2/SM-6/SM-3 and 24 Mk56 for ESSM Blk 2 with active seekers, very unlikely as cannot see the RDN having the funding to buy. Understand effectiveness of both systems rely solely on theoretical computer modelling simulations as neither undergone actual attacks by supersonic target drones, eg Aster tested against a single USN Coyote Supersonic Sea Skimming Target drone but that was with French frigate's radar and CMS.
PS The NAVSEA graphic png would not post, too big at 360 KB?