European Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

That says it.

Of course at this point they are vague.

But they want to be able to make these expensive warships last for decades and making them modular and capable of accepting new systems in the future will do so...just like the US does.

I expect they could fit new gins, new missiles (including VLS), new sensors, etc. You have to design your vessel wityh the idea that you are going to do that in order to make those kind of things happen.

Things as simple as making sure that the raceways that carry the cabling are wider than you need now...or that you have space to add additional ones...are the types of things you would need to ensure you have done.

thanks Jeff, at first I didn't understand what you meant by
room for growth
in https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/european-military-news-views.t4395/page-43#post-336599 ... and now I think I do :)
 
now I'm trying to figure out the propulsion of the F-125:
cg36lcyt.png

anybody cares to comment?
 
Last edited:

Scratch

Captain
now I'm trying to figure out the propulsion of the F-125:
anybody cares to comment?

For cruise, two 4,7MW electric motors will power the shafts, one each. The electricity will be provided by four 2,9MW diesel engines, therefore effectively acting as generators. For sprint ops, a single 20MW gas turbine can be added which, via some kind of gearbox, will add power to the shafts. Additionally, there's a 1MW bow-thruster for maneuvering. I don't know if this is an electric motor unit or a seperate engine, though.

As to deployment cycles: I don't think we necessarilly need to stay in any one theater for two years. But we can move from one to the next for up to 24 month at a time, therefore saving the time for transit to homeport and then back to the next operation. That probably allows for some of the savings in asset numbers.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
G3 uses Delayed Roller locked operation, it often deformed casings and was far more expensive to manufacture. The problem is not the operation that can be salvaged the issue is the packaging is sub par. The Recever assemblies were manufactured using Polyethylene which is cheap cheap plastic the type used in shopping bags and soda bottles as apposed to the specified Polyamide.
Polyethylene is not any where near as heat resistant. So when exposed to heat from sitting the sun or ambient air and humidity or firing. The plastic started to melt because trunion that houses the barrel is steel and the barrel is steel as the G36 was fired heat built up in the barrel conducted into the Trunion which softened the plastics causing point of shift changes.
 

Scratch

Captain
That whole thing is really a mess, especially in public information practices, IMO.
For starters, if the final report is only about to be out now, I already don't understand why the MoD saw the need to announce preliminary findings two or so weeks ago without conclusive data. Time wise those 2 weeks won't make a difference. However, it stirred up so much speculation and controversy. Now there's so much theories half- or misinformation, it will be really difficult to get all this straight, I'm afraid.

With the many G36 users, the BW seems to be the only one really having those issues. The Peshmerga are reported to love those weapons ;) , and the Lithuanians (?) say all is fine. Although their rifles apparently differ significantly.
So was the BW the only one who got screwed by HK when using cheap, unspecified materials for the rifle?
The publicized numbers indicate the loss in accuracy is really significant. There's also the statement that other comparisson systems were able to meet the laid out criteria. But no info wich product that is, how much it weighs or costs in comparison to the G36.
Then there was a part in the report saying while the G36 didn't meet the current requirements for an assault rifle, it is within the specifications agreed upon in 1995. Now that is a completely different issue of course
Currently I'm missing the intent of actually clearing up all these contradictions.
 
For cruise, two 4,7MW electric motors will power the shafts, one each. The electricity will be provided by four 2,9MW diesel engines, therefore effectively acting as generators. For sprint ops, a single 20MW gas turbine can be added which, via some kind of gearbox, will add power to the shafts. Additionally, there's a 1MW bow-thruster for maneuvering. I don't know if this is an electric motor unit or a seperate engine, though.

later I did some additional reading about the CODLAG, but I realized this: one of the advantages of this propulsion is "it's silent" (because, as wiki says, "the diesel generators can be decoupled acoustically from the hull of the ship") ... the gas turbine could be very useful in chasing a sub ... so far so good, but: the F-125s are not meant for ASW, are they?
The frigates have no conventional on-board sonar but instead have a diver and swimmer detection sonar to counter terrorist and special forces threats.
according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As to deployment cycles: I don't think we necessarilly need to stay in any one theater for two years. But we can move from one to the next for up to 24 month at a time, therefore saving the time for transit to homeport and then back to the next operation. That probably allows for some of the savings in asset numbers.
I wonder what's actually cheaper, sail or send an airplane with fresh crew? :)
 

Scratch

Captain
later I did some additional reading about the CODLAG, but I realized this: one of the advantages of this propulsion is "it's silent" (because, as wiki says, "the diesel generators can be decoupled acoustically from the hull of the ship") ... the gas turbine could be very useful in chasing a sub ... so far so good, but: the F-125s are not meant for ASW, are they?
according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

They're not, but I think that's not the point. I think CODLAG makes power generation and propulsion more efficient.
There's one set of generators for everything on the ship, and they can run at the most efficient setting (RPM). Then the e-motors powering the shafts work at a very high efficiency over a wide range of RPM.
 
Top