Hellenic Navy(Greek)/Tier 5 Analysis

[rickusn]

This navy is a Tier 5 navy. Remember These navies are not listed in any particular order. Ill leave that to others. See complete Tier 5 listing at the botom.:

TIER 5
GERMANY
AUSTRAILIA
CANADA
S. KOREA
TAIWAN
NETHERLANDS
CHILE
TURKEY
GREECE

They are similar in many ways and quite different in others.

All these navies with the exception of Greece have AAW ships.

Chile recently acquiring two ex-Netherlands SM-1 equipped ships plus two ex-Netherlands Karl Doormann class frigates and three ex-UK Type 23 frigates equipped with Sea Wolf.

These ships vary widely in capability.

With the newer German, Netherlands and S. Korean ships equipped with SM-2 missles and newer radars the most capable.

Canada has three older ships modernized with SM-2.

Taiwan will soon have four ex-USN DDG's equipped with SM-2.

Austrailia, Turkey and Taiwan all have OHP FFG variants equipped with SM-1.

Austrailia to update to SM-2 plus add ESSM.

Greece has four MEKO 200 variant frigates along with ten ex-Netherlands Kortenaer class frigates.

The Kortenaer class are 22 to 27 years old built in the late 70's/early 80's. They are planned to be modenized with ESSM using 1/2 the helo hanger. But would carry a S-70B helo vice two smaller AB-212 helos.

Most of the other navies have the majority of their ships built after 1990.

With eight submarines in service and four new Type 214's building the Greek navy near the top in both #s and capability.

The vast majority of their mine warfare capability is old and obsolete. Some other navies in this category have a simlar situation.

This navies amphibious and replenishment capabilies is simlar to most of the navies in this class.

The Greek navy has a considerable Guided Missle Combatant/Craft force in both capabilty and #'s. Other navies in this Tier have units in this category.
S. Korea in addition has a large FFL force.

This force unlike some others in this category does not operate around the world but confines its operations to the MED AFAIK.

{TIER 5}
<GERMANY>
FRIGATES
3 FFG Sachsen class 5700fl APAR MK-41 VLS SM-2
4 FF Brandenburg class 4500fl
8 FF Kortenaer class- Bremen class 3800fl (Dutch-design)
0+5 FFL Type 130 class 1700fl
SUBMARINES
4 SSK Type 212 class
9 SSK Type 206 class (very small coastal type)
MINE WARFARE
17 MHC
5 MSA
REPLENISHMENT
4 AO
2 AOR
<AUSTRAILIA>
DESTROYERS
0+3 new DDG class (AEGIS/MK-41VLS/SM-2 design not finalised)
FRIGATES
5 FFG Adelaide class 4100fl (US-design OHP class SM-1 )( four being modernized)
8 FF Anzac class 3600fl (German-design MEKO 200 class)
SUBMARINES
6 SSK Collins class (Swedish-design)
AMPHIBIOUS
0+2 LHA/LPH Type 25000fl (Either French Mistral variant or Spanish-design)
2 LPA ex-US Newport class
1 LST (UK-design)
MINE WARFARE
6 MHC (Italian-design)
REPLENISHMENT
0+2 AOR
1 AO
1 AOR
<CANADA>
FRIGATES
3 FFG Iroquois class 5100fl Mk-41VLS/SM-2
12 FF Halifax class 4800fl
SUBMARINES
4 SSK ex-UK Upholder class-Victoria class
REPLENISHMENT
0+3 Combined AOR/LPA (To replace the two below)
2 AOR
<S. KOREA>
DESTROYERS
0+3 DDG KDX III class 8000fl AEGIS/MK-41 VLS/SM-2
3+3 DD KDX II class 5000fl Mk-41 VLS/SM-2
3 DD KDX I class 3900fl
FRIGATES
9 FF Ulsan 2200fl
24 FFL Pohang 1200fl
SUBMARINES
0+3 Type 214 class (German-design)
9 Type 209 class (German-design)
AMPHIBIOUS
0+2 LPH
4 LST
(Have a # of ex-US WWII DD & LST but they will be retired soon as they are at the end of their useful hull lives)
MINE WARFARE
8+9 MHC
5 MSC
REPLENISHMENT
3 AOR
<TAIWAN>
DESTROYERS
4 DDG ex- Kidd class 9600fl SM-2 (replacing 7 ex-US WWII vintage DD)
FRIGATES
8 FFG OHP class 4100fl (U.S.-design)
6 FF Lafayette class 3700fl (French-design)(w/ sonar unlike the French units)
8 FF ex-US Knox class 4300fl
SUBMARINE
2 SSK Hai Lung class (Netherlands-built but are trying to buy 8 modern ones)
AMPHIBIOUS
1 LSD ex-US Anchorage class
2 LST ex-US Newport class
(Has a # of ex-US WWII era LST's that will be retired soon)
MINE WARFARE
8 MHC
4 MSC
REPLENISHMENT
1 AOR
<NETHERLANDS>
FRIGATES
4 FFG De Zeven Provincien class 6000fl APAR/MK-41/SM-2 6
4 FF K. Doorman class 3300fl
SUBMARINES
4 SSK Walrus class
AMPHIBIBIOUS
0+1 LPD Johan De Witt class
1 LPD Rotterdam class
MINE WARFARE
10 MHC
REPLENISHMENT
2+1 AOR
<CHILE>
FRIGATES
2 FFG ex-Netherlands class 3800fl SM-1 (In-service 2005-2007)
2 FF ex-UK County class 6200fl (To decommission 2006 & 2007)
1 FF ex- UK Boxer class 4900fl
2 FF ex-Netherlands K. Doorman class 3300fl (In-service 2005-2007)
0+3 FF ex-UK Duke class Type 23(In-service 2006-2008)
3 FF Leander class 3200fl (UK-design)(To decommission when Type 23 frigates enter service)
SUBMARINES
2 SSK Scorpene class (French-built)
2 SSK Type 209 class (German-built)
AMPHIBIOUS
1 LST ex-US Newport class
2 LSM (French-built )
REPLENISHMENT
1 AOR
<TURKEY>
Destroyers
0+2 ex-USN Spruance class 9500fl
FRIGATES
8 FFG ex-US OHP class 3900fl
8 FF MEKO 200 class 3000-3400fl (German-design)
3 FF ex-US Knox class 4300fl(apparently the remaining three of eight may be decommissioned soon)
6 FFL ex-French Type A-69 class 1250fl
SUBMARINES
14 Type 209 class (German-design)
AMPHIBIOUS
2 LST
2 LST/Mine Layer
MINE WARFARE
8 MHC
12 MSC
REPLENISHMENT
2 AO
<GREECE>
FRIGATES
4 MEKO 200 class 3200fl (German-design)
10 ex-Netherlands Kortenaer class 3800fl
SUBMARINES
1+3 Type 214 class (German-design)
8 Type 209 class (German-design)
AMPHIBIOUS
5 LST
MINE WARFARE
0+2 MHC ex-USN Osprey class
3 MHC
7 MSC
REPLENISHMENT
1 AOR
2 AO

 

[diopos]

All these navies with the exception of Greece have AAW ships.

Chile recently acquiring two ex-Netherlands SM-1 equipped ships plus two ex-Netherlands Karl Doormann class frigates and three ex-UK Type 23 frigates equipped with Sea Wolf.

These ships vary widely in capability.

With the newer German, Netherlands and S. Korean ships equipped with SM-2 missles and newer radars the most capable.

Canada has three older ships modernized with SM-2.

Taiwan will soon have four ex-USN DDG's equipped with SM-2.

Austrailia, Turkey and Taiwan all have OHP FFG variants equipped with SM-1.

Austrailia to update to SM-2 plus add ESSM.

Greece has four MEKO 200 variant frigates along with ten ex-Netherlands Kortenaer class frigates.

The Kortenaer class are 22 to 27 years old built in the late 70's/early 80's. They are planned to be modenized with ESSM using 1/2 the helo hanger. But would carry a S-70B helo vice two smaller AB-212 helos.

Most of the other navies have the majority of their ships built after 1990.

With eight submarines in service and four new Type 214's building the Greek navy near the top in both #s and capability.

The vast majority of their mine warfare capability is old and obsolete. Some other navies in this category have a simlar situation.

This navies amphibious and replenishment capabilies is simlar to most of the navies in this class.

The Greek navy has a considerable Guided Missle Combatant/Craft force in both capabilty and #'s. Other navies in this Tier have units in this category.
S. Korea in addition has a large FFL force.

This force unlike some others in this category does not operate around the world but confines its operations to the MED AFAIK.

Dear RIckusn thanks for posting this interesting info !

I will try to give my opinion about those writen above .

Generally your analysis is correct , and in my opinion all the above fleets are up and down in the same level. But still there are some few obscurities in my poor opinion

While some navies have better AAW capabilities some other have other better capabilities (Submarines/total force).

Analysis about HN
When we analyze the greek navy we should always take in consideration the physical environment in which it operates , which for sure is a very big advantage.
The HN operates in the aegean sea which is a huge cluster of thousand of islands , and with depths which vary dramaticaly . (50m to 5,000m deepest point of mediterranean sea)
All the fast attack ships play a special role in the design of greek naval activities , and are planned to operate in this island complex.
Countries like Canada dont have at all such cpabilities because they operate in open water total different environment.

Also we should not forget the moveable (on trucks) EXOCET launchers which are based in some of greek islands .
Also some other factors not mantioned but which play a very important role , is that the air defence of the aegean sea (and generally the environment that the HN operates) is highly layered .
In oposition with navies like Chile or Canada or Australia , the greek air defence combines the use of high availability systems of various types and ranges (starting from PATRIOT, S-300, Crotale NG , TOR-M1, OSA, ASRAD, various guns etc.)
Because of the short distances between the islands and mainland (total other case then australia or canada) all the ships will operate under a more safe environment (and i did not mention the strong protection from Airforce - huge difference from Chile or Canada for example).

I continue now by examining in more detail some of the navies mentioned

I would like to ask you what do you mean with the word AAW ships?
All the cortenaer ships cary an 8 cell RIM-7M Sea Sparrow launcher , while the MEKO200 have a VLS (16 cell) Sea Sparrow launcher .
SM-1 is a quite old missile (compared to SM2).
Seawolf is similar (but with less range) to RIM-7 sea sparrow.

Like you mentioned there is under progress an upgrade program for 7 of the cortenaer ships which will upgrade their capabilites.

Greece has decomissioned the 4 ADAMS destroyers (which had SM1 missiles) because the navy believes that its better to have fewer and not so old ships.(the same happened with the obsolete KNOX class frigates that some other navies keep still)
Also the navy had also the option to buy O.H. Perry frigates but the alternative of the cortenaer ships was more favorable since the ships were all in excellent condition and are proven to be of the best frigate designs.(plus the large experience in using them)

Most of the other navies have the majority of their ships built after 1990.

This is not quite correct. For example from the turkish navy main ships only the 4 MEKO200TrackII are built after 1990. (all the other are 80s and 70s)

Taiwan except the 6 Lafayette all the other are old ships.

Chile has not at all modern ships except these that will arrive from netherlands (Doorman) .All the other are from 60s and 70s and 80s.

Note also that HN operates since some years a fleet of S-70B6 sea hawks helicopters (carying latest penguin missiles ) (and now just delivered newest type flir sea hawks) while chile does not.

Finally like you well said HN is the first to operate this year an AIP latest generation submarine (all the other three 214 are also AIP + the 4 209/1200 are under upgrading program which will allow them to have also AIP capabilities).

 

[rickusn]

AAW ships have medium/long range missles. Sea Sparrow is a short range missle.

Notice I said "most". Turkey of course being one of the exceptions.

As regards Chile the Type 23 frigates from the UK were built in the 1990's and they along with the Type 22 frigate built in the late 1980's are more capable than any ship in the Greek Navy IMHO. As are the ex-Netherlands ships again IMHO.

Greece does beat Chile on #s but not capability.

On Taiwan: The 8 OHP FFG variants were also built in the 1990s. And again the four ex-USN Kidd class DDG's coming into service while of early 1980's vintage are far more capble than anything in the Greek inventory.

I agree with you on "other factors" but this holds true for all navies.

The Greek Navy is fine for operations in its Home Waters and the rest of the MED but certainly doesnt operate world-wide like Austrailia, Germany, Netherlands, Canada. Taiwan & S. Korea are IMHO a step above the Hellenic Navy overall also IMHO. Chile while smaller will soon be more modern.

Which leaves Turkey. And this was the navy along with Taiwan that at the beginning of this project I grouped together in a separate sub-category.

I would place Germany at 10 with Austrailia, Canada, Netherlands, Taiwan, S. Korea & Brazil(Only because they have a carrier) fighting for slots 11-16.

So while Greece is solidly in the Top 20 breaking into the Top 15 is a stretch even considering "other factors".

The Top 9 you ask?

USN with Russia, UK, France, India, Japan & China fighting for the next six slots followed by Spain & Italy.

The more I look at this the more I fail to see your beef on their true place in the hierarchy of world navies..

See below for some insight into my thought processes that I posted on another forum:

As for rankings:

Much depends on capabilities/attributes/platforms you consider the most important ie:

Carriers
Submarines

SSBN
SSN
SSK

Should you include SSBN's when ranking navies? Or should they more rightly be considerd as Strtegic Assets only?

Not only capabilities should be considered but #s. Or should they? What weight do you give each consideration?

Example:

The UK is drawing down to from 11 to 8 SSNs but Japan has 18 plus 4 (reduced to a training role but still combat capable) SSKs.

Which is better?

For what role? ie defensive/offensive

Surface Combatants

CG(N)
CG
DDG
DD
FFG
FF
FFL(about 1220 tons fl to 2000fl)

Again not only capabilities should be considered but #s also. Or should they? What weight do you give each consideration?


Examples:

Russia's Fleet has approx 30 ships over 3000 tons fl as does and China or soon will have. India has about the same # but eight are smaller at 1400 tons fl.

Plus China has forty something FF/FFL between 1700 and 2400 tons fl.

Some of the Russian ships are not fully operational. Some are overage and due for retirement. Capabilities vary greatly.

China also has some overage ships and widely varying capabilities as does India.

I grouped the above together also because they share many common systems.

Japan has twice as many(over 50 to 26) surface combatants as the UK with the majority as capable or more capable than the Royal Navy ships.

France lags badly compared to both in capabilities at the moment and about the same in #s as the UK but about a third of those ships(A-69 class) are only 1250-1330 tons fl. Plus the five La Fayettes have no sonar??

Turkey and Taiwan have similar #s of large surface combatants as the UK and France. But also lag a bit as regards capabilities. They also have overage Knox class frigates in service three for Turkey and eight for Taiwan. Turkey has included six ex-French A- 69 ships. Taiwan has four ex -Kidd class class DDG's coming into service shortly. Both have OHP FFG ships eight each. Taiwan has six greatly improved (including sonar) French-designed La Fayette FF's and Turkey eight MEKO 200 variants.

Others nations to consider with 8-16 large surface combatants. The first six have 3 to 6 new state-of-the art AAW DDG/FFG type ships either built, building or planned.:

Spain
Italy plus 8 FFL
Germany
Netherlands
S. Korea plus 33 FFL
Austrailia
Canada
Brazil
Chile
Greece

Other important considerations when ranking navies:

Do they have the capability to operate world-wide?

Defensive/offensive capabilities and what weight do you give each.

Fleet replenishment ships important for sustained at-sea operations. They are also important for credible world-wide operational prescence.

Amphibious ships

Mine warfare ships

C4SI capabilities

Airborne & Space assets.

Training

Maintenance

Op Tempo

Modernization programs for existing ships

New Construction programs

Indigenous shipyards and systems design/manufacturing

Naval history of a particular navy


Just my thoughts.

As hard as I try to be objective some amount of subjectivity creeps in.

Then getting complete and accurate info on the Russian and Chinese

 

[diopos]

Some complementary notes :

Contract for mid-life modernization of Hellenic Navy S-frigates (Cortenaer class , ex netherlands)

On 12 February 2003, prime contractor Hellenic Shipyards and Thales Nederland signed a contract for the Mid-Life Modernization Program of 6 Hellenic Navy S-frigates, with an option of two more.

In the scope of this program, the operational capabilities of the frigates will be raised to contemporary standards, with the emphasis on search and fire control equipment and combat management system. The objective of the modernization is to extend the S-frigates' operational life span beyond the year 2020. The first S-frigate is expected to be delivered three years form the effective contract date; the sixth S-frigate three and a half years later.

On 30 October 2003 , Thales Nederland B.V. and Elefsis Shipbuilding and Industrial Enterprises in Greece signed a contract for the mid-life modernization of four Combattante III fast attack craft of the Hellenic Navy. Being the main subcontractor of Elefsis, Thales will be responsible for the total combat system integration and the delivery of new combat system equipment for the ships. The contract includes an option for the modernization of a further two Combattantes III in the near future.

For each of the four ships, Thales will deliver a TACTICOS combat management system, including four multifunctional operator consoles, one surveillance radar, one fire control tracking system, one electro-optical tracking and fire control system, an integrated low probability of interception radar, two target designation sights and a tactical data link. The weapon suite of the Combattantes III will remain unchanged. Thales will also be responsible for the integration of these existing guns, surface-to-surface missiles and torpedo system. The first of the four ships will be ready mid 2006, followed by the other three with six months intervals.
Elefsis acts as Prime Contractor and will perform the design of the reconstructions and the modernization works. The company is confident that the modernization program of the Combattantes will be executed according to the modernization schedule.

These contracts constitute an important continuation of the solid relationship between Thales, VT Shipbuilding, Elefsis Shipbuilding YEnterprise and the Hellenic Navy

 

[diopos]

Rickusn , perhaps you missunderstood me , i dont have any objections for the list of the 1-4 TIER categories. (perhaps with the exception of Brazil , even that you explain why you did this).

I find your analysis very logical and all the factors that you name play a role in such comparisons , but of course first like you said very well depends what is the target for a navy...



But i see you incist in Chile and there i have objections... (perhaps you are from UK and so you are a bit biased because they take former fritish ships) (actually you overrate the british ships by making comments such as "better then any greek ship" )

AAW ships have medium/long range missles. Sea Sparrow is a short range missle.

A ok! So only SM-1 and SM-2 are in this category (seawolf is also a short range missile).


For this reason i will post here again more analytical info about the two navies.(andnot only)

As regards Chile the Type 23 frigates from the UK were built in the 1990's and they along with the Type 22 frigate built in the late 1980's are more capable than any ship in the Greek Navy IMHO. As are the ex-Netherlands ships again IMHO.

Lets be accurate for all the forumers and list exactly the ships that are currently IN SERVICE in Chilean navy (data from the official Chilean navy site):

LARGE BATTLE SHIPS (FRIGATES/DESTROYERS)

D-12 Almirante Cochrane (ex british HMS Antrim / built 1970 /delivered in CN in 1984 /partial upgrade in 1990 / 2x8 barak /EXOCET MM40)

D-11 (?) Capitán Prat (ex british HMS Norfolk / built 1970 /delivered in CN in 1982 / partial upgrade 1994 / 2x8 Barak / EXOCET MM40 )

F-08 Ministro Zenteno (built in UK in 1970/ ex HMS / 1x4 Seacat / EXOCET MM40 )

F-06 Almirante Condell (built in Uk in 1973 /1x4 Seacat / EXOCET MM40)

F-07 Almirante Lynch (built in UK in 1974 /1x4 Seacat /EXOCET MM40)

F-19 Almirante Williams (ex british Type 22 HMS Sheffield /built 1986 /delivered in CN in 2003 / 2 Seawolf /HARPOON (?))


The modern helicopters used from the chilean Navy and which operate on some of the above frigates are the 7 NAS.332SC Cougar (capable of carrying AM39block2 exocet missiles)


New deliveries announced :

Former M-class dutch frigates (F-832 Abraham van der Hulst and F-830 Tjerk Hiddes )

FF-15 Almirante Blanco Encalada (ex dutch /built 1992 /delivered june 2005/ 1x16 VLS Sparrow / HARPOON / Goalkeeper CIWS )

FF-18 Almirante Riveros (ex dutch / built 1992 / will be delivered in April 2007/ 1x16 VLS Sparrow / HARPOON / Goalkeeper CIWS )

Former L-class dutch frigates (F-812 Jacob van Heemskerck and F-813 Witte de With -identical to Cortenaer + SM1 launcher)

FFG-14 Almirante Latorre (ex dutch /built 1986 / delivered Decmber 2005 /1 Mk13 [SM-1] /1x8 sparrow
/HARPOON / 1 goalkeeper CIWS )

FFG-11 Comandante Prat (ex dutch / built 1986 /will be delivered in August 2006/ 1 Mk13 [SM-1] /1x8 sparrow /HARPOON / 1 goalkeeper CIWS )

As it is announced in 2004 , three Type 23 british frigates (Batch 1 vessels, HMS Norfolk, Grafton and Marlborough) will be retired in early 2006 and the chilean navy will buy them (and probably will take the place of the old destroyers.)

So this was a presentation of main ships of the Chilean Navy .
Without decomissioning any ship and with all deliveries made , in 2007 the chilean navy will have 13 frigates of various capabilites.

As regards Chile the Type 23 frigates from the UK were built in the 1990's and they along with the Type 22 frigate built in the late 1980's are more capable than any ship in the Greek Navy IMHO

Quite absolut quote...


Type 22 and 23 are good ships and modern but lets avoid such absolut comparisons.
MEKO 200 class HN ships are very capable and can be straight compared with the british ships 22/23.
The only advantage of the chilean neavy in 2007 will be the 2 former L-class dutch frigates (who are the same like cortenaer but have SM1 capabilities).

 

[diopos]

Greece does beat Chile on #s but not capability.

Some more about submarines

Greece has a long experience (including participation in all major NATO exercises) in the use of submarines.
It was the first country to deliver the most succesful export submarine the german 209.
The Skaramanga shipyards near Athens , have a long tradition in building warships and now operate under the HDW shipyards management (Kiel-Germany).
They participate in all the programs of upgrade/construction of submarines with the exception of the first type214 which was completely built in Kiel HDW.

All the first 4 type 209/110 submarines have been modernized (1993-2000) with modern Sonar/EW systems + ability to launch harpoons.

The other 4 type 209/1200 submarines are in upgrading phase which will change them totaly - also the displacement ).
All of them will have AIP capabilities + of course total upgrade of all the electronics ,sonars,EW etc)

And finally the 4 Type 214 submarines ordered , are considered among the best conventional submarines in the world , with state of the art equipment and of course AIP capabilities.

The Greek Navy is fine for operations in its Home Waters and the rest of the MED but certainly doesnt operate world-wide like Austrailia, Germany, Netherlands, Canada. Taiwan & S. Korea are IMHO a step above the Hellenic Navy overall also IMHO. Chile while smaller will soon be more modern.

I have never seen an Australian ship in the region of eastern mediterannean .(not even a joke about Korea or Taiwan , they dont operate world wide for sure ).

Countries like Canada just follow the NATO or US movements , they dont operate solely like USN does.
Canada has no threats and it is a huge country with two oceans (!!) Pacific and Atlantic , the total naval power for such a country is very small. (actually only the 12 halifax frigates and the 4 submarines are the real naval power of canada).

As about Germany and Netherlands these i respect more , because they participate continuously in all NATO exercises and they have presence in Med. but also north Sea.
But you will not see a german frigate in Philipinnes nor a dutch one.

And if this is what we mean global presence then by far only USN has such capabilities followed by UK and France.

I agree with you on "other factors" but this holds true for all navies.

Other factors does not hold so much for some of the countries.
For example there is a very big difference in the airforce (and naval support capabilities) of Greece and Chile , and also a very big difference in the Air Defence systems deployed in CHile and Greece.

Chile while smaller will soon be more modern.

Having 6 instead 4 ships built in the 90s does not make chilean navy more modern.
And by the way , there is allready in progress the plan for a new frigate order + more PGGs +modernization of MEKOs.
Anyway this is just my opinion , even in the budgets there is a big difference betwen what greece spends for the navy and what chile spends.


Anyway

So while Greece is solidly in the Top 20 breaking into the Top 15 is a stretch even considering "other factors".

I agree with you

PS: May i ask you where are you from? Have you served/or been related in a way with the Navy?

 

[rickusn]

LOL Im from the US.

Speaking of inaccuracy: "better then any greek ship" You made this up.

I was accurate my listing shows the ships currently in service along with their soon to be replacements.

For some reason you dont like Chile. This navy has a long and proud tradition. Their competence and professionalism in naval matters is widely recognised around the world.

The Hellenic Navy isnt matching their modernization efforts at this time.

The Almirante Williams was commissioned in 1988 not 1986.

Ive never heard anyone make an argument that the Kortenaer class or the MEKO 200 are equal to much less better than the Type 23 class. They are 10 to 15 years younger with far more advanced sensors. The Karel Doorman class the same compared to the Kortenaers. And I like them better than the MEKO's just a matter of opinion(see the quote below).

Plus you already state that the other two ex-Netherlands ships are "better":

So IMHO it doesnt appear to me that the Kortenaers can match the capabilities possessed by the new Chilean acquisitions.

And as I stated its only IN My Humble Opinion that they " are more capable than any ship in the Greek Navy IMHO."

"With the exception of the only 2 former L-class durch frigates which cary SM-1 , i dont see ANY other ship of the chilean navy to be better then the HN ships."

If Im "biased" its only because the ships that Chile is getting are younger and more modern than the majority of ships in the Hellenic Navy. The MEKO 200 ships are good ships and stack up well with the Karel Doormann class but they are not a match for the Type 23's IMHO.

Your behind the times as regards the Type 23 frigates:

Two Type 23 class are already decommissioned. Norfolk and Malborough in May and July 2005 respectively.

"The first ship in being transferred will be the HMS Norfolk, in September of 2006, that will replace to the PFG Minister Zenteno; in April of the 2007 Admiral Lynch will give itself to the HMS Grafton, terminating to the PFG; and, finally, in January of 2008, the HMS Marlborough by the PFG will arrive Admiral Carlos Condell."

The Sea Wolf system is superior oerall to Sea Sparrow IMHO.

But in any event my point is and has been all along:

What does it matter if your ranked 16, 17,18,19 ?

I dont see any real difference.

And you have a long way to go to crack the Top 10 where it might matter.

Because the navies from 1 to 15 are continually modernizing and acquiring new capabiliies at a pace that at the moment the Hellenic Navy isnt matching.

Still dont see your beef. LOL

 

[diopos]

Rickusn , anyway perhaps i am wrong from the beginning , i have nothing against Chile which is a wonderfull country and sure it has also a proud and good navy.
We just make a discussion here nothing more !
And of course it does not matter the position in such lists lol





Lets say that you are right . But you also dont think at all about all the other factors that i named (operational environment etc. )

The Hellenic Navy isnt matching their modernization efforts at this time.

A quick answer to this :

The Hellenic Navy is modernizing in a normal pace and in accordance to the reduce in military expendures after the participation of Greece to Eurozone.
HN has rejected proposals for taking KID class DDGs , and also was not interested in buying the decomissioned type23 frigates (though from what i read the total cost is for sure in the capabilities of HN).
Lets say that there is another approach....

Some more detailed info for you :

from www.mercopress.com (south atlantic news agency)

The Royal Navy Type 23 frigates “HMS Norfolk”, HMS Marlborough” and HMS Grafton” will be joining the Chilean Navy between 2006 and 2008 in an operation involving 350 million US dollars, following a purchase agreement signed this month in London. (June 2005)

According to Chilean Defence Minister Jaime Ravinet and Commander of the Navy Admiral Rodolfo Codina, 225 million US dollars is the cost of the three vessels and the rest missiles, refurbishing and training. The financial operation concludes in 2015.

Mr. Ravinet also revealed that previously he had contacted his Argentine, Peruvian and Bolivian counterparts to inform them of the Chilean decision and the conclusion of the Navy’s renewal plan which now has a 2026 horizon.
With the three Royal Navy frigates Chile will have a surface fleet of eight vessels, (four Dutch and four British) demanding a total disbursement of 900 million US dollars, considerably less than the original 1,3 billion US dollars “Trident Plan” estimated for the building of four brand new frigates.

Apparently the negotiations were delayed several months because of internal Chilean affairs and last minute bids from Belgium and Pakistan that were also interested in the Royal Navy frigates

London 07 September 2005 - An agreement with the Chilean Government for the sale of three ex-RN Type 23 frigates HM Ships F 230 NORFOLK, F80 GRAFTON, and F233 MARLBOROUGH is to be signed later today.

The agreement, signed by Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement and Chilean Minister of Defence Ravinet, follows the sale of HMS Sheffield (now the FMG Almirante WILLIAMS) in 2003, and will pave the way for delivery of the three ships to the Chilean Navy around the end of 2008

Lord Drayson, Minister for Defence Procurement said:

"These three Type 23 frigates have become available as a consequence of the restructuring of our Armed Forces to better meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Royal Navy will continue to operate the Type 23. I am delighted that these excellent ships will now also see service in the Chilean Navy.

"This sale will continue the long tradition of naval links with Chile, who are an increasingly important partner for the UK in international peacekeeping and security operations. This agreement will appreciably enhance Chile's ability to contribute in that field."

Type 23 are new ships being the enter operational service at Royal Navy as follow, units below are considered Type 23 Batch 1:
F 230 NORFOLK - 1990
F80 GRAFTON - 1996
F233 MARLBOROUGH - 1991

And since you underestimated the various modernization programs of HN (by proposing them as inferior to the chilean ) here is a short list (with the costs ) :

First i start with the official announcement from the government that for the next 5 year Navy program (2006-2010) , there are reserved 2 billion euro. (half of them will go for the order of 2 new frigates )

Regarding now the allready signed contracts (under construction/order/delivery ships) :

At the moment there are construction/delivery the 5 new PGGs (total cost of the program 850 million euros )

The modernization of the 7 Cortenaer class frigates has a cost of 380 million euros.

The modernization of the first 4 Combattante III PGGs has a cost of 155 million euro.

The cost of the under construction 3 U 214 submarines is ~1,3 billion euro.

The cost of the modernization and AIP upgrade of the 4 U209 +1 U214 submarines is ~700 million euro.

Delivery of the new type patrol ships (class pyrpolitis) ~170 million euro.

I guess those above answer to your statement about better modernization of the chilean navy...

Plus that , at the moment that i think how nice you write things , then you come up again with absolut biased quotes :

The Sea Wolf system is superior overall to Sea Sparrow IMHO.

Where does it come from this??? I guess its your opinion only... otherwise you have to give some data that convincing data...
The range of seawolf is smaller then Sparrow...

Ive never heard anyone make an argument that the Kortenaer class or the MEKO 200 are equal to much less better than the Type 23 class. They are 10 to 15 years younger with far more advanced sensors. The Karel Doorman class the same compared to the Kortenaers. And I like them better than the MEKO's just a matter of opinion(see the quote below)...

...If Im "biased" its only because the ships that Chile is getting are younger and more modern than the majority of ships in the Hellenic Navy. The MEKO 200 ships are good ships and stack up well with the Karel Doormann class but they are not a match for the Type 23's IMHO.

Lets not stay in words you can post detailed info about the sensors and weapons of Type 23 frigates so other people can also judge.

So IMHO it doesnt appear to me that the Kortenaers can match the capabilities possessed by the new Chilean acquisitions.

As they are now not , but when modernized the difference is not so big as you think.

Some parts of the cortenaer upgrade program: (see above about the cost, contract signed in 2003)
Installation of CMS (combat management system) to TACTICOS
• Installation of MIRADOR (Electro-optical target tracker) system
• Upgrade to LW08 (Air Search Radar) to increase performance
• Upgrade to Fire Control Radars WM25 / STIR to increase performance
• Replacement of ZW06 Radar with Scout MK II LPI (Low Probability of Intercept) / Bridge Master E
• Replacement of ECM ELT 715 with Salamandre B3
• Replacement of ESM RZPO with DR 3000 SLC
• Upgrade to SBROC MK 36 with ALEX (Automatic Launching of Expendables)
• Upgrade to ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles)
And of course all the rest that the other ships have (Harpoon / Phalanx CIWS / Seahawk Hellicopter )

And as I stated its only IN My Humble Opinion that they " are more capable than any ship in the Greek Navy IMHO."

I respect your opinion .

greetings to US from Greece!

 

[turin]

Some nice info gathered here and in the other thread, thanks for that.
I dont want to interrupt or divert the ongoing discussion, however some remarks concerning the status of the german navy as shown here:

Currently there are twelve, not nine coastal submarines Type 206A operational, distributed in two squadrons, specifically the 1st and the 3rd U-Boat-Squadron ( I am using information here as provided by the official website for the german navy). As for the Type 212A, a second batch of two units has been decided upon. This announcement has been made in summer last year during a conference of naval industry and certain members of the naval forces. The units might see IOC in the 2008 - 2010 timeframe.
Germany will also receive a third AOR of the Type 702 (Berlin-class) in the timeframe around 2010. Around 2015 (not really relevant for this thread, I guess) the eight Bremen (Kortenaer)-class FFG will be replaced by four new larger FFG. While these ships may be a qualitative improvement (a size around 5.000-6.000 ts or larger is being considered), this may reduce active numbers of the navy which is quite significant for standing naval task forces such as of NATO etc.

Oh, and:

As about Germany and Netherlands these i respect more , because they participate continuously in all NATO exercises and they have presence in Med. but also north Sea.
But you will not see a german frigate in Philipinnes nor a dutch one.

Well, the german navy is already operating in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, even having (had?) command over the maritime task force there being part of Enduring Freedom. Actually such far-away-operations (against deployments in the North Sea and Mediterranean) were the reason for procuring vessels like the new AOR and corvettes (replacing the FAC used purely for littoral defence). Also the german navy was already operating near the Phillipines, employing one AOR for disaster relief after the 2004 Tsunami. While this was only a small and short-term operation, it is clearly a sign of things to come.

 

[diopos]

Welcome to the thread Turin and thank you for participating!
I have seen many times german frigates in the aegean sea
(most of the times was a participation in the STANAVFORMED and active endeavor operation in the eastern mediterranean).

Well what i said about Philippines was a bit metaphoric , i just wanted to point out that real world wide battle capabilites have only the nuclear powers.
Thanks for the info about the visit of the german AOR in Philippines.I did not know that.

By the way the HN though smaller has also some participation in all NATO activities and HN ships have also been many times in red sea and persian gulf.

Turin could you please tell me if you have some info how much is the cost of the new german frigates?

I think HN is seeking for a ship in the size of MEKO (the officers of HN are very satisfied all these years with these ships and their performance ) but with latest technologies and AAW capabilities for the new 2 frigate order in the next years.
Probably Blohm&V. or HDW will be the two strong candidates again.

 

[rickusn]

Thanks for the info Turin.

My info on the 206A is that S 177 retired in 2004 dropping the inventory to 11 and that S 171 and S 176 will retire in 2006 leaving nine.

As I stated at the top of the listing I have tried to project it into 2006 where possible.

As for Diopos:

Not biased at all as regards Sea Sparrow vs Sea Wolf. There is plenty of literature available out there on both systems. Ive read it all and came to my conclusion.

Have you read any of it?

All you bring up is a small range difference. Thats far, far from the most important consideration for these types of self-defense missle systems.

As regards sensor systems on the UK/Netherlands frigates and the Hellenic frigates I have done the same.

My opinions are based on a great deal of time-consuming searching and reading.

You might try it.

I have neither the time or inclination to spoon feed you. When you can as easily compare/contrast the differences yourself.

But seeing as how you think old ships with old technology are superior to newer ships with new technology that would be an effort in futility in any case.

While the Kortenaer upgrades are a wonderful thing these are already quite old ships and their capabilities will still be quite limited.

The only person I see here who is "biased" is you.

 

[turin]

Well what i said about Philippines was a bit metaphoric , i just wanted to point out that real world wide battle capabilites have only the nuclear powers.

Maybe so. However we live in interesting times and right now certain navies, which had a more regional doctrine during the Cold War, are now in the process of transformation to a new kind of force capable of worldwide intervention. While right now these new capabilities might only be in the first stages of development, that surely will change within the next lets say ten to fifteen years and it might be useful to keep an eye on these events.

Turin could you please tell me if you have some info how much is the cost of the new german frigates?

Well, that depends. The new F-124 type AAW destroyers/frigates came at a price of 650 Mio. $, being the most expensive german vessels to date. The new F-125 type FFG/DDG (the newer ships really are more destroyers than frigates, but this is a blurry line these days) are planned to be more moderate in development costs, so I guess they will arrive at a price around 400 to 450 Mio. $, around twice the price of one of the new K-130 corvettes. What these figures will evolve to, remains to be seen.

I think HN is seeking for a ship in the size of MEKO (the officers of HN are very satisfied all these years with these ships and their performance ) but with latest technologies and AAW capabilities for the new 2 frigate order in the next years.

I assure you, Blohm&Voss have not been idle with the MEKO designs and there are some very interesting systems in the pipe, covering a wide range of possible mission environments, amongst these of course being AAW. Additionally the APAR-radar can be applied to a wide range of vessels, so it really shouldnt be a problem (should you decide to go with this radar). Btw the newer german frigates all employed to some part MEKO technology (they are no "pure" MEKO vessels though). A modified MEKO A-200 might be a good choice. The MEKO-D is an even more interesting design. But enough of the commercial talk, I am not on the payroll of B&V.

My info on the 206A is that S 177 retired in 2004 dropping the inventory to 11 and that S 171 and S 176 will retire in 2006 leaving nine.

Ok, makes sense. I guess the navy-site is lagging behind in this regard. As far as I am aware of the plan, the new Type 212A will form the new 1st U-Boat squadron, so it would make sense to retire maybe six 206A totally and keep another six for the 3rd squadron. I dont know about the 2nd batch of Type 212A. Maybe they will form 2nd squadron, join 1st squadron, or the type 206A will phase out completely. This would greatly diminish the german submarine forces though and its sad to see such fine designs as the 206A, tough little boats, to leave active service completely.

 

[rickusn]

Diopos:

Yes I served in the USN from 1977-1981.

Another misconception you have is that "other factors" are not important to ALL navies.

Another is that FACs make a strong, powerful navy.

When in fact these types of vessels have serious limitations and are vulnerable to a whole host of threats.

They are also far more vulnerable to "soft kill" by inclement weather.

Most navies have gone to larger warships because of these limitations and vulnerabilities and reduced their reliance on FACs for just these reasons.

Small ships can be useful in certain constrained circumstances but certainly are not a panacea.

 

[rickusn]

Turin:

I dont know for sure if my info on the 206A is entirely accurate. But I do know that the Type 212 class is being built two replace the Type 206A class.

The Type 206A class is now 30 years old or older. And to keep them in front-line service past 2010 would take some doing I would think.

In any event the trend in navies is to less units but each with far more capability.

 

[diopos]

Rickusn dear friend relax , i respect and read carefully your opinion , i do not doubt that you have made a quite extensive research and study of the various systems of those ships.
So i give the credit to you

Perhaps you can help me by pointing me the right sites where i can find detailed info about the superiority of seawolf against sparrow.

All you bring up is a small range difference. Thats far, far from the most important consideration for these types of self-defense missle systems.

Range also matters otherwise we would not make a distinction between sparrows and SM missiles...
But i will do also my own research because i agree that there are many fields that should be considered (especially regarding guidance method , sensors etc)

While i accept the fact that Type23 are newer ships from Kortenaers , and of course they have better electronic systems , i dont see in any literature the so obvious to you superiority of this kind of ships.

If you were talking to me about the new generation frigates of Germany,Spain,Netherlands etc. then obviously i would agree 100% that these ships are miles more advanced.


INFORMATION about Type 23 and MEKO200HN Frigates for all the forumers to judge by them selves if it is so "obvious" the superiority of Type23 frigates :

Since its not only me who read these posts i will try to help the other visitors of this thread by posting some short info about these ships :



Type 23 Frigates

Displacement 4,300fl

Machinery CODLAG: 2 x RR Spey SM1C gas turbines ( 52300 hp ); 4 x Paxman Valenta 12 RPA 200CZ diesels ( 8100 hp ).

Max speed 30 Knots

Guns 1 x Vickers 114mm/55 Mk 8, 2 x Oerlikon/DES 30mm/75 Mk 1

Missiles SSM: 8 x McDonnell Douglas Harpoon ( 2 quads ); SAM: British Aerospace Seawolf GWS 26 Mod 1 VLS, 32 canisters.

Torpidoes 4 x Cray Marine 324mm fixed tubes ( 2 twin ). Marconi Stingray torpedoes.

Radar Air/Surface search: Plessey Type 996(I), 3D, E/F bands; Navigation: Kelvin Hughes Type 1007, I band; Fire control: 2 x Marconi Type 911, I/Ku bands.

Sonar Ferranti/Thomson Sintra Type 2050, bow mounted, active search and attack modes; Dowty Type 2031Z, towed array, passive search.

CounterMeasures Decoys: 4 x Sea Gnat; Type 182, towed torpedo decoy; ESM: UAT; ECM: Type 675(2) or Racal Scorpion, jammer.

Helicopter (In Chilean Navy ) : 1 NAS.332SC Cougar (carying exocetMM30Block2)

Status of the ships for the chilean navy (type 23 Batch 1) :

F-230 NORFOLK - 1990
F-80 GRAFTON - commisioned 1994 in service 1996
F-233 MARLBOROUGH - commisioned 1991



MEKO 200 HN frigates

Displacement 3,200fl

Machinery CODOG: 2 x MTU 20V956 TB82 diesels ( 5200 hp each ), 2 x GE LM-2500-30 gas turbines ( 30328 hp each ).

Max speed 31 knots

Guns 1 x FMC 127mm/54 Mk 45, 2 x GE/GD Vulcan Phalanx CIWS 20mm Mk 15

Missiles SSM: 8 x RGM-84C Harpoon ( two quad launchers ); SAM: 1 x VLS Mk 48 Mod. 2 for 16 x RIM-7M NATO Sea Sparrow.

Torpidoes 6 x 324mm tubes ( two triple Mk 32 launchers ) for Honeywell Mk 46 Mod. 5 torpedoes

Radar Navigation: 1 x Decca 2690BT ARPA, I band; Air Search: 1 x Thales MW-08 3-D; 1 x Thales DA-08 early warning; Fire Control: 2 x Thales STIR-18.

Sonar Raytheon DE 1160 (SQS-56) hull-mounted (7.5 kHz) and VDS (12 kHz); UQN-4A echo sounder.

Countermeasures ESM: ArgoSystems AR-700 intercept; ECM: ArgoSystems APECS-II, perturbador; EADS Telegon-10 HFD/F; 4 x Mk 36 Mod. 2 SRBOC decoy system ; SLQ-25 Nixie towed torpedo decoy.

Helicopter 1 x Sikorsky S-70B-6 Seahawk (with Penguin Mk 2 Mod. 7 missiles and Mk 46 Mod. 2 torpedoes).



Status of the MEKO ships of the Hellenic Navy :

F-452 Ydra ( commisioned 1993 )
F-453 Spetses ( commisioned 1996 )
F-454 Psara (commisioned 1998 )
F-455 Salamis (commisioned 1999 )

 

[diopos]

Diopos:

Yes I served in the USN from 1977-1981.

Another misconception you have is that "other factors" are not important to ALL navies.

Another is that FACs make a strong, powerful navy.

When in fact these types of vessels have serious limitations and are vulnerable to a whole host of threats.

They are also far more vulnerable to "soft kill" by inclement weather.

Most navies have gone to larger warships because of these limitations and vulnerabilities and reduced their reliance on FACs for just these reasons.

Small ships can be useful in certain constrained circumstances but certainly are not a panacea.

I was also in the navy for some time..
Of course the "other factors" are notimportant to all navies i agree!
The FACs are a multiplier of power , they dont make alone a strong navy .
But a good number of them , with well trained personel and with a well pre designed action plan , they can make a serious damage to the "enemy".
I totaly agree with you , they are not a panacea !
In the case of HN they have the possibility to operate under different circumstances then if they had to be in open ocean seas , thats obvious!
thank you anyway Richusn !

 

[diopos]

Turin thank you for the info!
I was having the same thoughts !
F-125 sounds very interesting and the cost is reasonable (if it is finally in the numbers under 500mil euro) , the HN it seems that will spend arround 900m/1b euro for acquiring 2 new Frigates .
From what i know there is a commitment that the new ships must have a modern radar like Apar or Seapar.
I knew a bit about MEKO A-200 but not about MEKO -D i will have a look in the net !

The F-124 is really expensive !! (if we think that there are orders for more then 2 ships)

 

[rickusn]

Your not interested in anything but misinforming people.

Or maybe just yourself?

"Range also matters otherwise we would not make a distinction between sparrows and SM missiles..."

Your talking nonsenses here.

As the range difference between Sea Sparrow and Sea Wolf is miniscule and is not the most important factor in judging the two systems and their task which is far different than the much longer range task of the Stanard family of missles.

But you knew that already. And still made that silly comment. LOL.

Notice you didnt post the specs for the Kortenaers wonder why?

Or for that matter the Karel Doormanns which would have been more useful.

And of course you posted incomplete specs.

Not to mention no analysis or comparison of the sensor suites.

Again I have to wonder why?

Your worried about other readers. LOL

Your only worried about making the Hellenic Navy into something it isnt and thats a first-rate navy with a huge # of first-rate ships.

Fortunately the vast majority of posters here are quite well versed in the worlds ships and their systems.

And your poor attempt to portray the MEKO 200 as equal with the Type 23 wont fly.

It is "obvious" not to mention common knowledge that the Type 23 frigate is superior in many ways to the MEKO 200.

Even if I listed all of them for you in detail it would be an effort in futility as you would deny it any way.

Aniother minor but glaring inaccuracy is Graftons commissioning date which is specifically May 29, 1997. But of course you knew that didnt you?

Why the intentional obfuscation of the facts not only with minor details but on more important matters as well?

Like I said in a previous post you arent concerned with the truth but only the disparagement of facts that dont fit with your view of the Hellenic Navy.

I used to like that navy but your silly arguments are starting to make me wish Id never heard of it. LOL

You ve been beating me up with nonsense since your first post while implying your my "friend". LOL As far as im concerned you can KMA.

 

[diopos]

I do not know why you attack to me so much while i have not such a purpose , its just an open discussion here you can post your opinion but without reducing others , the title under your name "defence analyst etc" does not make you superior to other people in this forum.
It is obvious that you are nerved , but in my opinion there is no reason for this , you could simply tell me your arguments instead of bashing me and telling me to Kiss your ass (i supose that is the meaning of KMA)...

Range also matters otherwise we would not make a distinction between sparrows and SM missiles..."

Your talking nonsenses here.

As the range difference between Sea Sparrow and Sea Wolf is miniscule and is not the most important factor in judging the two systems and their task which is far different than the much longer range task of the Stanard family of missles.
But you knew that already. And still made that silly comment

I am not talking no sense Rikusn neither i have any kind of purpose to missinform people whith information that they can easily find in any book or site about the two missiles.


Some info about the two missiles:

Data about Seawolf from the official site of royal navy (largest user of the missile)


www.royal-navy.mod.uk

Sea Wolf


The Sea Wolf point defence missile system is fitted in the Royal Navy's Type 22 and Type 23 Frigates. Using a short range supersonic missile, it enables ships to defend themselves against aircraft and anti ship missiles. The complete weapon system, including tracking radars and fire control computers, is entirely automatic in operation. Type 22 frigates carry two sextuple Sea Wolf launchers but the subsequent Type 23 frigates carry 32 Vertical Launch Sea Wolf (VLS) in a silo on the foredeck. In vertical launch form, the missile has an additional boost rocket motor that is jettisoned once the missile is out of the silo.

Basic missile data:

Weight: 82 kg
Length: 1.9 m
Diameter: 30 cm
Wingspan: 45 cm
Range: 6.5 km (approx) or 10km in vertical launch
Warhead: 13.4 kg.

And from another site some info about Sea wolf Block II

Mass 140 kg
Length 3 m
Diameter 0.18 m
Speed Mach 2

No info about range of block 2

If we talk about seawolf block 2 we should compare it to the ESSM and not the normal sea sparow.

DEFENCE PROCUREMENT AGENCY UK - February 2005

Block 2 missile system delivery begins

The first major production components deliveries on the £370M Seawolf Block 2 programme have taken place.

Six Vertical Launch Sea Wolf canisters designed to house and fire the vertically-launched missiles aboard Type 23 Frigates were delivered early in February by Universal Engineering of Weymouth.

These initial canisters will be followed by the rest of the production programme reflecting the delivery rate of Block 2, but in advance.

The canisters will now be delivered to Defence Munitions Centre, Gosport for storage until the Block 2 Production Programme commences.

Perhaps you can tell us if the Chilean ships will be equipped with the block 2 version of sea wolf , which obviously makes a difference.

RIM-7 Sea Sparrow

The RIM-7M Sea Sparrow is the ship-launched equivalent of the AIM-7M, and its training version is designated RTM-7M. In addition to the 8-cell MK 29 box launcher, the RIM-7M (and the later RIM-7P) missiles can also be fired from MK 41 (AEGIS) and MK 48 VLS (Vertical Launch System) launchers.
The AIM-7P is an improved AIM-7M, and AIM-7P missiles are built since 1987 by new production as well as conversion of existing AIM-7Ms.
The AIM-7P improves Sparrow performance especially against small and/or low-flying targets. There are two subvariants of the AIM-7P, known as Block I and Block II. The AIM-7P Block I has a WGU-6D/B guidance section, and the Block II uses a WGU-23D/B guidance section and also features a new rear receiver.

Weight: 231Kg
Length: 3.66 m
Diameter: 0.203 m
Wingspan: 1.02 m
Range: 26km (approx) or 14 NM
Warhead: 40 Kg

Seawolf has a shorter range ,and is a similar system . It has more anti-missile capabilities (it was originally designed to provide also such capabilities) than sparrow and like sparrow it depends on the version of the missile to have an exact comparison.But ok if you are so fanatically sure for its better performance than i agree with you.
My point was not to show that Sparrow is much better then seawolf but to calm down your absolutism about the seawolf missile.
Like i respect your opinion please respect my opinion too.

Notice you didnt post the specs for the Kortenaers wonder why?

Because you were absolut that type23 are better then ANY HN ship and not only cortenaer (that are inferior at the moment(before their modernization) and i have admitted that...)

Your only worried about making the Hellenic Navy into something it isnt and thats a first-rate navy with a huge # of first-rate ships.

O come on Rickusn , you make up this in your mind , if you examine carefully what i have wrote untill now you will see that i never said that , this is real dissinformation and libellous saying about me.

And your poor attempt to portray the MEKO 200 as equal with the Type 23 wont fly.

It is "obvious" not to mention common knowledge that the Type 23 frigate is superior in many ways to the MEKO 200.

Wont fly for you , that is respected. Please allow other people to have different opinions master...

Even if I listed all of them for you in detail it would be an effort in futility as you would deny it any way.

The same i would say for you , you cant accuse someone for beeing blind if you are allready blind...

Aniother minor but glaring inaccuracy is Graftons commissioning date which is specifically May 29, 1997. But of course you knew that didnt you?

Why the intentional obfuscation of the facts not only with minor details but on more important matters as well?

If you want to blame me for inaccuracy you have to blame first the ROYAL NAVY (from where i got the data - OFFICIAL HOMEPAGE )

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/748.html

HMS Grafton, the 12th Type 23 Frigate to enter service in the Royal Navy, was built by Yarrows Shipbuilders, now part of BAE Marine, on the River Clyde in Scotland and was commissioned into the Royal Navy on 5 November 1994. She formally entered service in 1996 as the eighth ship to bear the name. She belongs to the Portsmouth Flotilla and is based at Portsmouth Naval Base on the south coast of England..

Like I said in a previous post you arent concerned with the truth but only the disparagement of facts that dont fit with your view of the Hellenic Navy.

I used to like that navy but your silly arguments are starting to make me wish Id never heard of it. LOL

Unfortunatelly you let your passions drive your attitude...
If you were concerned for the truth you would calm and peacefully state here your arguments instead of your absolut quotes of superiority .
I do not represent any navy here except my self and by saying that my opinion (or generally other opinions then yours) make you angry shows a fascist way of thinking.

You ve been beating me up with nonsense since your first post while implying your my "friend". LOL As far as im concerned you can KMA.

This is what you see that i am beating you up??? It is not allowed to have other views than yours MASTER of everything?

I am sorry that alhough i did never attack you personally you tell me to kiss your ass , i will not follow you into this kind of expressing .

 

[webmaster]

I think, it would be best if we can stop personalizing this and carry on with debate while keeping our respect for all parties that are involved. No body needs to kiss anybody's ass...

Enjoy!