Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Update on Italian naval programmes

This is a discussion on Update on Italian naval programmes within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Here is an update on Italian naval programmes, taken from military magazines RID, PD, T&D... > Cavour : the carrier ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 4th, 2006   #1
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Update on Italian naval programmes

Here is an update on Italian naval programmes, taken from military magazines RID, PD, T&D...

> Cavour : the carrier is now confirmed to start sea trials this month, testing weapons systems and navigation tools. With some luck we'll get pictures ASAP

> Horizon DDGs : Doria started sea trials Sept 20th and will be completely operational in 2008, thus at the same time as the French Forbin. Duilio, second in class, is almost completed in Riva Trigoso shipyard and will be sailing next March for completion at Muggiano shipyard, sea trials in 2008 and will be operational in 2009. Apparently no trouble with integration of S1850, EMPAR and Aster missiles as hinted by some sources in the past.

> FREMM : Bergamini and Margottini, the 2 first in class, will start building Sept 2007, which leaves some time to finalize design. No decision has yet been taken whether both will belong to the ASW sub-class or whether there will be one ASW and one multi-purpose/land attack. Financially it would be wiser to lower ASW gear costs by ordering both as ASW. Besides, a decision on Sylver A70 VLS for Scalp Naval still hasn't been taken, and starting building of a GP FREMM without having decided whether to embark cruise missiles or not wouldn't make much sense.

> LHD (also known as 4th LPD) : the MOD vice-minister in charge of the Navy, Forcieri, is meeting the Civilian Protection Agency head to finalize details of how that agency would fund the LHD. For the moment the preferred design is 20,000 tonne 190-meter LHD with a wide island including hangars for 4 EH101, well dock for 4 LCM and hangar space for 40 heavy MBTs or 400 VTLMs, and accomodation for 750 marines. If the Civilian Protection Agency gives a green light (as it did in 1987 for the LPD San Marco), then building should start relatively soon (2008 ?)
The Navy is planning to cooperate with a "major non-European navy" to finalize design and potentially reduce costs by building more than 1. Speculation is high that the country is in reality India. It would be great if Italy and India jointly developed a LHD class of 20,000 tonnes building on the collaboration underway for the Indian indigenous aircraft carrier.

> AOR : fleet replenishers/oilers Vesuvio and Stromboli will have to be replaced in 2008-09 so orders are expected soon.

> Vulcano/Strales programme : the guided ammunition version of 76/62SR called "Davide" will be tested in 2007 aboard the OPVH Comandante Fulgosi. The 127/64 gun is also being developed in parallel with both guided and unguided ammunition with ranges of up to 100km in land attack mode.

> U212A vs S1000 : the Navy initially though of replacing the coastal SSKs of the Toti class with S1000. Now that it is clear that our total SSK strength will hover around 6 subs, the Navy's priority is entirely in completing the U212A programme with 2 follow-on orders next year. The Navy is however helping to finance Fincantieri's S1000 programme because of the R&D impact it could have for future subs.

> MCM ships : replacement of the 4 oldest MCM ships (Lerici class) will have to take place after 2012. For the moment Intermarine is selling MCM ships to Finland and trying to win a contract in India. 2 types of MCM ships, one oceanic and one more coastal, are under development.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006   #2
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 86
Threads:
I think that is the moment to plan also the next generation of corvette
Mangusta CBT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006   #3
Junior Member
Private First Class
European's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Italy/France
Posts: 77
Threads:
Good progress for Italian Navy.
European is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6th, 2006   #4
Defense Professional / Analyst
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 333
Threads:
contedicavour,

Since the AORs have been used extensively has forward command ships as well as logistics, will the new AORs be designed with that role in mind?

Or does the Italian Navy expect the newer Horizon and FREMM ships to perform this command role in future Joint Task Force operations?

Specifically I am talking about the use of ITS Etna (AORH 5326) over the past 6 months in the Gulf where it served as flagship for JTF 152.
Galrahn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2006   #5
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
contedicavour's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Paris/Geneva (but I'm Italian)
Posts: 2,901
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galrahn View Post
contedicavour,

Since the AORs have been used extensively has forward command ships as well as logistics, will the new AORs be designed with that role in mind?

Or does the Italian Navy expect the newer Horizon and FREMM ships to perform this command role in future Joint Task Force operations?

Specifically I am talking about the use of ITS Etna (AORH 5326) over the past 6 months in the Gulf where it served as flagship for JTF 152.
So far we unfortunately don't have any details on the new AORs... although they will most likely be an evolution of the Etna and preserve or even enhance the command ship role for small task forces in limited threat environment.

cheers
contedicavour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7th, 2006   #6
Defense Aficionado
Major General
aaaditya's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: india
Posts: 2,362
Threads:
hey guys,can anyone provide information on the sirius passive surveillance system,information like detection and tracking range,power consumption,number of targets tracked and number of targets engaged and the system weight.
________________
howdy guys
aaaditya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12th, 2012   #7
Defense Aficionado
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,764
Threads:
Sorry to dredge up an old thread but there does not seem to be a thread about the Italian navy.

Searching the net for answers on the minimum take of length for the F35B,I found some old titbits’ about Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) and Cavour (550).now it seems from information I have come across is that Cavour (550) needs modifications to handle F35B and is expected to be modified in the 2016 timeframe, I would assume it would be minor changes to her aircraft lifts (weight), any other mods need to be done ?

I also came across info the Giuseppe Garibaldi will be used as a training aid for F35B, would that be correct as I was under the impression that she was to small to use (not enough runway length).Also some time ago I seem to remember that Italy were planning on building a small LHD or LPD for the life of me I cannot remember which, is that still going ahead or has it be cancelled due to the GFC?

Does any one know the minimum take off length required for combat F35B needs?
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2017   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
SpazSinbad's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 244
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
Sorry to dredge up an old thread but there does not seem to be a thread about the Italian navy.

Searching the net for answers on the minimum take of length for the F35B,I found some old titbits’ about Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) and Cavour (550).now it seems from information I have come across is that Cavour (550) needs modifications to handle F35B and is expected to be modified in the 2016 timeframe, I would assume it would be minor changes to her aircraft lifts (weight), any other mods need to be done ?

I also came across info the Giuseppe Garibaldi will be used as a training aid for F35B, would that be correct as I was under the impression that she was to small to use (not enough runway length).Also some time ago I seem to remember that Italy were planning on building a small LHD or LPD for the life of me I cannot remember which, is that still going ahead or has it be cancelled due to the GFC?

Does any one know the minimum take off length required for combat F35B needs?
Yeah - no Italian Navy thread as such so I went asearching also.... Video below is about the new LHD TRIESTE for the Italian Navy and F-35Bs with Helos sometimes. My e-mail correspondent tells me there is provision for a ski jump in future updates to this LHD but not for now p'raps. TRIESTE is planned to replace GARIBALDI in 2020 the video says at the end. TWIN Islands are the rage....

KPP Key Performance Parameter for the USMC Flat Deck F-35B STOVL Mission 'ladedah' on request requires NOW a round 600 feet of flat deck length. IF GARIBALDI will be used as an F-35B training aid then seems reasonable for practice landings & STOs at Max. VL landing weights or less (depends on conditions).

VIDEO: LHD Trieste, builder's model, description 31 Jul 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25anJzSybOk
Attached Images
File Type: jpg TRIESTEitalianLHD.jpg (199.9 KB, 27 views)
File Type: gif TriesteLHDitalyStatsFORUM.gif (66.2 KB, 23 views)
SpazSinbad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2017   #9
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,682
Threads:
I presume that 600 feet of flat deck is what's needed for take off with no ski jump.

USMC pilots who've flown off the RN CVSs tend to rave about the big difference that the ski-jump makes to take-offs.

Last edited by swerve; August 2nd, 2017 at 08:49 AM.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2017   #10
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,391
Threads:
Is there a reason why the USN doesn't seem to want ski jumps on their new America class other than the cost of a design modification?
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2017   #11
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,682
Threads:
The official line is that a ski-jump reduces the space available for helicopter operations, which are the main purpose of the deck. Compromising STOVL fighter operations is preferred to compromising helicopter operations, however slightly.

Some people say that the real reason is that the USN doesn't want to give anyone any excuse for saying that USN LHDs/LHAs, even the America-class, are real aircraft carriers, in case it threatens the numbers of CVNs. I do not know if this is true.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2017   #12
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 605
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
The official line is that a ski-jump reduces the space available for helicopter operations, which are the main purpose of the deck. Compromising STOVL fighter operations is preferred to compromising helicopter operations, however slightly.

Some people say that the real reason is that the USN doesn't want to give anyone any excuse for saying that USN LHDs/LHAs, even the America-class, are real aircraft carriers, in case it threatens the numbers of CVNs. I do not know if this is true.
I am inclined to think that they want to protect their carrier fleet by carefully delineating the roles of their amphibs and carriers.

In fact I don't think the USN operate any of its own aircraft from the amphibs. The marine corp takes that responsibility.
hauritz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2017   #13
Defense Aficionado
Major General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver and Toronto
Posts: 2,391
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Some people say that the real reason is that the USN doesn't want to give anyone any excuse for saying that USN LHDs/LHAs, even the America-class, are real aircraft carriers, in case it threatens the numbers of CVNs. I do not know if this is true.
Likely this is the reason, the huge industrial concerns involved in CVN construction don't want their stuff going south, can't blame them. IMO, 11-12 CVNs should be the plan along with more America class ships. At the mid build point, reassess the numbers and adjust if necessary.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2017   #14
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: qld
Posts: 204
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Fedup View Post
Likely this is the reason, the huge industrial concerns involved in CVN construction don't want their stuff going south, can't blame them. IMO, 11-12 CVNs should be the plan along with more America class ships. At the mid build point, reassess the numbers and adjust if necessary.
Funny sort of design, trying to fit a lot into 25,000t, LHD, sometime Strike Carrier, sometime ASW Carrier with the Armament and Sensor fit of a Light Frigate. The Italian Navy sure loves those 76mm guns, wonder there not sticking some Otomat SSMs on it as well.
The lack of a Ski Ramp is a bit Strange.
Redlands18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2017   #15
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,682
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hauritz View Post
I am inclined to think that they want to protect their carrier fleet by carefully delineating the roles of their amphibs and carriers.
Exactly.

Quote:
In fact I don't think the USN operate any of its own aircraft from the amphibs. The marine corp takes that responsibility.
Well yes. The USN has no STOVL aircraft & it doesn't want any. It wants full-on carriers with cats & traps, fixed-wing AEW etc. Which is, I think, why it wants to avoid any blurring of the distinction. It doesn't want any pressure to move towards operating RN-style carriers, & fears that weakening the distinction between amphibs & carriers could risk that.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 AM.