Royal Danish Navy

Ananda

Ananda

The Bunker Group
I always wondering how far Arrowhead 140 design advantage compare to original Odense Iver Huitfeldt design. Denmark Navy problem with Iver more related to combat system and not the design it self.

Indonesia already on the verge getting Iver license before change the agreement to modified Arrowhead 140 with Babcock. Wondering if Danes see Arrowhead 140 as not provide substantial design advantage with their existing Iver class.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Musashi_kenshin said:
That rules out the FDI, then, it's a relatively small ship designed for at most moderate-intensity warfare. Standard loadout is 16 Sylver cells - Greece is getting 24, and Indonesia might get 32. Where do you fit DEWs on it?

As for the GMF-120, it does have a lot more missiles than the FDI. However, it's also a new concept and therefore (my favourite phrase) risky. It also looks fairly compact and again may not have room for new equipment.

The Type 31 has far more space than the FDI for growth and possibly the GMF-120. I think it also has a bit more power generation than the FDI. Finally, it's already under construction.
Click to expand...
The Swedish FDIs is expected to have four Sylver modules: 3x8 A50 for Aster 30, & 1x24 Sylver CL for CAMM-ER. Good question about the DEWS, though.

So far one FDI commissioned, one working up, three more launched, & steel cut on three. They're moving fast.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Ananda said:
I always wondering how far Arrowhead 140 design advantage compare to original Odense Iver Huitfeldt design.
Click to expand...
When I see references to Odense shipbuilding I think of my ancestors working in Skibshusene ("the ship houses") building ships at Odense 200 years ago. ;)
 
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
swerve said:
Well, that story didn't age well
Click to expand...
I disagree. The article said Sweden was considering the Type 31 alongside the FDI. There was no expectation the Type 31 would win the competition.

A contract with Denmark is different. It seems that is more likely to succeed, but I've also heard rumblings that the Danes want some sort of work share - which is difficult if they don't have any active shipyards building military vessels.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
They have active shipyards, but you're right, none are currently building military vessels. Some are about to, though: a consortium including two yards has a contract for four ships for the RDN. But they're not fighting ships. ;)

Whether current plans to restart building warships & near-warships will succeed has yet to be seen, but they're trying to, starting with the replacement for the Thetis class. That's taking a long time to get going, though . . .
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
swerve said:
They have active shipyards, but you're right, none are currently building military vessels. Some are about to, though: a consortium including two yards has a contract for four ships for the RDN. But they're not fighting ships. ;)

Whether current plans to restart building warships & near-warships will succeed has yet to be seen, but they're trying to, starting with the replacement for the Thetis class. That's taking a long time to get going, though . . .
Click to expand...
Supporting more yards in NATO capable of building fighting ships, what’s not to like. Same applies for industries wrt army kit along with drones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top