Jump to content

Usn Frigate Program


Ol Paint

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, bfng3569 said:

ummmmmm.... couldn't originally keep up with a carrier group... now might be even slower?

 

Regardless, "resolving this weight growth adds another dimension to the shipbuilder’s ongoing design activities, further diminishing the predictability of these already schedule-challenged efforts," per GAO's report. "The Navy disclosed to us in April 2024 that it is considering a reduction in the frigate’s speed requirement as one potential way, among others, to resolve the weight growth affecting the ship’s design."

To date, the Navy does not appear to have disclosed its speed requirements for the Constellation class, but the ships are reportedly expected to be able to sustain a cruising speed of at least 26 knots. This is in line with the stated "max continuous speed" of the Italian Bergamini class subvariant of the FREMM design, which is in excess of 27 knots, according to Fincantieri. A speed of at least around 30 knots would be necessary for keeping up with Navy carrier strike groups.

Well to be fair, most CSGs are 20 knot in actual rate of advance. Where the top speed will really be deficient is in sprint/drift ASW. Also given the logarithmic relationship between power and top speed for surface vessels, I would expect any relaxation of the speed requirement to be in the 1-3 knot range. Sub optimal, but at this point the greater concern is how long it will take for FFGX to get in the water, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 448
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

20 hours ago, lucklucky said:

Concerning the Type 26 the development started before 2010 and they should have been in water already. That is why RN is having a hole in their frigate forces even paying millions to update the Type 23 that should  was not have been updatable...

Type 26 HMS Glasgow was laid down in 2017, it will be commissioned in 2026 or 2027 says wiki . So 9 , 10 years.

Basically unacceptable for a frigate that don't even have AAW capability like the Canadian and Australian variants and have a simple rotate radar set.

Tbf, the lead ship, Glasgow, was badly vandalised last year, which seems to have caused some delays.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65582895.amp

It's supposed to support the carrier strike group. British Frigates have historically had a light air defence . But 24 cells for sea captors certainly isn't poor.

It's an ASW frigate, not an AAW platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the displacement of the ship it's almost in light cruiser terrority, leaving lots of displacement for storage of fuel and supplies. There's only one purpose for this ship, it's aimed at getting to the Pacific to fight China pure and simple. 

It's crazy in my view of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

If you look at the displacement of the ship it's almost in light cruiser terrority, leaving lots of displacement for storage of fuel and supplies. There's only one purpose for this ship, it's aimed at getting to the Pacific to fight China pure and simple. 

It's crazy in my view of things.

The general trend is that ships' displacement rises. New frigates for Polish Navy, to be primarily used in the Baltic Sea, are bigger than what you guys used to sail to the Falklands War, and I'm including Type 42 destroyers. Even new Finnish 'corvettes' are comparable to that.

Bigger ships are more survivable and more... well, multirole, as you can pack more systems inside (and people to operate them). No need for 'Chinese' explanations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shep854 said:

 

He should stick to sonar. 

When he gets things as basic as the construction of the LBES wrong, the signal-to-noise ratio isn't good.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The general trend is that ships' displacement rises. New frigates for Polish Navy, to be primarily used in the Baltic Sea, are bigger than what you guys used to sail to the Falklands War, and I'm including Type 42 destroyers. Even new Finnish 'corvettes' are comparable to that.

Bigger ships are more survivable and more... well, multirole, as you can pack more systems inside (and people to operate them). No need for 'Chinese' explanations. 

Its interesting to compare what the RN has used for ASW. Flower class Corvettes were 940ton. Captain class corvettes were 1158 ton. Leanders were 2500 tons. Type 23's were 4900 tons.

IMHO, its not the Type 26 that is to go to China, though they obviously could as part of a carrier battle group. The one that is supposed to be the global presence one is the Type 31, which is a bit smaller, not quite so well equipped, but more of an all rounder. Somewhere between a traditional Frigate, and an OPV.

I think we need to recognise, the only way we are going to take part with any operations against China, is interoperability with our allies, not least Australia.  Well, it IS the same navy when you get down to it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its interesting to compare what the RN has used for ASW. Flower class Corvettes were 940ton. Captain class corvettes were 1158 ton. Leanders were 2500 tons. Type 23's were 4900 tons.

IMHO, its not the Type 26 that is to go to China, though they obviously could as part of a carrier battle group. The one that is supposed to be the global presence one is the Type 31, which is a bit smaller, not quite so well equipped, but more of an all rounder. Somewhere between a traditional Frigate, and an OPV.

I think we need to recognise, the only way we are going to take part with any operations against China, is interoperability with our allies, not least Australia.  Well, it IS the same navy when you get down to it....

Yeah, and new Finnish 'corvettes' will be 4300 tons, that's primarily for the operations in the Baltics. Our Miecznik is basically Type 31, we also want to use it primarily in the Baltics, I don't think deploying them 'to China' is on the table.
 

Warships are getting bigger to make them more multirole and more survivable. Sure, it increases their potential deployability, but I don't think it's the primary concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not my fault that the statement you made was inconsistent. If the design was "perfect" from the start, that would include a "perfect" process for manufacture, otherwise it is incomplete. Nobody manages this, so expecting it of any manufacturer, let alone one of a system of systems as complex as a warship is absurd.

Your hopes and dreams as to the ability of BAE systems to improve their manufacturing processes through the progamme has no bearing on your inability to be coherent in your criticism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Yeah, and new Finnish 'corvettes' will be 4300 tons, that's primarily for the operations in the Baltics. Our Miecznik is basically Type 31, we also want to use it primarily in the Baltics, I don't think deploying them 'to China' is on the table.
 

Warships are getting bigger to make them more multirole and more survivable. Sure, it increases their potential deployability, but I don't think it's the primary concern.

I could see circumstances where you might occasionally take them to the gulf as part of a multinational battlegroup. Because Poland can into space and all that. And of course middle eastern oil seems to still be of some significance.

More multirole, absolutely. The funny thing is, the RN ships are getting bigger, at the same time as ther crews are getting smaller. I think there was a decline of something like 30 sailors from Type 23 to Type 26, its even more to Type 31.

The Americans are wedded to the idea that more men means more survivability. I think there is a case that we need to be smarter than that. Yes, you need more people to knock cork in the holes and fix the pumps and electricals. At the same time, the more guys (and gals) you have on a warship, the more expensive it is to deploy, the more often it needs to replen, and the more casualties you are going to take when the ship is hit.

Maybe that means more backup systems. Maybe that means more hardening of primary systems. But I think the days of throwing raw manpower at a warship to solve all the damage control problems are over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Its interesting to compare what the RN has used for ASW. Flower class Corvettes were 940ton. Captain class corvettes were 1158 ton. Leanders were 2500 tons. Type 23's were 4900 tons.

IMHO, its not the Type 26 that is to go to China, though they obviously could as part of a carrier battle group. The one that is supposed to be the global presence one is the Type 31, which is a bit smaller, not quite so well equipped, but more of an all rounder. Somewhere between a traditional Frigate, and an OPV.

I think we need to recognise, the only way we are going to take part with any operations against China, is interoperability with our allies, not least Australia.  Well, it IS the same navy when you get down to it....

 

That is not true. The Type 26 frigates was orginally called "The Global Combat Ship" project due to it's massive range. Australia joined the project for it's future frigates as it has the ability to sail around the massive coastline of Australia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, urbanoid said:

The general trend is that ships' displacement rises. New frigates for Polish Navy, to be primarily used in the Baltic Sea, are bigger than what you guys used to sail to the Falklands War, and I'm including Type 42 destroyers. Even new Finnish 'corvettes' are comparable to that.

Bigger ships are more survivable and more... well, multirole, as you can pack more systems inside (and people to operate them). No need for 'Chinese' explanations. 

 

I think that as the crew of a ship decreases then the weight of automation increases which is what were seeing in navies today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Tbf, the lead ship, Glasgow, was badly vandalised last year, which seems to have caused some delays.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-65582895.amp

It's supposed to support the carrier strike group. British Frigates have historically had a light air defence . But 24 cells for sea captors certainly isn't poor.

It's an ASW frigate, not an AAW platform.

FREMM lead frigate  

4 February 2008 16 July 2011[73] 29 May 2013

A little more than 5 years.

FREMM  have AAW with 150km+ range SAM missiles Aster 30.

With surface fleets so small i think it is a big mistake to not have that capability in all combatants, they need to be multimission capable. USA which have a large navy do it,  Italians which are almost equivalent to UK do that for their own ships: Horizon, FREMM, PPA. Canadians and Australians too, French are also going that route , the new small FDI will have Aster 30 correcting the mistake of their first FREMM's

 

3 hours ago, sunday said:

In warship construction, steel is cheap.

Steel is cheap but changing from a LM2500 to a MT30, bigger generators etc isn't.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

Steel is cheap but changing from a LM2500 to a MT30, bigger generators etc isn't.

Not when the client allows a final product with less speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

 

That is not true. The Type 26 frigates was orginally called "The Global Combat Ship" project due to it's massive range. Australia joined the project for it's future frigates as it has the ability to sail around the massive coastline of Australia.

Call it confused terminology. The fact remains, they are really buying them to be the core of the battlegroups around the Queen Elizabeths, and because they cant afford enough of them to boost RN numbers, they are also buying the Type 31. Its going to be the 31's most often fulfilling the independent patrol work, not the 26's. Im sure they will do it from time to time, but numbers are going to preclude them going to far, in case we need to assemble a carrier battlegroup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_31_frigate

'The resultant General Purpose Frigate (GPFF) was to be a lighter, flexible and more affordable general purpose frigate class.[24][25] According to the 2015 SDSR, the lower cost of these frigates could lead to the Royal Navy acquiring more than five, therefore increasing its overall numbers of frigates and destroyers.[26] During a defence and security lecture in July 2016, GPFF was referred to as the Type 31 frigate by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones,[27] who also stated that Type 31 frigates could permanently operate "East of Suez"—from the Persian Gulf region to the Asia-Pacific.[27]'

 

When they say 'permanently operate', what they seem most likely saying is that they are basing the ships there, and rotating the crews. it seems to work, even with what are now very old ships.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

FREMM lead frigate  

4 February 2008 16 July 2011[73] 29 May 2013

A little more than 5 years.

FREMM  have AAW with 150km+ range SAM missiles Aster 30.

With surface fleets so small i think it is a big mistake to not have that capability in all combatants, they need to be multimission capable. USA which have a large navy do it,  Italians which are almost equivalent to UK do that for their own ships: Horizon, FREMM, PPA. Canadians and Australians too, French are also going that route , the new small FDI will have Aster 30 correcting the mistake of their first FREMM's

 

Steel is cheap but changing from a LM2500 to a MT30, bigger generators etc isn't.

 

If you want an AAW vessel, buy a destroyer. If you want a frigate, which is arguably a very different role, then buy a cheaper ship. The whole point of Frigates is they are cheap, low end ships, to fly the flag. Arming to the teeth, they may as well just keep pumping out Arleigh Burkes.

Considering how the USN wants to boost hull numbers, im not convinced they should buy gold plated. They already did that with the Zumwalt and the LCS and fell flat on their ass. Of course, If they want a high end ASW vessel, them they should buy one. Constellation will im sure fulfill that role fine. But it still commends buying a cheaper vessel too just to boost numbers.

Watch this space when the projected numbers get cut. And they will.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you want an AAW, buy a destroyer. If you want a frigate, which is arguably a very different role, then buy a cheaper ship. The whole point of Frigates is they are cheap, low end ships, to fly the flag. Arming to the teeth, they may as well just keep pumping out Arleigh Burkes.

Considering how the USN wants to boost hull numbers, im not convinced they should buy gold plated. They already did that with the Zumwalt and the LCS and fell flat on their ass. Of course, If they want a high end ASW vessel, them they should buy one. Constellation will im sure fulfill that role fine. But it still commends buying a cheaper vessel too just to boost numbers.

Watch this space when the projected numbers get cut. And they will.

 

The cost of Constellation is still going to be ~half of a Burke, with ~1/3 less crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you want an AAW vessel, buy a destroyer. If you want a frigate, which is arguably a very different role, then buy a cheaper ship. The whole point of Frigates is they are cheap, low end ships, to fly the flag. Arming to the teeth, they may as well just keep pumping out Arleigh Burkes.

Considering how the USN wants to boost hull numbers, im not convinced they should buy gold plated. They already did that with the Zumwalt and the LCS and fell flat on their ass. Of course, If they want a high end ASW vessel, them they should buy one. Constellation will im sure fulfill that role fine. But it still commends buying a cheaper vessel too just to boost numbers.

Watch this space when the projected numbers get cut. And they will.

 

But Type 26 is not cheap despite having an comparatively old rotating radar - competitors have planar 360º radars - and Sea Ceptors which are cheaper than Asters.

 

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

But Type 26 is not cheap despite having an comparatively old rotating radar - competitors have planar 360º radars - and Sea Ceptors which are cheaper than Asters.

 

You are missing what ive said. Type 26 isnt the cheap solution. Type 31 is supposed to be the cheap(er) solution.

 

Type 26 UK Batch 1: £1.31 billion 

Type 31 £268 million (2019)

Yes, I doubt personally there will be THAT much of a price difference. But that was the intent, if nothing else. Think of it as buying Corvettes instead of Destroyers.

In fact, it would probably be helpful to reintroduce the terminology of Corvette or even Destroyer Escort, or people are going to start getting confused about what they are supposed to do, and their cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

The cost of Constellation is still going to be ~half of a Burke, with ~1/3 less crew.

But still more expensive than a type 31. Whcih if you are trying to build up your presence in an area, its not QUALITY that is important, its quantity. The PRC to their credit, fully understand this.

Lets look at the cost of a an Oliver Hazard Perry.

 

US$122 million

Granted, I doubt you could buy one for that today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that depends how you count that, the projected cost of 3 Type 31 frigates for the Polish Navy is PLN 14.8 billion, which is roughly GBP 2.93 billion or USD 3.74 billion.

Btw the price tag rose by 85% between 2021 and the end of 2023.

https://dziennikzbrojny.pl/aktualnosci/news,1,11979,aktualnosci-z-polski,przyczyny-wzrostu-kosztow-budowy-fregat-miecznik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression you are going to hang a lot more things on them than we were, ie Fitted For But Not With. :D

Oh, its going to be more expensive than it was, no doubt, Inflation has seen to that. But that this was intended (and probably will still turn out to be) the low end cost variant to supliment the type 26. That is very clear in my memory at the time when they were initially projected, and the Wiki article supports that.

Bear in mind, you are building the hulls yourself too. I dont know what the cost of steel is inside your country. Outside the EU, we dont have any impediment to buying steel wherever we can get it (Port Talbot hopefully but not certainly). And small classes always seem to drive up costs anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But still more expensive than a type 31.

Of course it is , it is a much more capable ship with eletric propulsion, AAW and ABM capabilities.

 

OHP is not comparable, it had a simple, albeit expensive in consumption,  propulsion  system  only with gas turbines(like the Burkes) and only 1 shaft.

Edited by lucklucky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, why not compare it? If the objective is to build something cheap and cheerful, to fly a US flag in all the regional shitholes of the world, why not build something similar? It was perfectly good in its day. Something cheap, cheerful, reliable, and with just enough firepower to defend itself against all but the most acute threats.

  If you want a destroyer, buy one. If you want a cheap alternative, build one. Dont build an alternative to a destroyer and arm it to the teeth, or your are just creating another Destroyer.  Its gold plating of capability, and damn me if that isnt going to be the death of the USN if they dont get it in check.

 A frigate was and still is, a marker on the map of the worlds seas. Its not a battleship. Why turn it into one? This is just the kind of trouble LCS got into, and turned out to be just as inflexible anyway and underarmed anyway.

 

Look, I bang on about this, and im sure im irritating. Ive nothing against the Constellation, im sure they will be fine ships. i just dont see it as the ultimate solution to the USN's requirement of 300 hulls in the water is it? Im sorry, I just dont see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...