Jump to content

Usn Frigate Program


Ol Paint

Recommended Posts

I think this choice already stresses that, being based on a foreign design. Range and helicopter are great drivers of ship size, another that is appearing are the energy requirements for future weapons.

 

 

Regarding the guns. 127mm are actually more in favor than in 80's, Netherlands, Germany all have now. British will replace their obsolete 114mm also . It is just the USN that appears to be going the other way.

Well, the last time the Dutch and Germans built ships as large as their new colonial cruisers, was back in the days, when Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR and ships with that size and role were designated as cruisers and had 6" guns. And 5" are obviously more useful for NGFS on a colonial cruiser, when engaging a inferior enemy, than a 76mm or 57mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 448
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Italians have/had the 127mm in the Lupo, 2500t frigates some are still in service with Venezuela and Peru. The British had the 114mm in Type 21 also a light frigate.

Btw Dutch had the Tromp class with dual 120, but was more of a destroyer, from 70's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$700-800 million is about right for an OHP replacement adjusted for inflation. Problem is same as always: we are functionally incapable of doing even simple things without driving the costs up astronomically -- which we will gladly continue despite the US Economy being on the precipice. And that was before a guy ate a bat in Wuhan. With procurement times dragged out as long as humanly possible through low rate production, I suspect these will be a billion a pop before long in today's money (or 1.5+ billion by IOC after inflation) only to be axed before all orders are filled because the SECNAV 3-4 presidential administrations from now will have their own little vision and they'll be RFPing an FFG(y) or FFG(z) if we haven't gone insolvent and bankrupt by then.

Besides all of that, I think the USN missed the mark regarding design priorities. These are destroyers, for all intents and purposes, with displacements nearly double that of the OHP and approaching those of Block 1 Burkes, with admirals fapping to fantasies about bolting on 16x NSM and charging into the South China Sea. We don't need that.

What we do need is a reliable, flexible workhorse for the eye boggling amount of miscellaneous, non sexy work that needs to get done that warrants a warship but doesn't warrant a strike group -- and LOTS of them. As in, on the order of 130 or more (150 would be even better). They're going to be spending the vast majority of their lives showing the flag and doing boring escort duty, shepherding fast replenishment ships to and from the fleet and commercial traffic through narrow straits, guarding facilities, providing local cover for ESGs, serving as pickets for the CSGs, hunting pirates, etc etc.

Out of all of them, you'll most likely be able to count the incidents they have to fire a shot in anger on one hand over the span of the entire type's career. The greatest cause of casualties will be US Sailors running them into commercial traffic. 32 VLS is more than enough, and hemming and hawing over the gun that'll almost never be used for anything is a waste of time.

If we must, frankly I would have preferred something that shoots the same family of guided 155 as the Army / Marines uses... but since the Navy clung to 127mm we can't change it now because it's not worth the bother.

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I am disputing the "works well for . . . anti-ship purposes". It doesn't really. If NGFS isn't a priority, a frigate is better with a smaller, faster firing gun.

"Works well...compared to smaller calibre gun", if you prefer more exactness. A gun might still come in handy in some situations, just as with fighter aircraft, in meeting engagements etc.

Anti-ship missiles would have been ineffective vs those oil platforms just as well.

 

For NGFS you want as large calibre shell as you can afford - just like with field artillery. Bigger shell is more effective vs buildings or dug-in enemy, has more range and easier application for long-range guided shells.

Supposedly Israeli tried out 76mm fire from their corvettes against land targets during one of the recent Gaza unpleasantness, and results were disappointing.

It's still at best a mediocre anti-ship system, they will have much better installed, and a system effective against missiles and small craft is necessary.

 

It is a good NGFS system, but the USN already has a large number of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So replace the Perry's forward launcher with a VLS, revise the superstructure to accept the fixed-array, and restart production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hull design, propulsion, manning power generation, and space are obsolescent or insufficient on a Perry. There was no room for modernization when built let alone now. Modernized Perry's are decidedly inferior to modern ships or even nineties vintage ones. Not to mention, that not having been built for a couple of decades, restarting the build is no different than building a new design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hull design, propulsion, manning power generation, and space are obsolescent or insufficient on a Perry. There was no room for modernization when built let alone now. Modernized Perry's are decidedly inferior to modern ships or even nineties vintage ones. Not to mention, that not having been built for a couple of decades, restarting the build is no different than building a new design.

 

They can be modernised, the Turks and Aussies got a few more years out of them, and the last Aussie ships are going to Chile, but they were always austere designs, so it's better a clean sheet design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't multipost!

Don't multipost!

Don't multipost!

:P

 

Does USN yet have any ammunition for its' premier NGFS system? (the Zumwalt's 155mm?)

No. It seems they aren't going to bother. It isn't worth the cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't multipost!

Don't multipost!

Don't multipost!

:P

 

Does USN yet have any ammunition for its' premier NGFS system? (the Zumwalt's 155mm?)

No, and probably none in the foreseeable future. Any new round would have to match the LRLAP's magazine, ammo handling, software, etc arrangements unless all that was modified (at considerable cost).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For only six systems on three ships, even conventional rounds were going to be a million dollars each let alone the extra long range guided rounds it was supposed to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$700-800 million is about right for an OHP replacement adjusted for inflation. Problem is same as always: we are functionally incapable of doing even simple things without driving the costs up astronomically -- which we will gladly continue despite the US Economy being on the precipice. And that was before a guy ate a bat in Wuhan. With procurement times dragged out as long as humanly possible through low rate production, I suspect these will be a billion a pop before long in today's money (or 1.5+ billion by IOC after inflation) only to be axed before all orders are filled because the SECNAV 3-4 presidential administrations from now will have their own little vision and they'll be RFPing an FFG(y) or FFG(z) if we haven't gone insolvent and bankrupt by then.

 

Besides all of that, I think the USN missed the mark regarding design priorities. These are destroyers, for all intents and purposes, with displacements nearly double that of the OHP and approaching those of Block 1 Burkes, with admirals fapping to fantasies about bolting on 16x NSM and charging into the South China Sea. We don't need that.

 

What we do need is a reliable, flexible workhorse for the eye boggling amount of miscellaneous, non sexy work that needs to get done that warrants a warship but doesn't warrant a strike group -- and LOTS of them. As in, on the order of 130 or more (150 would be even better). They're going to be spending the vast majority of their lives showing the flag and doing boring escort duty, shepherding fast replenishment ships to and from the fleet and commercial traffic through narrow straits, guarding facilities, providing local cover for ESGs, serving as pickets for the CSGs, hunting pirates, etc etc.

 

Out of all of them, you'll most likely be able to count the incidents they have to fire a shot in anger on one hand over the span of the entire type's career. The greatest cause of casualties will be US Sailors running them into commercial traffic. 32 VLS is more than enough, and hemming and hawing over the gun that'll almost never be used for anything is a waste of time.

 

If we must, frankly I would have preferred something that shoots the same family of guided 155 as the Army / Marines uses... but since the Navy clung to 127mm we can't change it now because it's not worth the bother.

What probably wasn't noticed with all the fanfare of the FFG(X) annoucement is that the USN is leaning towards canceling the life extension for the Flight I/II Burkes. These ships were designed with 35 year shelf life and start timing out in 2026. The original plan was to SLEP these and add in SPY-6 (V4) as a replacement for the existing SPY-1, but at this point is isn't considered cost effective for the aging platform. So in reality what will most likely happen is that FFG(X) replaces older Burkes on a one for one basis, and that front line escort and self defense capability would have to be part of that. They also will likely replace older Burkes in the myriad non-destroyer tasks that they currently get assigned to, but do so at much lower cost per mile due to greatly reduced manning and being far more fuel efficient, particularly when not tied to a CSG. The Ticos are also on their way out and realistically their replacement is Burke Flight III. Those two plus legacy platforms and USVs are the force composition for the medum term.

 

The battery of 16 anti shipping weapons seems especially high, even given the Chinese threat. But I'd be surprised if they actually get built with that installed; my guess is built for not with. But the big open space amid ship would allow other containerized launchers in the future - perhaps 2x4 strike length cells for whatever the BGM-109 follow on is. The large open design for the intended role reminds me very much of Spruance.

 

As for the gun, it is a tertiary system of no particular concern. The USN decided it wanted only existing weapons, which left the 5" and 57mm. Naval gunfire seems to not have been a consideration, rightly so IMO, so they went with the lighter, cheaper option that would be better for engaging small boats and functioning as a CIWS. Ultimately I think you will see it replaced with some kind of laser system in later flights, of which I think there will be at least a couple.

 

I think it is a excellent choice with a great propulsion, good sensor/com fit, plenty of aviation space, and a lot of room to grow in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hull design, propulsion, manning power generation, and space are obsolescent or insufficient on a Perry. There was no room for modernization when built let alone now. Modernized Perry's are decidedly inferior to modern ships or even nineties vintage ones. Not to mention, that not having been built for a couple of decades, restarting the build is no different than building a new design.

Do you want austere or not? If you start modernizing, you eliminate austerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How old is the is the newest Ticonderoga anyway?

 

It has to be time for a clean sheet cruiser design that isn't a buzzword collage

1994 apparently.

 

Here is a crazy idea. Use the same hull and propulsion as this and drive the costs down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you don't eliminate austerity. You get obsolescence and higher operating costs.

 

Using a modern, off the shelf design as basis, like FREMM, is cheaper and quicker than trying to fit a quart in a old pint pot.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How old is the is the newest Ticonderoga anyway?

 

It has to be time for a clean sheet cruiser design that isn't a buzzword collage

1994 apparently.

 

Here is a crazy idea. Use the same hull and propulsion as this and drive the costs down.

The propulsion system is noisier, much less fuel efficient, and less powerful compared to modern systems. Hull design has progressed considerably since the 1970s. Hulls and propulsion aren't especially costly or time consuming to design. It's the systems and their integration which are time consuming and expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$700-800 million is about right for an OHP replacement adjusted for inflation. Problem is same as always: we are functionally incapable of doing even simple things without driving the costs up astronomically -- which we will gladly continue despite the US Economy being on the precipice. And that was before a guy ate a bat in Wuhan. With procurement times dragged out as long as humanly possible through low rate production, I suspect these will be a billion a pop before long in today's money (or 1.5+ billion by IOC after inflation) only to be axed before all orders are filled because the SECNAV 3-4 presidential administrations from now will have their own little vision and they'll be RFPing an FFG(y) or FFG(z) if we haven't gone insolvent and bankrupt by then.

 

Besides all of that, I think the USN missed the mark regarding design priorities. These are destroyers, for all intents and purposes, with displacements nearly double that of the OHP and approaching those of Block 1 Burkes, with admirals fapping to fantasies about bolting on 16x NSM and charging into the South China Sea. We don't need that.

 

What we do need is a reliable, flexible workhorse for the eye boggling amount of miscellaneous, non sexy work that needs to get done that warrants a warship but doesn't warrant a strike group -- and LOTS of them. As in, on the order of 130 or more (150 would be even better). They're going to be spending the vast majority of their lives showing the flag and doing boring escort duty, shepherding fast replenishment ships to and from the fleet and commercial traffic through narrow straits, guarding facilities, providing local cover for ESGs, serving as pickets for the CSGs, hunting pirates, etc etc.

 

Out of all of them, you'll most likely be able to count the incidents they have to fire a shot in anger on one hand over the span of the entire type's career. The greatest cause of casualties will be US Sailors running them into commercial traffic. 32 VLS is more than enough, and hemming and hawing over the gun that'll almost never be used for anything is a waste of time.

 

If we must, frankly I would have preferred something that shoots the same family of guided 155 as the Army / Marines uses... but since the Navy clung to 127mm we can't change it now because it's not worth the bother.

 

Bro, where are we going to get the manpower for all these shitty little boats? Shanghai'ing? The USN already looks like the militia from Mos Eisley spaceport, with the Philipino and Puerto Rican mafias, etc. not to mention all the girls, who can't possibly be bothered to go to sea...the very thought!!!

​

​Just buying the Italian GP version of FREMM would be the smart thing. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

How old is the is the newest Ticonderoga anyway?

 

It has to be time for a clean sheet cruiser design that isn't a buzzword collage

1994 apparently.

Here is a crazy idea. Use the same hull and propulsion as this and drive the costs down.

The propulsion system is noisier, much less fuel efficient, and less powerful compared to modern systems. Hull design has progressed considerably since the 1970s. Hulls and propulsion aren't especially costly or time consuming to design. It's the systems and their integration which are time consuming and expensive.

Sorry, I was stupidly unclear.I meant use the hull of fremm.

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...