Jump to content

Usn Frigate Program


Ol Paint

Recommended Posts

If what you want from a 'cruiser' is just endurance, combat capability and flag facilities, then yes, a slightly lengthened FREMM design would probably work out. OTOH if you want super long range AAW or ABM abilities what Ticos and Burkes now have, you need to scale up your radars, and lots of Strike-length VLS cells. You are looking for 10kton hull at minimum, probably pushing 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

$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.

 

 

I think you've hit on the point. They're not looking for a frigate in quantity, they're looking for a destroyer to supplant the aging early Burkes. Shades of F-18E and IAR, sometimes the shortest path isn't a straight line.

 

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know who gets the lion's share of the blame for this boondoggle - the Navy or the contractors.

Really the whole Zumwalt debacle sounds like something out of Screenrant Pitch Meeting sketch:

"So you have a new destroyer for me?"

"-I sure do! They displace 15 000 tons so we can fit two automated 155mm guns on them!"

"Oh, that sounds like a lots of firepower, very useful for our gunfire support operations."

"-Well actually, we are not going to buy any ammunition for the guns."

"Oh really! What for are they then?"

"-Unclear!"

"Well okay then!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, fair one. They really should open it up to foreign production to force US Yards to be competitive.

 

US yards aren't supposed to be competitive, they're supposed to employ union voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying the welders or the other actual tradesmen isn't the budget buster, it's all the parasite paper shufflers who contribute nothing to the accomplishment of the project that are the issue. Yes, in many cases those parasites are actively working against the mission, ie HR, diversity/EO, environmental, etc

 

I'm kinda curious where all the mass is going. An OHP was 4.2k tons, an Italian GP spec FREMM is 6.7k tons, and there's not a radical amount of difference in length, although there is a 20ft difference in beam, which can account for a decent amount of material. VLS has to weigh less than the single arm SM-1 launcher. It's not like we're talking about an armour belt here. S/F....Ken M

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.

With the new Burkes coming in as old ones and Ticos, it'll put the large Surface Combatant count at around 65 through the 2030s. Perhaps up to 75 if adding on the 3 Zumwalts and any Ticos that can still serve. For presence, these frigates will play an important role. As of now, talk of only getting 10 with the first one to be delivered by 2026. So 10 of these into the 2030s. Those 10 plus 35 LCS. I think more of these frigates will be needed. Although they seem to think that upon entering the 2030s that they'll have around 110 large combat ships on page 7 I don't know if that means over 100 Burkes.

https://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32665.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZiPq-7ZvpAhWWZt4KHVG7AXMQFjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1jP-rERzA2nVa11ZBg--Pq&cshid=1588651933144

Edited by JasonJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Korea's new FFX2 frigates are being built for $550 million. They should have been in consideration.

Far too small.

Edited by R011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what you want from a 'cruiser' is just endurance, combat capability and flag facilities, then yes, a slightly lengthened FREMM design would probably work out. OTOH if you want super long range AAW or ABM abilities what Ticos and Burkes now have, you need to scale up your radars, and lots of Strike-length VLS cells. You are looking for 10kton hull at minimum, probably pushing 15.

So why not just replace the Tico's hull for hull using a FREMM hull, and at a later point build a lightly armed ship with the radars on a newly designed hull? I dont see why they cant go on using the Tico's they have to provide cueing until they can provide a replacement.

 

I suppose what im saying is, why not build two complimentary hulls, rather than putting all of it in one hull and calling it a cruiser? Because as the USN is right now, its going to balls up any new cruiser it designs. If they start with existing designs, they have a chance to get away without screwing it up. Which was largely the reason for going with FREMM in the first place I would guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, fair one. They really should open it up to foreign production to force US Yards to be competitive.

 

US yards aren't supposed to be competitive, they're supposed to employ union voters.

 

Its moronic. We are going to have a gap in orders for submarines at Barrow in Furness, and you are going to have a shortage of yards to build Virginia's. So, why not use the capacity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand to be corrected here, but I think that, by law, all US naval vessels have to be built domestically.

Didnt in WW2. The US was using British and Canadian built Flower class Corvettes for a while. Probably not enthusiastically, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USN does not knows what it wants regarding the cruiser. They said so.

Interestingly there is a low key project for the next Italian AA destroyers that is in vicinity of 10000t with ABM capablity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USN does not knows what it wants regarding the cruiser. They said so.

And that's the biggest problem with replacing the Burkes and Ticos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This frigate has more DWT than our current DDE's

The DDEs, which were equivalent to RN and USN frigates, were all replaced by the Halifaxes in the nineties. The Tribal DDH/DDG are out of service We dont currently have any destroyers.

 

Warships have been steadily growing since the 19th century. A century ago, a thousand ton destroyer was normal - and twice tge size of destoyers just twenty years older.

 

Something the size of a WW2 River Class would be an OPV now and couldnt carry the sennsors or weapons to be useful against any subs built since the 1950s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The smart, thus non-USN/USG, way is minimising the fixed overhead costs, like redesigning etc therefore your money actually goes into fielding hardware. Design, and design and design again is a way to burn money without actually accomplishing anything, thus necessitating even more fuckery. Since no parasites are taken out and hanged, and no multinationals are broken up, executives jailed and stockholders impoverished, there's no reason to change anything.

 

Let's stop pretending the specifics of this system or that system matter very much if nothing is actually fielded. We had what, 70-something OHP's built? We could man the same number of these FREMM's with that manpower level, and have significantly more capability. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Korean FFX2 is small, but it is also what a more-agile and more-austere USN needs.

 

What it probably wants is a destroyer in frigate's clothing that it can classify as a "frigate" for funding appropriation purposes. What it will probably get in the end is a billion-dollar frigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't. The USN needs a first line ASW ship that can carry current US helos (i.e not the light helos the Daegus carry) and has the range, sea keeping, defensive suite, and sensors to do it. They need a Perry replacement as a general ocean escort and these ships will have a cost in constant dollars not too far from them. They will also replace the Spruance DDs as carrier group ASW escorts and probably the elderly Flight 1 and 2 Burkes.

 

The glorified OPV or corvette role is what the LCS was supposed to do.

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...