Jump to content

Usn Frigate Program


Ol Paint

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

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.

 

Sorry I was referring to our Halifaxes which our more or less DDE although called frigate, the naming conventions are almost meaningless now as it jumps all over the place, HMCS Yukon as a DDE was 2800 DWT, the Halifax is 4550 DWT, The AOP's come in at 6900 DWT. The CSC likley around 6900 DWT and the new American frigate also at 6900 DWT . A WWII UK light Cruiser was only 100 tons heavier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Hobart_(D63)

Edited by Colin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And destroyers in 1900 were five hundred tons. Small cruisers were the size of late WW2 destroyers. Battleships the size of WW2 heavy cruisers. Comparing modern ships to those three quarters of a century ago is pointless. Compare them to contemorary ships.

 

A frigate is now not a small slow escort, but a escort optimized for ASW. They stopped being slow in the fifties because submerged subs were no longer slow. A destroyer is an escort optimized for area air defence. A cruiser is pretty much a destroyer with task group leader facilities. Modern cruiserss are about the same size as WW2 AA cruisers rather than heavy cruisers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, warship tonnage is displacement, not deadweight. Displacement is how much the ship weighs. DWT is how much cargo a merchant ship can carry. Usually displacement will be described as light, normal, standard, or full load. Each of these means weight of ship plus a given amount of fuel, feed water, ammo, provisions, equipment, crew etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A frigate is now not a small slow escort, but a escort optimized for ASW. They stopped being slow in the fifties because submerged subs were no longer slow. A destroyer is an escort optimized for area air defence. A cruiser is pretty much a destroyer with task group leader facilities.

 

When I think "frigate" I think small. That is as good and concise a description of modern ship classes as I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviets perhaps had a better idea of naming ships for their roles. The terms 'frigate', 'destroyer', and 'cruiser' are so divorced from their original meaning as to be useless even by WWII. They went from being ship roles to largely describing tonnage, with role being secondary. There were light cruiser, heavy cruisers, AA cruisers, etc. They perhaps had hull size in common, but the purpose and armament varied rather wildly even inside the same navy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was curious about SPY-6 though. IIRC, it wluld be very heavy and very energy hungry because of GaN use, drastically increase sensitivity. It seems a modified SPY-6 is to be used. Using the same scale as planned for the Burke would increase displacement on the frigate a lot and in order to mount it, hull dimensions would also need to increase. But there are smaller versions of SPY-1 used by other ships, the F and K versions. So if the mentioned modify SPY-6 is of similar small size, then increasing hull size and displacement might be avoidable.

 

It sounds like it will be a much more modest version based on the SPY-6. That could be quite a large range of capability from almost a SPY-6 to a minor version using some of the components and tech of the SPY-6.

 

The Mk 41 VLS is so ubiquitous and used by so many weapons systems that it's stupid not to use it and stick as many cells in as you can, 16 cells go fast. Are those Harpoon launchers on the mid deck?

 

As always, we'll have to wait to see what actually gets built and the real cost and timeline. Past performance in those areas does not bode well for the current estimates.

 

Next, we need a real cruiser replacement for CVBGs.

The smaller SPY-6 is still probably quite sufficient for the role.

 

Yeah, a new cruiser will be needed, or at least helpful. From what I understand, the Flight 3 of the Burke will adopt a central air defense/command capability that the Ticos had but the Burke still will have a shorter range than the Tico, something that could help by staying on the move with nuclear powered carriers for a longer time without needing replenishment coordinated in manuvers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Soviets perhaps had a better idea of naming ships for their roles. The terms 'frigate', 'destroyer', and 'cruiser' are so divorced from their original meaning as to be useless even by WWII. They went from being ship roles to largely describing tonnage, with role being secondary. There were light cruiser, heavy cruisers, AA cruisers, etc. They perhaps had hull size in common, but the purpose and armament varied rather wildly even inside the same navy.

Soviet system was good until they messed it up with Sovremenny's which resurrected the anachronistic "Squadron torpedo ship" (destroyer) classification.

Also, it was used to describe specialized warships of the day and wouldn't translate well to todays surface combatants which are usually general purpose warships.

 

Ticonderogas were of course originally called 'frigates'... :closedeyes:

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.

In order to do both, it will have to have the higher-end characteristics. We need frigates for general escort work and DDs for CBG work. We've been through that lesson thrice, now, and it looks like we have to go back to school again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soviets had some strange classifications though. The Kynda class cruiser was quite light, I think about 5000 tons or so? So much so that they were a bit top heavy, after all they were carrying about 8 Shaddocks topside. So the Soviets were not beyond classifying according to role, not to size. The Royal Navy does the same thing too, the Batch 3 Type 42 Destroyer was about the same size as a Type 23 Frigate.

 

The Americans as we know in the 1970's reclassified a lot of surface warships, im not sure why. Though it may be the dire straits the USN found itself in post Vietnam it suited everyone to reclassify DLG's as Cruisers. It kind of made sense in the case of carriers where they were trying to rerole them to common eikes, not specialised flattops for particular roles.

 

 

 

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.

In order to do both, it will have to have the higher-end characteristics. We need frigates for general escort work and DDs for CBG work. We've been through that lesson thrice, now, and it looks like we have to go back to school again.

 

Owning 2 large carriers in one respect has been good for the RN. We have realised much the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyndas were originally classified as destroyers but Soviets realized the design was way too expensive to be build in numbers, so they were redesignated as cruisers for prestige reasons. Ticos, Leahys, Californias etc. were originally 'Destroyer Leaders' or 'Frigates' but changed to cruisers to match large number of Soviet 'cruisers'...

 

As an opposite example, Type 82 was originally light cruiser before 'demoted' to destroyer so it wouldn't appear so expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyndas were originally classified as destroyers but Soviets realized the design was way too expensive to be build in numbers, so they were redesignated as cruisers for prestige reasons. Ticos, Leahys, Californias etc. were originally 'Destroyer Leaders' or 'Frigates' but changed to cruisers to match large number of Soviet 'cruisers'...

 

As an opposite example, Type 82 was originally light cruiser before 'demoted' to destroyer so it wouldn't appear so expensive.

 

Yes, that sounds entirely plausible. :D

 

I didnt know that about the Type 82, but again its entirely plausible. The invincibles were labled as flat top Cruisers to get them past the Chancellor, who would have spat out his teeth at being expected to fork out for 3 aircraft carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I was curious about SPY-6 though. IIRC, it wluld be very heavy and very energy hungry because of GaN use, drastically increase sensitivity. It seems a modified SPY-6 is to be used. Using the same scale as planned for the Burke would increase displacement on the frigate a lot and in order to mount it, hull dimensions would also need to increase. But there are smaller versions of SPY-1 used by other ships, the F and K versions. So if the mentioned modify SPY-6 is of similar small size, then increasing hull size and displacement might be avoidable.

It sounds like it will be a much more modest version based on the SPY-6. That could be quite a large range of capability from almost a SPY-6 to a minor version using some of the components and tech of the SPY-6.

 

The Mk 41 VLS is so ubiquitous and used by so many weapons systems that it's stupid not to use it and stick as many cells in as you can, 16 cells go fast. Are those Harpoon launchers on the mid deck?

 

As always, we'll have to wait to see what actually gets built and the real cost and timeline. Past performance in those areas does not bode well for the current estimates.

 

Next, we need a real cruiser replacement for CVBGs.

The smaller SPY-6 is still probably quite sufficient for the role.

 

Yeah, a new cruiser will be needed, or at least helpful. From what I understand, the Flight 3 of the Burke will adopt a central air defense/command capability that the Ticos had but the Burke still will have a shorter range than the Tico, something that could help by staying on the move with nuclear powered carriers for a longer time without needing replenishment coordinated in manuvers.

 

 

SPY-6 as fitted to FFG9(x) is supposedly about as capable as SPY-1 as fitted to early Burkes in terms of sensitivity. It is probably far superior it terms of processor ability.

 

Burke IIIs apparently are at the ragged edge of what their power and cooling can support with the 37 element panel SPY-6 arrangement. Whatever the next CG design is, it will need probably double the power grid of a Burke for its radar and any future DEW emitters. Some kind of electric drive would recommend itself. Perhaps some technology can be salvaged from the Zummies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyndas were originally classified as destroyers but Soviets realized the design was way too expensive to be build in numbers, so they were redesignated as cruisers for prestige reasons. Ticos, Leahys, Californias etc. were originally 'Destroyer Leaders' or 'Frigates' but changed to cruisers to match large number of Soviet 'cruisers'...

 

As an opposite example, Type 82 was originally light cruiser before 'demoted' to destroyer so it wouldn't appear so expensive.

Closing the so called cruiser gap was one reason why the USN reclassified frigates. Another was to bring US nomenclature back into sync with the rest of the would where a frigate was an ASW escort like a US ocean escort (DE). They were already planning on reviving the PF (patrol frigate) designation for the Perry's for some reason.

 

Note that the original designation of the DL frigates was CLK - anti-submarine light cruiser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was wrong on my information, the Canadian CSC (Type 26) is going to be in the 7600 ton range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not calling the LCS a frigate was the kind of thinking that gets people promoted high. It created a brand new funding classification.

Littoral Combat Ship is buzzwordy, but it isnt a frigate by major navy standards. Its an OPV or a corvette. It doesnt have the ASW systems to be more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perhaps some technology can be salvaged from the Zummies."--Josh

 

I wonder if the Zumwalts could be converted into a Tico replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zumwalts apparently use massive amount of energy. I recall articles about something like the need to upgrade energy supply infrastructure at a US naval base, either Sasebo or Yokosuka, in order to enable the Zumwalt to operate in the Western Pacific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perhaps some technology can be salvaged from the Zummies."--Josh

 

I wonder if the Zumwalts could be converted into a Tico replacement.

Not without stripping the design down to hull and maybe power plant. I don't know if either has been proven yet.

 

Probably as easy to just design a new one from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Perhaps some technology can be salvaged from the Zummies."--Josh

 

I wonder if the Zumwalts could be converted into a Tico replacement.

 

Their builder (not sure who that is) would probably make that tech salvage conditional on a future contract win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt any of the IP for the Zumwalts belongs to the builder. That isnt how things are normally done and much of the equipment on them is either Navy or third party anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Perhaps some technology can be salvaged from the Zummies."--Josh

 

I wonder if the Zumwalts could be converted into a Tico replacement.

Not without stripping the design down to hull and maybe power plant. I don't know if either has been proven yet.

 

Probably as easy to just design a new one from scratch.

I dont know if its practical but Id tear out the guns and add more VLS.

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...