Jump to content


Photo

Usn Frigate Program


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#41 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1957 PM

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.
  • 0

#42 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,677 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 2052 PM

 

The Navy seems to have learned its lesson from the LCS, and went for a real, though small, warship.  This reminds me more of the Perry class frigates.  Maybe this is also a good time to re-classify surface combatants; LCS to frigates, these new frigates to destroyers, then the Burkes to light cruisers, with Ticos and Zumwalts becoming heavy cruisers.

 

Not entirely, they haven't shot anyone for that abortion yet.

 

Zumwalts first


  • 0

#43 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0156 AM

 

A frigate probably shouldnt be heavily armed. If it is, you arent going to be buying a lot of them, the primary reason for having them.

 

I shouldn't be cynical, but as the USN has managed to screw up the procurement of damn near every new platform since the cold war, its not entirely misplaced either.

However, their spiritual predecessors (Perries) were very heavily armed.

With ESSM quad-packing, 32 silos offers adequate weapons load, and ship of that size probably has room for additional 32 silos if it comes to that.

 

Burke has been in production for over 30 years now and technologically, it has become somewhat of a dinosaur. Flight III fixes many issues, but at high cost. It's time to come up with something new which can be produced in numbers.

 

Yes numbers I completely agree with. Im just looking at the specs and seeing a Frigate that is about 1500 tons bigger than it needs to be. It displaces only 800 tons less than an Arleigh Burke, with half the weapon load. If you are going to have a ship with half the weapon load of a destroyer, why not build a smaller ship than a destroyer?

 

Compare and contrast with the specs for the Admiral Gorshkov. Smaller ship, greater amount of weapons, same compliment. The only negative is a shorter range, and considering we do underway replenishment and they still suck at it, its not quite the problem it appears.

https://en.wikipedia...v-class_frigate

Probably go up like a bomb when its hit, but that matters less than having something affordable and with presence for the Russian navy.

 

The Type 26 is larger than the FREMM, but at least is packing a Destroyer sized punch. And its carrying a 5 incher.

https://en.wikipedia...Type_26_frigate


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 04 May 2020 - 0157 AM.

  • 0

#44 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,248 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0348 AM

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.


  • 0

#45 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0404 AM

Royal Navy has been flirting with using a navalized AS90 turret as an upgrade for the Type 45. Seems a little overkill though.


  • 0

#46 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,248 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0404 AM

Yes numbers I completely agree with. Im just looking at the specs and seeing a Frigate that is about 1500 tons bigger than it needs to be. It displaces only 800 tons less than an Arleigh Burke, with half the weapon load. If you are going to have a ship with half the weapon load of a destroyer, why not build a smaller ship than a destroyer?
 
Compare and contrast with the specs for the Admiral Gorshkov. Smaller ship, greater amount of weapons, same compliment. The only negative is a shorter range, and considering we do underway replenishment and they still suck at it, its not quite the problem it appears.
https://en.wikipedia...v-class_frigate
Probably go up like a bomb when its hit, but that matters less than having something affordable and with presence for the Russian navy.
 
The Type 26 is larger than the FREMM, but at least is packing a Destroyer sized punch. And its carrying a 5 incher.
https://en.wikipedia...Type_26_frigate


"Steel is cheap and air is free". It is so British to get obsessed with tonnage limits :P

 

Flight III Burkes are getting close to 10 000 tons.

Yes it is fairly lightly armed for its size, but it's the armament that costs, rather than tonnage. One can always add more armament later if that becomes a priority. A large ship means a powerful radar which can be installed relatively high (one of the problem with Burkes is relatively low placement of radar arrays).


  • 0

#47 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0411 AM

I think the problem is the other way around. Rather than making every ship capable of winning Trafalgar on its own, I think we need cheaper, lightly armed ships, like the Type 21 used to be. Which was, in a major war, was admittedly a fucking disaster. But that overlooks the vast majority of a ships life (often the entirety of a ships life) is not spent fighting wars at all.

 

I can see a point of destroyers, well armed warships to take on defeat most likely threats without immediate support. But I think we forget what Frigates were traditionally for, was not to reclassify destroyers to a different role, it was for reconnaissance and marking water.

 

I wouldnt go so far as to say they should be unmanned, but you do have to wonder what the point is of a lightweight escort as a sub-scale destroyer. It misses the greatest utility of them, their cheapness. If the USN is going to get to 300 ships, it needs to build a lot of ships quickly and very cheaply. If it also wants capablity, it should probably go the two tier approach we are rather than putting their eggs in one hull.

 

Well im a CMANO admiral, what do I know. :D


  • 0

#48 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,248 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0427 AM

I agree and seems that FFG(X) follows those principles. It's a large ship with good potential for endurance and seakeeping and not stuffed full of fancy stuff which goes 'bang'. It's not necessarily very cheap in absolute sense, (and remains to be seen if cost targets are met) but that might owe more to general uncompetiveness of US shipyards rather than design concept itself.


  • 0

#49 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,982 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0440 AM

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


  • 0

#50 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,149 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0548 AM

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.


  • 0

#51 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,304 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0814 AM

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.


  • 0

#52 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,149 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0820 AM

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.


  • 0

#53 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,960 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 0900 AM

$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, 04 May 2020 - 0918 AM.

  • 0

#54 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1000 AM


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.
  • 0

#55 Steven P Allen

Steven P Allen

    Tilter at Windmills

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,444 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1002 AM

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


  • 0

#56 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1036 AM

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.
  • 0

#57 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1036 AM

Oh joy. I'm multiposting again.

Edited by R011, 04 May 2020 - 1038 AM.

  • 0

#58 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1036 AM

.

Edited by R011, 04 May 2020 - 1039 AM.

  • 0

#59 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,330 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1036 AM

.

Edited by R011, 04 May 2020 - 1039 AM.

  • 0

#60 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,342 posts

Posted 04 May 2020 - 1049 AM

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.


  • 0