Jump to content


Photo

Usn Frigate Program


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#21 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 1826 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.

 

Would make sense from a capability standpoint, although it might also be a good time to cut the USN's losses on the LCS entirely.


  • 0

#22 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,962 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 1958 PM

IMO the wrong approach, but the navy knows what it wants and deserves to get it good and hard
  • 0

#23 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 2030 PM

Kelly Johnson's unwritten 15th rule of management:

 

"Starve before doing business with the damned Navy. They don't know what the hell they want and will drive you up a wall before they break either your heart or a more exposed part of your anatomy."


  • 0

#24 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,475 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 2053 PM

I can see the appeal with a Burke coming in at nearly $2bn and shipyards in Europe and elsewhere cranking out AEGIS frigates for a bit over 500m Euros. If, and it's a big if, they can keep the gold plating, bloat and pork barreling down then I think they're getting a pretty good deal.


  • 0

#25 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 01 May 2020 - 2255 PM

Burke has an obsolescent propulsion system. Only on gas turbines, it consumes fuel like mad. Reportedly has around 4000nm range. Crew size is another issue.

 

The problem with FFG - valid if other choices would have been chosen - is the 57mm at bow, no ciws at all or guided projectilesl, no hull sonar. Plus the US Navy mast configuration  that has radar at smaller horizon range. In Italian FREMM radar is it at top.


  • 0

#26 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,306 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 0440 AM

Its CIWS is a RAM system, mounted aft on the helicopter hangar. A 57 mm cannon is probably more effective against swarming tactics with speedboats than larger but slower firing cannon. The positioning of the radar system is likely the result of the USN preference for the specific SPY6 radar instead of a mast mounted system.


Edited by Daan, 02 May 2020 - 0442 AM.

  • 0

#27 Hellfish6

Hellfish6

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,698 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 0715 AM

The Navy seems fixated on the small boat problem with the 57mm - and even then the system's only good out to about 8km, which isn't much at sea and is outranged by the Iranian homemade 76mm. The latest gen 76mm/3-in Oto guns the Italians use (like what we had on the Perrys) is far more capable, comes in a low-observable turret and even has SAL-guided rounds that go out to 40km. With your helos and UAVs providing terminal guidance to those 76mm rounds you can theoretically kill those Iranian small boats over the horizon. 

 

Maybe a mid-life upgrade project, then. 


  • 0

#28 Daan

Daan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,306 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 0739 AM

I doubt Iranian ships with 76 mm cannon are candidates for engagement with a ship mounted cannon of your own. It would be better to use an ESSM or NSM instead. The Oto Melara 76 mm DART/STRALES is certainly a nice system and allows for engagement of small maneuvering objects, according to the manufacturer at ranges of "more than 5000 meters". However, the USN's 57 mm MK110 still has a much higher ROF and also has similar ammunition in the form of the Mk295 ORKA which has a dual imaging and laser seeker and should work at ranges of up to 10 km according to the manufacturer.

 

Given that small attack craft are an important threat in certain regions, it makes sense to have a specialized high ROF weapon to deal with these. What else would you use a 76 mm or 127 mm naval cannon for these days? In the anti-ship role cannon lost their primacy to missiles, same for air targets. The fire support role against coastal targets is limited and forces the ship to come within range of possible enemy anti-ship missiles. 


Edited by Daan, 02 May 2020 - 0739 AM.

  • 0

#29 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 1908 PM

You are mixing Oto Melara ammunition, Strales/Dart the rounds are radar/radio command guided, +5000m is for CIWS work against maneuverable targets which is the main function of the weapon in Italian Navy , and also small targets work,

 

Vulcano round goes up to 30-40km in 76mm while the 127mm round to 80km+   ;  GPS + terminal guidance.


  • 0

#30 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,959 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 2008 PM

57mm is a gun for a 250 ton fast attack boat..

 

A 6000t ship should have a 5inch gun like on some of the FREMM's.  If you want to have 57's also, that is acceptable.  The USN needs a purge like the FBI, too many desk bound pogues and parasites.  S/F....Ken M


Edited by EchoFiveMike, 02 May 2020 - 2021 PM.

  • 0

#31 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,251 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 2010 PM

57mm won for LCS on grounds of cost-effectiveness, I doubt arguments have changed much for the new frigate? 76mm is any way too small for effective NGFS. Also, see recent news about problems with 76mm Compact...

Has anyone even ordered 76mm Vulcano?


  • 0

#32 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,251 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 2017 PM

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.


  • 0

#33 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,164 posts

Posted 02 May 2020 - 2134 PM

57mm won for LCS on grounds of cost-effectiveness, I doubt arguments have changed much for the new frigate? 76mm is any way too small for effective NGFS. Also, see recent news about problems with 76mm Compact...

Has anyone even ordered 76mm Vulcano?

What?


  • 0

#34 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1450 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.


  • 0

#35 Jeff

Jeff

    Godfather of Tanknet Birthday Greetings

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,034 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1453 PM

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.


  • 0

#36 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,335 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1529 PM

57 mm is better against numbers of small craft and missiles than 5 inch.

At any rate, the systems they're planning to install are mostly proven or low risk and the FFG-62s should be quite capable escorts. Playing with the specs now to try to get something a bit better will only drive up costs to Zumwalt levels and add a decade to getting the ships.

They can always tweak things for a Flight II version after the first ten or so.
  • 0

#37 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,959 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1545 PM

76mm proved decidedly marginal during Operation PREYING MANTIS, it seems the lesson has been lost.  The Italian FREMM's, one version at least has a 5inch as well as a 76mm, a 5inch and 57mm "should" be easy, but yes, the USN could fuck up designing a floating stick.  S/F....Ken M


  • 0

#38 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,251 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1637 PM

5 inch gun is large, expensive and slow-firing. Works well for NGFS and anti-ship purposes, but for smaller vessel you would want a fast-firing gun which adds another layer to vessels missile defence complex.

Unfortunately, Western designers have ignored the four-inch niche which would be perfect for medium sized warhips. Only Russia produces a modern 100mm gun these days:

 

https://youtu.be/5GhzgV4Ksg4?t=42


  • 0

#39 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,335 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1647 PM

Five inch isn't especially good for anti-ship. In PREYING MANTIS they fired dozens of rounds at Iranian oil platforms and failed to destroy them. Even small ships are hard to sink with five inch gunfire. Missiles are much better. They are more accurate and have a bigger payload.
  • 0

#40 Yama

Yama

    Finntroll

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,251 posts

Posted 03 May 2020 - 1806 PM

Of course missiles are much better, has anybody even suggested otherwise?


  • 0