|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 13, 2017 21:19:40 GMT -6
I think what you are seeing is a reality check by the Navy, that the LCS is just not going to be able to do the job, in all theatres with the increased capability of our adversaries, This new ship is designed, if I read the RFI properly to sail with both the surface task forces and the carrier strike groups. I believe it will look like the LCS except bigger with heavier anti-ship weaponry. I suspect it is designed to relieve the larger ships, like the Arleigh Burkes from mundane tasks.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 13, 2017 23:32:25 GMT -6
The question is, how do we define "mundane?" Granted I have zero military experience, but in my book if one expects to get shot at by weapons that can cripple or sink your vessel, the job is not "mundane." Hunting down pirates off Somalia who are unlikely to be packing anything heavier than RPGs probably counts as "mundane." Chasing drug runners is "mundane." VBSS on merchant ships in uncontested waters is "mundane." Those are all jobs in recent years that we've assigned Burkes and/or Ticos to, which they are an absurdly overarmed for. Having to fend off diesel submarines, air attacks, and AShMs by contrast is not "mundane." I know intel is never perfect, but it's a pretty reasonable assumption that a pirate dhow is not going to pull a battery of supersonic cruise missiles out of his posterior.
Let's take a mid-range guess on our proposed FFG - 16 Mk 41 VLS cells, maybe up to 4 deck tubes for Harpoons or Naval Strike Missiles, possibly Hellfire missiles for short-range ASUW, a 57mm gun, and SeaRAM for point defense. Depending on whether those Mk 41 cells are strike-length or not, that may limit the weapons options. Good air-defense radar, combat system, sonar, and space for 2 rotary-wing aircraft. Cruising range of 3000 nmi at 16 knots, top speed of 28 knots. If the concern is making the ship survivable in contested waters, the weapons load is going to be heavily slanted towards ESSMs with possibly a couple of VL-ASROCs loaded for ASW work. It's not going to be able to carry enough Tomahawks or Standard SAMs to be really worth it; each one of those weapons takes up space that could be used by 4 ESSMs. While it will be capable of fending off limited missile attacks such as the ones we've seen off Yemen lately, it's unlikely a theater commander would risk it against an opponent with more extensive weaponry.
If the primary idea is to have a vessel with heavier ASUW firepower, then an up-armed LCS with say, 8 launch canisters for AShMs might be a better call - likely half the price, half the crew, 50% faster, and likely with a lower sensor signature. The FFG is unlikely to be finding over-the-horizon targets with its own sensors, so targeting will probably be from off-board assets in any case. The name of the game will be to shoot and scoot.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 14, 2017 8:55:11 GMT -6
I think that my definition of mundane tasks would be anti-pirate, air-sea rescue, disaster relief, ASW, IAD. These are tasks that should be pushed down to the FFG(X) class to leave the Arleigh Burkes for carrier battle group protection and support for land based operations. You would have to balance the attack and defense weapons, as you have illustrated. That's how I view it.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 14, 2017 18:15:11 GMT -6
you might be able to get away with no targeting rader on the main ship if you use radar drones, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 14, 2017 18:30:30 GMT -6
you might be able to get away with no targeting rader on the main ship if you use radar drones, maybe. I think that radar drones could be an option but range and stealth would be a requirement.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 15, 2017 23:42:31 GMT -6
I think that my definition of mundane tasks would be anti-pirate, air-sea rescue, disaster relief, ASW, IAD. These are tasks that should be pushed down to the FFG(X) class to leave the Arleigh Burkes for carrier battle group protection and support for land based operations. You would have to balance the attack and defense weapons, as you have illustrated. That's how I view it. Here's the problem with that definition of "mundane" in regards to FFG(X), though - with the exception of IAD (which I assume you mean Integrated Air Defense, i.e. providing an "inner ring" of ESSMs to support a battle group or convoy), none of those roles require the capabilities of the proposed FFG(X). In fact, the first three could conceivably be handled as well or better at a lower price per hull by the LCS or even an auxiliary vessel such as the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport or Montford Point-class Expeditionary Transfer Dock. ASW could in practice be handled by the LCS or perhaps even a development of DARPA's ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 16, 2017 8:48:35 GMT -6
I think that my definition of mundane tasks would be anti-pirate, air-sea rescue, disaster relief, ASW, IAD. These are tasks that should be pushed down to the FFG(X) class to leave the Arleigh Burkes for carrier battle group protection and support for land based operations. You would have to balance the attack and defense weapons, as you have illustrated. That's how I view it. Here's the problem with that definition of "mundane" in regards to FFG(X), though - with the exception of IAD (which I assume you mean Integrated Air Defense, i.e. providing an "inner ring" of ESSMs to support a battle group or convoy), none of those roles require the capabilities of the proposed FFG(X). In fact, the first three could conceivably be handled as well or better at a lower price per hull by the LCS or even an auxiliary vessel such as the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport or Montford Point-class Expeditionary Transfer Dock. ASW could in practice be handled by the LCS or perhaps even a development of DARPA's ASW Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel. I think the Navy is returning to its roots-a Blue Water Navy and the LCS with its cost-overruns, major breakdowns at sea and the possibility that the LCS is not able to meet the mission requirements the Navy has set for it, has forced the Navy to begin the process of finding a better larger and more capable ship. Strategically, the Navy is now preparing for the Western Pacific and I don't think this ship has the full capability that the Navy wants. But remember that this is an RFI, nothing more. The Navy might get responses from contractors then do comparisons using computer sims to test the capability of upgraded LCS versus the FFG(X). We won't know the results for a few years. thediplomat.com/2017/07/us-navy-solicits-industry-solutions-for-a-more-capable-frigate/
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 25, 2017 16:38:53 GMT -6
so this seems like as fine a place as any to talk about it, but the USS Thunderbolt fired warning shots from a machine gun at Iranian patrol boats
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 25, 2017 17:05:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Jul 25, 2017 17:21:35 GMT -6
yeah, I don't think they got quite as far as machine gun fire before, just hope they don't run into anyone who thinks a warning shot is a 127mm shell exploding under the oppenents keel
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 25, 2017 19:25:12 GMT -6
I think that my definition of mundane tasks would be anti-pirate, air-sea rescue, disaster relief, ASW, IAD. These are tasks that should be pushed down to the FFG(X) class to leave the Arleigh Burkes for carrier battle group protection and support for land based operations. You would have to balance the attack and defense weapons, as you have illustrated. That's how I view it. Spot on, I think.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Aug 2, 2017 18:52:21 GMT -6
Figured this 2-part piece would be an interesting add to the discussion: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12821/making-steam-the-life-and-times-of-a-u-s-navy-chief-engineerwww.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13038/making-steam-high-seas-tales-and-commentary-on-todays-navy-from-a-chief-engineerI tend to agree with this opinion; unless the cost savings from using an FFG(X) to do a DDG-51's job are worth the price of developing a whole new hull it would be better to just crank out more DDGs. "What is a frigate? What is its role? To me, the frigate is intended to be an escort for a Carrier Battle Group, or Amphibious Ready Group, or a replenishment ship. They can rarely operate alone. Even with a good anti-air warfare radar and missile system they need cooperative air cover from a cruiser or another frigate. With a better sonar than the 'Helen Keller' the Perry class had, they could do anti-submarine warfare, but then again not alone. They are half a destroyer. "We have a very successful class of destroyers now, with more being built and constant upgrades ongoing on existing hulls. The bones and engines are mature and sound and most improvements are made in the electronics and software realm. One obvious exception being the Auxiliary Propulsion Motor (APS), which has probably completed its trials by now. It seems to me that the programmatic costs of developing a new class of ship are far greater than continuing with the Burke class, a ship that can do all of the things a frigate is supposed to do, as well as use less than half of its installed propulsion plant for economic steaming, or the APS, if it works out."
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2017 11:34:21 GMT -6
Figured this 2-part piece would be an interesting add to the discussion: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/12821/making-steam-the-life-and-times-of-a-u-s-navy-chief-engineerwww.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13038/making-steam-high-seas-tales-and-commentary-on-todays-navy-from-a-chief-engineerI tend to agree with this opinion; unless the cost savings from using an FFG(X) to do a DDG-51's job are worth the price of developing a whole new hull it would be better to just crank out more DDGs. "What is a frigate? What is its role? To me, the frigate is intended to be an escort for a Carrier Battle Group, or Amphibious Ready Group, or a replenishment ship. They can rarely operate alone. Even with a good anti-air warfare radar and missile system they need cooperative air cover from a cruiser or another frigate. With a better sonar than the 'Helen Keller' the Perry class had, they could do anti-submarine warfare, but then again not alone. They are half a destroyer. "We have a very successful class of destroyers now, with more being built and constant upgrades ongoing on existing hulls. The bones and engines are mature and sound and most improvements are made in the electronics and software realm. One obvious exception being the Auxiliary Propulsion Motor (APS), which has probably completed its trials by now. It seems to me that the programmatic costs of developing a new class of ship are far greater than continuing with the Burke class, a ship that can do all of the things a frigate is supposed to do, as well as use less than half of its installed propulsion plant for economic steaming, or the APS, if it works out." Interesting set of articles and I am reading them but give me time to digest. Good addition to the discussion. Remember that the idea of the new ship is an RFI, nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 3, 2017 11:42:35 GMT -6
Just for information. An RFI or Request for Information is a document designed to determine market capability of sources and obtaining information. It does not constitute a Request for Proposals, or a Request for Quote. It does not mean that the Government will contract for any item or items in the notice. This is important. It does not mean that the Navy is contracting to buy anything, it is just a way of getting information to use to put into budget requests and/or test at the Naval War College.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Aug 3, 2017 22:42:28 GMT -6
now I'm trying to think of a reason to build something other then DDGs, swap out the power plant, make it a little bigger and you now have a railgun and laser CIWS and more missiles, VLS cells can do anything, the only use I could see for a frigate might be something like a missile boat like that one Hydrofoil
|
|