fitz

The PHM's met their requirements, it was just a bad requirement. That per-se doesn't make them bad ships, just ill-concieved, so they did not make my list.

Not sure I totally agree with this. Many of the same complaints for the Type 42 apply here - 10 pounds of potato's in a 5 pound bag. They could have been so much better had a few less corners been cut, and if they weren't all so badly overloaded. And quite frankly, I think the decision to delete Mk 13 was perfectly sound. Yes the launcher can fire SM-2 but the ships can't without modification and since there was no requirement for them to do so why pay for that capability. Given their current missions Harpoon is of much reduced importance as well. If nothing else this has to save some desperately needed weight margin.

mweber24

If by requirements met you mean a very fast combattant with heavy anti-surface warfare firepower, a case can be made. But other nations could be seen as having this requirement much more than the U.S., yet none of them bought the PHMs. Other nations built smaller equivalents (Italy and Japan), but I don't think either still operates them. I am saying that the really fast, single mission combatant that has poor operational sustainment and is really expensive is a bad design, period. Hey, sounds like LCS, another ship on my list! I think to be considered successful, the ship has to have been successfully used by someone, not just look cool.

As for the FFGs, I agree that the Flight IVs were completely maxed out in space and weight, but the class DID grow considerably in capability since its initial design in 1974, which indicates to me that the initial design was still pretty good since it allowed for expansion. The FFG could only have benefited significantly from an upgrade to the SM-1 past block VIb, which could have been done with adoption of SM-2 components mated to a SM-1 modified seeker. The FFG would never be Aegis, but for half the cost, why should it be expected to be? Good AAW capability against air breathers and older SSMs still puts the ship ahead of most threats for considerably lest cost than many alternatives (like gutting the entire CS suite and installing a VLS). How can a ship be both overloaded AND had too many corners cut? From a space-weight perspective, the ships handled very well (rode a little rough). From a cut corner perspective, eliminating the MK13 is the biggest corner cut, but it would have been better for all the ships to get the Mk92 Mod 6 upgrade and class wide improvements in the ASW capabilities. It would have been cost prohibitive to modify all of the ships for LAMPS III. Current missions are not much of an argument when it comes to ships, it is projected missions that count. Given only current missions, ASW capability is redundant since we are not hunting subs, but it can be envisioned in several scenarios that it COULD be necessary. The decision to cut the Mk13 was made precisely because it was not projected that the FFGs would ever see combat again and would only be conducting a GWOT mission until retirement. This MAY prove accurate, but I personnally don't like the idea of sacrificing capability of a proven platform for the HOPE that global events follow your predictions. History has a nasty way of giving unpleasant surprises where MORE capability would be better than OK capability.

__________________
The SWO

fitz

The FAC as a species is inherently flawed. That doesn't necessarily make individual craft or classes of craft within that species bad designs. As for the FFG7's, they were not designed for growth - it was just added anyway. They managed to survive it for the most part but the results could hardly be considered ideal.

Standard is irrelevant to how the FFG7's are now employed, which is as Patrol Frigates. The Navy has a surplus of far more capable area air defense platforms. Getting rid of Standard on these ships allowed the Navy to dispose of two obsolescent systems along with associated parts, training, logistical support, etc. The alternative was an expensive upgrade and procurement of additional weapons that were not even needed. Overall that is a pretty good thing. Remember, the reason that launcher was there in the first place was to counter Soviet submarine launched anti-ship missiles - not exactly relevant to how the FFG7's are now employed. RAM would be far more useful.

When I talked earlier about corners being cut I was referring to things like having only a 37-ton lifetime growth margin (1% instead of the more typical 8%), no 3D radar like SPS-52 or -48, SQS-56 instead of SQQ-23, etc, etc, etc... But these cuts did allow them to be built in numbers not otherwise possible, even if the end result horrified many in the Navy at the time. Remember the FFG-7 program effectively replaced the plans to build the AAW capable DXG (Spruance) which was projected in less than half the numbers of FFG-7 eventually built.

JA Boomer

It's looking that way isn't it. I wonder if the US Navy will wake up one day and realize what a sham the whole LCS program is.

The type has seemed to have acquitted itself very well in its years of service, despite what everyone says. I thought it was a very capable vessel due to the multi-mission capability it brought to the Frigate designation.

Very true, and what happens if the LCS program get delayed or canceled altogether (which seems somewhat likely) and the remaining OHP's are force to serve up to and beyond the 30-year service life. Would have been nice to at least retain the offensive/defensive capabilities they originally went to sea with. They are the first gun-only surface vessels the US Navy has operated in some time.

It's hard to imagine the US Navy stripping it's ship's like that. What if a OHP gets hit with a missile, how will the Navy explain the decision to degrade the combat capability of the Frigates after it has cost lives?

It's remarkable to look at the different ways you can go with a design. The US Navy has emasculated it's OHP, while the Aussie's have given theirs a significant upgrade. With a new Mk 41 VLS and other upgrades, these are by far the most advanced versions of the OHP in the world. I would say they could compete with the best Frigate designs out there currently, albeit not including super-Frigates such as the de Bazan.

gunnut

How about the Victory class corvettes of the Singapore navy? They are top heavy and have poor seakeeping ability. Not sure how much that matters to a corvette though.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

fitz

Have you forgotten, an FFG-7 has already been hit by a missile - two in fact - even though it was armed with Standard. Didn't seem to make much difference.

Not every ship can have all the bells and whistles. That is why the USN has for decades relied on a certain number of 2nd rate ships. Let's not forget the Knox, Garcia, Dealey and other classes of the past. That is exactly what FFG-7 is.

Standard SM-1 is obsolescent. None have been procured in 21 years which means the existing inventory is beyond its expire date. That leaves few options, none of them good.

1. Spend significant sums to overhaul the existing inventory of obsolescent weapons.
2. Spend significant sums to modernize the ships to fire current weapons (SM-2), then spend further additional significant sums to procure said weapons, all in an enviroment where the USN is grossly overstocked in orders-of-magnitude more capable AAW platforms and the air/missile threat is a fraction of what it was.

Where is all this money going to come from? What program would you like to cut to provide this capability?

Or they can scrap a system that isn't needed and save a lot of money that can be put to more effective use elsewhere.

The decision was the correct one.

TopHatter

Irrespective of the decision to remove the Mark 13 from the FFG-7 class...

The Stark's failure to launch on the incoming Exocets was not a deficiency of her weapons systems so much as a lack preparedness by her captain and crew.

Sea Toby

Neither the Sammy B Roberts or the Stark sunk, both were kept alive by wonderful textbook damage control. Another example why the US Navy continues its officers as engineers.

__________________
http://homepage.mac.com/donclark/.Public/waglogo.gif

Gregor

My semi-informed opinion is the FFG-7. But it wasn't design to be an uber-boat. Actually had a rudder or two fall off in the not too distant past. And, some of my colleagues are retired Surface Warfare guys, one being the XO of a FFG-7. His job in the battlegroup was to get into the Lima-6 position if a torpedo (wake homer) came in...he was the passive-kill countermeasure in the pre-nixie/SLQ-25 days...

Taboo

ravi12

First things first, I know squat about ships.

So I look at any ship and apart from its size, I think of nothing.

If any one could expand this more, I would be greatful. I read in BR that, the initial problems of electronic integration were done.

Thanks.

Sea Toby

Many nations that are building ships for the first time are usually late in finishing them. In many cases the shipyard has to be built, and the employees trained from scratch. India is not the only country which had problems.

And then there is the problem of keeping them busy. Many of the third world nations having built some ships don't have more work for the workers which end up being laid off. They usually find other jobs and the process has to start all over again.

Its not easy to build up a military industrial complex. Even in the United States engineers are laid off as soon as the plans are done. The old movie Shipyard Sally tells the tale of Clydebank shipbuilders.