gunnut

I agree with you. But Rick's argument makes good sense as well. Even if ONE frigate gets hit, there will be questions of why we didn't send protections for it or why are these low capable ships being sent in harm's way.

I believe we should have some frigate sized ships for ASW and to boost the hull numbers. In fact the NSC hull with ASW package and a cargo of drones or SEALs would be ideal. Not sure if a SPY-1F system can fit on that hull if we want some ASW capabilities and room for special ops.

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

jimmo

Hey, It would be great if each frigate could have a full AEGIS installation, 16-inch guns and a flight of SuperHornets, but it is not going to happen In order to afford the number of frigates they are going to need, the US is going to have to build these ships to a cost. Also, why not build the ships to bring capabillities to the table that the Burke's do not? I am not arguing against an organic air-defense capabillity just cautioning against trying to turn the ships into mini-air-warfare destroyers. Heck, we will have something like 84 of those when all is said and done. I very much see these new Frigate as modern-Perry equivalents rather than mini-Burkes.

To be fair, I do not know what having SPY-F and a MK41 VLS would add to the cost of a frigate-sized ship. If you could build such a ship for say 300million great, but I suspect it would not be possible.

Using the NSC hull as a base would have some advantages. The Coast Guard requirement for new cutters is roughly 30 ships. The US Navy req for LCS was around 50. There would have to be economies of scale to building a class of 80 ships (even if the Navy version was fitted out differently than the Coast Guard version).

I guess I am OK with limited organic armament provided there are weight provisions to add additional armaments during the life of the ship (something the LCS, with it's short legs and limited weight-carry capacity lacked).

Dreadnought

IMO they need to build a frigate or cruiser hull that they will get the life out of very simular to the WWII heavy cruisers. Not so much armored per say but those cruisers had alot of time and miles on their hulls before the were scrapped and or museumed. Now days we search for lighter less radar visible ships but we also need to reincorporate the durability factor as well.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

gunnut

I agree with this vision.

Of course a ship like this will need protection from Aegis ships and that draws escorts away from the carriers. The point that Rick was trying to make.

Also this is just a very conservative version of the LCS. A very conventional, low risk, non flashy alternative, which I see as more practical.

I think Rick said some people suspect the navy sabotaged the LCS program by setting those weird requirements so they can fail and go back to build conventional frigates again.

Either way, I believe even the US navy needs frigates. We simply can't afford a fleet of 150 Aegis ships that can do everything.

jimmo

You know...there did not seem to be a lot of people within the Navy kicking and screaming when the LCS program got slashed almost to be point of non-existence. That tells you something.

JA Boomer

If that was the case why aren't people up in arms about the design of the LCS vessels? A RAM and 57mm deck gun is far less than what we are talking about with a new Frigate design.

I still believe that you have to reach some compromise. Putting a full AEGIS system on a Frigate to say that the crew is adequately protected is silly. You have to evaluate the mission profile of the ships, the expected threats, and design the weapons system to prosecute and protect against those threats. Worrying about what people will think is stupid, you should design warships to be the most effective platform, simple.

I don't think this would work. Is a Coast Guard cutter built to the same specs as a US Navy warship? In terms of hull strength, armor, damage control, ect...I don't know, but I think it would require expensive redesign, and the Navy would be best off to design a Frigate to its own requirements.

I am not talking about a mini-Burke design. As I said, the Frigate design should be designed to operate within battle groups or alone, with its primary mission being ASW. However, it makes ZERO sense to me to design a new class without the ability to defend itself, and to this end, I feel the Frigate needs a decent radar system and anti-air missiles.

I see them as exactly a Perry replacement. Remember the Perry carried something like 32 SM-1 Standard missiles when they were first deployed, firing from the Mk 13 launcher. Jump forward 30 years, I don't think it should be unreasonable for its replacement to have a similar anti-air capability.

This is apparently an issue, example: the Burke needing an overhaul to some of their longitudinal support beams because of warping under high seas. It probably shouldn't be an issue; most engineering specs are scaled up with a significant safety factor.

You point out that the public will not accept anything that is less than AEGIS because it will endanger the crew, and that the Navy can not afford such a ship. Where do you stand?

You have all given me a dose of reality. You’re correct, a AEGIS system with SPY-F radar is not affordable for a new US Frigate.

However, I still think the Frigate should be designed for work in battle groups (or alone) with a multi-role capability with the focus being on the ASW role. A 3-D radar set should be included, as well as a 48-cell (32 at minimum) Mk41 LVS system. I envisioned this Frigate as being able to participate in the air-defense of a battle group, and being able to withstand a significant assault by itself. But as you say, it does not need the sophisticated AEGIS system for directing a multi-axis threat defense.

I don't see this ship filling the role of the LCS however. Just too big and too many crew members to perform some of the missions. I think a smaller Corvette would be perfect to fulfill this role.

gunnut

I'm not familiar with the details of ship design. I thought a big coast guard cutter would have similar specifications as a navy frigate. Maybe they can standardize some elements and make things cheaper.

I think an NCS based frigate might work. It will definitely be interesting to see it work out. I would put only 16 VLS cells on it though and fit 64 ESSMs for self protection. It will cut down costs and simplify the electronics suite. The extra room can go toward ASW suite and cargo capacity for helos and UAV/SEAL deployment. Not sure why the navy has a facination with the 57mm gun. I want to see at least a 3" gun on a frigate.

jimmo

The NCS-based frigate would have significant overlap in capabillities with LCS. It would not have as shallow a draft or be as fast but it would have longer ranger, better seakeeping and could carry more cargo/weapons. As you can probably guess, I'd keep the organic weapons fit pretty light but would want the ability to up the weapons load if events dictate it. Think "fitted for but not with". To do this would allow the purchase of a greater number of hulls and keep the weight and space down for other stuff (i.e. additional air assets, ASW, MIW gear, ... Besides for missions such as maritime security and even ASW, how much in the way of armaments do you need? Is my approach the best for going one-on-one with a Kirov, definitely not. My approach though would get a lot of hulls in the water though would be really good for things like fighting pirates, chasing drug-runners, homeland-security missions, ASW, ...

If put on the spot, I'd go with eight vls cells for a total of Mk41 32 ESSM or maybe with the MK56 vls (whichever is cheaper and/or lighter). 32 ESSM may sound wimpy, but 32 ESSM along with the SeaRam system is probably more missiles than any surface-combatant has used in a naval engagement since WWII. Remember, these are not "ships-of-line".

I have no problem with the 57mm gun if the ship also has the ability to be fitted with the Netfires system. The 57mm gun gives a good-close-in defense capability with a high-rate-of-fire. The Netfires gives a precision over-the-horizon attack capabillity with each missile supposedly having the
destructive power of a 155mm shell.

You would want a torpedo launcher and maybe a 30mm chain-gun as well. So where does that leave us:
32 ESSM
1 57 mm gun
1 30 mm gun
3-6 torpedos
1 11-round Sea-ram launcher
fitted for Netfires and Harpoon III or the Norwegian NSM.

Keep in mind all that stuff may not be deployed all the time. A ship patrolling in home waters probably does not need all that stuff. A ship headed to the Persian Gulf probably needs every bit of it.

jimmo

In the above post, I refered to the proposal as "my proposal". I want to correct that line. It is not "my" proposal. I first heard of the idea to use the NSC as an LCS alternative in articles on Galrahn's blog and at DefenseNews.com. If you get a chance, check out those discussions. The idea made a lot of sense to me. Not very sexy, but very practical. Per those articles, Northrop Grumman has developed a naval-frigate version of the NSC but the details of the design have not yet been made public.

JA Boomer

OK, I think we have a problem. And by 'we' I mean the US Navy. We have been discussing this and a few different missions have come up. The need for a surface combatant to provide hulls numbers to support the blue water navy while not costing an arm and a leg with an AEGIS system. The needs for an ASW role surface combatant. Finally a ship for littoral warfare; SOF ops, intell, recon, port security, small boat warfare, ship interdiction, drug interdiction.

I just don't think you can cram those 3 missions into 1 hull. A smaller ship will do the littoral missions well, but will be a liability in battle group formation because it will have to be babysitted, and its small size limits its ASW potential. A larger ship will handle the battle group ops and the ASW well (and be more expensive) but will have trouble in the littoral and be too much ship and crew for those operations.

Hence, I still think you need two ships. A Frigate designed for battle group ops, specializing in ASW but capable of taking care of itself as well as a Corvette for the littoral missions (similar to the LCS, just one that doesn't suck). Needs to be a smaller hull, forget the netfires and the mission modules and the anti-mine warfare, take away the 15 foot draft and the 50 knot speed.

As far as the NSC is concerned, I think this may be a ship that fits right in the middle of the two I think are needed. Meaning it will do all three functions, and do them all poorly. I'd be interested to know if the Cutters are build to withstand the rigors of navy vessels (too bad Rick isn't here any more). I also don't understand why you guys are happy with a couple of ESSM's and a deck gun (and perhaps not all at the same time!).

I'd like to read some more about the NSC design, does anyone have any more information other than the obvious...

Integrated Deepwater System - National Security Cutter (NSC)

Maritime Security Cutter, Large (WMSL) / National Security Cutter (NSC)

(WMSL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Blademaster

I thought the reason why USN went for more Burkes is because Ticos were too top heavy and faced stability problems out on the sea.

jimmo

Yep. I agree with you here. We will probably end up with multiple hulls. The littoral mission especially seems very specialized.

I think though that we may disagree on what we need the most. I think you would agree that where the US is currently the strongest is blue water ops by battlegroups. We are without peer there. We have more hi-end air-warfare ships and large carriers than the rest of the world put together. True, eventually the Burkes and Ticos will not replacement but the need is not immediate. Where we are falling down is having ships to do the little, lower profile, less glamorous things like ASW, COIN, MIW, long-range patrol/pirate fighting, maritime security, escort duties, ... For those missions we do not need a "tier I" surface-combatant i.e. a Tico,Burke,Type45, Bazan, ... but we do need a lot of hulls so we can be all the places we want to be. We also need flexability as the range of mission to be covered is pretty diverse. The range of something like NSC as oposed to the LCS would allow it to handle most of those missions without an elaborate logistical tail The conventional hull would hopefully allow the ship to handle more than one of those roles at a time if needed (it can carry more cargo/weight/arms than the LCS).

[quote]"Needs to be a smaller hull, forget the netfires and the mission modules and the anti-mine warfare" [\QUOTE]

Some ability to deal with mine-warfare is clearly very important and is not an area where the US Navy is dominatant. Why would you can that aspect? Netfires allows the ship to target smaller hostile craft over the horizon. Why would you do without that? My guess is that even if LCS is completely cut, Netfires will find itself onboard larger ships operating in waters where the likelyhood of "small boat swarm attacks" is considered high.

I guess what this comes down to is what we perceive the needs of the US Navy to be. If you think that the Navy needs to beef-up its battlegroups with frigates, we should probably just build more Burkes. Why buy a less capable ship to augment the Burke's in essentially the same mission? My opinion (and it is just that, an opinion) is that the Navy needs to address those other roles for which the Burkes are not really suited. The Perry's were once able to handle at least some of these roles but unfortunately, they are at the end of their usefull lives.

You made the comment about "a couple of ESSMs and a deck gun". That is not really what I said. I am advocating keeping the armament flexible, so that the ship can be more easily tuned to the task at hand (besides 32 is way more than a couple).

Even in it's most austere configuration, an NSC-type ship with two helos, ability to deploy small boats, a 57mm gun and a SeaRam system would be usefull to the Navy (just as the emasculated Perrys still are today) for certain missions. If you have the option of increasing that armament to include harpoons, netfires, 30mm guns, torps, uavs, ... when deployments warrant it you become very usefull.

JA Boomer

Well, I think we are actually closer in thought than what you might think...


Firstly I have to take back what I said about the NLOS-PAM NetFires system. Thank you for calling me on that, as I really haven't taken a good look at that weapons system in a long time. Indeed it does seem valuable. I was going to say that a 30mm Bushmaster cannon and the RAM system could take care of the small boat threat However, the maximum effective range of those system is <10 miles, and the PAM missile would give a surface ship much greater reach. It would be most effective against the small boat threat as a Harpoon would be overkill and may not even hit such a small target.

I think it would be a valuable weapons system deployed on the Corvette (LSC mission profile) as it is this class that will have to deal with the small boat threat directly. I don't really think it would be worthwhile integrating the NLOS launcher into the Frigate, Destroyer, or Cruiser classes as these ships would very rarely come up against a small boat threat. If they did, the RAM would handle an attack.

The NLOS system would present the most worth in my eyes if the launcher could be placed into the Mk41 VLS system. I'm not sure if this is possible, but if the launch canister could be fitted into say a 2x2 cell section of the Mk41, that would be nice. Or simply quad pack the PAM into a Mk41 cell, which might even be a better idea, more flexible.


In terms of the Frigate/Corvette situation, this is what I propose. Develop a Frigate (120m long, 3-D radar (no AEGIS), 48-cell Mk41 VLS launcher, 1 x RAM, 2 x triple torpedo mounts, and a 30mm Bushmaster cannon on the port and starboard sides) to fill the role of light surface combatant. This means it could operate in the battle group role primarily tasked with ASW, or operate alone in the ASW role or on long-range patrol missions. You've talked about a Perry-class replacement, this is exactly what I intend this Frigate class to be.

Also develop a Corvette design (90 m long, 16-cell Mk41 VLS launcher, 1 x RAM, 2 x triple torpedo mounts, and a 30mm Bushmaster cannon on the port and starboard sides) to fulfill the LCS mission. Intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance, littoral ASW, small boat warfare, SOF deployment, search and rescue, drug interdiction, port security, patrol, and ship inspection. One of the primary features of the hull should be easy rigid-hull boat access such as seen on the NSC hull.


My problem is as follows. If I were to design a Navy from scratch, the surface fleet would include a Cruiser (battle group operations - primarily anti-air), a Destroyer (battle group operations - primarily anti-surface/strike), a Frigate (battle group operations - primarily ASW), and a Corvette class (LCS mission). I would deploy these in a 4:8:6:4 ratio. So for something the size of the US Navy, something like 20 Cruisers, 40 Destroyers, 30 Frigates, and 20 Corvettes would be ideal. As the US Navy is going to have over 60 Destroyers (Burkes, and similar to my Destroyer expectations) this throws my scheme out the window...and I struggle to think how best to balance out the rest of the fleet.


Where we might disagree Jimmo...is that I believe a surface combatant should be able to take of itself. If a Frigate needs babysitting...are you really increasing the number of hulls? Not as much as you could IMO. So...that is why my Frigate would have a Mk41 VLS system and 3-D radar. Your right, it does not need an AEGIS system and be a mini air-defense Destroyer. Its primary mission is ASW. However, it should be able to help out in defense of an air saturation attack of a battle group. It should also be able to defend itself from an air attack when operating alone. The same holds true for the Corvette, although to a lesser extent. It should be able to defend itself against a minimal air threat.

The idea of one-dimensional platforms drives me nuts, as does the idea of mission modules or weapons 'fitting' but not placing. My thoughts are that given x amount of dollars, a fully equipped and operational ship (remember not talking an AEGIS Tico here, just talking about the systems and weapons necessary to get the assigned task of the class completed) can do the job better than the number of one-dimensional or 'specialized' ships you could build with the same money. One of the biggest problems with this is running out of the specific mission modules (if you don't have as many specific mission modules as hulls) and the time it takes to fit the modules.


Again, I don't like the NSC in the Frigate mission because I'm not sure it could take the weapons/sensor loads needed and/or have the survivability/damage control necessary for a warship (still looking for some more data of this). I also don't think it would make a good LCS vessel because it is too big (operational and crew costs would kill you).


Mine warfare can be handled by Minesweepers/hunters. Adding this capability to the missions of the LCS vessel is just too much IMO. Sorry to make you read all that haha.

jimmo

JA Boomer,

Firstly, I agree now that we are not that far apart. I also agree that the LCS-concept took the concept of modularity, small crew sizes and crew-swapping to extremes...maybe too extreme.

I see your points about single mission ships but "fitted for but not with" is a fact of life in all Navies these days. 25mm guns and CIWS systems are bolted onto ships headed for the Gulf and removed when the ships returns to home/safer waters. Harpoon lauchers are fastened to the deck of Aussie ships headed to the Gulf but not seen when the ships are in more friendly waters. Do you really think all the VLS cells in the US Navy are filled all the time?

I think we are talking about almost the same frigate except I'd go lighter on the VLS cells to save space,weight,money.... Even 32 ESSM and a SeaRam is better than the Perry's ever had.

On the Netfires topic, I think they will show up on larger US ships operating in places like the Gulf because they will give those ships precision over-the-horizon capabillites against smaller vessels which I don't think systems like 25mm guns or RAM missiles can give you. My understanding is that Harpoon still has issues in the littoral environment -- maybe when Block III is ready that will change and the missile will again be deployed in numbers on US ships.

My reservation about using corvettes in the martitime security, anti-pirate type roles is that I'd be worried they would not have the range, sea-keeping or even crew-comfort needed to carry out those missions without being some sort of logistical burden. Indeed, that was something that bothered me about the LCS concept. The thing was just too short legged and I feared it would be a logistical nightmare. I'd use austere frigates in those roles with long range and good sea-keeping. Hell, the NSC was designed for those types of mission. I have heard that the ships was designed to be up-armed if neccessary -- but I am not sure how so or by how much.

For the "true" littoral type missions...I am not sure what I'd do. Maybe the original concept of using very small (600 ton) ships with some sort LCS-tender ship is the way to go. Personally, I like Galrahn's pet idea of using large LPD-17 size motherships with swarms of USVs, UAVs, ... Time will tell, but I think we are still in a time of exploring of those ideas.

By the way, I do not want to come off like I am love with the NSC. I don't see it as the "utlimate frigate" or anything. I just see it as a practical choice for where we are right now given the constraints of time, money, politics, ...

JA Boomer

I'm not sure about this, at least for the US Navy. Firstly, the only class currently having a Bushmaster type cannon I believe is the San Antonio class. Secondly, I've never heard of US Navy ships having their CIWS taken off when they return to port from deployment. I've never seen a single picture of a vessel with that system removed. As our discussion pertains to the US Navy, I don't think that is a valid argument.

Once again you have changed my mind. I think this would be a useful weapon system for all US surface warships to have. Smaller craft are an increasing threat, and outside of the range of the .50cal and RAM, the Harpoon is just overkill and may not even be targetable. So this should be fitted to existing classes as well as new designs. However, I would like to see it retrofitted into the Mk 41 VLS launcher. It would just make things so much easier. As it is a VERY easy to use and mobile system, I don't see a problem with this, and it should be easily made available in a quad-pack Mk 41 cell canister. (PAM diameter = 7 in. while the currently quad-packed ESSM diameter = 10 in.)

I agree. But I'm wondering if you remove the 50 knot speed and 15 foot draft requirements from a LCS type ship, how much design space do you open up for increased endurance? It may be enough, although there are other tradeoffs such as the removal of mission modules and the addition of a small VLS system in my Corvette idea. But your right, a LCS ship that is restricted by endurance is not very useful. The Lockheed LCS design has an endurance of 4300 nm at 20 knots, that is almost on par with a Perry Frigate, so anything in that range would be good for me.

Ya, I think you go either way, there is not money enough for both, either a Corvette LCS style surface combatant, or a modified LPD design. The only thing with the LPD is that you are bringing a heck of a lot of boats, SOF, ship crew, and even some helicopters to the littoral fight, when most of the time I believe this will be overkill.

It would be a very practical choice, and would be the cheapest option no doubt. I'm just not sold on the idea...still looking for more info. Uh oh, pretty soon we will have nothing to discuss!