New USN PC idea

[johnpjones1775]

as im sure everyone here knows the USN has gotten rid of it's entire PC fleet, leaving a few small cutters and avenger MCMs as the only US naval assets permanently stationed there.

my proposal i'll call the hazard class PC as the USS hazard inspired me.

using the general dimensions of the admirable class sweeps, so we're looking at about 185' long and 30' abeam. i think we could easily manage a PC with a mk110 on the bow, P/S mk38s with a SEARAM on the same deck, along with a rear ramp for ASW drones, and a hedgehog style sonobuoy launcher. the ASW drone could simply be a drone that would carry a LW torpedo, or it could itself be a suicide drone/torpedo.

moderate AAW capability that would be very serious threat to any iranian helicopters that might try to fast rope troops onto merchant ships, plenty of anti-surface capability to fend of a fairly large number of FAC/FIAC, and of course some (not very much) ASW capability for prosecuting enemy subs in shallow waters.

 

[H_K]

using the general dimensions of the admirable class sweeps, so we're looking at about 185' long and 30' abeam. i think we could easily manage a PC with a mk110 on the bow, P/S mk38s with a SEARAM on the same deck, along with a rear ramp for ASW drones, and a hedgehog style sonobuoy launcher.

Have you looked at the UAE Coast Guard’s Arialah class? Slightly larger but otherwise very similar.

Arialah-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[johnpjones1775]

using the general dimensions of the admirable class sweeps, so we're looking at about 185' long and 30' abeam. i think we could easily manage a PC with a mk110 on the bow, P/S mk38s with a SEARAM on the same deck, along with a rear ramp for ASW drones, and a hedgehog style sonobuoy launcher.

Have you looked at the UAE Coast Guard’s Arialah class? Slightly larger but otherwise very similar.

Arialah-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I had not, and it is very similar to what I was thinking.
The flight deck to me is largely a waste of time and space and where I’d put something that could be used for ASW.

 

[riggerrob]

Can you install hatches on the flight deck that are strong enough to absorb the impact of a drone landing, it still quickly open to fire ASROC or hedgehog anti-submarine weapons?
Do those batches need to be any larger in diameter than an ASROC missile?
Could you install hedgehog mortars along the flanks? Install them on large batches that are hinted at the bottom and barely swing open far enough to expose the muzzles of hedgehog mortars.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Can you install hatches on the flight deck that are strong enough to absorb the impact of a drone landing, it still quickly open to fire ASROC or hedgehog anti-submarine weapons?
Do those batches need to be any larger in diameter than an ASROC missile?
Could you install hedgehog mortars along the flanks? Install them on large batches that are hinted at the bottom and barely swing open far enough to expose the muzzles of hedgehog mortars.

i'm sure you could install hatches capable of withstanding that, considering the russians had VLS in the flight decks of their heavy aviation cruisers, but i dont know if it would be cost effective for such a ship.

there really is almost 0 need for a flight deck on a patrol vessel.

however depending on what is below the flight deck an option might be to stick the aforementioned ASW drone/suicide UUV with an aft ramp down there, and sonobouy launchers p/s below the flight deck.

 

[that_person]

See the 1980s PXM project

 

[TomS]

using the general dimensions of the admirable class sweeps, so we're looking at about 185' long and 30' abeam. i think we could easily manage a PC with a mk110 on the bow, P/S mk38s with a SEARAM on the same deck, along with a rear ramp for ASW drones, and a hedgehog style sonobuoy launcher.

Have you looked at the UAE Coast Guard’s Arialah class? Slightly larger but otherwise very similar.

Arialah-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I had not, and it is very similar to what I was thinking.
The flight deck to me is largely a waste of time and space and where I’d put something that could be used for ASW.

Counterpoint, I think this might be really useful

1) I'm not sure a PC-type ship can do ASW effectively today. A 600-ton ship really can't be silenced down to a suitable level, and can't carry big enough sensors to really do the job. Ship-deployed sonobuoys are not greal (no one uses them) because even rocket-assisted they don't get far enough from the ship to be effective and the ship isn't really fast enough to lay a line in timely fashion. There were some proposals for rocket-deployed ERAPS-type buoys in the 1970s, but nothing came of them.

2) For the usual PC missions, I'd love to have a helo pad, for several reasons, First, a pad allows you to operate a small organic VTOL drone (a V-BAT or Camcopter type), which can dramatically improve the ship's situational awareness and potentially even provide some off-board firepower. Second, it would allow you to lily-pad a small helo like an MH-6 Little Bird, which is really handy for how the PCs operated in places like the Persian Gulf, working in close concert with SOF helos flying from an AFSB. Third, it would allow HIFR to and VERTREP from a larger helo, which is really handy for extending the operating reach of something like an MH-60S working with the PC for interdiction ops.

 

[johnpjones1775]

using the general dimensions of the admirable class sweeps, so we're looking at about 185' long and 30' abeam. i think we could easily manage a PC with a mk110 on the bow, P/S mk38s with a SEARAM on the same deck, along with a rear ramp for ASW drones, and a hedgehog style sonobuoy launcher.

Have you looked at the UAE Coast Guard’s Arialah class? Slightly larger but otherwise very similar.

Arialah-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I had not, and it is very similar to what I was thinking.
The flight deck to me is largely a waste of time and space and where I’d put something that could be used for ASW.

Counterpoint, I think this might be really useful

1) I'm not sure a PC-type ship can do ASW effectively today. A 600-ton ship really can't be silenced down to a suitable level, and can't carry big enough sensors to really do the job. Ship-deployed sonobuoys are not greal (no one uses them) because even rocket-assisted they don't get far enough from the ship to be effective and the ship isn't really fast enough to lay a line in timely fashion. There were some proposals for rocket-deployed ERAPS-type buoys in the 1970s, but nothing came of them.

2) For the usual PC missions, I'd love to have a helo pad, for several reasons, First, a pad allows you to operate a small organic VTOL drone (a V-BAT or Camcopter type), which can dramatically improve the ship's situational awareness and potentially even provide some off-board firepower. Second, it would allow you to lily-pad a small helo like an MH-6 Little Bird, which is really handy for how the PCs operated in places like the Persian Gulf, working in close concert with SOF helos flying from an AFSB. Third, it would allow HIFR to and VERTREP from a larger helo, which is really handy for extending the operating reach of something like an MH-60S working with the PC for interdiction ops.

Yeah the ASW aspect was more of a working with a larger fleet and providing data via link.

As for drone operation there are drones with fairly good range that can be deployed and recovered from a 10x10 area if small drone usage is all you’re looking for.

The only real argument for a full sized flight deck would be for medevac, but even that’s not 100% necessary as a patient and can be winched up in a basket.

 

[TomS]

Yeah the ASW aspect was more of a working with a larger fleet and providing data via link.

As for drone operation there are drones with fairly good range that can be deployed and recovered from a 10x10 area if small drone usage is all you’re looking for.

The only real argument for a full sized flight deck would be for medevac, but even that’s not 100% necessary as a patient and can be winched up in a basket.

Sure, you can do that, but I'd want to future-proof a bit. TERN is probably too big at 40-feet wide, with potential heavy ordnance. But there are slightly larger drones that might want about a 20x20 pad. From there, a pad big enough to host an MH-6 seems like a really small addition with a lot of payoff, operationally.

In terms of other armament, I might think about ExLS, which could replace the RAM launcher (assuming the USN was willing to fund the VLS adapted RM Block 2). Two three-cell launchers is 24 RAM or a mix of RAM and JAGM. And eliminating the trainable launcher is good for deck arrangements, maintenance, and signatures.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Yeah the ASW aspect was more of a working with a larger fleet and providing data via link.

As for drone operation there are drones with fairly good range that can be deployed and recovered from a 10x10 area if small drone usage is all you’re looking for.

The only real argument for a full sized flight deck would be for medevac, but even that’s not 100% necessary as a patient and can be winched up in a basket.

Sure, you can do that, but I'd want to future-proof a bit. TERN is probably too big at 40-feet wide, with potential heavy ordnance. But there are slightly larger drones that might want about a 20x20 pad. From there, a pad big enough to host an MH-6 seems like a really small addition with a lot of payoff, operationally.

In terms of other armament, I might think about ExLS, which could replace the RAM launcher (assuming the USN was willing to fund the VLS adapted RM Block 2). Two three-cell launchers is 24 RAM or a mix of RAM and JAGM. And eliminating the trainable launcher is good for deck arrangements, maintenance, and signatures.

PCs should be cheap and easily replaceable, they don’t really need to be future proofed that much, or you’re over investing in them.

 

[TomS]

PCs should be cheap and easily replaceable, they don’t really need to be future proofed that much, or you’re over investing in them.

Rate of change in UAS is so fast right now that you could obsolete yourself during the build cycle if you're not careful. Plus, again, that Little Bird lily pad is just an appealing capability for the PC mission set.

Admittedly, this is just my preference, though. I'm aiming for something that can be useful in the Pacific, not just the Gulf.

What I'd do is have a 57mm forward, three ExLS (one forward of the bridge, and one each P/S aft for a mix of 36 RAM or JAGM), two Mk 46 30mm mounts, and a stern ramp for a pair of 11-m RHIBs or USVs. Flight deck over the midships area with a small hangar for a pair of small UAVs that could land a Little Bird temporarily. Overall shape to be low-signature. Propulsion probably diesel-electric.

Edit: looking around, the Visby would probably be a pretty close model. Just with the antiship missile armament swapped for other systems. Which means maybe you could do some coastal ASW.

 

[johnpjones1775]

PCs should be cheap and easily replaceable, they don’t really need to be future proofed that much, or you’re over investing in them.

Rate of change in UAS is so fast right now that you could obsolete yourself during the build cycle if you're not careful. Plus, again, that Little Bird lily pad is just an appealing capability for the PC mission set.

Admittedly, this is just my preference, though. I'm aiming for something that can be useful in the Pacific, not just the Gulf.

What I'd do is have a 57mm forward, three ExLS (one forward of the bridge, and one each P/S aft for a mix of 36 RAM or JAGM), two Mk 46 30mm mounts, and a stern ramp for a pair of 11-m RHIBs or USVs. Flight deck over the midships area with a small hangar for a pair of small UAVs that could land a Little Bird temporarily. Overall shape to be low-signature. Propulsion probably diesel-electric.

Edit: looking around, the Visby would probably be a pretty close model. Just with the antiship missile armament swapped for other systems. Which means maybe you could do some coastal ASW.

I can’t find cost for the Arialah-class but a viably is around $200m.
Personally I’d hope to keep it a bit below that at around $125-150m
Interestingly the Arialah-class can berth up to 35 troops, so a boat deck/ramp with 4 11m rhibs could allow them to transport roughly a platoon of light infantry, and then make follow up supply runs as necessary to help give it some extra utility in the pacific.

 

[TomS]

Interesting reading for this topic:

The Mk VI is Dead—Long Live the Mk VII

The Navy needs small ships for a variety of missions.

www.usni.org

 

[johnpjones1775]

Interesting reading for this topic:

The Mk VI is Dead—Long Live the Mk VII

The Navy needs small ships for a variety of missions.

www.usni.org

the funny part is the MK VI isn't actually dead
they're fully funded for this year, the navy just refuses to use them. i read that article a while ago, so i don't recall the specifics now, but unfortunately i don't think the prospective MK VII they talk about would really be all that useful.

i'm of the opinion OPVs and PCs should be large enough and well armed enough to be able to contribute in some way to the high end fight, not just be able to outgun some armed fishermen illegally fishing.

the japanese found out how hard it is to stop a small non-compliant fishing vessel first hand a while ago.

 

[TomS]

the funny part is the MK VI isn't actually dead
they're fully funded for this year, the navy just refuses to use them.

Well, they're just not very relevant -- 72 tons is too big for true riverine work and too small for the open waters of the Pacific AOR. I expect they will end up in Ukraine, eventually.

i'm of the opinion OPVs and PCs should be large enough and well armed enough to be able to contribute in some way to the high end fight, not just be able to outgun some armed fishermen illegally fishing.

The article proposes including some form of heavy AShM (NSM or even Tomahawk). Which frankly strikes me as unnecessary. A Special Warfare-adjacent vessel should concentrate on being able to deal with the Chinese Maritime Militia and Coast Guard, not duking it out with the PLAN. Which is why I think JAGM or equivalent is probably enough firepower, as long as you bring a decent number of them.

Those paramilitaries are meaningful concerns for our partners in the region and we are not going very much to deal with them, hard or soft.

 

[johnpjones1775]

the funny part is the MK VI isn't actually dead
they're fully funded for this year, the navy just refuses to use them.

Well, they're just not very relevant -- 72 tons is too big for true riverine work and too small for the open waters of the Pacific AOR. I expect they will end up in Ukraine, eventually.

i'm of the opinion OPVs and PCs should be large enough and well armed enough to be able to contribute in some way to the high end fight, not just be able to outgun some armed fishermen illegally fishing.

The article proposes including some form of heavy AShM (NSM or even Tomahawk). Which frankly strikes me as unnecessary. A Special Warfare-adjacent vessel should concentrate on being able to deal with the Chinese Maritime Militia and Coast Guard, not duking it out with the PLAN. Which is why I think JAGM or equivalent is probably enough firepower, as long as you bring a decent number of them.

Those paramilitaries are meaningful concerns for our partners in the region and we are not going very much to deal with them, hard or soft.

unfortunately small missiles really aren't a good option for something the size of any actual ocean going vessel. a previous gen ASM like harpoon would be fine for such a vessel, and would be needed to effectively engage and destroy maritime militia vessels.

we need a class of ship that will be cheap, fast to build, and that will be able to be built in many US shipyards at once.
if we get into a war, we are losing a lot of major combatants fast, and it will take decades for us to replace them, so we'll need to get hulls with effective weapons in the water again as soon as possible.

Battle of Amami-Ōshima - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Scott Kenny]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You need a much larger ship to handle the Aegis radars.

 

[johnpjones1775]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You need a much larger ship to handle the Aegis radars.

No one needs aegis on a PC

 

[TomS]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You can't quite get that small -- two lightweight Mk140 quad Harpoon launchers weighs just over 8 tons, which needs more than 50 tons of boat to carry it.

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

 

[Scott Kenny]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You need a much larger ship to handle the Aegis radars.

No one needs aegis on a PC

but replacing a Burke or Tico does require Aegis.

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You can't quite get that small -- two lightweight Mk140 quad Harpoon launchers weighs just over 8 tons, which needs more than 50 tons of boat to carry it.

I was actually thinking 4x pairs, but point taken about the weight of the launcher proper.

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

The stated reason for the new PC design was to replace massive ship losses in a major conflict:

we need a class of ship that will be cheap, fast to build, and that will be able to be built in many US shipyards at once.
if we get into a war, we are losing a lot of major combatants fast, and it will take decades for us to replace them, so we'll need to get hulls with effective weapons in the water again as soon as possible.

Hence my comments about how a PC is too small to mount Aegis, but if you just need Harpoons or Tomahawks a PT boat or a little bigger will do just fine.

 

[TomS]

I guess we're at cross purposes. Nothing as small as a PC (even at 600 tons) can be a useful replacement for a major surface combatant. The minimum for that is a few thousand tons and a surprising amount of long-lead electronics. I think a naval war with China is probably much like WW3, a come-as-you-are affair with very little time for new builds

I posted a thread a while back that included a 1980s Mobilization Frigate. You can see both how incredibly austere it was and how much effort would still go into building it. And that's before the cruise missile threat became as severe as it is today.

Post in thread 'Obscure USN Frigate concepts and studies' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/obscure-usn-frigate-concepts-and-studies.39022/post-522292

 

[Scott Kenny]

I guess we're at cross purposes. Nothing as small as a PC (even at 600 tons) can be a useful replacement for a major surface combatant. The minimum for that is a few thousand tons and a surprising amount of long-lead electronics. I think a naval war with China is probably much like WW3, a come-as-you-are affair with very little time for new builds

I posted a thread a while back that included a 1980s Mobilization Frigate. You can see both how incredibly austere it was and how much effort would still go into building it. And that's before the cruise missile threat became as severe as it is today.

Post in thread 'Obscure USN Frigate concepts and studies' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/obscure-usn-frigate-concepts-and-studies.39022/post-522292

Agreed, that Mobilization Frigate is probably the smallest possible hull that is actually capable of being useful. Somewhat ironically, IEP like the diesel-electric drive is currently all the rage.

 

[johnpjones1775]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You need a much larger ship to handle the Aegis radars.

No one needs aegis on a PC

but replacing a Burke or Tico does require Aegis.

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You can't quite get that small -- two lightweight Mk140 quad Harpoon launchers weighs just over 8 tons, which needs more than 50 tons of boat to carry it.

I was actually thinking 4x pairs, but point taken about the weight of the launcher proper.

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

The stated reason for the new PC design was to replace massive ship losses in a major conflict:

we need a class of ship that will be cheap, fast to build, and that will be able to be built in many US shipyards at once.
if we get into a war, we are losing a lot of major combatants fast, and it will take decades for us to replace them, so we'll need to get hulls with effective weapons in the water again as soon as possible.

Hence my comments about how a PC is too small to mount Aegis, but if you just need Harpoons or Tomahawks a PT boat or a little bigger will do just fine.

What? No one is replacing a burke or a Tico with a PC.
What are you talking about

 

[johnpjones1775]

I guess we're at cross purposes. Nothing as small as a PC (even at 600 tons) can be a useful replacement for a major surface combatant. The minimum for that is a few thousand tons and a surprising amount of long-lead electronics. I think a naval war with China is probably much like WW3, a come-as-you-are affair with very little time for new builds

I posted a thread a while back that included a 1980s Mobilization Frigate. You can see both how incredibly austere it was and how much effort would still go into building it. And that's before the cruise missile threat became as severe as it is today.

Post in thread 'Obscure USN Frigate concepts and studies' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/obscure-usn-frigate-concepts-and-studies.39022/post-522292

Where are you people getting this idea of people trying to replace a major surface combatant with a PC?

But as for size, the roussen class FAC is around 600tons, 8 major ASMs, a 76, two 30s and a RAM.
Being a FAC the endurance is low but it’s only 580tons so I’m sure you can add endurance by add more bunkerage for fuel, and more storage for perishables for the free in that extra 20tons of leeway

Roussen Class (62m Super Vita) Fast Attack Missile Craft

Elefsis Industrial Enterprises SA has been awarded the contract for the supply of three Super Vita 62m fast attack missile…

www.naval-technology.com

Also the next naval war will be very much come as you are, but when your fleet is ravaged after the war, what do you do then? Try operating at the same pace of operations with 2/3 or less the ships? Lower op tempo opening space for other competitors to fill the power vacuum?

Or build a bunch of PCs, and corvette/LCS sized ships as quickly as possible to fill the gaps for the next 2 decades while you begin to restore major combatants to the fleet?

 

[johnpjones1775]

600 tons is way too small to be a useful ASW platform, and too big to be a useful missile boat. Something roughly the size of a PT boat, 80-100ft long and 50 tons displacement, can carry an octet of Harpoon missiles if you need striking power.

You can't quite get that small -- two lightweight Mk140 quad Harpoon launchers weighs just over 8 tons, which needs more than 50 tons of boat to carry it.

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

A PC without offensive capability has no actual use…you can just buy an off the shelf small yatch put some sensors on it, paint it gray and commission it if you’re not going to be giving it any real offensive power.


PC is out on patrol when it detects or otherwise stumbles across a hostile corvette really any other enemy ship above PC size, what do you propose? They try to out run the enemy missiles? Just surrender on the spot?

Patrol craft throughout history up until about the 70s or 80s were always designed and intended to have some level of offensive capability.

PT boats? Torpedoes.
Torpedo boats? Torpedoes
Advisios and similar ships classes? Torpedoes, and numerous intermediate sized guns for the time.
Monitors, always had big guns that could threaten much larger ocean going vessels

I guess going back to age of sail sloops and brigs didn’t often have enough guns or big enough guns to reasonably engage rated warships.

So basically since the steam engine was invented all patrol craft had some method of engaging larger enemy combatants with at least moderate chance causing serious damage to the larger vessel.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Also in regards to how small of a vessel can mount major ASM systems, I am friends with an FFG/PC/LCS officer who is now CO of an MCM, I’ll double check our discussions but I’m pretty sure he mentioned that the MK VI boats can handle 2 harpoons or NSMs

Yep just confirmed the MK VI PBs can mount 4 NSMs in a side mount configuration

So that’s 4 NSM on a 72 ton platform

 

[Scott Kenny]

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

The stated reason for the new PC design was to replace massive ship losses in a major conflict:

we need a class of ship that will be cheap, fast to build, and that will be able to be built in many US shipyards at once.
if we get into a war, we are losing a lot of major combatants fast, and it will take decades for us to replace them, so we'll need to get hulls with effective weapons in the water again as soon as possible.

Hence my comments about how a PC is too small to mount Aegis, but if you just need Harpoons or Tomahawks a PT boat or a little bigger will do just fine.

What? No one is replacing a burke or a Tico with a PC.
What are you talking about

Did you not read my quote of YOUR OWN WORDS?

You said that this was to get hulls with effective weapons in the water as soon as possible.

The single largest type of combat craft in the USN is an Aegis ship, 71x Burkes in service, 90 total planned; and the remaining Ticonderoga class, 17 remaining in service.

Not LCS, not FFGs. Aegis.

A major war will result in the loss of many Aegis ships, which will need to be replaced as fast as possible.

 

[johnpjones1775]

But "striking power" isn't what the PCs were really for. They were for coastal patrol and interdiction, special operations, countering small boat swarms, etc.

The stated reason for the new PC design was to replace massive ship losses in a major conflict:

we need a class of ship that will be cheap, fast to build, and that will be able to be built in many US shipyards at once.
if we get into a war, we are losing a lot of major combatants fast, and it will take decades for us to replace them, so we'll need to get hulls with effective weapons in the water again as soon as possible.

Hence my comments about how a PC is too small to mount Aegis, but if you just need Harpoons or Tomahawks a PT boat or a little bigger will do just fine.

What? No one is replacing a burke or a Tico with a PC.
What are you talking about

Did you not read my quote of YOUR OWN WORDS?

You said that this was to get hulls with effective weapons in the water as soon as possible.

The single largest type of combat craft in the USN is an Aegis ship, 71x Burkes in service, 90 total planned; and the remaining Ticonderoga class, 17 remaining in service.

Not LCS, not FFGs. Aegis.

A major war will result in the loss of many Aegis ships, which will need to be replaced as fast as possible.

yes i said effective weapons, i did not say anything about aegis or large combatants.
also the constellation class FFGs are aegis ships...so yeah if they chose to rebuild the fleet a bit faster with connies they'd still rebuilding an aegis fleet.

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

there are also other effective radar systems. sea giraffe may not be great, but it would do the job, just not as well as spy radar. sea giraffe can be put on ships of the size range we're talking about in this thread. it has a range of nearly 300miles and monitors up to 40k meters in altitude.

yes a major war will result in many losses of burkes that will need to be replaced as soon as possible. if the US only loses 10 burkes which is a VERY conservative estimate, i could take 5 years or more to replace them. if i'm not mistaken we only have 2 shipyards currently capable of building burkes or anything larger. we are currently building burkes as fast as we realistically can as it is. which is not a good thing for the prospects of reaching our current fleet size ever again if we lose even a few ships.

on top of losses we have to factor in ships damaged, but not completely lost, lets say another conservative 10. i'm not sure how many yards we have that can do repairs to burkes, i know of at least two on the east coast, two on the west and one in hawaii seem like reasonable guess, so it could take a few years to get those ships back into operational status.

none of this is counting the likely losses to MSC ships, which all USN vessels need in order to operate effectively, so even if we replace the burkes in a some what timely manner, until we replace MSC's unrep ships a burkes range based on fuel bunkerage is largely irrelevant, because the ships would run out of food and other necessary gear, necessitating constant returns to port to resupply.

https://www.saab.com/contentassets/7bbc9bd84ccf489aa061a0dd604f15bb/press-tour-june_extra-material-sea-giraffe.pdf

here's an example of a small patrol type vessel that brings to bear effective weapons. mk110 can engage and defeat subsonic missiles for sure, possibly even super sonic missiles. carries 4 ASMs, ASW 'grenades' whatever that means.

HSwMS Gävle (K22) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TomS]

Also in regards to how small of a vessel can mount major ASM systems, I am friends with an FFG/PC/LCS officer who is now CO of an MCM, I’ll double check our discussions but I’m pretty sure he mentioned that the MK VI boats can handle 2 harpoons or NSMs

Yep just confirmed the MK VI PBs can mount 4 NSMs in a side mount configuration

So that’s 4 NSM on a 72 ton platform

That's something that has never been publicized. And I'm pretty sure it's not really a good idea. Lockheed has pitched an unmanned Mk VI with 4 LRASM, and it's very, very tight. NSM is lighter, of course but not that light. With a crew, it's totally maxed out. And to be very blunt, taking a Mk VI into the open Pacific is a doable but unpleasant experience.

Lockheed Martin Studying Integration of LRASM Anti-Ship Missile on USV Platforms

At the Surface Navy Association's (SNA) 2017 National Symposium held last year, Lockheed Martin was showcasing a Mark VI patrol boat scale model fitted with an erectable launcher for four missiles at its stern. This conceptual model was representative of an unmanned Mark VI patrol boat fitted...

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[Yellow Palace]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

 

[Jimmo952]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

Agreed. Another issue with boats like the Mk VI is they can't carry the missiles very far or for very long. They just don't have the legs or endurance.

 

[H_K]

A PC without offensive capability has no actual use…you can just buy an off the shelf small yatch put some sensors on it, paint it gray and commission it if you’re not going to be giving it any real offensive power.


PC is out on patrol when it detects or otherwise stumbles across a hostile corvette really any other enemy ship above PC size, what do you propose?

You’re getting stuck on one platform. In real life there would be aviation assets patrolling far more effectively than a patrol boat… land-based P8s, carrier based Tacair, ship launched UAVs & helos. So the concept of a PC stumbling upon an enemy warship is not going to happen. Even if it did, the correct answer is to bug out and send a report for other assets to engage. The PC gets sunk? Not a big loss.

The PC is there to do things that only PCs can do… mainly VBSS of dodgy civilian ships, perhaps special forces infiltration (though that’s better done by air or by sub). Adding a small sonar to act as a mobile sonobuoy can’t hurt either.

As far as ocean going small patrol boats go, the only type I know is the ~75 ton Ocean Eagle (30 knots max speed, 5,000nm range @ 12kts). It can carry 1 UAV, 1 RHIB/USV and some light armament.

Ocean Eagle 43 Ocean Patrol Trimaran CMN Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie datasheet pictures photos video specifications

Ocean Eagle 43 Ocean Patrol Trimaran CMN Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie datasheet pictures photos video specifications

navyrecognition.com

Ocean Eagle 43: a strikingly innovative sea going patrol vessel | MARINE & OCÉANS

Ocean Eagle 43: a strikingly innovative sea going patrol vessel - - MARINE & OCÉANS

marine-oceans.com

View: https://youtu.be/k4kmjMto6Xw

 

[johnpjones1775]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

war is all about trades, most any admiral would gladly trade a MK VI for an enemy frigate or destroyer. but ya'll are kinda missing the point here.

 

[johnpjones1775]

A PC without offensive capability has no actual use…you can just buy an off the shelf small yatch put some sensors on it, paint it gray and commission it if you’re not going to be giving it any real offensive power.


PC is out on patrol when it detects or otherwise stumbles across a hostile corvette really any other enemy ship above PC size, what do you propose?

You’re getting stuck on one platform. In real life there would be aviation assets patrolling far more effectively than a patrol boat… land-based P8s, carrier based Tacair, ship launched UAVs & helos. So the concept of a PC stumbling upon an enemy warship is not going to happen. Even if it did, the correct answer is to bug out and send a report for other assets to engage. The PC gets sunk? Not a big loss.

The PC is there to do things that only PCs can do… mainly VBSS of dodgy civilian ships, perhaps special forces infiltration (though that’s better done by air or by sub). Adding a small sonar to act as a mobile sonobuoy can’t hurt either.

As far as ocean going small patrol boats go, the only type I know is the ~75 ton Ocean Eagle (30 knots max speed, 5,000nm range @ 12kts). It can carry 1 UAV, 1 RHIB/USV and some light armament.

Ocean Eagle 43 Ocean Patrol Trimaran CMN Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie datasheet pictures photos video specifications

Ocean Eagle 43 Ocean Patrol Trimaran CMN Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie datasheet pictures photos video specifications

navyrecognition.com

Ocean Eagle 43: a strikingly innovative sea going patrol vessel | MARINE & OCÉANS

Ocean Eagle 43: a strikingly innovative sea going patrol vessel - - MARINE & OCÉANS

marine-oceans.com

View: https://youtu.be/k4kmjMto6Xw

really? tell that to the french whose OPVs in the indo-pacific are the only naval assets they have there.
any ship with RHIBs can do VBSS, something the USN has seemed to enjoy doing quite a bit for the last 20-30 years.

so your proposition is to try to outrun the enemy missiles then...and you're right if the OPV gets sunk, not a massive loss as callous as that sounds to many, so in that case why not at least have the option of trading that OPV for that enemy corvette or larger ship?

 

[johnpjones1775]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

 

[Jimmo952]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

Understood. In the perfect world the USN would have patrol boats and corvettes for the gulf.

Come to think of it, that's what the LCSs were supposed to be. Too bad the program fell short.

But in the battle of budget priorities, all smaller shallow water craft now seem to have lost out to blue water centric ships and capabilities, at least for now.

The Navy now seems to be trying to do Gulf patrol and interdiction missions using Coast Guard FRCs and USVs.

 

[johnpjones1775]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

Understood. In the perfect world the USN would have patrol boats and corvettes for the gulf.

Come to think of it, that's what the LCSs were supposed to be. Too bad the program fell short.

But in the battle of budget priorities, all smaller shallow water craft now seem to have lost out to blue water centric ships and capabilities, at least for now.

The Navy now seems to be trying to do Gulf patrol and interdiction missions using Coast Guard FRCs and USVs.

We’ll see how often the FRCs actually do anything.
But even they are under armed for dealing with Iran.
As a former mk38 gunner/tech I can tell you if Iran does try something the FRCs will stand little chance. They’ll be outnumbered by vessels with similar or more firepower.

A patrol craft meant to fend off a FAC swarm needs a lot more firepower than 1 single barreled 20-30mm gun.

The Ivan khurs attack is a great example.
They had 1 14.5mm gun and 1 LMG available to target 3 jet ski sized attack craft, and failed to stop them all. Even if the one that made contact failed to do serious damage, that’s pure luck. If those vessels had any sort of ballistic weapons they would have all managed to get into threat range.

The khurs’ replacement ship however seems to have successfully fended off a similar attack in the same region. The difference? An ak630 was present backed up by a 14.5mm gun.

All that to come back to the FRCs, they’re poor replacements for the cyclones, that had twice the gun power as well as the ability to launch small ASMs.

The MK VIs could also mount griffins so even they would be better at actually fighting than the FRCs

After the fall of the USSR there should have been a decade focused on PCs/OPVs and MCMs, especially after 9/11. A terrorist organization getting ahold of mines and a few dhows were a much bigger maritime threat than any air attack from 2001-2011.

 

[Jimmo952]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

Understood. In the perfect world the USN would have patrol boats and corvettes for the gulf.

Come to think of it, that's what the LCSs were supposed to be. Too bad the program fell short.

But in the battle of budget priorities, all smaller shallow water craft now seem to have lost out to blue water centric ships and capabilities, at least for now.

The Navy now seems to be trying to do Gulf patrol and interdiction missions using Coast Guard FRCs and USVs.

We’ll see how often the FRCs actually do anything.
But even they are under armed for dealing with Iran.
As a former mk38 gunner/tech I can tell you if Iran does try something the FRCs will stand little chance. They’ll be outnumbered by vessels with similar or more firepower.

A patrol craft meant to fend off a FAC swarm needs a lot more firepower than 1 single barreled 20-30mm gun.

The Ivan khurs attack is a great example.
They had 1 14.5mm gun and 1 LMG available to target 3 jet ski sized attack craft, and failed to stop them all. Even if the one that made contact failed to do serious damage, that’s pure luck. If those vessels had any sort of ballistic weapons they would have all managed to get into threat range.

The khurs’ replacement ship however seems to have successfully fended off a similar attack in the same region. The difference? An ak630 was present backed up by a 14.5mm gun.

All that to come back to the FRCs, they’re poor replacements for the cyclones, that had twice the gun power as well as the ability to launch small ASMs.

The MK VIs could also mount griffins so even they would be better at actually fighting than the FRCs

I understand. The FRCs are heavily tasked in the Gulf doing patrol and interdiction missions. They are good at those things and respected for it.

But in an actual war, they come up short. Unless of course they are quietly being up-armed more than is being said publicly.

I know they have some sort of anti-UAV system installed.

 

[johnpjones1775]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

Understood. In the perfect world the USN would have patrol boats and corvettes for the gulf.

Come to think of it, that's what the LCSs were supposed to be. Too bad the program fell short.

But in the battle of budget priorities, all smaller shallow water craft now seem to have lost out to blue water centric ships and capabilities, at least for now.

The Navy now seems to be trying to do Gulf patrol and interdiction missions using Coast Guard FRCs and USVs.

We’ll see how often the FRCs actually do anything.
But even they are under armed for dealing with Iran.
As a former mk38 gunner/tech I can tell you if Iran does try something the FRCs will stand little chance. They’ll be outnumbered by vessels with similar or more firepower.

A patrol craft meant to fend off a FAC swarm needs a lot more firepower than 1 single barreled 20-30mm gun.

The Ivan khurs attack is a great example.
They had 1 14.5mm gun and 1 LMG available to target 3 jet ski sized attack craft, and failed to stop them all. Even if the one that made contact failed to do serious damage, that’s pure luck. If those vessels had any sort of ballistic weapons they would have all managed to get into threat range.

The khurs’ replacement ship however seems to have successfully fended off a similar attack in the same region. The difference? An ak630 was present backed up by a 14.5mm gun.

All that to come back to the FRCs, they’re poor replacements for the cyclones, that had twice the gun power as well as the ability to launch small ASMs.

The MK VIs could also mount griffins so even they would be better at actually fighting than the FRCs

I understand. The FRCs are heavily tasked in the Gulf doing patrol and interdiction missions. They are good at those things and respected for it.

But in an actual war, they come up short. Unless of course they are quietly being up-armed more than is being said publicly.

I know they have some sort of anti-UAV system installed.

i'm only skeptical about their operations, because when i was in the gulf i never saw whatever cutters we had there entering or leaving port in manama, nor did i ever see them or hear anything from while at sea, so it seems like they weren't out there doing a whole lot.

 

[Jimmo952]

a MK VI boat can carry 4 NSM, those are effective weapons.

Even if it can carry them, it can carry them all the way to the point that it gets sunk. Because it has zero ability to defend itself. That's fine for a coastal defence boat operating under cover of shore-based air defence, although that does prompt the question of why you don't just put the NSMs on the fast jets.

But for the USN? It's totally useless. Corvettes and fast-attack craft are for navies that stay at home.

again, ya'll are getting caught up on an extreme example...

corvettes and FACs are not for navies that stay at home. the LCSes are just corvettes by another name. the cyclones like wise, just FACs with much longer range, as were the pegasus class boats.

the Russians in the cold war had their navy all over the place, and they still utilized corvettes, and FAC. Hell they're still utilizing corvettes.

the USN should have been building OPV/PC/corvettes for interdiction missions decades ago, because using DDGs and CGs for those missions has run our sailors and our $2b combatants into the ground skyrocketing maintenance costs for them.

the last year or so shows the need the USN and RN have for heavily armed PC type ships in the gulf.

so no PC/OPV/FAC/corvettes are not simply for navies that stay at home.

Understood. In the perfect world the USN would have patrol boats and corvettes for the gulf.

Come to think of it, that's what the LCSs were supposed to be. Too bad the program fell short.

But in the battle of budget priorities, all smaller shallow water craft now seem to have lost out to blue water centric ships and capabilities, at least for now.

The Navy now seems to be trying to do Gulf patrol and interdiction missions using Coast Guard FRCs and USVs.

We’ll see how often the FRCs actually do anything.
But even they are under armed for dealing with Iran.
As a former mk38 gunner/tech I can tell you if Iran does try something the FRCs will stand little chance. They’ll be outnumbered by vessels with similar or more firepower.

A patrol craft meant to fend off a FAC swarm needs a lot more firepower than 1 single barreled 20-30mm gun.

The Ivan khurs attack is a great example.
They had 1 14.5mm gun and 1 LMG available to target 3 jet ski sized attack craft, and failed to stop them all. Even if the one that made contact failed to do serious damage, that’s pure luck. If those vessels had any sort of ballistic weapons they would have all managed to get into threat range.

The khurs’ replacement ship however seems to have successfully fended off a similar attack in the same region. The difference? An ak630 was present backed up by a 14.5mm gun.

All that to come back to the FRCs, they’re poor replacements for the cyclones, that had twice the gun power as well as the ability to launch small ASMs.

The MK VIs could also mount griffins so even they would be better at actually fighting than the FRCs

I understand. The FRCs are heavily tasked in the Gulf doing patrol and interdiction missions. They are good at those things and respected for it.

But in an actual war, they come up short. Unless of course they are quietly being up-armed more than is being said publicly.

I know they have some sort of anti-UAV system installed.

i'm only skeptical about their operations, because when i was in the gulf i never saw whatever cutters we had there entering or leaving port in manama, nor did i ever see them or hear anything from while at sea, so it seems like they weren't out there doing a whole lot.

How long ago was that?