Future USN Frigate Design Speculation

[Sferrin]

Yeah, I think convoy escort per se is probably a dead letter, but SLOC control is a good way to talk about it. Ships that can operate inside a denied SLOC (like Bab al-Mandab) and provide close protection to ships transiting the area, under cover of high-end air/missile defense ships handling the AShBM threat.

LCS actually showed some ability to do that during the prior Houthi attacks there, but a ship with more robust multi-domain capabilities would seem like a better solution.

SO. . .

A pair of SeaHawks
16/32 cell VLS w. ESSM / ASROC
57mm or 76mm
RAM launcher
Several Mk 38 gun mounts
8 NSM cells

Propulsion ?
Speed ?
Displacement?

 

[Scott Kenny]

SO. . .

A pair of SeaHawks
16/32 cell VLS w. ESSM / ASROC
57mm or 76mm
RAM launcher
Several Mk 38 gun mounts
8 NSM cells

If we can find volume or are using a trimaran hullform which grants a wide hangar, I'd like to increase the helo complement to "a pair of Seahawks and a pair of VTOL UAVs", assuming the VTOL UAVs are roughly half the size of a Seahawk.

Even with quad-packing ESSMs, 16 cells is kinda painful. 6x ASROCs means only 40x ESSMs. Plus, I suspect that someone is going to insist on strike-length cells so that the US can continue its tradition of Tomahawk Diplomacy. Which suggests a minimum capacity of 40-48 VLS with 8-16 Tomahawks loaded. 6x ASROCs is IIRC only 2 engagements, so I'd honestly expect a dedicated ASW ship to have more like 12-16x ASROCs. But let's continue assuming only 6x ASROCs, so we have 24 cells remaining out of that 40-48. Now we can add SM2s or Patriots to the main battery and could load ~16x SM2s/Patriots plus 32x ESSMs (or however you care to balance that load).

Gun I would prefer the 76mm because of DART and VULCANO ammunition, but it is unlikely for the USN to adopt a new caliber at this point.

Agreed on RAM launcher, might go so far as to ask for multiple. 1 is required, 2 would be better.

On the Mk38s, I would want a radar on the mounts in addition to the EOTS on the Mod4s. And I want 4 guns for coverage.

And yes, 8x NSM/Harpoon/whatever light AShM sounds right.

Propulsion ?
Speed ?
Displacement?

Propulsion is absolutely going to be IEP, so it doesn't matter what the prime movers spinning those generators are. High end generation is almost certainly gas turbines, hotel load could be diesels or GTs. Needs to be properly rafted/silenced for ASW work, however!

Edit: Needs to have at least double the battery capacity of current ships, so that you can normally operate the ship with the battery between 25-75% and always have a little extra space so your running generators can be pushed a little harder to get onto their best-efficiency setting.

Speed, if we're going to insist that this ship escort carriers, needs to be 30+ knots. Else we can accept ~25-28kts to stay with/ahead of merchant ships.

Displacement would be "however big the systems need it to be". If SPY6v3 needs 7000tons to be sufficiently stable then we have a 7000ton "ASW Frigate" and you tell Congress "that is how big the ship needs to be to keep the radar stable enough. Steel is cheap and air is free."

Judging on displacement jump from Spruance to Burke IIIs, we're likely looking at a minimum of 20% displacement growth over an FFG7. Which would suggest an absolute minimum size of about 5000tons with very little growth margin.​

​

Displacement jump from Burke III to Zumwalt is 61%, which gets us to a minimum size of about 6600tons.​

​

So, yeah, looks like 5500-6500tons is a not-unreasonable expectation for the FFG, and 7000 including extra growth margin.​

 

[johnpjones1775]

Does Lockmart's Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) even come in a steel version?

I mean it can, but it doesn’t need to.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The MMSC is the one being made for the Saudi's, they don't seem to have the full-fat version as it supposedly can take up to 16 Mk41 tubes.

I see that Jonepaul has finally come around to my idea of MMSC after I poo-pooed the FFX enough.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/12/first-saudi-mmsc-launched-by-fincantieri-in-wisconsin/

I was always in the MMSC/bigger independence camp from the announcement of the FFG(X) program. After that I said it should have been HII’s offer (even though it was never public it was always going to be a legend variant)

As a supporter of the LCSes for many years now the MMSC or the independence variant made the most sense. Hot production lines, cheapest options available most likely.

 

[DJK]

Lancets are reportedly reaching out to 100km+ nowadays. Meanwhile Zumwalt lost the 57mm Mk 110s in development and ended up with the considerably less capable 30mm Mk 46 Mod 2 instead, while DBR (aka SPY-3 + SPY-4) ended up with SPY-3 only and that having to fill in for SPY-4's search role.

Have you somehow missed the Shaheds impacting all over the mid-East and Ukraine? Plus the common border with Russia? Not to mention the existing Iranian order for Lancets?

If Russia replaced Moskva with a modern destroyer or just parked any still functioning frigate 25NM (or even 50) off coast of Ukraine for shore bombardment, there would be a lot more hardware headed for it than was required for Moskva. This time there could easily be 100 or more 100km+ strike UAVs targeting the radar and bridge, 30 or so Seababies attacking simultaneously, several recon UAVs would get allocated to such a high priority job, a spread of UUVs waiting for the USVs to hem in their target, perhaps a few more Neptunes, and some support USVs with guns and air defence. It would be a very coordinated strike. The further from shore, the fewer UAVs would be available and the bigger they would have to be, but a USV could launch a few small ones. They would want capability to destroy Seababy and recon types pretty quickly, as soon as they are identified as hostile. Not the time to be clearing a jammed 30mm or reloading. Variations of this scenario could also apply to the Taiwan strait (for both sides) with more of a melee flavour.

So i dont think any FF is going to be survivable doing an opposed blockade run in the near future, certainly not against a peer enemy. Better chances of using your own low cost drones to wear the enemy down.

Keep your FF/DDG/BBG/whatever 1000NM away from wherever you think the enemy is and dont let them mass low cost munitions at you with a few big missiles in the mix. If you can tempt them to attack you at that range, their own fleet is out of their air denial cover and becomes vulnerable. Maybe you can launch waves of Seababies and recon drones to tempt them?

Is the sea baby also operated via fiber optics?

Technically feasible. Would need a shore station that terminates the fibre at the launch point and feeds a network link. Basically just patching it into the land network and anchoring the fibre. Main problem might be recovering the leftover fibre so it doesnt pollute the ocean, and adding enough kevlar to survive ocean currents without breakage.

 

[Desertfox]

I still think we need San Antonio based convoy flagships. They have the well deck for ASW USVs and space for a bunch of ASW helos. The FFs can be smaller and less capable as well by offloading some of the requirements to the San Antonio.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I still think we need San Antonio based convoy flagships. They have the well deck for ASW USVs and space for a bunch of ASW helos. The FFs can be smaller and less capable as well by offloading some of the requirements to the San Antonio.

Modern container ships are faster than San Antonios.

 

[H_K]

The size ship you're talking about for an ASW USV is more like 200ft long. That means recovering then in a well deck, via an LSD or heavy-lift ship.

Large USVs won't need to be recovered. ~200ft length means 200-300t lightship displacement, 300-700t full load. Much of the load will be fuel for long range patrols. So no need for a well deck or LPD-17 mothership.

The whole point of recovery is to allow any vessel of opportunity to operate a USV. So the USV has to be small and deployable by crane or boat ramp.

 

[CastleBravo]

I'm not sure ASW helos will be all that relevant much longer. I think the obvious move is to make sonodrones that can land on the surface to run their sensor, and then fly back to the ship to refuel/recharge. Make something like a marine version of a DJI T100 that can carry 220lbs. Stick a 20lb 10kw arc microturbine and 15gal of fuel on it for 3 hours flight time, and you still have ~80lbs for some floats and a sensor that is far more capable than any current sonobuoy. The 2kwh battery on the drone can power the sensor and datalink while it sits on the surface.

You could run these sonodrones from the merchant ships themselves. Add a Mk70 launcher for VL-ASROC and now any container ship can have its own ASW capability. We will probably want a longer range ASW missile, but it shouldn't be hard to make something like a VLS cruise missile that drops a Mk54.

A USV with a big towed array could pick up contacts for the drones to check out, and then you nail them with the Mk70. No ASW warship needed.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Large USVs won't need to be recovered. ~200ft length means 200-300t lightship displacement, 300-700t full load. Much of the load will be fuel for long range patrols. So no need for a well deck or LPD-17 mothership.

The whole point of recovery is to allow any vessel of opportunity to operate a USV. So the USV has to be small and deployable by crane or boat ramp.

That was kinda my point. Those big USVs are not supposed to be needed to be recovered at all. They're as big as they are because that's how big they need to be to haul two towed arrays and/or possibly a hull array.

I'm not sure ASW helos will be all that relevant much longer.

Helos will still be very important for a whole lot of other roles, besides ASW.

So you might as well have the ASW gear onboard the helo because it will be in the air anyways.

Or do you think the USN would want every ship to have an unarmed cargo helicopter on it?

I think the obvious move is to make sonodrones that can land on the surface to run their sensor, and then fly back to the ship to refuel/recharge. Make something like a marine version of a DJI T100 that can carry 220lbs. Stick a 20lb 10kw arc microturbine and 15gal of fuel on it for 3 hours flight time, and you still have ~80lbs for some floats and a sensor that is far more capable than any current sonobuoy. The 2kwh battery on the drone can power the sensor and datalink while it sits on the surface.

You could run these sonodrones from the merchant ships themselves. Add a Mk70 launcher for VL-ASROC and now any container ship can have its own ASW capability. We will probably want a longer range ASW missile, but it shouldn't be hard to make something like a VLS cruise missile that drops a Mk54.

A USV with a big towed array could pick up contacts for the drones to check out, and then you nail them with the Mk70. No ASW warship needed.

Or you have Mk41s built into the USV with big towed array(s).

Yes, I am assuming that a couple of VTOL ASW UAVs will be part of the equipment fit of new ships.

You're still going to need a warship to deal with air threats, though.

 

[CastleBravo]

You're still going to need a warship to deal with air threats, though.

Yeah, but FF(X) ain't gonna cut it. Realistically you would want 2+ AAW DDGs to cover the convoy from all angles against sea skimmers from subs. That or an aviation cruiser that can keep AEW UAVs up so you can shoot the missiles over the horizon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yeah, but FF(X) ain't gonna cut it. Realistically you would want 2+ AAW DDGs to cover the convoy from all angles against sea skimmers from subs. That or an aviation cruiser that can keep AEW UAVs up so you can shoot the missiles over the horizon.

I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Modern container ships are faster than San Antonios.

I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.

How long can a container ship do 25+kts?

We’ve had this discussion somewhere else in the past, a sub can sprint, slow to listen, adjust course, sprint, repeat, and follow until the ships have to slow down.

Or they just send a brief message out to a satellite that beams it down to any sub with its mast up, then subs ahead of the merchant ships move into a position to strike.

Every time people start to think some thing no longer matters in warfare it seems like it gets proven wrong.

 

[Scott Kenny]

How long can a container ship do 25+kts?

Based on tracking a couple of cargo containers? All the way across the Pacific.

 

[Moose]

How long can a container ship do 25+kts?

We’ve had this discussion somewhere else in the past, a sub can sprint, slow to listen, adjust course, sprint, repeat, and follow until the ships have to slow down.

Or they just send a brief message out to a satellite that beams it down to any sub with its mast up, then subs ahead of the merchant ships move into a position to strike.

Every time people start to think some thing no longer matters in warfare it seems like it gets proven wrong.

For 20 years now Maersk has had a class that was built to do 29 knots from Shanghai to LA with 4000 containers onboard. In practice they usually do 15-20 to save on fuel costs and operate on smaller volume routes. In fact one's stuck in the Gulf right now.

 

[CastleBravo]

I'm honestly not sure how much longer convoys will be necessary.

Subs can't hear anything when they're moving faster than 20 knots, so if your convoy is doing 20+ you are just about immune to subs. And the current container ships do average 25kt top speeds.

Anyone with SSNs is going to track the convoy by satellite, so all the sub needs to do is get in range of missiles and shoot at coordinates from other platforms. ASW escorts at best keep the subs from closing to torpedo range. The real torpedo threat will come from UUVs.

 

[MadRat]

The negative commentary is getting long in this thread. Maybe some here suggest it would be easier to just build more SSGNs at this point.

It sounds like most really want a Mogami but its no better than Constellation and is much like FREMM, nothing like U.S. standards. Mogami class is a 132 meter 5,500 ton ship featuring an OPY-2 radar, 32 tubes of Mark 41 baseline Baseline VII, 8 Type 17 ASM, RIM-116, 1 Sea Hawk, and a 5" gun. Lots of Japanese products. Sure it has a bigger gun, but otherwise is really no better than the Constellation class. F127 (based on MEKO A400) is a 160 meter and 10k ton ship featuring AN/SPY-6(V)1 radar, 96 tubes of Mark 41 baseline VIII, NSM Block 1A, RGM-179 JAGM, Mark 99 fire control, RIM-116, 2 Sea Tigers, and a 5" gun. The downside is the first delivery is not expected until the mid-2030s after a 2024 approval. That is unrealistic since we can probably build a clean design by then.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Satellites will know where all merchant ships are, and can transmit this over elf to subs on a rotating basis.

Nope. ELF doesn't have the data rate for that.

Or subs can come up every once in a while to get the newest ship location datasets.

That is more viable. But forces the Sub to slow down to ~5knots to avoid leaving a wake behind the periscope.

Also the Chinese have torpedo tube launched hypersonics now thought at 1-200 mile range. So you will want ddg escort for convoys in addition to ffg

Hypersonics means that those missiles are flying high and diving down towards the targets.

Which are a nigh-trivial target for a modern FFG if they're shooting at it.

Now, you might actually want a DDG to have the big radars to track those, but anything holding a Mk41 cell, including a container ship with a Mk70 box on it, can effectively shoot at them.

 

[cccgong]

Nope. ELF doesn't have the data rate for that.



That is more viable. But forces the Sub to slow down to ~5knots to avoid leaving a wake behind the periscope.



Hypersonics means that those missiles are flying high and diving down towards the targets.

Which are a nigh-trivial target for a modern FFG if they're shooting at it.

Now, you might actually want a DDG to have the big radars to track those, but anything holding a Mk41 cell, including a container ship with a Mk70 box on it, can effectively shoot at them.

ELF can work for this. I’ve talked about this on another forum. Headquarters can break down and pre-filter all convoys they want the subs to engage. Breaking down speed, bearing, information time, priority can be done in under 20 bits. Even less if you pre-assign different combinations of things in a codebook. As 20 bits means a million possible messages.

This is very doable for ELF if you broadcast things on a loop and just wait for your subs to pick it up.

You would need a TDG for sure. I would not put expensive SM3 on cargo ships as they will still need a big radar so you’re required to have a DDG and a couple of frigates. The frigates primarily for sea skimmers acting as a radar picket. Even if you had some sort of radar drone, you would still want more than one ship to provide some defense against saturation attacks

 

[Scott Kenny]

ELF can work for this. I’ve talked about this on another forum. Headquarters can break down and pre-filter all convoys they want the subs to engage. Breaking down speed, bearing, information time, priority can be done in under 20 bits. Even less if you pre-assign different combinations of things in a codebook. As 20 bits means a million possible messages.

Add current location of target, or the location where you want the sub to go to that broadcast. Decimal degrees to two places.

Now how many bits do you need?

And what do you think is the data rate of the ELF broadcast?

This is very doable for ELF if you broadcast things on a loop and just wait for your subs to pick it up.

I've spent a few months on ELF "beeper watch." The most effective way to use ELF is to announce changes in DEFCON and to tell any given ship or ships that they have radio traffic and need to come to periscope depth.

ELF is functionally a pager.

You would need a TDG for sure. I would not put expensive SM3 on cargo ships as they will still need a big radar so you’re required to have a DDG and a couple of frigates. The frigates primarily for sea skimmers acting as a radar picket. Even if you had some sort of radar drone, you would still want more than one ship to provide some defense against saturation attacks

I'm talking SM2 or SM6 on the merchies, with the DDG providing radar coverage. SM3 is for ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere only!

 

[cccgong]

Add current location of target, or the location where you want the sub to go to that broadcast. Decimal degrees to two places.

Now how many bits do you need?

And what do you think is the data rate of the ELF broadcast?



I've spent a few months on ELF "beeper watch." The most effective way to use ELF is to announce changes in DEFCON and to tell any given ship or ships that they have radio traffic and need to come to periscope depth.

ELF is functionally a pager.




I'm talking SM2 or SM6 on the merchies, with the DDG providing radar coverage. SM3 is for ballistic missiles outside the atmosphere only!

You can give general coordinates/grid square and bearing information. If you want more possible permutations increase it to 23 bits and you have 8 million options. Corse information will be enough either way, as the sub only needs to launch the missile in the right direction at the right time. The missile can get live more granular information via sat link once it’s launched.

ELF data rates are higher than that. I’ve seen paper claiming 0.1-1bit /s. If we take the lower bound 0.1bit. You can transmit a high priority convoy info every 12ish minutes (20bit plus ecc) which isn’t bad as there likely aren’t that many anyways.

You can also use slf/vlf and an antenna at 20-50m depth and have the sub be deeper. Then you can get single digit bits/s

Also the US likely didn’t employ such a system as convoy raiding is much less important for the US during the Cold War.

That was a typo should have been sm6.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Hypersonics means that those missiles are flying high and diving down towards the targets.

Which are a nigh-trivial target for a modern FFG if they're shooting at it.

The problem with hypersonics isn't their speed as they're subsonic before they impact anyway. It's that they maneuver at hypersonic speeds and can fake out an air defense battery by depleting munitions with successive fake attack profiles before skipping away into near space. This would be pretty easy to bait with an automatic system like Aegis that uses altitude and speed gating.

You also need extremely high power interceptors, like THAAD-ER, to engage them at convoy distances. PAC-3 is a self defense weapon.

Now, you might actually want a DDG to have the big radars to track those, but anything holding a Mk41 cell, including a container ship with a Mk70 box on it, can effectively shoot at them.

You'll want something more than a DDG. Glide Breaker might be workable with a space based sensor system.

Small escorts like DDGs/FFs are useful for ASW regardless even if that's unlikely for a Chinese SSN force.

 

[cccgong]

The problem with hypersonics isn't their speed as they're subsonic before they impact anyway. It's that they maneuver at hypersonic speeds and can fake out an air defense battery by depleting munitions with successive fake attack profiles before skipping away into near space. This would be pretty easy to bait with an automatic system like Aegis that uses altitude and speed gating.

You also need extremely high power interceptors, like THAAD-ER, to engage them at convoy distances. PAC-3 is a self defense weapon.



You'll want something more than a DDG. Glide Breaker might be workable with a space based sensor system.

Hypersonics aren’t subsonic before right before impact. I don’t know where you got that from

 

[Kat Tsun]

Hypersonics aren’t subsonic before right before impact. I don’t know where you got that from

My bad, sub-hypersonic. A maneuvering vehicle will be going around M3-4 during terminal using the onboard seeker. It's not that much bigger a threat than a Kh-22, which is already solved, but more concerning is the potential of successive pull ups depleting interceptor magazines.

The maneuvering glider aspect is more dangerous than the speed itself because maneuvering puts an upper limit on terminal velocity.

 

[Ainen]

Satellites will know where all merchant ships are, and can transmit this over elf to subs on a rotating basis. Or subs can come up every once in a while to get the newest ship location datasets.

Target satellites? You can't fight like that.

 

[cccgong]

Target satellites? You can't fight like that.

When there’s hundreds to thousands it becomes impossible unless you’re willing to use exo atmospheric nukes and take down everything else up there

 

[CastleBravo]

ELF can work for this. I’ve talked about this on another forum. Headquarters can break down and pre-filter all convoys they want the subs to engage. Breaking down speed, bearing, information time, priority can be done in under 20 bits. Even less if you pre-assign different combinations of things in a codebook. As 20 bits means a million possible messages.

This is very doable for ELF if you broadcast things on a loop and just wait for your subs to pick it up.

You would need a TDG for sure. I would not put expensive SM3 on cargo ships as they will still need a big radar so you’re required to have a DDG and a couple of frigates. The frigates primarily for sea skimmers acting as a radar picket. Even if you had some sort of radar drone, you would still want more than one ship to provide some defense against saturation attacks

Put a sat radio receiver in the missile, and as long as you know where your sub is, all you need to do is tell it to shoot when something gets in range. If you have subs assigned to sit in 8 locations, you only need three bits to tell the right one to shoot a missile.

 

[CastleBravo]

My bad, sub-hypersonic. A maneuvering vehicle will be going around M3-4 during terminal using the onboard seeker. It's not that much bigger a threat than a Kh-22, which is already solved, but more concerning is the potential of successive pull ups depleting interceptor magazines.

The maneuvering glider aspect is more dangerous than the speed itself because maneuvering puts an upper limit on terminal velocity.

That terminal speed limit applies to weapons with a seeker head, but what happens when you command guide the weapon with a datalink beaming down the plasma cone from a satellite megaconstellation. We live in an age where SpaceX routinely livestreams multiple 4k camera feeds from an orbital rocket reentry using commercial comms equipment at highly regulated civilian wavelengths and EIRP limits. Now consider what you can do with satellite command guidance when your sensor birds can also track interceptors fired at your weapon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That terminal speed limit applies to weapons with a seeker head, but what happens when you command guide the weapon with a datalink beaming down the plasma cone from a satellite megaconstellation. We live in an age where SpaceX routinely livestreams multiple 4k camera feeds from an orbital rocket reentry using commercial comms equipment at highly regulated civilian wavelengths and EIRP limits. Now consider what you can do with satellite command guidance when your sensor birds can also track interceptors fired at your weapon.

It's a function of air density, not deliberately slowing down.

Even ICBM reentry vehicles are only doing about Mach 2-3 at impact.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You can give general coordinates/grid square and bearing information. If you want more possible permutations increase it to 23 bits and you have 8 million options. Corse information will be enough either way, as the sub only needs to launch the missile in the right direction at the right time. The missile can get live more granular information via sat link once it’s launched.

Uhm.

As someone whose served on missile subs, spending most of my watches in the Control Room, you're assuming less data for this situation than used for Trident missiles go message. And Tridents don't need to be told where to go in the go message.

ELF data rates are higher than that. I’ve seen paper claiming 0.1-1bit /s. If we take the lower bound 0.1bit. You can transmit a high priority convoy info every 12ish minutes (20bit plus ecc) which isn’t bad as there likely aren’t that many anyways.

You can also use slf/vlf and an antenna at 20-50m depth and have the sub be deeper. Then you can get single digit bits/s

Yep, used both a floating wire off the sail and the towed buoys off the turtledeck for comms listening.

Message still needs to be repeated multiple times so that every bit actually gets through instead of getting lost in the static.

Also the US likely didn’t employ such a system as convoy raiding is much less important for the US during the Cold War.

? You mean ELF-as-a-pager?

 

[CastleBravo]

It's a function of air density, not deliberately slowing down.

Even ICBM reentry vehicles are only doing about Mach 2-3 at impact.

ICBMs and HGVs can hit with much more velocity than that. It depends on their ballistic coefficient, their trajectory, and if they can generate lift to pull into a steeper dive to avoid spending as much time in the lower atmosphere. MARVs and HGVs are known for the last part. Take a look at this. On a depressed trajectory, the non-maneuvering RV hits at ~1km/s vs ~3km/s for the maneuvering one that can pull a steep terminal dive. What's not pictured is an MET shot with a lifting RV, but it should be even faster.

Modeling the Performance of Hypersonic Boost-Glide Missiles

 

[Kat Tsun]

That terminal speed limit applies to weapons with a seeker head, but what happens when you command guide the weapon with a datalink beaming down the plasma cone from a satellite megaconstellation.

The Chinese have not demonstrated this capability and likely won't have it within the next 6 years. They have far more banal methods like VID done by IMINT and transmitted to a TEL battery firing Pershing-type MARVs or HTV-2-type hypergliders. Even Starlink took a couple years to generate a useful network and that was with Falcon 9 launches. Check back in 15-20 years to see if they have orbit to surface hypersonic kill vehicles guided by a global GMTI/AMTI constellation though!

 

[MadRat]

ELF can transmit at least four bits per pulse and something like 18 transmit in sync globally, to spread out a crazy number of messages. So yeah, one bit per pulse would take quite awhile on OG receivers. But it really matters what generation of equipment you are receiving with. The Russians like to crowd our airspace during emergencies with cluttered signals, so they had to have genius tricks to deal with that. Many of these methods have been available in commercial space for over three decades, but I am sure we will never know much about how it truly works.

And China has been working on a Starlink competitor. They have at least 200 nodes up.

 

[Kat Tsun]

ELF can transmit at least four bits per pulse and something like 18 transmit in sync globally, to spread out a crazy number of messages. So yeah, one bit per pulse would take quite awhile on OG receivers. But it really matters what generation of equipment you are receiving with. The Russians like to crowd our airspace during emergencies with cluttered signals, so they had to have genius tricks to deal with that. Many of these methods have been available in commercial space for over three decades, but I am sure we will never know much about how it truly works.

And China has been working on a Starlink competitor. They have at least 200 nodes up.

A satellite guided MIRV that maneuvers outside the atmosphere with real time targeting updates is a far cry from a swarm sat com network.

RVs typically cannot maneuver beyond M3-4 or so because they would be torn apart by the atmospheric forces. They're lightly built vehicles! It's not implausible or anything, since hypersonic kill vehicles for offensive counter air has been demonstrated, but building the infrastructure for such a thing would take at least a decade. Once you have a Falcon 9. Which China doesn't. They have the ZQ-3 right now, but it has yet to demonstrate reusable staging, and their turnaround time is likely to be low once they do demonstrate that.

Call it 4-5 years before China has a rocket capable of doing what F9 does regularly and reliably. 2030 or so? Ten years after that they may have on orbit HGV kill vehicles with nuclear and HTK for smacking surface warships, troop concentrations, and aircraft that are guided by a swarming targeting constellation. That would be in line with Starlink and Starshield build rates.

That might be the final nail in the coffin for surface forces' methods of warfare in general in high intensity combat. Or it will just mean you'll need extremely deep magazines, like an Arsenal Ship magazine carrier but for ABMs, perhaps.

 

[CastleBravo]

That might be the final nail in the coffin for surface forces' methods of warfare in general in high intensity combat. Or it will just mean you'll need extremely deep magazines, like an Arsenal Ship magazine carrier but for ABMs, perhaps.

I think ultimately we are headed towards the bulk of the magazine being in orbit. Musk says $10/kg to orbit on Starship. That would let you boost a one ton weapon into space for $10k. Even if he's off by an entire order of magnitude, $100k is a rounding error on the price of a high end missile. At that point its cheaper to park the weapons in low orbit than it is to put them on ships and aircraft. You still need terminal defense for threats that are launched from within the minimum distance for an orbital interceptor to be called down on, but most high-end defensive and offensive weapons can be space based.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I think ultimately we are headed towards the bulk of the magazine being in orbit.

It still has to get there first, especially since we're also headed towards a war where the magazines are still on ships.

 

[cccgong]

Uhm.

As someone whose served on missile subs, spending most of my watches in the Control Room, you're assuming less data for this situation than used for Trident missiles go message. And Tridents don't need to be told where to go in the go message.




Yep, used both a floating wire off the sail and the towed buoys off the turtledeck for comms listening.

Message still needs to be repeated multiple times so that every bit actually gets through instead of getting lost in the static.



? You mean ELF-as-a-pager?

I accounted with the extra bits in the ecc I mentioned later on in the post. 23 bits is the actual content. The entire message likely be 4x as large

 

[DJK]

Not for FFX as it sits now.

It'd be very useful for an ASW 2XL-USV that would replace FFX for ASW screen. By my count, the USN would need hundreds of these, 3 for every single combatant hull. And control channels for 6 to 18 on every ship, because the Convoys need a large number of ASW USVs.

So FF(X) is useless afterall?

But it was never an ASW ship and i doubt it has CIC space to command a USV group, and probably not even mast space to mount the antenna. Phelans claim that FF(X) supposed to be a "mothership" looks like wishful thinking.

I could see an argument for the FFGs to still be manned because there's no intention for DDGs to escort convoys.

I dont think USVs are practical in a multirole format anyway, they will tend to be more specialised and cannot perform inherently manned functions like boarding or taking initiative. Are DDGs likely to be fitted for commanding USVs? Who knows, but maybe best not to distract from their role as AAW commanders for high air threats. If a DDG has to accompany a USV task force, its to protect against a credible threat the FFG is not setup for, or to add extra retaliatory capability.

No, you need stability for your radars to be able to track things.

If you can stabilise a tumblehome, the Constellation ballast shouldn't be too excessive.

Drones are slow. Mk110 is significantly better for the role than a 5”

5" advantage is guided air defence rounds but slew rate is probably terrible for a swarm scenario, even if rate of fire wasn't a problem. Mk-110 needs to have its MAD-FIRES round to improve the air defence range over the existing 3P ammo. MAD-FIRES would make it a multipurpose self defence gun including balistic threats, not just an oversized CIWS.

I think LUSV and MUSV also need some self defence. I read somewhere that RN found its mk38 30mm guns were less reliable than the Bofors 40 mk4, so maybe 40mm is what you need on a big USV. Below deck magazine should be required for a USV too.

 

[johnpjones1775]

So FF(X) is useless afterall?

But it was never an ASW ship and i doubt it has CIC space to command a USV group, and probably not even mast space to mount the antenna. Phelans claim that FF(X) supposed to be a "mothership" looks like wishful thinking.

I dont think USVs are practical in a multirole format anyway, they will tend to be more specialised and cannot perform inherently manned functions like boarding or taking initiative. Are DDGs likely to be fitted for commanding USVs? Who knows, but maybe best not to distract from their role as AAW commanders for high air threats. If a DDG has to accompany a USV task force, its to protect against a credible threat the FFG is not setup for, or to add extra retaliatory capability.

If you can stabilise a tumblehome, the Constellation ballast shouldn't be too excessive.


5" advantage is guided air defence rounds but slew rate is probably terrible for a swarm scenario, even if rate of fire wasn't a problem. Mk-110 needs to have its MAD-FIRES round to improve the air defence range over the existing 3P ammo. MAD-FIRES would make it a multipurpose self defence gun including balistic threats, not just an oversized CIWS.

I think LUSV and MUSV also need some self defence. I read somewhere that RN found its mk38 30mm guns were less reliable than the Bofors 40 mk4, so maybe 40mm is what you need on a big USV. Below deck magazine should be required for a USV too.

5” is plenty fine for use against drones.
As a stand alone system it has a lot of flaws yes, but it will be fantastic in concert with mk110, RAM, and mk38 mod4, as well as all of the SAMs.

 

[Pha3er]

5” is plenty fine for use against drones.
As a stand alone system it has a lot of flaws yes, but it will be fantastic in concert with mk110, RAM, and mk38 mod4, as well as all of the SAMs.

I think something like the PPV could work? Its cheaper and more capable, but would have to be a completely new design because of the electronics, or they could try to intergrate the european systems