A modern frigate?

[johnpjones1775]

Algeria’s MEKOs have it and utilize ESSM

Halifax class also has it and also utilizes ESSM

Giraffe radar are utilized by Estonia’s air defense battalion

Pohjannma class same as above

Same for baynunah class

That’s not an insignificant number of classes of ship with medium ranges SAMs using sea giraffe.

Algeria's MEKOs have Umkhonto, not ESSM, and Umkhonto is a strictly point-defense missile. The Halifaxes have Giraffe and ESSM, yes, but they primarily use it for surface search, with air search being taken up the SMART-S that's also fitted. And I wouldn't consider the RBS-23 a medium-range missile for naval use, either, not with a range of 20 kilometers.

Only the corvettes are comboing a medium-range SAM system with Sea Giraffe, and the Pohjannmaas are using the much larger, more advanced, and more powerful AESA Giraffe 4A. Giraffe 4A is in a size and cost category much closer to SPY-6, albeit with only a single emitter for an overall lighter and cheaper installation.

One ship is not terribly strong evidence, especially for a Gulf State due to the track record of Gulf States in buying ships that look impressive but have issues under the hood.

And further, for USN purposes just ESSM doesn't cut it; they wanted SM-2 from the start and that demands a better radar than even Giraffe 4A, much like how the FREMMs the design is based on carried ASTER 30. Like, it really must be pointed out that it's not just the US putting area air defense on a GP frigate, most of Europe has jumped on board that train and the Indians are doing so as well.

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

Multiple navies, most notably Japan, use it for local defense, and a range of 50km should enable it to do so.

I guess we’ll see. USN is planning twin VLS modules for the LCSes (which length im not sure it has ever been specified) primarily to add survivability by allowing the ships to carry something longer ranged than RAMs for air defense.

 

[Jimmo952]

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

The US is preparing for possible combat in the Pacific.

The US lost a generation of warship construction with the LCS and Zumwalts.

Older cruisers and destroyers are at the end of their service lives.

US shipbuilding capacity is not what it was in the 1980s. It is strained today.

The "show the flag" and policing missions can for the most part be performed by LCS and the Coast Guard.

The US Navy, at least when it comes to shipbuilding, is focused on retaining/improving their combat capabilities. Making up for lost time if you will.

The Constellation Class reflects that reality.

This is no time to build ships that will be of marginal use in actual combat.

Beside, the Navy already has the LCS for that.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

That can change real quick, planing for a nil loss scenario is an epic fail imho.

 

[johnpjones1775]

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

Multiple navies, most notably Japan, use it for local defense, and a range of 50km should enable it to do so.

Fair point. I'm not sure I would want to use it for local defense unless we're talking a fairly dense convoy, though. "Two ships visible each way" from your position dense. Ship on the horizon, ship halfway to the horizon, you, ship halfway to the horizon, ship on the horizon.

I mean, there's a reason the USN doesn't use it for local defense, and it's not just because the original Sea Sparrow was so much shorter ranged so the USN has other tools.

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

The US is preparing for possible combat in the Pacific.

The US lost a generation of warship construction with the LCS and Zumwalts.

Older cruisers and destroyers are at the end of their service lives.

US shipbuilding capacity is not what it was in the 1980s. It is strained today.

The "show the flag" and policing missions can for the most part be performed by LCS and the Coast Guard.

The US Navy, at least when it comes to shipbuilding, is focused on retaining/improving their combat capabilities. Making up for lost time if you will.

The Constellation Class reflects that reality.

This is no time to build ships that will be of marginal use in actual combat.

Beside, the Navy already has the LCS for that.

They lost nothing with the LCS. They’re out there doing 2/3 of the jobs they were planned to do.
And the zumwalts were never planned as a standard DDG like the burke.

The constellation class is a replacement for the OHPs, something that should have been launched over a decade ago, when they removed missile capabilities from the OHPs.
The navy’s short sightedness is the only reason any time was lost on ship design/building.

‘Marginal use in combat’
So LCS sinking Burkes in wargames is marginal use?

LCSes being described as ‘owning’ the pacific during their deployments and requiring 3 ships to shadow them including much more conventionally capable destroyers is ‘marginal’ capability.

Ton for ton an LCS has the most offensive fire power in the current fleet.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

That can change real quick, planing for a nil loss scenario is an epic fail imho.

No one is planning for no loss scenarios.

This isn’t a video game where you can just build things without regard to cost.

A balance must always be reached between speed, firepower, redundancy, and cost.

People might love to say quality over quantity, but quantity has a quality all its own.

Who wins the strategic victory in this scenario.

8 corvettes, 16 super sonic ASMs
Vs
1 burke.

Burke is crippled worse than the cole was, but sank all 16 corvettes, but there are 64 more identical corvettes ready to fill that space, and no more Burkes available. Who won that fight, and gains control of the sea lanes?

 

[johnpjones1775]

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

Multiple navies, most notably Japan, use it for local defense, and a range of 50km should enable it to do so.

Fair point. I'm not sure I would want to use it for local defense unless we're talking a fairly dense convoy, though. "Two ships visible each way" from your position dense. Ship on the horizon, ship halfway to the horizon, you, ship halfway to the horizon, ship on the horizon.

I mean, there's a reason the USN doesn't use it for local defense, and it's not just because the original Sea Sparrow was so much shorter ranged so the USN has other tools.

I’d be willing to bet the answer is almost 100% because OG sea sparrow was so short ranged.

Our modern doctrine was built at that time period, we built further capabilities to cover the gaps left by SS, as ESSM came into the fleet it was better, just not better enough to justify a whole massive change to the doctrine.

 

[Jimmo952]

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

Multiple navies, most notably Japan, use it for local defense, and a range of 50km should enable it to do so.

Fair point. I'm not sure I would want to use it for local defense unless we're talking a fairly dense convoy, though. "Two ships visible each way" from your position dense. Ship on the horizon, ship halfway to the horizon, you, ship halfway to the horizon, ship on the horizon.

I mean, there's a reason the USN doesn't use it for local defense, and it's not just because the original Sea Sparrow was so much shorter ranged so the USN has other tools.

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

The US is preparing for possible combat in the Pacific.

The US lost a generation of warship construction with the LCS and Zumwalts.

Older cruisers and destroyers are at the end of their service lives.

US shipbuilding capacity is not what it was in the 1980s. It is strained today.

The "show the flag" and policing missions can for the most part be performed by LCS and the Coast Guard.

The US Navy, at least when it comes to shipbuilding, is focused on retaining/improving their combat capabilities. Making up for lost time if you will.

The Constellation Class reflects that reality.

This is no time to build ships that will be of marginal use in actual combat.

Beside, the Navy already has the LCS for that.

They lost nothing with the LCS. They’re out there doing 2/3 of the jobs they were planned to do.
And the zumwalts were never planned as a standard DDG like the burke.

The constellation class is a replacement for the OHPs, something that should have been launched over a decade ago, when they removed missile capabilities from the OHPs.
The navy’s short sightedness is the only reason any time was lost on ship design/building.

‘Marginal use in combat’
So LCS sinking Burkes in wargames is marginal use?

LCSes being described as ‘owning’ the pacific during their deployments and requiring 3 ships to shadow them including much more conventionally capable destroyers is ‘marginal’ capability.

Ton for ton an LCS has the most offensive fire power in the current fleet.

I strongly disagree with you regarding the success of the LCS class but, they are the low-end ships we have and can handle the anti-piracy, show-the-flag type missions.

As long as Congess mandates LCS to remain in the fleet, the US Navy will have all the low-end ships it needs.

I am not quite sure why you keep advocating for a less capable frigate design.

If naval conflict comes, the US Navy will need all the higher-end capabilities it can get.

 

[SSgtC]

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

So let me get this straight. Just because it hasn't happened in a long time, that means it can NEVER happen again? I'm sure navies around the world will be thrilled to hear of your expert analysis. They can finally stop wasting money on things like damage control and building ships to be survivable in combat. And all because John P Jones said that navies simply can't lose ships in combat anymore.

 

[uk 75]

The discussion of hi end vs lo end (the old First vs Second rate) is one that has raged during and after the Cold War.

In a general war (WW3) it was widely recognised that naval combat would be short and bloody, especially if nuclear tipped torpedos and missiles were unleashed.

Even the mighty US carriers were assumed to get sunk or severely damaged.

Even in limited war or terrorist actions warships have been pretty fragile. Major warships have been crippled by cheap weapons.

No major navy has fought another major navy at sea since 1945. So we have made assumptions based on tests, some actual combats and modelling.

Most big navies apart from the US Navy look pretty similar. The main warship is a destroyer/frigate with as many weapons as can be fitted. The ships look remarkably similar.

 

[johnpjones1775]

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

Multiple navies, most notably Japan, use it for local defense, and a range of 50km should enable it to do so.

Fair point. I'm not sure I would want to use it for local defense unless we're talking a fairly dense convoy, though. "Two ships visible each way" from your position dense. Ship on the horizon, ship halfway to the horizon, you, ship halfway to the horizon, ship on the horizon.

I mean, there's a reason the USN doesn't use it for local defense, and it's not just because the original Sea Sparrow was so much shorter ranged so the USN has other tools.

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

When was the last time the US lost a ship in combat?

20ish years ago is the answer. It’s only more expensive to replace losses if you’re taking losses.

The US is preparing for possible combat in the Pacific.

The US lost a generation of warship construction with the LCS and Zumwalts.

Older cruisers and destroyers are at the end of their service lives.

US shipbuilding capacity is not what it was in the 1980s. It is strained today.

The "show the flag" and policing missions can for the most part be performed by LCS and the Coast Guard.

The US Navy, at least when it comes to shipbuilding, is focused on retaining/improving their combat capabilities. Making up for lost time if you will.

The Constellation Class reflects that reality.

This is no time to build ships that will be of marginal use in actual combat.

Beside, the Navy already has the LCS for that.

They lost nothing with the LCS. They’re out there doing 2/3 of the jobs they were planned to do.
And the zumwalts were never planned as a standard DDG like the burke.

The constellation class is a replacement for the OHPs, something that should have been launched over a decade ago, when they removed missile capabilities from the OHPs.
The navy’s short sightedness is the only reason any time was lost on ship design/building.

‘Marginal use in combat’
So LCS sinking Burkes in wargames is marginal use?

LCSes being described as ‘owning’ the pacific during their deployments and requiring 3 ships to shadow them including much more conventionally capable destroyers is ‘marginal’ capability.

Ton for ton an LCS has the most offensive fire power in the current fleet.

I strongly disagree with you regarding the success of the LCS class but, they are the low-end ships we have and can handle the anti-piracy, show-the-flag type missions.

As long as Congess mandates LCS to remain in the fleet, the US Navy will have all the low-end ships it needs.

I am not quite sure why you keep advocating for a less capable frigate design.

If naval conflict comes, the US Navy will need all the higher-end capabilities it can get.

If a major naval conflict comes the navy will need ALL the ships it can get.

Link means a ship with radar suitable only for self defense can still effectively employ long range SAMs. Meaning not every ship in the fleet needs to have the highest end sensors, and as we’ve discussed quite a bit here recently top end sensors make up a significant portion of a modern ship’s cost. Reducing cost of a ship largely means reducing effectiveness of sensors, and today that’s ok because Link allows a VLS barge with no native sensors to launch SM6s and missiles or ships.

The USN’s goal of a 300 ship navy is not going to be achieved without compromises somewhere when it comes to ship design. To reach that goal the USN will need a lot more ships that cost $800m or less.
If we were to put this into WWII terms the USN and its supporters want a fleet of carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers, and claim there’s no room in the fleet for light cruisers or destroyers, because they’re less capable and less survivable.

I advocate for lower end FFGs because it’s the pragmatic answer. I also think a corvette based on the freedoms would be a good idea, but politically it’s a non-starter because of all the bad press in the early days of the LCS program.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Link means a ship with radar suitable only for self defense can still effectively employ long range SAMs. Meaning not every ship in the fleet needs to have the highest end sensors, and as we’ve discussed quite a bit here recently top end sensors make up a significant portion of a modern ship’s cost. Reducing cost of a ship largely means reducing effectiveness of sensors, and today that’s ok because Link allows a VLS barge with no native sensors to launch SM6s and missiles or ships.

Except this completely ignores the rest of us pointing out all the times the frigates will be operating without the benefit of another ship with that high-end radar. Escorting supply ships, escorting amphibs, taking over the high-end patrol work we're currently wasting DDGs on. They're not always going to have the luxury of operating with high-end assets.

Which means they damn well have the sensor suite to defend other ships by themselves, and this is a conclusion everyone is coming to.

If we were to put this into WWII terms the USN and its supporters want a fleet of carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers, and claim there’s no room in the fleet for light cruisers or destroyers, because they’re less capable and less survivable.

Except the Constellations aren't the CAs in this comparison, they're the DDs. They're both intended as the primary fleet ASW escorts, and like the Constellations the Fletchers were not cheap. Your notional Giraffe-equipped frigates are closer to DEs in concept.

In any case, trying to bring WW2 comparisons in when it's 80 years and at least three revolutions in naval design and doctrine later is deeply spurious.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I would like to point out that while sea battles will likely be short and vicous, far too short to replace losses, these ships will need to be replaced afterwards with the inflationary trends any post conflict scenario will bring.

You pay the piper or erode your defence.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Link means a ship with radar suitable only for self defense can still effectively employ long range SAMs. Meaning not every ship in the fleet needs to have the highest end sensors, and as we’ve discussed quite a bit here recently top end sensors make up a significant portion of a modern ship’s cost. Reducing cost of a ship largely means reducing effectiveness of sensors, and today that’s ok because Link allows a VLS barge with no native sensors to launch SM6s and missiles or ships.

Except this completely ignores the rest of us pointing out all the times the frigates will be operating without the benefit of another ship with that high-end radar. Escorting supply ships, escorting amphibs, taking over the high-end patrol work we're currently wasting DDGs on. They're not always going to have the luxury of operating with high-end assets.

Which means they damn well have the sensor suite to defend other ships by themselves, and this is a conclusion everyone is coming to.

If we were to put this into WWII terms the USN and its supporters want a fleet of carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers, and claim there’s no room in the fleet for light cruisers or destroyers, because they’re less capable and less survivable.

Except the Constellations aren't the CAs in this comparison, they're the DDs. They're both intended as the primary fleet ASW escorts, and like the Constellations the Fletchers were not cheap. Your notional Giraffe-equipped frigates are closer to DEs in concept.

In any case, trying to bring WW2 comparisons in when it's 80 years and at least three revolutions in naval design and doctrine later is deeply spurious.

You don’t need SPY level radar to do missions like escorting transports and merchants, not to mention aircraft also have link. So helicopters could be used as a miniAWACS, or yeah know the actual AWACS, I’m sure they can send data quite a long way.

 

[SSgtC]

Link means a ship with radar suitable only for self defense can still effectively employ long range SAMs. Meaning not every ship in the fleet needs to have the highest end sensors, and as we’ve discussed quite a bit here recently top end sensors make up a significant portion of a modern ship’s cost. Reducing cost of a ship largely means reducing effectiveness of sensors, and today that’s ok because Link allows a VLS barge with no native sensors to launch SM6s and missiles or ships.

Except this completely ignores the rest of us pointing out all the times the frigates will be operating without the benefit of another ship with that high-end radar. Escorting supply ships, escorting amphibs, taking over the high-end patrol work we're currently wasting DDGs on. They're not always going to have the luxury of operating with high-end assets.

Which means they damn well have the sensor suite to defend other ships by themselves, and this is a conclusion everyone is coming to.

If we were to put this into WWII terms the USN and its supporters want a fleet of carriers, battleships, and heavy cruisers, and claim there’s no room in the fleet for light cruisers or destroyers, because they’re less capable and less survivable.

Except the Constellations aren't the CAs in this comparison, they're the DDs. They're both intended as the primary fleet ASW escorts, and like the Constellations the Fletchers were not cheap. Your notional Giraffe-equipped frigates are closer to DEs in concept.

In any case, trying to bring WW2 comparisons in when it's 80 years and at least three revolutions in naval design and doctrine later is deeply spurious.

You don’t need SPY level radar to do missions like escorting transports and merchants, not to mention aircraft also have link. So helicopters could be used as a miniAWACS, or yeah know the actual AWACS, I’m sure they can send data quite a long way.

Sooooo, are you the one that's going to tell all those merchant sailors and their families, oh and don't forget the soldiers and Marines that will be in those convoys, that you don't give enough of a rat's ass to actually protect them? And that, as far as you're concerned, they're a write off in the event of an air attack? Because that's what you're arguing we should do.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You’re right…110nmi range radar totally can’t protect other ships…

I mean, you look at what it's been fitted to and what land-based missiles it's been paired with, and yeah, it can't. It's a pure search and early warning radar in the G/H band, and unlike the S/X-band SPY-6 doesn't have the means to provide precision track and targeting data. It's fine for ships that only carry self-defense SAMs and so mostly just need to know that a bandit is incoming. Area and even local-defense missiles are more demanding.

Algeria’s MEKOs have it and utilize ESSM

Halifax class also has it and also utilizes ESSM

Giraffe radar are utilized by Estonia’s air defense battalion

Pohjannma class same as above

Same for baynunah class

That’s not an insignificant number of classes of ship with medium ranges SAMs using sea giraffe.

ESSM is a self protection SAM, max range is on the order of 50km.

ESSM is a medium range SAM. 27miles well beyond self defense range. That’s operational area defense rang.

How fast will a supersonic AShM cross that distance?

At Mach 1, a missile will cross 50km in ~2.5 minutes, a bit over 20km/min (343m/s).

Launch first set of ESSMs so that they arrive at 50km when the incoming does, and if they miss you can take a second shot. You might even have time for a third shot if by some nightmare scenario your first and second shots miss (not sure what Pk is for an ESSM on a supersonic AShM, but having 4 missiles not take down an incoming is definitely in the "very rare event" category).

But the 3M54K or 3M54E Klub has a Mach 2.9 sprint mode, so it will cross an ESSM threat radius to impact in about 50 seconds. ESSM will reach 50km in about 37 seconds using Mach 4 as the missile speed. At about 90 seconds out, the first ESSM(s) launch, and reach their "max" range of 50km 37 seconds later. Second Chance shot happens about 3 seconds later, 47 seconds to impact and about 47km away. Roughly 19.5 seconds later, the second chance shot(s) impact, at roughly 25km range. 3 seconds later you can tell if the second chance shot(s) were successful and have launched the third volley. The incoming missile is now at 22km, and that's about the time you'd start launching RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles, as they will be in range when they catch the Klub in about 12 seconds. Then it's CIWS time.

Self defense missile against supersonic threats.

Harpoon does 800kph, Exocet 1100kph. A Harpoon will cover 50km in about 4 minutes, Exocet in a little under 3 minutes. Against those, you can make a decent case that the ESSM can do area defense. But only against subsonic missiles.

So I'm not buying ESSM as a general purpose area defense missile.

 

[CV12Hornet]

You don’t need SPY level radar to do missions like escorting transports and merchants, not to mention aircraft also have link. So helicopters could be used as a miniAWACS, or yeah know the actual AWACS, I’m sure they can send data quite a long way.

The Perries say hi. Back in the 70s their AAW systems were, relatively speaking, about where the Constellations' are currently.

Also, using helicopters as mini AWACS takes away from their vital ASW mission, and while helicopter AEW is fine for early warning it again does nothing for providing SAMs tracking data and guidance.

 

[SSgtC]

You don’t need SPY level radar to do missions like escorting transports and merchants, not to mention aircraft also have link. So helicopters could be used as a miniAWACS, or yeah know the actual AWACS, I’m sure they can send data quite a long way.

The Perries say hi. Back in the 70s their AAW systems were, relatively speaking, about where the Constellations' are currently.

Also, using helicopters as mini AWACS takes away from their vital ASW mission, and while helicopter AEW is fine for early warning it again does nothing for providing SAMs tracking data and guidance.

Not to mention, I don't even know if Navy helicopters like the SH/HH/MH-60 even have a radar capable of air search. That's just not their role in the USN. AFAIK, they are only equipped with a surface search set.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You don’t need SPY level radar to do missions like escorting transports and merchants, not to mention aircraft also have link. So helicopters could be used as a miniAWACS, or yeah know the actual AWACS, I’m sure they can send data quite a long way.

The Perries say hi. Back in the 70s their AAW systems were, relatively speaking, about where the Constellations' are currently.

Also, using helicopters as mini AWACS takes away from their vital ASW mission, and while helicopter AEW is fine for early warning it again does nothing for providing SAMs tracking data and guidance.

Not to mention, I don't even know if Navy helicopters like the SH/HH/MH-60 even have a radar capable of air search. That's just not their role in the USN. AFAIK, they are only equipped with a surface search set.

I think they also have a weather radar, but that's it for radars. Surface search and weather.

 

[uk 75]

The basic equipment of a general purpose frigate has been unchanged since the 1960s. A helicopter pad and hangar aft. A gun of some kind forward.
The threat from aircraft and missiles (and now RPVs) required a counter system. Initially a lightweight aa gun, then a point defence missile or rapid fire gun. These take up a lot of room and power as do the sensors they need.
The threat posed by submarines led to a separate class of frigates equipped solely as sub hunters. These were notable in the RN of the 80s with Leanders and T22.
The T23 has proved to be both a capable ASW platform and a decent GP frigate.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The basic equipment of a general purpose frigate has been unchanged since the 1960s. A helicopter pad and hangar aft. A gun of some kind forward.
The threat from aircraft and missiles (and now RPVs) required a counter system. Initially a lightweight aa gun, then a point defence missile or rapid fire gun. These take up a lot of room and power as do the sensors they need.
The threat posed by submarines led to a separate class of frigates equipped solely as sub hunters. These were notable in the RN of the 80s with Leanders and T22.
The T23 has proved to be both a capable ASW platform and a decent GP frigate.

I think that between manning and spare parts support, nations can't really afford to split sub-hunters and general purpose frigates anymore.

Not even the USN.

 

[Jimmo952]

The US is in a position where they can't build enough ships fast enough to replace the ships in service that are approaching the end of their service lives.

The US Navy is now in a position where they need to get real combat power out of the ships they are building as the Ticonderogas and older Burkes retire.

They cannot afford to spend time and shipbuilding resources on more LCS, DD21.

The lack of shipbuilding capacity seems more an issue than lack of funds.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The US is in a position where they can't build enough ships fast enough to replace the ships in service that are approaching the end of their service lives.

The US Navy is now in a position where they need to get real combat power out of the ships they are building as the Ticonderogas and older Burkes retire.

They cannot afford to spend time and shipbuilding resources on more LCS, DD21.

The lack of shipbuilding capacity seems more an issue than lack of funds.

Smaller ships can be built in smaller yard easing the pressure on the legacy yards, allowing us to produce more ships faster, expanding the knowledge and skill base needed for ship building creating a work force capable of going to work in larger yards to build larger and more complex ships.

 

[Jimmo952]

Smaller ships can be built in smaller yard easing the pressure on the legacy yards, allowing us to produce more ships faster, expanding the knowledge and skill base needed for ship building creating a work force capable of going to work in larger yards to build larger and more complex ships.

I agree with you. There are a number of smaller yards that could be utilized.

Their expertise though is in building smaller vessels.

Building 5000 ton frigates is going to be beyond their capabilities.

Now if we were to build 1000ton or so corvettes, there are a number of ship yards that could utilized.

It's an idea I think should be explored.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I agree with you. There are a number of smaller yards that could be utilized.

Their expertise though is in building smaller vessels.

Building 5000 ton frigates is going to be beyond their capabilities.

Now if we were to build 1000ton or so corvettes, there are a number of ship yards that could utilized.

It's an idea I think should be explored.

The civilian shipyards that are capable of building 5000+ ton ships (up in the Great Lakes) have all refused to deal with the USN's constant changing specs, requiring massive rework of finished parts of the ship.

 

[Jimmo952]

The civilian shipyards that are capable of building 5000+ ton ships (up in the Great Lakes) have all refused to deal with the USN's constant changing specs, requiring massive rework of finished parts of the ship.

Thanks. I was not aware of that.

I was thinking of yards like Bollinger, Swiftships, Safeboats.

 

[Yellow Palace]

If a major naval conflict comes the navy will need ALL the ships it can get.

Which doesn't include the ones that are on the bottom because you specified them with combat systems that aren't up to the job.

8 corvettes, 16 super sonic ASMs
Vs
1 burke.

The BURKE, because it defeats the AShM threat and then sinks the defenceless corvettes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Who wins the strategic victory in this scenario.

8 corvettes, 16 super sonic ASMs
Vs
1 burke.

Burke is crippled worse than the cole was, but sank all 16 corvettes, but there are 64 more identical corvettes ready to fill that space, and no more Burkes available. Who won that fight, and gains control of the sea lanes?

16 AShM each? Yes, that will swamp a Burke's defenses, as that's more missiles incoming than the Burke has to shoot back, unless it is packing a lot more ESSMs than usual. You also just threw a billion dollars worth of missiles at the Burke, assuming $7.8mil/missile times 128 missiles. (BrahMos is $3.5-4.85mil each)

16 AShM total? The Burke laughs at you, then sinks all 16 corvettes with a single Harpoon each.

 

[SSgtC]

16 AShM each? Yes, that will swamp a Burke's defenses, as that's more missiles incoming than the Burke has to shoot back, unless it is packing a lot more ESSMs than usual. You also just threw a billion dollars worth of missiles at the Burke, assuming $7.8mil/missile times 128 missiles. (BrahMos is $3.5-4.85mil each)

16 AShM total? The Burke laughs at you, then sinks all 16 corvettes with a single Harpoon each.

The Burke may decide not to even waste a Harpoon on a corvette and may just sink them with a couple Standards in their anti-ship role

 

[Yellow Palace]

The Burke may decide not to even waste a Harpoon on a corvette and may just sink them with a couple Standards in their anti-ship role

The embarked helicopters ought to be capable of dealing with a couple - at least, assuming they have Hellfires in the air weapons magazine.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Which doesn't include the ones that are on the bottom because you specified them with combat systems that aren't up to the job.

The BURKE, because it defeats the AShM threat and then sinks the defenceless corvettes.

Lmao, that’s why Burkes lost to a single LCS I wargames?

 

[Jimmo952]

Lmao, that’s why Burkes lost to a single LCS I wargames?

How exactly did the LCS do that?

 

[SSgtC]

Lmao, that’s why Burkes lost to a single LCS I wargames?

War games aren't real life. They aren't even simulating how we actually fight. They're used to test ideas, concepts and equipment. That often results in outcomes that would never happen in an actual engagement.

Even if we assume this particular war game was 100% true to life, there is such a thing as luck in war. The Burke could have sunk the LCS a hundred times, but on try 101, the LCS got lucky. You don't ignore the 100 times the Burke won in favor of the one time it lost.

 

[CV12Hornet]

LCS are also equipped with NSM, which IMO is a harder target for missile defenses than most supersonic missiles. Mostly because it's a really fucking sneaky missile that doesn't even have the courtesy of going full pitbull with an active radar seeker.

 

[johnpjones1775]

How exactly did the LCS do that?

Probably with NSM.

 

[johnpjones1775]

War games aren't real life. They aren't even simulating how we actually fight. They're used to test ideas, concepts and equipment. That often results in outcomes that would never happen in an actual engagement.

Even if we assume this particular war game was 100% true to life, there is such a thing as luck in war. The Burke could have sunk the LCS a hundred times, but on try 101, the LCS got lucky. You don't ignore the 100 times the Burke won in favor of the one time it lost.

And yet the previously mentioned corvettes only need to get lucky once while the Burke have to win every time.

 

[johnpjones1775]

War games aren't real life. They aren't even simulating how we actually fight. They're used to test ideas, concepts and equipment. That often results in outcomes that would never happen in an actual engagement.

Even if we assume this particular war game was 100% true to life, there is such a thing as luck in war. The Burke could have sunk the LCS a hundred times, but on try 101, the LCS got lucky. You don't ignore the 100 times the Burke won in favor of the one time it lost.

You’re right wargames aren’t real life, but without them we’d be a lot worse off.

You sound like what I imagine BLUFOR sounded like during the first round of millennium challenge ‘02 sounded like.

 

[Arjen]

You'd just need to line up a largish number of corvettes. Which aren't free. I won't pin you down on SSgtC's 100 corvettes, but at some point, a largish number of corvettes will cost rather more, AND will take longer to build, than a Burke.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You'd just need to line up a largish number of corvettes. Which aren't free. I won't pin you down on SSgtC's 100 corvettes, but at some point, a largish number of corvettes will cost rather more, AND will take longer to build, than a Burke.

And even if it takes a large number of corvettes to equal the hull price of a Burke, the equipment and armament will reach that point a lot quicker.

8x Corvettes versus 1x Burke. Each corvette has 16x AShM on it. Yes, that's a dead Burke if they all fire. That's also somewhere between $200m and $1b in missiles, depending on just how expensive each missile is. BrahMos, one of the higher performance missiles that isn't paying US labor costs, is $3.5-4.85mil each, depending on version.

Those 8x Corvettes will cost about as much as a Burke in hull ($175m or so each), plus sensors and fire control system(s). And then weapons are easily another $1b. (8x 57mm Mk110, 16x 30mm Mk44, 8x SeaRAM,128x BrahMos AShM, 64x ESSM, 128x Longbow Hellfires)

So at the low end for hull costs and mid range for equipment, the current equation is that 8x corvettes equal the cost of a Burke, fully loaded as they sit in the water ready to fight.

And on the US side of the equation, it's more like 2x-3x Corvettes are the cost of a Burke, higher end hull costs and very high end equipment, though missiles end up cheaper due to much larger purchase numbers. And those 3 corvettes will not defeat a Burke, they don't have enough missiles to overwhelm Aegis.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I look at a frigate as a convoy escort and ASW-heavy escort for the carriers. General convoy escorting requires a decent air defense capability. I don't know that Aegis is required, but you will want a pretty good Air defense system regardless. SM-2s, not just ESSMs.

Aegis means a large hull so that the big air search radars are stable, but I think that would be necessary for any convoy air defense radar and missile system.

ASW-heavy means rafted propulsion and other hull silencing methods designed into the hull from the beginning, plus a couple different towed array sonars.

I don't think you can build a cheap-and-quick hull with everything required for that job. IF the USN contractually guaranteed no design changes during construction, they might be able to get the Great Lakes ship builders to make a bunch of them. Still talking about a 6500-7500 ton ship, though, due to the radar stability requirements.

 

[Jimmo952]

War games aren't real life. They aren't even simulating how we actually fight. They're used to test ideas, concepts and equipment. That often results in outcomes that would never happen in an actual engagement.

Even if we assume this particular war game was 100% true to life, there is such a thing as luck in war. The Burke could have sunk the LCS a hundred times, but on try 101, the LCS got lucky. You don't ignore the 100 times the Burke won in favor of the one time it lost.

Probably with NSM.

No. The LCS disable the Bueke but did not sink it.

They were on the same side of the war game.

The LCS nroke down and the Burke was falling too close behind. The Burke was estimated to have taken some damage in the collision.