The United States Navy's "tin cans"

[My2Cents]

Agreed. I still wonder about the split buy award. IMO, the trimaran design satisfied the shallow and fast requirement. The Freedom class should have been cancelled in favour of a modern multi-role frigate. All sorts of excellent foreign designs that could have been modified for USN requirements.

I always have a problem with the term "modern multi-role frigate" because it begs the question “To do what?”, and the answer seems to be something supposedly nearly as capable as a Burke class, but somehow expendable. The “excellent foreign designs” are also nearly all for deep water, not littoral, and all have fewer helicopters.

So what are the requirements you propose to sort those excellent foreign designs?

• Draft -- 4m (littoral) or 6+m (deep water)?
• Speed -- 32 knots or 28 knots or less?
• Helicopters -- 2, 1, or 0? What about hanger space?
• Guns -- Size and quantity
• Missiles -- self defense (ESSM) or strike capable? How many?
• Anti-Submarine warfare?
• Electronics -- How capable?

Set up a sieve and then run through those excellent foreign designs to see what is left, depending on your requirements (especially draft, helicopters, and speed) there is likely not be any.

And then, if you decide to go with a deep water design, consider the utility of 90 cells of strike capable VLS in a Burke class destroyer with nearly the same crew, because that is what you will be giving up to buy a frigate.

 

[barney41]

This current iteration of LCS/SSC would be hard-pressed to accommodate a railgun given tech challenges but IIRC the LCS(X) notional future small surface combatant is envisioned to be able to. The lessons learned from the DDG-1000 will surely influence the design.

In the meantime, some of the work being done...

General Atomics to support US NAVSEA railgun pulse power systems - Naval Technology

 

[Ranger25]

The US Navy has not yet figured out how to wedge a rail gun into a ship the size of the Zumwalt-class destroyer, let alone how to meet the massive power requirements of the weapon.

Yet, you foresee it as a proper armament on a vessel this thread equates to a "tin can"?

If I was a medical practitioner, I would prescribe you at least one month away from the internet, in an oxygen rich environment.

3-star: 'Lot of work' before railgun arrives in fleet

Cute, I appreciate the advice.

I am obviously not a Veteran of a surface flat but served in other areas.

I post and question here for my own education, not to educate.

My thought in the SSC and EMRG was based on readings about the potential future increases in efficiency and reductions in size of the EMRG tech, that's all

 

[John Fedup]

I always have a problem with the term "modern multi-role frigate" because it begs the question “To do what?”, and the answer seems to be something supposedly nearly as capable as a Burke class, but somehow expendable. The “excellent foreign designs” are also nearly all for deep water, not littoral, and all have fewer helicopters.

So what are the requirements you propose to sort those excellent foreign designs?

• Draft -- 4m (littoral) or 6+m (deep water)?
• Speed -- 32 knots or 28 knots or less?
• Helicopters -- 2, 1, or 0? What about hanger space?
• Guns -- Size and quantity
• Missiles -- self defense (ESSM) or strike capable? How many?
• Anti-Submarine warfare?
• Electronics -- How capable?

Set up a sieve and then run through those excellent foreign designs to see what is left, depending on your requirements (especially draft, helicopters, and speed) there is likely not be any.

And then, if you decide to go with a deep water design, consider the utility of 90 cells of strike capable VLS in a Burke class destroyer with nearly the same crew, because that is what you will be giving up to buy a frigate.

The Burke class is a very capable indeed and is certainly a deep water design. The latest generation of frigates are in the 6000-7000 ton class and are also deep water vessels. Many of the items you listed can and have been fitted to these frigates however the Burke's addtional 2000 tons of displacement will allow more of the kit you mentioned to be installed. For shallow water, build the trimaran LCS version. Dump the Freedom class and build more Burkes for deep water, if that is affordable, otherwise build frigates which will be better armed and more survivable than a modified Freedom LCS.

 

[My2Cents]

The Burke class is a very capable indeed and is certainly a deep water design. The latest generation of frigates are in the 6000-7000 ton class and are also deep water vessels. Many of the items you listed can and have been fitted to these frigates however the Burke's addtional 2000 tons of displacement will allow more of the kit you mentioned to be installed. For shallow water, build the trimaran LCS version. Dump the Freedom class and build more Burkes for deep water, if that is affordable, otherwise build frigates which will be better armed and more survivable than a modified Freedom LCS.

The crew size, and therefore the operating costs, of a 6000+ ton deep water frigate and a 10,000 ton Burke class destroyer are nearly the same. Spread out over a 30 year life the acquisition costs are only a minor difference. And, unless you build a lot of them, the development costs spread over a limited number of hulls will eclipse any potential savings. For the US Navy a deep water frigate just does not make sense at this time.

 

[John Fedup]

The crew size, and therefore the operating costs, of a 6000+ ton deep water frigate and a 10,000 ton Burke class destroyer are nearly the same. Spread out over a 30 year life the acquisition costs are only a minor difference. And, unless you build a lot of them, the development costs spread over a limited number of hulls will eclipse any potential savings. For the US Navy a deep water frigate just does not make sense at this time.

The crew size for a Fremm or Type 26 is 130 to 150 versus 300+ for a Burke, the extra 2000 tons of displacement must add some addtional expense for the Burke as well. The Burke costs almost twice as much to buy. I don't understand how the operating costs can be nearly the same and for a 30 ship purchase the capital cost would be at least 20 billion more for the Burkes albeit they will be much more capable than a Fremm or Type 26.

 

[Todjaeger]

The crew size for a Fremm or Type 26 is 130 to 150 versus 300+ for a Burke, the extra 2000 tons of displacement must add some addtional expense for the Burke as well. The Burke costs almost twice as much to buy. I don't understand how the operating costs can be nearly the same and for a 30 ship purchase the capital cost would be at least 20 billion more for the Burkes albeit they will be much more capable than a Fremm or Type 26.

Part of the difference in crew size has to do with USN philosophy on crewing. For instance, a RAN Adelaide-class FFG, which is an Australian version of a long-hull USN Oliver Hazard Perry-class FFG. The USN crew (with the Mk 13 launcher deleted) has ~20 ship's crew than a RAN frigate which still has the Mk 13 launcher, and a Mk 41 VLS added.

One thing I readily admit, I still remain unsold on the entire LCS concept. The USN does need smaller surface combatants than the Burkes, but I feel that too much importance was given to top speed for the LCS, as well as a shallow draught, to achieve a really viable oceangoing warship.

IMO an LHD-like mothership concept, to deploy a number of helicopters over a littoral area as well as a seabase for deployment of fast patrol craft like CB90's or perhaps improved Cyclone-class PC would really make more sense for littoral environments.

To get the range and seakeeping to make an open ocean crossing, the LCS were made ~frigate-sized in both dimensions and displacement. To allow for such a high speed and shallow draught, they are multi-hull aluminum vessels. This makes them susceptible to effects like tunnel slam, as well as significant limits on deadweight tonnage. The deadweight limitation impacts just how much kit can be fitted aboard ship, resulting in a "stock" LCS having less weaponry than a number of corvettes and large patrol boats in service with other navies. Once more of the mission modules are completed, this will likely change, but I do not realistically foresee an LCS being able to operate in a threatening with a reasonable degree of survivability without support from larger USN vessels, which IMO would largely negate the speed advantage.

As for the LCS ability to operate 4 helicopters... Again due to the deadweight limitation issue, there is certainly space for the helicopters, but how much weight is actually available for fuel, weapons, and stores for both the embarked helicopters, their aircrews, and the LCS itself? I suspect that a decent logistical train would be required to support such an LCS deployment, including fairly frequent port visits since the normal crew complement of an LCS has AFAIK not been sufficient to conduct normal shipboard maintenance in peacetime operations.

-Cheers

 

[AegisFC]

The crew size for a Fremm or Type 26 is 130 to 150 versus 300+ for a Burke, the extra 2000 tons of displacement must add some addtional expense for the Burke as well.

Burkes routinely operate with less than 300 people, how much less I won't say but most of them have had their admin departments moved ashore and other programs such as smart ship have reduced crew number. The DDG modernization program has reduced crew numbers even more.
Also in the USN damage control is king and watch rotation is another highly valued item that adds crew, so you will always get higher crew numbers than a Euro or Aus ship of similar size and displacement.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Burkes routinely operate with less than 300 people, how much less I won't say but most of them have had their admin departments moved ashore and other programs such as smart ship have reduced crew number. The DDG modernization program has reduced crew numbers even more.
Also in the USN damage control is king and watch rotation is another highly valued item that adds crew, so you will always get higher crew numbers than a Euro or Aus ship of similar size and displacement.

I would assume they are trying to get to something near Zumwalt, with 14,000t and 120-140 crew. Of course she has more advanced low manpower damage control systems. But it proves the US doesn't absolutely have to have massive crewing numbers for major surface vessels (and Zumwalt has some pretty fancy features).

To find a niche (in the USN) between a LCS and a DDG seems like splitting hairs. You either want more LCS or more DDG's.

 

[Volkodav]

Everything helps. Changing from HP air to electric starting on the GT generators in later Burkes reduced weight, complexity and maintenance load while increasing reliability. There are lots of small changes like this that are progressively replacing older less reliable components of systems with modern alternatives that effectively reduce the amount of preventative maintenance required, hence the number of maintainers and, in the case of some major changes, can also reduce the number of duty stations per watch.

Also the simpler and more reliable systems become the less need for specialist maintainers, meaning a smaller number of generalist maintainers can cover the work and the use of operator maintainers becomes more viable as well. All electric ships are a real boon as well, as the more reliable extra designed power output makes it easier to replace compressed air and hydraulic systems with modern, durable, electric motors in many applications.

 

[AegisFC]

I would assume they are trying to get to something near Zumwalt, with 14,000t and 120-140 crew. Of course she has more advanced low manpower damage control systems. But it proves the US doesn't absolutely have to have massive crewing numbers for major surface vessels (and Zumwalt has some pretty fancy features).

To find a niche (in the USN) between a LCS and a DDG seems like splitting hairs. You either want more LCS or more DDG's.

There is a LOT of skepticism in the USN about automated DC features and the USN is reminded about the importance of DC on a fairly regular basis.