the concerned
Active Member
I thought about the cruise missile capability already the downside to them is they are easily detectable and engaged. A few shells aren't.
Which would you rather put at risk of loss, a few LACM's at about USD$2 mil. each, or a USD$2.5+ bil. sub?I thought about the cruise missile capability already the downside to them is they are easily detectable and engaged. A few shells aren't.
Apart from all technical issues outlined by Tod above' you have to ask why?People on here might know would it be possible to adapt a ssn to deploy a rail gun when they are operational. I was just wondering if one equippd with it could sneak up on a target pop up just enough to use the gun fire half a dozen rounds and disappear again.
As I understand the idea you have, the indiscretion rate for the weight of ordnance delivered is still going to be higher than sub-launched LACM's.It was never to replace the current longer range options . But an extra option say against a complex or even a useful interception of a vessel. It was just a idea especially as the sub has the power to fire the ship. Surely you get ready everything underwater so your partial surfacing is a minimum and then disappar again.
Quite a few surprises in that shortlist. I assume both the Austal and Lockheed Martin LCS are being considered. I wouldn't want to go to war in either of those ships. I am also not sure about the Huntington Ingalls entry. It may be OK but like the two LCS vessels I would hardly call it a proven design for a frigate.And then there were five. The Navy has confirmed the contenders for FFG(X) who have each been awarded $15 million to advance their conceptual designs over the next 16 months followed by issuance of a RFP with a winner declared by 2020. A VLS is key requirement for FFG(X) and on paper it looks like a Baby Burke.
Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine and Huntington Ingalls Industries were each awarded $15 million contracts for the work....
Each design the Navy selected was based on a “mature” parent design that is already in production for the U.S. or foreign navies and that could incorporate a laundry list of systems the Navy will require for the FFG(X). Foreign designs required a partnership with a U.S. shipyard for construction. The Navy expects to pay anywhere from $800 to $950 million per hull for the next-generation frigate...
“Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate,” USNI News reported last summer.
And then there were five. The Navy has confirmed the contenders for FFG(X) who have each been awarded $15 million to advance their conceptual designs over the next 16 months followed by issuance of a RFP with a winner declared by 2020. A VLS is key requirement for FFG(X) and on paper it looks like a Baby Burke.
Navy Picks Five Contenders for Next Generation Frigate FFG(X) Program - USNI News
Austal USA, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Fincantieri Marine and Huntington Ingalls Industries were each awarded $15 million contracts for the work....
Each design the Navy selected was based on a “mature” parent design that is already in production for the U.S. or foreign navies and that could incorporate a laundry list of systems the Navy will require for the FFG(X). Foreign designs required a partnership with a U.S. shipyard for construction. The Navy expects to pay anywhere from $800 to $950 million per hull for the next-generation frigate...
“Many of the required weapons systems are pulled from the previous FF requirements: the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which pulls software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants; the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system; a canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system; the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6; and a slew of undersea warfare tools such as the AN/SLQ-61 light weight tow, AN/SQS-62 variable depth sonar and AN/SQQ-89F undersea warfare/anti-submarine warfare combat system. It also requires use of the MK 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile being developed for the LCS and frigate,” USNI News reported last summer.
Doubt it is quite about cost as much as it is about keeping the LCS based designs in the running.Apparently the specs call for FFG(X) to use a 57mm gun utilizing ALaMO smart rounds. Would the cost penalty be too high to install a 5-in gun instead that could fire the more capable HVP round? The RAN's Hobart-class AWDs based on the F100 feature a 5-in gun.
if the F100 design is selected, won't it be easier just to have AGEIS+SPY1D instead of the new EASR with CombatSS-21 CMS?Apparently the specs call for FFG(X) to use a 57mm gun utilizing ALaMO smart rounds. Would the cost penalty be too high to install a 5-in gun instead that could fire the more capable HVP round? The RAN's Hobart-class AWDs based on the F100 feature a 5-in gun.
I feel there are two types frigates in this group. The "political frigate", and the "real frigate".Quite a few surprises in that shortlist. I assume both the Austal and Lockheed Martin LCS are being considered. I wouldn't want to go to war in either of those ships. I am also not sure about the Huntington Ingalls entry. It may be OK but like the two LCS vessels I would hardly call it a proven design for a frigate.
The only contenders that are actual proven frigate designs are the FREMM and F-105 derivatives. Both nice designs but the F-105 is about the closest thing you will get to a mini bourke and that might give it the edge in this competition.