US Navy News and updates

[Sea Toby]

^ So the USN never had a requirement for a Perry-class replacement? Or did you simply mean that this was just pushed further back in their priority list? Romney seems to want a Perry-class replacement. I don't think he would have made that "requirement" himself.

Makes me wonder though... what's the USN's priority list like for in-development and totally-new ships?

1. Gerald Ford-class carriers
2. New BMD ships - either Burke Flight 3 or more Zumwalts?
3. Ohio-class replacement
4. Perry-class replacement?

More Virginia-class subs, LCS, LPD-17, JHSV are pretty much a done deal right? It's just the final numbers which are being continuously evaluated.

And talk about the Virginia-class subs -- who gets to be in the Seawolf vs Virginia?

The naval procurement budget is only so much. The more frigates they buy means there will be fewer destroyers bought. Simply put, the US Navy would rather buy destroyers as they see frigates as underarmed warships. The Cold War is over, and there is no need to replace Perry class frigates for the mid ocean ASW escorting role. Neither do we have the crews to sustain civilian convoys.

The US Navy has its hands full with littoral operations and would rather place its efforts there, thus the LCS.

 

[colay]

So I'm way off the mark?



But what of the power generators and radars? I can see that it would be relatively easy to put those missiles in - except perhaps the SM2/6 - but you will probably need a bigger, better radar than the LCS and more power too. Or maybe you can just skip the SM2/6 and focus on ASW?

A lot will depend on what attributes the Navy would be looking for in a future frigate, of course. The LCS hull can only accommodate so much, only 2/3 the tonnage of a Type 26 from what I read so they will have to be very selective in choosing from the menu of options, none of which will be cheap.
As for the radar, the SPY-1F is available.

 

[Blackshoe]

If the Navy did decide in the future that it needed a FF, what are the chances that they would go with a platform based on the LCS hull? Both LM and Austal have been pitching their versions of a multi-mission combatant/surface combat ship that offer more potent offensive and defensive arsenals (e.g. ESSM, Standard Missiles, bigger gun, Harpoon, bow-mounted sonar, ASW torpedoes, etc.).

Costs are increasingly a key factor in procurement decisions. Separating the platform from the mission payload offers significant savings by capitalizing on an existing seaframe design and an active production line. Much of the mission and weapons systems are mature and just entail integration effort. 1

Unlikely unless they find a way to increase the fuel capacity/range of the ship, it's not going to happen. And for the cost suffered, it wouldn't be worth it anyway.

Putting a tail on an LCS is not going to make it an open-ocean ASW escort alone. Right now, when the last of the OHPs go away, there will be nothing to replace the mission they were originally designed for. Is that good or bad? Don't entirely know, but no one's talking about replacing it with a specific asset, other than the idea that LCS can pick up those missions (I remain unconvinced).

 

[Volkodav]

Unlikely unless they find a way to increase the fuel capacity/range of the ship, it's not going to happen. And for the cost suffered, it wouldn't be worth it anyway.

Putting a tail on an LCS is not going to make it an open-ocean ASW escort alone. Right now, when the last of the OHPs go away, there will be nothing to replace the mission they were originally designed for. Is that good or bad? Don't entirely know, but no one's talking about replacing it with a specific asset, other than the idea that LCS can pick up those missions (I remain unconvinced).

Or drop to a single GT and put up with 30-35kt max speed, maybe look at switching to diesels instead of GTs or even switching to all electric or hybrid electric propulsion to provide greater power generation capacity to operate all the new/different systems that may be fitted. At the end of the day the FF/FFG mission set likely will not need the very high dash speed of the LCS so trade that for range.

 

[StobieWan]

LCS is built around that speed in terms of hull design however - you'd have a relatively fuel in-efficient design if you just dropped the power available.

 

[iugim]

Mitt thinks we need frigates

LCS is built around that speed in terms of hull design however - you'd have a relatively fuel in-efficient design if you just dropped the power available.

The Navy might not have a requirement but the Romney plan (advised by Lehman) calls for a Perry replacement describe as a "battle-group-deployable frigate". They talk about a price of 650 million per frigate.What do you think the Navy will get for 650 million? A modification of an existing design? Doesn't seem like we could design any thing new and keep the price down.

 

[AegisFC]

Some historical context when Perries started getting assigned to Carrier groups there was a similar cry about how it wasn't suited to such a mission. The sonar sucked (called the Helen Keller) and its missile system was marginal at best.

$650 a ship isn't that much and whatever emerges will just upset the same people who hate the LCS so much.

 

[StobieWan]

Exactly - cheap tin cans, commonly referred to as "Oh Help us Please", no decent air defence, the list of complaints went on.

They turned out okay and are now being sadly missed, with folk wishing so many hadn't been retired early.

 

[StobieWan]

The Navy might not have a requirement but the Romney plan (advised by Lehman) calls for a Perry replacement describe as a "battle-group-deployable frigate". They talk about a price of 650 million per frigate.What do you think the Navy will get for 650 million? A modification of an existing design? Doesn't seem like we could design any thing new and keep the price down.

Romney's doing what all campaigning candidates do on defence, and I'm willing to stick a tenner on reality biting him on the bottom quite hard if he gets into office, at which point a lot of the campaign promises will be quietly dropped.

You could get a fairly reasonable all rounder for $650 million but to do that, you'd have to embrace the unthinkable and order a MOTS design available right now, not tinker with it and simply say "give me thirty, asap".

Or you could take LCS, fit a limited VLS, add either a pair of illuminators or something like AUSPAR, eat into the modular space for some permanently embarked kit, and trot out a slightly less adaptable GP frigate.

I'd say just keep building LCS.

 

[colay]

The USN and RN are standardizing on the missile compartment module for their new generation of boomers so maybe a case could be made for the US leveraging on the Type 26 program. No doubt the US version would cost more than the UK's top end $550M pronection after all the bells and whistles have been accounted for but it should be cheaper and available earlier than a design from scratch.

Royal Navy

 

[Volkodav]

They could always relaunch the G&C "International Frigate" or come to a licencing arangement with Spain on the F-100 design. Actually what would be interesting would be a joint evolved F-100 based US, Spanish, Australian project to replace their OHP's and in the RANs case the ANZACs.

 

[StobieWan]

The USN and RN are standardizing on the missile compartment module for their new generation of boomers so maybe a case could be made for the US leveraging on the Type 26 program. No doubt the US version would cost more than the UK's top end $550M pronection after all the bells and whistles have been accounted for but it should be cheaper and available earlier than a design from scratch.

Royal Navy

Well, Type 26 will take Mk41 VLS as is, and the entire mast is modular - the bulk of the integration work is done or can be easily done.Should be room for about 24 at the front, and space for other kit like Griffin in front of that and also near the funnel.

Take the existing radar and CMS from one of the LCS designs plus any existing sensors, decoys, and other kit, dial all that into a Type 26 with LM engines (or whatever) and you'd be in business.

You could build all of that for $650m or less as long as you were willing to be sensible and stick with stuff that's already on the LCS, not start adding requirements etc.

It's not going to happen - the US doesn't require a GP frigate from a doctrinal point of view. Same as for a warmed over F100 design.

 

[fretburner]

It's not going to happen - the US doesn't require a GP frigate from a doctrinal point of view. Same as for a warmed over F100 design.

The 3rd Romney-Obama debate took me to this link

... And it seems that you are right, there's NOT a requirement for a Frigate and that they're keeping the 55-ship LCS fleet.

There's a couple of interesting things in Table 1 of that document thought -- that the USN will NOT replace the SSGNs when they're at the end of their service lives, and that they're NOT going to buy dedicated mine warfare ships. The latter, I presume, will be taken 100% by the LCS. But what of the SSGNs? Wasn't it an SSGN which fired the first Tomahawks to defeat Libya's air defenses?

 

[colay]

The 3rd Romney-Obama debate took me to this link

... And it seems that you are right, there's NOT a requirement for a Frigate and that they're keeping the 55-ship LCS fleet.

There's a couple of interesting things in Table 1 of that document thought -- that the USN will NOT replace the SSGNs when they're at the end of their service lives, and that they're NOT going to buy dedicated mine warfare ships. The latter, I presume, will be taken 100% by the LCS. But what of the SSGNs? Wasn't it an SSGN which fired the first Tomahawks to defeat Libya's air defenses?

The Navy's shipbuilding budget will only accommodate a single new class of submarine and this will be the new SSBN-X boomers. Instead of new-build SSGNs, the Navy will be building a stretched version of the Virginia-class SSN with around 40 VLS tubes. If they build enough of the stretched subs, they can make up for the eventual retirement of the existing SSGN fleet.

 

[Belesari]

The Navy's shipbuilding budget will only accommodate a single new class of submarine and this will be the new SSBN-X boomers. Instead of new-build SSGNs, the Navy will be building a stretched version of the Virginia-class SSN with around 40 VLS tubes. If they build enough of the stretched subs, they can make up for the eventual retirement of the existing SSGN fleet.

I've heard they dont want a streached virginia they are still thinking a new sub but smaller than present boomers and with the virginia tech and lessons.

 

[colay]

I've heard they dont want a streached virginia they are still thinking a new sub but smaller than present boomers and with the virginia tech and lessons.

SSBN-X is going to be a clean sheet. A bit of a puzzle .. apparently it's going to be around the same length as the Ohio-class boats while having only 16 silos vs. 24 for the latter. Wouldn't they have saved money building a lighter, shorter sub? Or would a shorter length have had a detrimental effect on speed? Or are they putting the freed up,space for some classified payload?

 

[AegisFC]

Much improved berthing spaces will eat up some space. There are also signal management reasons you'd want as big of a hull as possible.

 

[Belesari]

SSBN-X is going to be a clean sheet. A bit of a puzzle .. apparently it's going to be around the same length as the Ohio-class boats while having only 16 silos vs. 24 for the latter. Wouldn't they have saved money building a lighter, shorter sub? Or would a shorter length have had a detrimental effect on speed? Or are they putting the freed up,space for some classified payload?

Yea i ment less BM silo's. I think maybe their is some thought to add a payload bay for spec ops or maybe SLCM.

 

[colay]

Yea i ment less BM silo's. I think maybe their is some thought to add a payload bay for spec ops or maybe SLCM.

Reports are that the Navy has set a very ambitious cost target of $4.9B per sub and they plan to build only a dozen of them to replace 14 Ohios. The new boats are optimized for the strategic deterrent mission and any extra bells and whistles not directly contributing to that role are to be avoided.

Things like Special Ops, SLCM etc.,will be the province of the SSNs.

 

[Belesari]

Reports are that the Navy has set a very ambitious cost target of $4.9B per sub and they plan to build only a dozen of them to replace 14 Ohios. The new boats are optimized for the strategic deterrent mission and any extra bells and whistles not directly contributing to that role are to be avoided.

Things like Special Ops, SLCM etc.,will be the province of the SSNs.

OK i remember alot was being thrown around when they were announced. Thanks for the Info. And your right thats a pretty ambitious target. I do wonder would that include new SLBM or just stick with what we have presently. I remember a request for new ones but....