US Navy News and updates

[Belesari]

Top architect proposes new type of frigate for the Navy | SignOnSanDiego.com

"The nation’s leading independent naval architectural firm has been quietly gauging whether senior Navy officials are interested in a new class of frigate that would be smaller and lighter replacement for the aging ships now being phased out of service.

The unnamed light frigate also could be viewed as an alternative to the littoral combat ship program, which has been struggling due to cost overruns, technical problems, and questions about its narrow focus and survivability. Twelve of the first 12 LCS ships are to be homeported in San Diego.

The new 3,500-ton light frigates proposed by Gibbs&Cox would be more heavily armed than previous models and be capable of carrying out a variety of missions over a wide area of the world’s oceans."

 

[StobieWan]

Top architect proposes new type of frigate for the Navy | SignOnSanDiego.com

"The nation’s leading independent naval architectural firm has been quietly gauging whether senior Navy officials are interested in a new class of frigate that would be smaller and lighter replacement for the aging ships now being phased out of service.

The unnamed light frigate also could be viewed as an alternative to the littoral combat ship program, which has been struggling due to cost overruns, technical problems, and questions about its narrow focus and survivability. Twelve of the first 12 LCS ships are to be homeported in San Diego.

The new 3,500-ton light frigates proposed by Gibbs&Cox would be more heavily armed than previous models and be capable of carrying out a variety of missions over a wide area of the world’s oceans."

" The company has yet to release a drawing of the concept ship, or say how much it might cost to build."


Hmmm...

 

[Milne Bay]

" The company has yet to release a drawing of the concept ship, or say how much it might cost to build."


Hmmm...

Hmmmm....... indeed.
However to my mind at least it's not a bad direction to be heading in.
US Navy shipbuilding has been heading into the stratosphere as far as cost vs capability is concerned.
The O H Perry's were a mass produced item designed for useful capability and cheap cost.
There is a real need to get back to this type of affordable capability as far as the US Navy and its budget is concerned I think. Perhaps Gibbs and Cox are reading the tea leaves and have arrived at the same conclusion.

 

[StobieWan]

Hmmmm....... indeed.
However to my mind at least it's not a bad direction to be heading in.
US Navy shipbuilding has been heading into the stratosphere as far as cost vs capability is concerned.
The O H Perry's were a mass produced item designed for useful capability and cheap cost.
There is a real need to get back to this type of affordable capability as far as the US Navy and its budget is concerned I think. Perhaps Gibbs and Cox are reading the tea leaves and have arrived at the same conclusion.

Oh, from the general idea of things, it's a great idea - if they can get something on the table without too many frills, and actually be a decent frigate, then I'll cheer loudly.

Stick a 57mm on the front, ESSM and a low spec radar fit so we're not getting into AB costs, helo pad or a hangar on the back depending on costs.

Just post a guard on the specification with orders to shoot on sight anyone using words like "transformational".

Ian

 

[Belesari]

Dont forget Synergy. Or optimal manning which the navy announced a few months ago was going to die :dance

Though i think a 5in would be good instead of the 57mm but at this point i'd take just about anything as the LCS seems to be going no where and saddly it looks like that is for the best.

Oh, from the general idea of things, it's a great idea - if they can get something on the table without too many frills, and actually be a decent frigate, then I'll cheer loudly.

Stick a 57mm on the front, ESSM and a low spec radar fit so we're not getting into AB costs, helo pad or a hangar on the back depending on costs.

Just post a guard on the specification with orders to shoot on sight anyone using words like "transformational".

Ian

 

[StobieWan]

Dont forget Synergy. Or optimal manning which the navy announced a few months ago was going to die :dance

Though i think a 5in would be good instead of the 57mm but at this point i'd take just about anything as the LCS seems to be going no where and saddly it looks like that is for the best.

really depends on what you're doing with this design - if it's getting nothing in terms of inner layer defence, then it needs the 57mm as part of the CIWS. If you're taking the cost hit and deciding to do with say, ESSM, Sea Giraffe or similar plus either ICWI or fitting some illuminators on board, then yeah, stick a 127mm on the front.

I personally think the seeds of this idea's doom are sown in the press release, with references to ABM defence and so forth.

Basically, I don't think the USN can design a cheap, useful and versatile design without adding a few hundred million per copy in bling.

Ian

 

[swerve]

Top architect proposes new type of frigate for the Navy | SignOnSanDiego.com

"The nation’s leading independent naval architectural firm has been quietly gauging whether senior Navy officials are interested in a new class of frigate that would be smaller and lighter replacement for the aging ships now being phased out of service.

The unnamed light frigate also could be viewed as an alternative to the littoral combat ship program, which has been struggling due to cost overruns, technical problems, and questions about its narrow focus and survivability. Twelve of the first 12 LCS ships are to be homeported in San Diego.

The new 3,500-ton light frigates proposed by Gibbs&Cox would be more heavily armed than previous models and be capable of carrying out a variety of missions over a wide area of the world’s oceans."

Just buy Meko A200.

 

[StobieWan]

Just buy Meko A200.

Shhh...I'm just about to start drumming up some interest in a Type 26 partnership. Sod Brazil, if we can flog 'em to the US, we're quids in!

Ian

 

[Milne Bay]

Shhh...I'm just about to start drumming up some interest in a Type 26 partnership. Sod Brazil, if we can flog 'em to the US, we're quids in!

Ian

Easy to see how project creep works.
The ship has now near doubled in size from 3000-3500 tonnes to around 5000-6000 tonnes

 

[StobieWan]

Easy to see how project creep works.
The ship has now near doubled in size from 3000-3500 tonnes to around 5000-6000 tonnes

Type 26? No, I can't see where that comes from -Type 26 is the culmination of the Future Surface Combatant and is the C1 element of that program - it's currently 5K, down from 5,500 tons in order to save on costs. Costs are also intended to be down from 350 to 200-250 million.

C1 was *never* going to be 3500 tons - that'd be smaller than either of the outgoing Type 22 or 23 Frigates it's replacing.

Anyway, this is pretty OT - if you're wanting to press the point, pop over to the RN discussion topic and post away, I suspect you're quite badly misinformed if you think Type 26 has doubled in size however,


Ian

 

[kev 99]

Yep Ian is bang on the money, Type 26 was never going to be 3500 tonnes.

 

[Milne Bay]

Yep Ian is bang on the money, Type 26 was never going to be 3500 tonnes.

Of course not.
But someone wanted to suggest:
Shhh...I'm just about to start drumming up some interest in a Type 26 partnership. Sod Brazil, if we can flog 'em to the US, we're quids in!

..when we were discussing the G&C frigate

Hence the link

 

[StobieWan]

Of course not.
But someone wanted to suggest:
Shhh...I'm just about to start drumming up some interest in a Type 26 partnership. Sod Brazil, if we can flog 'em to the US, we're quids in!

..when we were discussing the G&C frigate

Hence the link

Ah - fair point then! The G&C frigate is an interesting idea but I really suspect they'll hit the same issues we did with the "build something cheap" routine for the batch 1 Type 23 - you *can* fit all that kit into a 3500 ton hull but you probably shouldn't try.

Major cost growth drivers on the LCS haven't (in my uninformed opinion) been a result of displacement - it's been continual redrafting of requirements during and after the design process.

Which I suspect will happen all over with the G&C frigate...

I suspect that trying to get all the requirements into one box is a killer - better to make something small and readily available for the mine counter measures plus give it a dual role by making it habitable for longer journeys, sticking a cannon on the front and using it for stop and search embargo enforcement and anti piracy stuff you're currently sending AB's out on. You get a self deploying MCM ship that you can use for the 364 days of the year you're not hunting mines for general stuff.

Then buy a middle weight frigate that's got some good all round GP characteristics, can take care of it's own air defence needs, hunt subs, do the odd ship to shore communication via five inch round etc. Don't fit it with rail guns, photon torpedoes etc. I think that thing needs to be about 5K or so mainly because that's where just about every other GP frigate has ended up being in recent years.

But yeah, you could get the basics of it into 3500 tons which is where the MEKO 200 suggestion popped up. I think the same weapons and sensor fit into a 5K hull won't cost much more but will make the whole thing more habitable and survivable. Sadly, what tends to happen is folk then start cramming more expensive stuff into the space added.

My 2c worth..

Ian

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I'm Surprised.

I'm surprised given the trouble the Littorsl combat ship has been having most notably with its price tag going up that the whole project has violated the NUNN-Mcgurdy law at some point.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Basically, I don't think the USN can design a cheap, useful and versatile design without adding a few hundred million per copy in bling.

This is I think the be problem scope creep, cost spirals upwards, schedule slippages, most cost, more creep, project failure. The US does mighty powerful mighty well.

Reducing costs works if you used OTS, convental systems, and don't try to creep it up.

No aegis, no Sm2/3/6, no abm, remove the high speed requirement, conventional construction, etc.

ESSM cells. Searam or Phalax that can be bolted on when needed from a pool. If there is a requirement for antishipping or land attack, have moveable harpoon launches in a pool (with land attack or shipping). Run it like small navies do. 57mm or 127mm, fit half with each if you want (not ideal I think the 5" its the better alrounder). Helo deck, hanger space for 1 helo or 2 UAV's. 5000t is probably a good size. Room for amphibious troops or refugees or captives.

 

[AegisFC]

I'm surprised given the trouble the Littorsl combat ship has been having most notably with its price tag going up that the whole project has violated the NUNN-Mcgurdy law at some point.

There were cost over runs but not bad enough to run into Nunn-Mcgurdy, especially since the hulls and the modules are each under their own funding stream..
Part of the problem with the high cost of LCS-1 and 2 was that the USN changed their mind on what they wanted half way through constrcution of LCS-1 and 2 that was a good chunk of the cost over run.

 

[swerve]

...
Reducing costs works if you used OTS, convental systems, and don't try to creep it up.

No aegis, no Sm2/3/6, no abm, remove the high speed requirement, conventional construction, etc.

ESSM cells. Searam or Phalax that can be bolted on when needed from a pool. If there is a requirement for antishipping or land attack, have moveable harpoon launches in a pool (with land attack or shipping). Run it like small navies do. 57mm or 127mm, fit half with each if you want (not ideal I think the 5" its the better alrounder). Helo deck, hanger space for 1 helo or 2 UAV's. 5000t is probably a good size. Room for amphibious troops or refugees or captives.

Sounds like Type 26, just with different weapons.

 

[StobieWan]

Sounds like Type 26, just with different weapons.

And type 26 is definitely going to be offered with all the weapons suggested so...c'mon guys, get on board Chuck us a few hundred million for the design work, and you'll be knocking them out like sausages in no time.

Should be less than six hundred million a copy (USD)

Ian

 

[Sea Toby]

A frigate designed from the new Bertholf class cutters for the Coast Guard was that senators first suggestion at 4500 tons displacement fully loaded a few years ago. Now he is suggesting a frigate designed from the next class of cutters which will be smaller in the neighborhood of 3500 tons displacement fully loaded. Gibbs & Cox usually is the ship design firm of the US Navy and Coast Guard. The senator is more interested in getting orders for the shipyard in his state than whether the ship is any good at fighting wars...

 

[StingrayOZ]

Then again Australia is a small navy and its smaller combat ship is shaping up as:

8x 7,000t. Around 48 VLS cells, plus 8 harpoon with ground attack, Quad packed ESSM, Sm2, SM6, Tlam, phalax, PAC3 ABM, non aegis radar but with ahighly capable APAR with mini-aegis levels of combat management/remote firing, 5" gun, minityphoons around deck, helo. Then build 20 OCV's that are really just big patrol boats (2000t) but with helo, davits for RHIB's and a 20mm typhoon and thats it.

More like a mini burke than a type 26. It depends on the budget and what you want to do. I think a ship like the one above would be seen as stepping on burkes toes too much.

Australia, UK and NZ are talking about the options and systems. However each country has its own needs and wants.