tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post9182020760349409917..comments2024-03-18T22:01:19.980-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Frigates – Build To The Immediate ThreatComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-45153718667344969082015-03-03T00:46:37.583-08:002015-03-03T00:46:37.583-08:00The British procurement process is as messed up as...The British procurement process is as messed up as yours. The First Sea Lord from 2002 told the Defence Select Committee that he had no idea who had made the decision to buy the STOVL version of the F35, and he had no ability to change it, even though it had just been made. You can see his evidence to the committee here.<br />http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16928<br /><br />And a pdf version here.<br />http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/decisionmaking-in-defence-policy/oral/17605.pdf<br /><br />JohnCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-64208201051794796372014-05-15T14:40:58.283-07:002014-05-15T14:40:58.283-07:00The Akizuki actually has a very nice domestic rada...The Akizuki actually has a very nice domestic radar suite which combines two four faced AESA radars. A smaller one for horizon search and a bigger one for volume search.They are not waveform integrated like the US dual band efforts, but functions as two separate sensors. Performance wise it's in the same class as the APAR which is "enough" for the ESSM weapons system. It is also smack right on the budget at about $890M.<br /><br />On a US Frigate class the sensor closest to fitting the bill will be a SPY-3. Yes, it's currently a $200 radar system. But it won't be if we are not building 1 set every 2 years.<br /><br />Theoretically a good and affordable sensor would be to take one of those three SPY-3 arrays and mount it on a rotating pedestal which revolves as 30 rpm. This will allow you to scan the entire sky every 2 seconds. If and when called upon to perform fire control illumination or when operating in a task group the array can be "stopped" to cover a fixed 120 degree quadrant. Such a 200~250 KM X-band radar capable of volume search, horizon search and target illumination will be enough even if it can only see 120 degrees at any one time. But, given how expensive it is for us to do anything these days it might be better to simply spend the R&D dollars on buying the more expensive 3-pane SPY-3.dwight looihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07724167433766696375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4663826343171513062014-05-15T12:10:39.417-07:002014-05-15T12:10:39.417-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32516115240141518102014-05-15T11:55:15.364-07:002014-05-15T11:55:15.364-07:00B.Smitty, given the Navy's history of highly q...B.Smitty, given the Navy's history of highly questionable decisions, I'm not sure "the way the USN wants to go" is necessarily the best design guide! heh,heh <br /><br />Some might think that the opposite of what the Navy wants would be a generally good guide to building an effective navy. heh, hehComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52988313668956649942014-05-15T11:30:12.515-07:002014-05-15T11:30:12.515-07:00Dwight,
Did you consider adding a two-helicopter ...Dwight,<br /><br />Did you consider adding a two-helicopter hangar? I'm not sure where the space would go, but having either two helicopters or one helo and some UAVs seems like the way the USN wants to go. <br />B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87200079542066969332014-05-15T05:58:45.382-07:002014-05-15T05:58:45.382-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33616996664330115872014-05-15T04:31:34.724-07:002014-05-15T04:31:34.724-07:00An affordable frigate of 5000t. with 16 VLS for es...An affordable frigate of 5000t. with 16 VLS for escort and patrol sealanes mainly for ASW. Well that sounds just like Japan's next 25DD class "destroyer" (keep in mind that the Japan call almost everything a "detroyer").<br /><br />"...25DD class destroyer (New 5,000-ton destroyer program first revealed in the MoD's FY2013 budget request, DD-119 [9] and a second in FY2014, DD-120.[10] Seemingly an ASW optimised development of the Akizuki class likely intended for Sea lines of communication duties rather than the escort of Ageis destroyers as in the case of the Akizuki. Planned to cost even less to operate and maintain than the already low cost Akizuki class, partly through the use of COGLAG [Combined Gas turbine Electric And Gas turbine] propulsion. ¥72.3 billion has been requested for the construction of the first unit in the class, and to respond to a reduction of Hatsuyuki-class destroyers)..."<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_shipsmareo2https://www.blogger.com/profile/17874718962313247799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-37284287665085870282014-05-14T15:43:53.400-07:002014-05-14T15:43:53.400-07:00B.Smitty, now that raises a great question. What ...B.Smitty, now that raises a great question. What operational impact does ship stealth have? I've never read anything that even remotely discusses the issue. Ship stealth may be the most effective thing ever developed or it may be largely useless. I have no idea. The only data point is the inference that comes from the fact that the Navy has continued to pursue ship stealth with each new design being further along the stealth path. That suggests that the Navy sees value in spending significant sums of money on stealth. Beyond that, I've got nothing! Let me know if you ever find anything even remotely definitive.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-75956896165096702772014-05-14T15:37:26.396-07:002014-05-14T15:37:26.396-07:00I was going to do an update with basically the sam...I was going to do an update with basically the same hull, but with an Azipod XC propulsor arrangement rather than the ducted pumpjet. The Azipod XC combines one centerline tractor pod with a centerline fixed propeller in a contra-rotating arrangement. It allows for the maneuverability of a podded propulsor with the space and hydrodynamic efficiency of a single shaft design. The arrangement can be done with up to two 25MW (33,525 hp) motors for a combined output of 67,050 hp -- about right for a 5000 ton 30~32 knot frigate.<br /><br />ABB Azipods are the most widely used propulsor in commercial shipping. It hasn't been qualified for warships, but there is no reason a warship cannot use commercial components and practices. The Japanese and Koreans do just that for their AEGIS destroyers. And if there is any doubt on shock survivability, well ABB Azipods do not penetrate the hull like a prop shaft external self-contained motors mounted vertically below the rear transome. If anything it is more survivable as you can sheer the whole thing off and not flood the interior of the ship.dwight looihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07724167433766696375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70374553906939975152014-05-14T13:13:45.131-07:002014-05-14T13:13:45.131-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-8273841288992238902014-05-14T12:43:16.836-07:002014-05-14T12:43:16.836-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-35177700725236150872014-05-14T10:55:59.934-07:002014-05-14T10:55:59.934-07:00B.Smitty: "Even if it wasn't, a clever c...B.Smitty: "Even if it wasn't, a clever commander could run his ship in a jigsaw pattern to limit exposure to specific threat locations."<br /><br />Presumably, there would be equally clever pilots who would fly at varying altitudes and bearings. It only takes one hit on radar to start the process of localization. <br /><br />While not an expert on radar/stealth, it's clear to me that stealth is a multi-faceted exercise that can, and should, include platform shaping/coating, tactics, electronic support, geography and climate utilization, etc. This, then, leads to the conclusion that placing too much emphasis on only one of the various stealth factors may quickly become counterproductive as well as prohibitively expensive. That, in turn, leads to the F-22/F-35. Are we trying too hard to achieve stealth via only one means (platform shaping)? Could we achieve more effective stealth by somewhat (not totally!) de-emphasizing platform characteristics and, instead, emphasizing the other factors? For example, the AF has abandoned dedicated electronic warfare aircraft. Would they be better to have a slightly less stealthy aircraft that is supported by readily available electronic warfare planes that have the speed and maneuverability to participate in the various missions?<br /><br />Trying to get all the stealth out of only one facet leads to the F-22 which was hideously expensive for its time (how quickly that perspective changes!). Would it have been better and cheaper to build a half as stealthy F-22 plus F-22 "Prowlers"? <br /><br />Should we build a max stealth Zumwalt type ship or should we accept half that stealth and spend the savings on enhanced ECM?<br /><br />I know enough to ask the questions but nowhere near enough to answer them!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23056647461475949942014-05-14T10:28:22.913-07:002014-05-14T10:28:22.913-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42718475558782822702014-05-14T09:42:11.040-07:002014-05-14T09:42:11.040-07:00B.Smitty, so you're designing ships for me now...B.Smitty, so you're designing ships for me now? :)<br /><br />Do you have dimensions of the Mk13 magazine? I've never seen that.<br /><br />I don't know that I'm in favor of any VDS. I don't know that I'm not. I've never read any report of the effectiveness of a VDS either in general terms or relative to a towed array. The USN doesn't generally use VDS although I have no idea why not. The Soviets were big on VDS for what that's worth. The short story is I don't have an opinion on VDS. I have stated that a helo type dipping sonar might prove useful.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-43404887153355728522014-05-14T09:29:16.068-07:002014-05-14T09:29:16.068-07:00Dwight, that's a fascinating design. Well tho...Dwight, that's a fascinating design. Well thought out and nicely presented!<br /><br />I am not a naval architect so bear that in mind for the rest of the comment. I have doubts about the viability of a tumblehome hull form especially in the frigate role. The hull reportedly has stability issues in certain seas. In addition, the hull's horizontal cross sectional area decreases as the hull submerges which means that the ship's buoyancy decreases as the hull sinks unlike a conventional hull which is the opposite - note, I'm on shaky ground, here, and I could well be wrong. If I'm right, that's an undesirable characteristic from a damage control point of view. Finally, the stealthiness of the hull is suspect - I'm not radar/stealth expert, either! - in that the hull is a giant, solid reflective surface if viewed from the perpendicular angle. I suspect that the Zumwalt was designed the way it was to reflect land based radar which would be incident parallel to the sea/land surface. However, in an at-sea role which a frigate would have, the more common radar source would be planes which would have the incident radar approximately perpendicular to the sides of the ship. That would create an immense radar reflection. Again, I may well be wrong about this.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, how does the ship conduct UNREP and refueling?<br /><br />I thoroughly enjoyed studying the design! Thanks for sharing.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40788505851274098692014-05-14T07:46:21.245-07:002014-05-14T07:46:21.245-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25736983096974396232014-05-14T06:22:12.117-07:002014-05-14T06:22:12.117-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76900347295464355562014-05-13T17:39:57.347-07:002014-05-13T17:39:57.347-07:00The torpedo for a mini-VLA would have to be a new ...The torpedo for a mini-VLA would have to be a new weapon since the MK 46/54 are too big, both in diameter and weight. But it doesn't have to be a completely new weapon. The Compact Rapid Attack Weapon (CRAW) is an offensive variant of the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo (ATT) that was recently deployed on the USS BUSH. It's not quite ready for prime time (still at the ONR FNC level) but close enough to start thinking about potential applications for a smaller, lighter torpedo. As for lethality, it's really a question of what your target threat is and what type of warhead you might use for achieving either a mission abort or hull rupture. The MK 46/54 both use the same MK 103 bulk charge warhead; the ATT uses a bulk charge warhead for the ATT mission, but a shaped charge warhead could be fitted to the CRAW for increased lethality in some/most scenarios.<br /><br />http://www.arl.psu.edu/uwo.php<br /><br />-interestedparty<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-89630663042463508042014-05-13T16:34:27.718-07:002014-05-13T16:34:27.718-07:00Interested Party, the idea of a dual or quad packe...Interested Party, the idea of a dual or quad packed mini-VLA is interesting. What torpedo would be used with that? Currently, the VL-ASROC uses Mk46/54, IIRC. Would a significantly smaller torpedo still be lethal towards a submarine? They have pretty strong hulls!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4012500280835652532014-05-13T14:27:33.507-07:002014-05-13T14:27:33.507-07:00"for but not with" still costs money. W..."for but not with" still costs money. We've already had the discussion about steel is cheap and air is free. Neither is true.<br /><br />When I discuss frigate AAW, I'm talking about ESSM for self and near defense. RAM/CIWS backup is a given. There's no need for a frigate to perform area air defense. If we need area air defense, we need a Burke (too bad the Ticos were retired!). Perry's had Standards because that was the only option at the time. The 40 "round" magazine also included Harpoons and it fit roughly in the volume of an 8-cell Mk41 VLS. Nothing wrong with fitting more in the same space, to a reasonable extent!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33201031899495136032014-05-13T14:02:27.916-07:002014-05-13T14:02:27.916-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31484918512467893732014-05-13T13:39:41.439-07:002014-05-13T13:39:41.439-07:00For the interest of putting things in pictures, he...For the interest of putting things in pictures, here's my concept of a 5000 ton frigate rendered in 3D and with accurate to scale equipment and features. Check it out and let me know what you think...<br /><br />http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=5104<br /><br /><br />dwight looihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07724167433766696375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31264521544602827542014-05-13T12:48:55.717-07:002014-05-13T12:48:55.717-07:00Absolutely correct regarding munition expenditure....Absolutely correct regarding munition expenditure. VLA expenditures have been studied by OPNAV on multiple occasions, and the results seem to be driven by the level of classification of the target that the surface ship is authorized to launch on. Basically, if you have to wait for a contact to become a confirmed submarine target, then expenditures aren't nearly as high as if you are authorizing weapons release on possible submarine targets. No big surprise there. Frankly, if I'm the CO of a DDG, its weapons free since those VLAs are cheap compared to me, my crew, and my ship.<br /><br />Taking the MK 48 with ESSM further, its really intriguing to think about what could be done with a mini-VLA that could be packed similar to an ESSM and mounted on an LCS / FFG sized hull. Would provide a stand off ASW capability that complements an embarked helo without installing the larger MK 41 cells.<br /><br />-interestedpartyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72073719421510699982014-05-13T12:33:18.360-07:002014-05-13T12:33:18.360-07:00B.Smitty, you and I have a fundamental difference ...B.Smitty, you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion about what a frigate is, I'm afraid. While it's tempting to buy into the "few more" argument when considered in isolation, the reality is that by the time we add a few more cells, and a little bigger radar, and slightly more complex combat software suite, and a little bigger hangar to accomodate a couple UAVs, and little bigger gun and magazine, and so on ..., not to mention the few more crew needed to operate and maintain the equipment plus a little more berthing, heads, galley space, food and water storage, etc. to support the few more crew, we've worked our way up to a near-Burke at a near-Burke price tag.<br /><br />The main characteristic of a frigate should be affordability/numbers (the two are identical). The design approach to a frigate is to add only the bare minimum necessary to meet requirements and not a thing more. Let's face it, frigates are mostly a peacetime ship and in that regard, numbers matter far more than a few more weapons. If we really need a few more VLS cells (or whatever) then let's build more Burkes.<br /><br />A frigate's main jobs of patrol, escort, and ASW don't require the capability of more than one or two brief AAW engagements against a few missiles or planes, at most. More than that means we need a Burke. How many SAMs do we need for one or two limited engagements? Given the very short engagement window, probably 4-8 SAMs per engagement is all that's needed. The fight will be over, one way or the other, before a frigate can launch more than that. Fitting a frigate with more than that is just going to see ships sunk with larger amounts of unexpended ordnance.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70010568267473890142014-05-13T11:52:05.343-07:002014-05-13T11:52:05.343-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.com