The Ambassador Mk III class missile boat (sometimes referred to as Ambassador IV or Ezzat class) was a group of three (eventually, four) missile boats built by VT Halter Marine in the US, for Egypt. The cost for the first three vessels was $1.05B ($ 2009) which gave a unit cost of $350M.[1] A fourth vessel was added for a separate, incremental cost of $240M ($314M in $2022).[1]
Ambassador Mk III
The vessel is a stealthy design, around 210 ft long and 600 tons displacement. Maximum speed is 41 kts and range is 2000 nm at 15 kts. Crew is around 40. It is heavily armed for its size, as listed below:
- 1x 76 mm gun
- 1x RAM
- 1x CIWS
- 8x Harpoon in two quad canister launchers
- 2x 7.62 MG
Ambassador Mk III
Before we go any further, let me just make the obvious statement and get it out of the way. At ½ to 1/6 the size, the Ambassador class puts the LCS to shame in almost every respect except aviation. It has more and better weapons (though if the Navy follows through on arming LCS with the Naval Strike Missile, that comparison would become a bit more even), higher speed, significantly lower cost, smaller crew, and is stealthier. With that out of the way, let’s examine the Ambassador class in more detail.
The Ambassador class is a territorial waters missile boat and is, thus, defensive by nature. As a territorial waters vessel, its limited range is not a problem as friendly ports will never be far away.
With 8 anti-ship missiles per vessel, a squadron could muster a very strong anti-surface strike.
The class’ sensors are as good as can be hoped for[a] in a vessel of this size and the anti-ship capability can be greatly enhanced by off-board sensors which, given the territorial waters regime, can be provided by land based helos, radar, over-the-horizon radar, aircraft, UAVs, etc. With off-board sensor support, the Ambassadors could remain emission-silent (EMCON) and conduct strikes without ever radiating and being detected.
___________________________
[a]Sensors include:
Thales MRR-3D NG G band air surveillance radar
Thales Scout (I/J band) surveillance radar; low power, low probability of intercept radar
Thales STING-EO Mk2 fire control radar; dual band radar plus electro-optical (EO) sensor
___________________________
The Ambassador Mk III is truly an impressive vessel for territorial waters operations but could an Ambassador provide any effective capability for the US fleet? The answer is, clearly, yes, it could provide effective firepower but the real question is could the vessels be effectively supported in a US fleet role? This is the problem that the LCS is facing.
For better or worse, the US Navy operates on a
forward deployed basis and the reality is that vessels with limited range are
very difficult to support in an operationally relevant location. We just don’t have many forward bases. There are a few regions in the world where
small vessels can operate and be supported but those are the exception. The Middle East is the obvious example. We have enough bases or support arrangements
that Ambassador class vessels could effectively operate there, at least during
peacetime. In that region, they would
make effective counters to Iranian naval assets since their weapons cover the
spectrum from long range anti-ship missiles to close in weapons. These vessels would be highly effective
against Iranian UAVs, swarm boats, or corvette/frigates.
If this sounds suspiciously like the role the LCS was supposed to have filled, it is! The only difference is that the Ambassador class works and the LCS doesn’t.
Ominously, however, the Navy has operated two other small vessel classes that could have been highly effective in the Middle East region and yet were not: the Cyclone and MkVI patrol boat classes. Both were well armed for their size and could have been effective as regional patrol boats but, due to timid policies and rules of engagement, were rendered toothless and ineffective and two vessels were captured by two nearly unarmed Iranian small boats with a grand total of three crew.
They could have, but were not allowed to, ride herd on Iranian small boats that terrorize and disrupt commercial and naval vessels.
They could have, but were not allowed to, prevent Iranian mining of commercial ships.
They could have, but were not allowed to, destroy Iranian UAVs that operated in an unsafe manner.
Given the demonstrated, historical refusal of the US government/Navy to take justified forceful action against a terrorist nation, or even exercise the inherent right of self defense against boarders, there would appear to be no precedent or justification for Ambassador class missile boats; we simply would not utilize them in an effective manner.
In a war in the Middle East, the Ambassadors could operate as distant screening vessels, supported by other surveillance assets and air cover although, at that point, they would be somewhat redundant as we would have more than sufficient air power to accomplish the same things the Ambassadors could.
Similarly, the Ambassadors could be highly effective against Chinese Coast Guard vessels and fishing fleets that routinely trespass into other country’s territorial waters. They could also be useful for providing on-site surveillance of illegal Chinese artificial islands. Again, however, policy prohibits all this.
Conclusion
Without a doubt, the Ambassador class missile boats have potentially useful firepower which, combined with their small size and small cost, ought to make them effective patrol vessels during peacetime. They could be very useful in the Middle East for controlling Iran or the South China Sea for countering China but only if we are willing to forcefully confront those countries when their behavior crosses the line. Lacking that willpower and fortitude, the Ambassador class is of no use to the US Navy and would simply be yet another logistic support burden that provides no beneficial return - as is currently true of the entire Navy!
Outstanding vessel … no role in the US Navy.
_______________________________
[1]Wikipedia, “Ambassador Mk III missile boat”, retrieved 9-Feb-2022,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_MK_III_missile_boat
So you can fit both a Phalanx and a RAM or SeaRAM on a 600t vessel to give it 360-degree close-range missile self-defense coverage (and two layers of coverage for attacks from nearly all bearings), but you can't do the same on a 3,500t LCS, or an 8,000t frigate, or a 9,500t destroyer? Hrm...
ReplyDeleteCould one LCS - or similar vessel - be partnered with 3-5 Ambassadors to supply the aviation component?
ReplyDeleteAviation to do what? Everyone loves the idea of helos on ships but there is almost no discussion of what, specifically, a helo would do in naval combat other than ASW sub-hunting which an Ambassador doesn't do.
DeleteInstead of additional weapons or a helicopter, how about just adding size to increase the range and time on duty? Then it could have longer legs to address the lack of nearby bases where we would want to use them.
ReplyDeleteYou've got to bear in mind that increasing fuel is only one part of the equation. With increased size comes a need for larger, more powerful engines. Increased endurance (more time at sea) requires larger food storage, larger water generation and storage, likely a larger crew with more berthing, heads, and a bigger galley, and so on. Seemingly simple changes create a domino effect of other increases. So, yes, a larger vessel can be built but it won't be what you imagine. In fact, we already have a bigger Ambassador. It's called an LCS.
DeleteThe engines would need to be changed to a current design. I might go for less power. Probably put in a hybrid drive. If it were for US use we'd swap 76mm for 57mm, Nulka or SRBOC decoys, SEWIP Lite and NSM. Probaby a TRS-4D for the radar. Personally I'd roll the RAM and CIWS into a Searam. Figure out how to shoe horn on 2 Mk 38 mod 4. Then leave that back deck for vertrep and to use a VTOL UAV like Jump 20.
ReplyDelete"Probably put in a hybrid drive."
DeleteWhy? What does that gain you?
Most of the time this is a patrol boat. Range, maintenance savings on the main engines. This is an oft indicated missing feature on the FRCs.
Delete"FRC"
DeleteFast Rescue Craft? I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.
"hybrid drive"
Assuming you're referring to some kind of combination gas turbine and diesel or similar, the US Navy's experience with hybrid systems has been abysmal. The combining gear manufacture and operation seems to be beyond the Navy's understanding and capability. Admittedly, other navies seem to use them though we have no information on their reliability in service.
Why would you want to complicate the propulsion system which increases maintenance requirements and decreases reliability even if you don't break things like the US Navy does?
"patrol boat"
If you want a patrol boat, build/acquire a peacetime boat that is build to civilian standards and has only bare bones weapons and sensors since that's all that's needed for peacetime patrol duties. Leave the combat ships alone and let them be optimized for combat not for peacetime patrol.
Fast Response Cutter - Sentinels. They stress the engines by running them slow enough to launch the boat. Rolls Royce already has 150kw electric motors to integrate with those engines. Again, the motors reduce maintenance needs on the diesels. CODLAD. Show me a picture or video of Ambassador IIIs off Egypt running fast. Missile boats patrol. We'd see even more water jets otherwise.
Delete"Show me a picture or video of Ambassador IIIs off Egypt running fast. "
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unclrvIDOCE
https://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/userpics/14665/1556295240.jpg
https://navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2015/june/Ambassador_MK%20_III_Fast_Missile_Craft_Ezzat_Class_Egyptian_Navy.jpg
https://www.nairaland.com/attachments/5987123_734801_jpegf69e0234c136bc96cb93f7ef7451c238
And so on. There's dozens of photos and videos. Do a search.
The boats are powered by multiple diesel engines. It doesn't get simpler or more reliable than that. I don't know their exact propulsion system layout but, presumably, they can operate fewer diesels if they want to cruise slowly. Why introduce a more complex, less reliable, harder to maintain propulsion system that is inherently more likely to have problems, as the Navy has found out the hard way?
As currently configured, the Ambassadors wouldn't make good patrol boats. AFAIK, they don't even have a RHIB available for VBSS. Up-armed Sentinels or something along those lines would be preferable for that mission. Half the crew, 1/4th the cost, more relevant configuration for the patrol mission.
DeleteI don't really see the value in the USN buying (relatively) short-ranged missile boats like this. Just MHO.
We have a kajillion-page thread over on Navweaps talking about a USN Manned Corvette that touches on roles and missions for this type of ship,
Deletehttps://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=41728
There's coalescence (but not consensus) around three concepts: 1) a relatively inexpensive patrol vessel ("Super Sentinel"), 2) an aviation-capable patrol corvette in the 70-100m range (e.g. Meko A100), 3) a light frigate in the 120-140m range (e.g. Meko A200, Type 31, JMSDF Mogami).
The first 3 images arre from sea trial. The 4th actually has a pendant so may be an in service photo. Definitely don't see the Egyption flag on any. Most on line show the ships in the canal zone or parked at the pier. None are showing anywhere near full speed.
DeleteThe ship's boat on there is a Willard Marine 540. As configured, not enough room for a 7M, but if it were a priority the beam is such it could be a possibility.
USA should build some more and send them to JAP, ROK, and Taiwan too if politicians have the spine to do so.
ReplyDeleteROK has their own missile boats, the Yoon Youngha-class boats. On paper, they compare favorably with the Ambassadors; more to the point, the Koreans already have some 20-odd boats built and in service, with a total planned fleet strength of 36 boats - half of which will be fitted as rocket launcher ships for shore bombardment and intercepting fast North Korean hovercraft.
Delete-JMD
Consolidate the RAM/CWIS on Ambassador and you could pull off a strap on Himars launcher on the stern. I wouldn't but you could.
Delete"Himars launcher on the stern"
DeleteWhy? Setting aside physical feasibility, what would that accomplish? What does 6 rockets do for you?
As I said, I wouldn't. Just thinking about what the Korean's are doing with theirs. APKWS might be the better comparison.
DeleteIf you're looking for an anti-hovercraft weapon, Hellfire would be more accurate, is fire-and-forget (doesn't require continuous laser illumination), has twice as big a warhead, and exists in a proven naval configuration (LCS).
DeleteThe PMKR rocket launcher boats use a 12-cell rocket launcher, firing 130mm guided rockets. These use a combination of GPS/INS for midcourse guidance, and IIR for terminal attack, no laser required. Warhead size is comparable to Hellfire. Secondary role is shore bombardment of coastal targets.
Delete- JMD
Would it be practical in the absence of forward bases to support several of them with a "mother ship"?
ReplyDeleteThe problem becomes how to keep a non-stealthy, defenseless mothership undetected and alive.
DeleteI really don't understand why western navies gave up concepts of cheap FACs. They are ideal for littoral combat.
ReplyDeleteAnd in a world of networks and data fusion, they could be plugged into sensor networks of aircraft or bigger warships which would help with stealthy approach against enemy ships.
USN also needs to reinstate SSKs in the service - best place to stop Chinese military expansion is within China's own defensive zones.
"USN also needs to reinstate SSKs in the service - best place to stop Chinese military expansion is within China's own defensive zones."
DeleteSSKs are slow and short-ranged, compared to nukes. That means the USN must station them at friendly ports, i.e., those on foreign soil- ports that will be subject to Chinese retaliation in war, which will then make allies and potential allies wary of granting the USN permission to station ships there.
"They are ideal for littoral combat."
DeleteOnly in the abstract. In reality, they have serious problems that you're glossing over. FACs are short legged. Where do you base them? How do you logistically support them? What do they do for air support and anti-air defense?
"world of networks and data fusion"
Again, you're glossing over problems. Where will you find survivable sensors for the data? How do you establish and maintain a network in primitive conditions and in the face of electronic and cyber warfare?
I like this ship for both the Middle East and the South China Sea, as mentioned in the post.
ReplyDeleteI know that I'm swimming against the current here, but I'd like to see us have bases closer to the South China Sea...not pulling back farther.
Partner these ships with Fletcher-like destroyers configured for ASW and AsuW and aggressively patrol the South China Sea like we own it.
These ships might have short legs, but I could see them sailing out of bases at Cam Ranh Bay and Subic Bay so that wouldn't be a problem.
Yes, those bases would get hammered on Day 1 of a shooting war, but those locations would be invaluable in asserting ourselves in the South China Sea in peacetime.
These little ships would be a nice addition to the mix in those task forces.
Lutefisk
Plus, they could give a little speed up for range and seakeeping. Less topside weight with NSM, Mk 110 and if the RAM were dropped and CWIS converted to Searam. One of the big tricks would be to upgrade to a standard 7m RHIB for the boat.
Delete"These ships might have short legs, but I could see them sailing out of bases at Cam Ranh Bay and Subic Bay so that wouldn't be a problem."
DeleteCam Ranh could conceivably happen (and if it did, the irony would be delicious), but I don't think we'll ever have a real naval presence in Subic Bay again. Every local that didn't hate our guts when we ran with our tail between our legs in '91 has already found a way to move to San Diego.
"could give a little speed up for range and seakeeping. Less topside weight with NSM, Mk 110 and if the RAM were dropped and CWIS converted to Searam."
DeleteYou'd be giving up the things that make the vessel combat effective. Increased range at the expense of decreased combat power is a poor trade. For example, going from a 21-missile RAM plus 20mm CIWS to a single 11-missile SeaRAM is a very poor trade. Going from a 76 mm gun to 57 mm is, again, a poor trade.
I think keeping the CIWS would be a better choice, especially with the small boat swarms in mind, although a larger magazine or faster reload would help make it more viable in that role...
DeleteIf I can have Searam or RAM and 2 Mk 38 mod 4 I think I am coming out ahead in having options.
Delete"coming out ahead in having options."
DeleteHow so? The options are less effective than the current standard weapons fit.
For a missile boat, RAM is more effective than SeaRAM because it has twice as many missiles. The advantage of SeaRAM is the stand along radar but that advantage is lost on a missile boat. Any hit on a missile boat will almost certainly incapacitate everything on the boat and likely sink it so the stand alone radar is not an advantage like it is for a larger ship.
Mk38 Mod 4 is non-existent, as far as I know. Mk38 Mod 3 is not an anti-air weapon (look at the rate of fire compared to a true CIWS) so that's a decided downgrade. The Ambassador already has a 76 mm gun and the 25 mm Mk38 can't compete with that.
So, again, how are those good options?
Mod 4 has the higher rate of elevation, the EO/IR is off mount, its dual feed, and 30mm. Can keep away the small boats and UAVs.
DeleteSetting aside the fact that Mod 4 doesn't exist, how is that better than the Ambassador fit of RAM, CIWS, and 76 mm? Where's the gain in combat effectiveness?
Delete"Mk38 Mod 4 is non-existent, as far as I know."
DeleteJane's ran a report about seven months ago, based on communications from NAVSEA and MSI-Defence, stating that several Mk38 Mod 4 Gun Weapon Systems based on the Mk 44 Bushmaster II 30mm cannon had been delivered to the Navy for testing.
It's intended to increase capabilities against small boats and UAVs. ROF is something like 200 rpm, and it's got an electro-optical targeting system. Despite the probably-greater range of a 30mm gun, for shooting at those sort of small fast targets I'd rather have a Vulcan mount of some sort if the gun's not going to be radar-controlled: hitting small, fast targets is hard, our level of training for gunner's mates is Not Uniformly Exceptional, and 20mm will still chew up anything small enough that it isn't worth bringing the 76mm main gun or missiles to bear.
It is MSI's Seahawk. Existing gear in other navies. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2022/2022/04/usn-and-usgcmoving-to-adopt-mark-44-30mm/ Personally, I think loitering munitions as standard gear might start to be more relevant. I also think situational awareness should get more priority in the gear. The organic UAV is going to become more relevant, although I'd make this missile boat more suited for patrol in a wider variety of places. not much more, just enough more.
DeleteTo cheezit and Lutefisk's comments about basing USN ships in nations that are NOT our allies now and likely won't be in the future (remember Austin was recently kicked out of Vietnam for making a speech lying about "progress" in turning VN against the Chinese and Blinken was kicked out of President Duarte's office in the Philippines for carrying on about "increasing Chinese infiltration" WITHOUT REALIZING Duarte's grandmother was Chinese), our only allies in the region are South Korea, Japan, maybe Australia and a few Pacific islands that we still occupy from WWII (not counting Taiwan as it will be a target, not an ally).
ReplyDelete"...our only allies in the region are South Korea, Japan, maybe Australia..."
ReplyDeleteWithout debating the veracity of your claims....who ever said that this stuff would be easy?
This is what diplomacy is for.
Lutefisk
"This is what diplomacy is for."
DeleteQuite right! We limit ourselves to the naval/military aspects on this blog but we need to remember that war encompasses the totality of politics/diplomacy, finance, trade, public relations, foreign aid, and so forth, in addition to military actions. We've gotten lazy, as a nation, and abandoned the hard work of diplomacy and statesmanship and dumped foreign relations off to the military while simultaneously tying their hands with restrictive policies. We need to return to close engagement, hard power diplomacy.
Your point about the ROE making a decent combat vessel superfluous is spot on. But the USN leadership is not entirely to blame for that. Many ROE are passed on from Washington or at the very least Washington sets the tone for how the ROE are enacted and enforced. This is how the debacle of the LCS began anyway. Washington passed on their "Russia and China are friends now!" enthusiasm and the Navy went chasing dollars in anti-piracy. Remember the "1000 ship navy" concept which included China on the list of friendly nations?
ReplyDeleteWe have spent literal decades where Navy skippers were told they could only fire when fired upon. So even when those rules are lifted, waiting for approval instead of acting is ingrained in the entire officer corps. What the USN leadership is responsible for is their refusal to break that chain of inaction. They should be teaching that aggressive action now saves lives later. In 2019 the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (Sepah) was declared a terrorist organization under the previous administration. This could have emboldened the USN to intercept their boats or at the very least start intimidating them but they failed to do so. That window is closed as they are now no longer listed as a terrorist organization.
This post also brings up another point I'd love to see you comment on further. Namely that different theaters of war have different requirements. Smaller vessels are fine in the Gulf or even the Med while Southern Asia requires ships with long legs. Perhaps there are other differences you could highlight and expand upon. Even in WW2 the differences in how the forces operated and types of vessels varied from theater to theater.
wonder how they'd fit into one of larger ships able to move some of these sized ships around, like the Puller's or Montford Point's or perhaps an old Tarawa class (or newer)? We are fantastic at not taking care of the older chopper haulers, I get it, but wasn't the navy trying to figure out a role for the former ships based off Alaska class tankers? Well, ship hauler in crap hole danger areas might make sense as a floating base rather than a politically unreliable fixed one.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought was that we could buy ships like these to patrol and defend the Persian gulf, Mediterranean and far-flung islands like Guam and Diego Garcia in order to free up destroyers for more pressing duties.
ReplyDeleteBut I fear that doing so
will only embolden the navy to retire otherwise serviceable destroyers.
"more pressing duties."
DeleteEveryone always says this but what are these more pressing duties during peacetime?
A modern day PT boat? I remember the old Pegasus-class (PGM-1) hydrofoil patrol boats. Wouldn't those be more useful if they were redesigned for today's and potential future theaters of conflict or a similar redesign? Bigger is not always better, force per ton.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navysite.de/pboats/phm1class.htm
We have a romantic notion of PT boats but they were pretty much a failure at their intended role - though ultimately useful in other roles (see, "PT Boats").
DeleteMany or all of the limitations that handicapped WWII PT boats still apply. How would a modern PT boat be any more successful?
Com, at this point, I'd take my chances with a PT Boat over what we currently have or don't have. I don't think that this is something that will be solved at the top, I think the solution would best come from O-5 level and below. Take a Cyclone and marry it with a MK VI? Although, I personally believe that the best small craft operators have are either the Navy's MK VI operators and the USCG.
DeleteJust a point of interest in case you're not aware of it ... the Mk VI's are being retired. The Navy has abandoned them.
DeleteI had read something from last year, I think, about that, Aren't the Mark VI's fairly new, 2015ish when the first couple were delivered? The last thing I read about the Mark VIs was this:
Deletehttps://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/us-navy-mark-vi-patrol-boats-receive-reprieve/
I'm guessing Big Navy changed their minds......... again?
Yes, at one point there was a reprieve but that has yet again been rescinded. They're still on the chopping block as of the last notice I saw. Who knows how it will turn out. The Navy doesn't want them so they're living on borrowed time.
DeleteDo you happen to know whether the Ambassador is built to military standards or civilian?
ReplyDeleteNo idea.
DeleteMinor detail. In the paragraph on the Cyclones and Mk 6 boats in the Persian Gulf, you said that two boats were captured by the Iranians. While you didn't explicitly say that the captured boats were Cyclones or Mk VI type, it was kinda implied. But they weren't. I believe they were actually a variant of the CB90.
ReplyDeleteThe captured boats were Riverine Command Boats which are derivations of the Swedish CB90.
DeleteI would say two classes of ship might be best, a corvette like the Pohang class and a smaller FAC like the Gepard class.
ReplyDeleteThe FACs filling roles you mentioned for Ambassadors, and the corvettes could fill similar roles to FACs while also having the range and seakeeping to take over some of the duties filled by DDGs.
DeletePerhaps the best answer for new naval ships is to implement " Not A Frigate" as published by THINK DEFENSE. Lightly armed cargo ship could be used for patrol as well as cargo. Seems to me the navy needs both. Burkes or the upcoming mini-Burkes are too expensive to overuse during peace time. I am no expert just my simple thought. I am more concerned with the proposed digital dollar. Thanks, i really enjoy reading this blog. Usually the second one I look at everyday. Thanks again.
ReplyDelete"second"
DeleteSecond ??????
Second...???
DeleteOuch!!!🤣
Hi CNO,
ReplyDeleteAnother thing about the Ambassador Class which is quite surprising is that the ship was built and designed in the US, and done quickly. Given the debacles of the last 25 years in the US, you get the feeling the US is unable to design or build anything useful beyond the old evolved Arleigh Burke. But look at this history from wiki shows that the US is quite capable of designing and building good ships:
"Phase I began in December 2005, when VT Halter Marine signed a USD 28.8m contract with the US Department of Defense to develop a functional design for a fast missile craft for the Egyptian Navy. This was a new design,[11] sometimes referred to as the Ambassador Mk IV design. Under this phase, VT Halter Marine conducted analytical, design, engineering and model testing for the craft. The effort included preparation for the integration of C4ISR as well as a combat system effectiveness study to validate the system requirements of the vessel. The first phase was completed in December 2006.[2]
On 7 September 2008, the DSCA reported that the budget for three ships had increased to US$1.050 billion[1] and construction finally began in November 2009.[8] On 17 December 2009 the DSCA announced that a fourth vessel would be procured for an additional US$240m, increasing the program cost to US$1.290 billion.[1][12] In May 2010, the Egyptian Navy was in discussions for the procurement of two additional units (five and six). These units could begin around 2014.[2]
Service history
In a ceremony on 25 October 2011, the four vessels had been named as S. Ezzat (named after the Commander in chief Admiral Soliman Ezzat, served between 1953 and 1967),[4] F. Zekry, M. Fahmy and A. Gad.[8] S. Ezzat was laid down on 7 April 2011 and launched in October 2011 and was handed over to the Egyptian Navy on 19 November 2013"
2005 to 2013- all done. And the ship is thoroughly modern.
So the US can design and build good stuff. But it's chosen not to do so for the USN. Even the USCG gets good ships. But it's like they want to ruin the USN.
In fact, they used cargo ships to delivery the Ambassadors to Egypt. If so, why couldn't the first 2 Expeditionary Sea Base ships be modified to carry 2 to 4 Ambassadors, instead of retiring them?
Andrew
"the ship was built and designed in the US, and done quickly."
DeleteYou see why, don't why? What was new and non-existent on the Ambassadors? Nothing! The ship was designed using only existing, proven technology that was in production and readily available. The Navy's attempts fail largely because they all involved non-existent, futuristic technology that takes decades to develop while they're trying to build the ships (concurrency). Halter did what I've been calling for; they built a state of the art (but not beyond!) ship using existing equipment.
Of course it went quickly! That's how it's supposed to work. We've gotten so used to the debacles of the Navy that we're astounded by routine shipbuilding and think it's some kind of miracle. It's just routine! ... or should be.
No match of Israel's Saar 6.
ReplyDeleteAfter WWII, the Navy never seemed to have much interest in patrol boats or small combattants. Prior to the Cyclone-class, the Navy operated a couple of dozen patrol/missiles boats under 500 tons. And, most of those had a short service life.
ReplyDeleteWith sonar and torpedo tubes, they might make an effective ASW hunter to protect ports and shipping lanes.
I think its interesting the Chinese went with the type 56. Its basically the low end of a destroyer escort from WWII and is aimed at an ASW role. Also, I find it relevant what new gear the Russians have concentrated in their Pacific fleet. No Buyans oor Karakurts. Just Steregushchiy and Gremyashchiy. The challenge with a missile boat is it won't be making many long trips on its own across a seaway. Its a home game rather than away game platform. It will likely be tied to where we can have friendly basing.
Delete