Clemson is better looking. Why is it every "warship" design has to be part aircraft carrier? Look at all the space on the aft part of the vessel that could be used for useful armaments.
Have read and agree with the premise of the post. Just wanted to rant on all the waste of good weapons space that goes into modern designs. I always thought a command and support ship of the Jeanne D Arc type would be nice for a DESRON command ship. Got to see it up close in Toulon in 76. Really impressive ship.
Another frigate design that was just proposed for Australia doesn't even have a gun. I'm surprised noone has suggested an open-deck commercial ferry as the "ultimate in modularity!" Just drive on your preferred SAM, Radar and SSM trailer for the mission and go!
Missiles are very expensive and slow to produce. When war comes, everyone's missiles will be expended in short order and then 'dumb' weapons will reign supreme.
When soldiers are done flinging rockets at each other, the guy with the pistol will be king.
The above is especially true for Australia. In a war, where is Australia going to get replacement missiles? The US, presumably also in the war, will be consuming 100% of the very limited missile production. There won't be anything left for Australia and then the gun-less ship will be toothless and useless. A wiser course might have been to emphasize larger caliber naval guns and establish a home-grown shell production facility(s). Just an option that should have been considered but probably wasn't.
To be fair, I don't know Australia's strategy in the event of a war with China so I'm purely speculating.
What I really loathe on the TKMS design is the ongoing use of CODAG Warp. I am waiting for this propulsion type's sole advocate to move on to better things.
The MEKO 210 bow seems similar in design to the French Frégate de défense d'intervention, FDI, and the Sea AXE bow by Damen which claim able to maintain high speeds in strong winds and heavy seas with superior motion behaviour and significantly lower resistance through the water, leading to a cut in fuel consumption of 20%, also there are new designs for stern flaps claiming to further reduce fuel consumption.
NAVSEA should have a major R&D program to see if any of the above live up to the claims made and if so used in the design of the standard displacement hulls for new ships e.g. DDG(X) by confirming the surface friction, wave making and separation or eddy making reduced so as to maximise the range and speed of warships needed in the Pacific, the impression is that other countries moving forward why USN standing still.
Just looking at the Clemson, we could probably squeeze a 76 oto melera replacement in the bow, . CIWS on the fantail, SeaRam aft on the deck house, a couple harpoon canisters midships, light weight radars, diesel electric propulsion, might be more bang for the buck than a modern junker. ( just joking)
Clemson is better looking. Why is it every "warship" design has to be part aircraft carrier? Look at all the space on the aft part of the vessel that could be used for useful armaments.
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't (you should have!), read:
DeleteDoes Every Ship Need a Helicopter
Have read and agree with the premise of the post. Just wanted to rant on all the waste of good weapons space that goes into modern designs. I always thought a command and support ship of the Jeanne D Arc type would be nice for a DESRON command ship. Got to see it up close in Toulon in 76. Really impressive ship.
DeleteFeel free to rant. I do it all the time although I call it a blog! :)
DeleteAnother frigate design that was just proposed for Australia doesn't even have a gun. I'm surprised noone has suggested an open-deck commercial ferry as the "ultimate in modularity!" Just drive on your preferred SAM, Radar and SSM trailer for the mission and go!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/gibbs-and-cox-unveil-australian-light-frigate/
The real action on the Gibbs & Cox Leidos table is the little MUSV model.
Delete" doesn't even have a gun"
ReplyDeleteMissiles are very expensive and slow to produce. When war comes, everyone's missiles will be expended in short order and then 'dumb' weapons will reign supreme.
When soldiers are done flinging rockets at each other, the guy with the pistol will be king.
The above is especially true for Australia. In a war, where is Australia going to get replacement missiles? The US, presumably also in the war, will be consuming 100% of the very limited missile production. There won't be anything left for Australia and then the gun-less ship will be toothless and useless. A wiser course might have been to emphasize larger caliber naval guns and establish a home-grown shell production facility(s). Just an option that should have been considered but probably wasn't.
To be fair, I don't know Australia's strategy in the event of a war with China so I'm purely speculating.
Neither does the RAN. Hence wasting time on different designs with no real progress.
DeleteWhat I really loathe on the TKMS design is the ongoing use of CODAG Warp. I am waiting for this propulsion type's sole advocate to move on to better things.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it that you don't like about it?
DeleteWastes good space on the stern that could be used for anything else.
DeleteI'm guessing that you're referring to the gas turbine-WARP mechanism as opposed to the diesel?
DeleteThe MEKO 210 bow seems similar in design to the French Frégate de défense d'intervention, FDI, and the Sea AXE bow by Damen which claim able to maintain high speeds in strong winds and heavy seas with superior motion behaviour and significantly lower resistance through the water, leading to a cut in fuel consumption of 20%, also there are new designs for stern flaps claiming to further reduce fuel consumption.
ReplyDeleteNAVSEA should have a major R&D program to see if any of the above live up to the claims made and if so used in the design of the standard displacement hulls for new ships e.g. DDG(X) by confirming the surface friction, wave making and separation or eddy making reduced so as to maximise the range and speed of warships needed in the Pacific, the impression is that other countries moving forward why USN standing still.
Just looking at the Clemson, we could probably squeeze a 76 oto melera replacement in the bow, . CIWS on the fantail, SeaRam aft on the deck house, a couple harpoon canisters midships, light weight radars, diesel electric propulsion, might be more bang for the buck than a modern junker. ( just joking)
ReplyDeleteYou're not wrong!
Delete