Having failed so many times, the Navy’s primary shipbuilding
criteria is no longer lethality (if it ever was in modern times) but the
[incorrectly] perceived need to get hulls – any hulls – in the water as quickly
as possible to stop the criticisms and fend off Congressional anger. As Naval News website notes about the new
frigate program,
Speed of production. Not firepower, not stealth, not lethality, not operational usefulness or anything else one might think would be of importance … just the speed with which hulls can be put in the water. Why not just buy combat canoes? We can get them in the water quickly.
The new Frigate’s armament will consist of a 57mm main
cannon and a RAM launcher with 21 Rolling Airframe Missiles. A payload space will be constructed (so much
for no changes to the parent design!) at the stern of the ship capable of
carrying 16 Naval Strike Missiles, 48 Hellfires, or other containerized weapons
or modules.[1]
50-65 ships will be built …
So, we’re committing to a large production run before the first design
is even finalized. Does sound identical
to the LCS?
The horrifying concern is that this level of armament
relegates this vessel to the level of a patrol boat (and not a particularly
impressive one at that!) and yet it will make up something like a third of our
combat fleet. Absorb that for a
moment. A third of the combat fleet will
be patrol boats. Add in the Navy’s
desire for all manner of unmanned vessels and we’re looking at half or more of
the fleet being nearly devoid of serious combat capability.
Sure, the Navy will talk about future upgrades but when has
that ever actually happened? Ask the LCS
how those future module upgrades that we were promised are coming along.
If I were China, I’d bankroll this program for the United
States just to ensure we field a fleet of non-lethal ships!
____________________________________
… speed [of production] is now the primary factor driving the program.[1]
Speed of production. Not firepower, not stealth, not lethality, not operational usefulness or anything else one might think would be of importance … just the speed with which hulls can be put in the water. Why not just buy combat canoes? We can get them in the water quickly.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/01/new-u-s-navy-frigate-ffx-program-specs-revealed/
I’m not averse to the argument to get hulls in the water, but they should definitely be proven designs capable of combat. The Ticonderogas are going away. We don’t have a small surface combatant design even finalized. I would expand Burke production until we have a decent small surface combatant in large scale production. Especially since the new frigate is highly likely to be canceled as a failure 5-7 years from now. Hardly an ideal approach, but maybe well at least be able to have 10-12 additional Burkes in the late 2030s when we find that once again we can’t successfully build a small and effective ASW or AAW platform.
ReplyDelete"I would expand Burke production until "
DeleteThe Burkes are obsolete for the modern naval battlefield. Making more of them, even on a stopgap basis, is not only a waste of resources but a waste of opportunity cost.
"but maybe well at least be able to have 10-12 additional Burkes in the late 2030s "
If the Burkes are obsolete now, how much more would they be obsolete in the late 2030's? Good grief, this is a horrible option!
Using your logic at, say, the beginnings of WWII, we'd have been building obsolete cage mast battleships for the modern WWII naval battlefield.
Repeating obsolete designs is never a viable solution for shipbuilding problems. The correct solution is to identify the root cause of the problem and fix it. In this case, step one of the solution is getting rid of every officer of flag rank and starting over with Navy leadership since the current flag officers have proven they are incapable of running the Navy. This is what Hegseth should have done and has failed to do. Very disappointing.
I think we have several procurement examples at this point proving that looks the same doesn't mean its not new under the hood, although I agree that building flight IIIs beyond those budgeted will just be adding structural debt. We might get more useful hulls that can compete with flight IV that focuses on building back margin. Save money with less AAW focus. Drop the illuminators and use the 3 face EASR. Add 360 optical coverage, SPEIR or better. We are banking on ships not seeing NSM with radar and not detecting it because it cannot emit. We should have our own way to counter that. We need electrical capacity back to use the hybrid drive already developed to increase range. Keep the new electrical system and generating capacity, probably the cooling too. That's the short pitch.
Delete"This is what Hegseth should have done and has failed to do. Very disappointing."
DeleteThis. I'm disappointed as well. The housecleaning we were supposed to see... where is it? Again, we have a case where the entrenched senior leaders have still got their billets, and are being relied upon for "wisdom", and we end up with SecNav talked into "getting hulls in the water". It's really frustrating that the leadership isn't asking "why can't we design somthing in 6 months?", and instead they're listening to and believing that everything takes years or a decade, and that's just how it is... that building/buying somthing that's mediocre is the best choice, rather than being real leaders and demanding better.
"Save ... less ... Drop ... use ... Add ... have ... need ... increase ... Keep ..."
DeleteAt this point, you've designed a nearly brand new ship which one might think is at least acceptable except that it's built on an obsolete hull and superstructure (stealth is largely inherent in the hull/superstructure shape) so it will still be a poor design unless you also intend to completely redesign the hull and superstructure in which case you literally have a new design. What you're suggesting is tantamount to putting a WWII aircraft engine and guns on a WWI airframe. It might be better but it won't be good.
"The housecleaning we were supposed to see... where is it?"
DeleteHegseth had a chance to make a real change and he blew it. Could not be more disappointed in him.
I remain furious that he is removing Apache and Armor divisions, REDUCING FIREPOWER, in favor of the ISV. A windowless roofless UNARMED dune buggy.
Delete
DeleteThe Burkes aren't obsolete, they are simply at the end of their development cycle. Basically every bit of growth allowance on the vessel has been used. They are the best DDG on the planet, the problem is they simply cannot get any better. In a rational world a new DDG and a new CG should have been the priority a decade ago but the USN has been through a truly strange period. Cannot build a workable LCS, cannot build a new CGX, cannot build a DDGX so lets build a BBX. I think we can all see how this latest plan is going to end up.
Sorry, correct: They were the best DDG on the planet.
Delete"The Burkes aren't obsolete, they are simply at the end of their development cycle."
DeleteWithout engaging in semantics, the end of a platform's development cycle IS OBSOLESCENCE.
"They are the best DDG on the planet"
No. As I've described many times, they lack the stealth, passive 360 deg sensors and fire control, armor, UAVs, structural strength, radar capability, etc. to be a successful, survivable, front line combat ship on today's battlefield. Once upon a time, they were the best but that time has passed.
So, which do you think is the best destroyer in the world right now?
DeleteThis is pure speculation since only the Burkes have been combat tested and even they haven't been tested in any challenging scenario. The Japanese Kongo class would likely be a good one, though lacking in stealth. The Chinese 055 and late model 052 would be candidates as would the SKorean Sejong the Great class.
DeleteI harbor doubts about the quality of the Chinese ship and crew. Japan's quality seems high. SKorea's is an unknown to me.
Is there not a single decent ship in Europe?
Delete"Is there not a single decent ship in Europe?"
DeleteThere is not. Can you think of one?
Not to worry about lethality of the FF(X), its American not Italian/Foreign - SecNav Phelan said
ReplyDelete"I have directed a new Frigate class as part of @POTUS Golden Fleet. Built on a proven American design, in American shipyards, with an American supply chain, this effort is focused on one outcome: delivering combat power to the Fleet fast"
"unleash the American industrial base"
The new FF(X) initiative is designed to be a "proven American-built ship"
Need not to worry as the NSC design only dates back 24 years and was rejected for the FFG(X).
Yes, we covered exactly this. See, "NSC-Frigate Delusions"
DeleteFor actual combat canoes, see the old movie "Cockleshell Heroes", about Operation Frankton.
ReplyDeleteHonest question here. If Burke’s are obsolete for their high end multipurpose mission, are they also obsolete for low end missions? Would Burke’s built stripped down to an ASW centric fit (perhaps even an earlier flight) be a better option than what we’ve chosen?
ReplyDeleteE
" If Burke’s are obsolete for their high end multipurpose mission, are they also obsolete for low end missions?"
DeleteDepends on the mission. They could certainly do harbor patrol. They could do peripheral patrol and low threat convoy escort. And so on.
HOWEVER, they would be budgetary disasters in those roles. A $2.5B - $3B patrol vessel??? Admittedly, they're already paid for but there is still the operating cost and maintenance (to the extent that the Navy does maintenance anymore). Wouldn't you rather use a far cheaper corvette or some such and save a bunch of money? Wouldn't you rather take a couple hundred of the crew and put them on front line ships and let a smaller vessel with a crew of a few dozen do the lesser tasks?
So, the Burkes are not obsolete for low end missions (depending on the mission) but neither are they desirable or affordable.
We got useful work out of the resurrected Pearl Harbor battleships and, under the right circumstances, it might be possible to get useful work out of obsolete Burkes.
It all depends on the mission.
My apologies for veering off topic. But has DDG(X) been canceled? I see conflicting information on this. It looks like the future fleet is Burke flight 3 and NSC, and a canceled BBG.
DeleteArguably a Burke can't defend itself or others in high end combat. But, with proper combat escorts could they not be cruise missile carriers traveling with carrier groups or other groups?
Delete"has DDG(X) been canceled?'
DeleteAt this point, DDG(X) is more of an aspirational goal than a concrete program of record, as best I can tell. This means it will likely morph into something else and/or fade away.
"Arguably a Burke can't defend itself or others in high end combat."
DeleteIt's not that it can't defend itself; Aegis is still a capable system. The issue is that Burkes are no longer state of the art in naval combat. This means they lack the stealth to ensure a decent chance of survival. They are easier to find and defeat than a stealthier ship such as the Chinese 055, for example, and they are woefully behind a Visby in stealth. In addition, Burkes now lack the armor, 360 deg passive sensors, separation, redundancy, and structural strength to aid their survivability.
In other words, dropped into the middle of an attack, they can still do a credible job of defending but every other aspect of combat finds them deficient.
Is it really important for the ship to have stealth? in the AAW role, it's actively emitting, providing emissions for missiles to home in on. As you've said before, no amount of stealth can compensate for turning a radar on. That's why the F-35 will be detected as soon as it turns its radar on, despote its stealth airframe.
Delete"Is it really important for the ship to have stealth?"
DeleteThat you would ask that question demonstrates that you need to do some serious self-education about naval combat, operations, and stealth. Ships engage in many actions that require stealth but are not terminal engagements. Highly advanced stealth is the MINIMUM price of admission to the modern naval battlefield. Before you go any further, read this post: Stealth for Dummies
It would seem to me that a better executed Zumwalt could have been a viable combat platform for the 21st century.
DeleteAt the onset of conception, the Zumwalt was only really intended to be a stealth, next generation Spruance: an ASW/ASuW destroyer with a large missile throw weight. Unfortunately, it was shoehorned into the land attack role with railguns and long range bombardment guns that don't work. Alas. We weep for what could have been.
"a better executed Zumwalt could have been a viable combat platform"
DeleteA better platform for what? A huge part of the Zumwalt's problem - along with failed, non-existent technology! - was that it lacked a CONOPS. No one knew exactly what its mission/role was supposed to be. The best consensus that I can gather indicates that it was supposed to be a land attack platform intended to placate the Marine's desire for large caliber naval guns. Your thoughts on what it was intended to be are mere speculation, largely unsupported by any documentation that I'm aware of.
The Zumwalt, as designed, was never going to be a successful platform even without the technology failures. It was an incredibly lightly armed vessel for its size and it had no primary mission.
China has luxury of doing right thing - build two protype first, test, than mass production because it doesn't have many immediate enemies as US. Pentagon cannot wait, Congress cannot wait, there are too many wars and potential wars to fight all over the world. Everyone points to others saying your wars should not be fought. How can you build a new ship this way and expect it to function perfectly? It is hopeless!
ReplyDelete"China has luxury of doing right thing ... because it doesn't have many immediate enemies"
Delete?? You need to get catch up on current affairs! China and India have engaged in deadly skirmishes for many years. China and Vietnam are actively engaged in territorial disputes with numerous skirmishes. China and Philippines have engaged in numerous clashes. China has routinely violated Taiwan airspace and issues constant threats of invasion. China frequently threatens Japan and violates Japan's territorial rights. China and Malaysia have had on-going disputes and confrontations. And the list goes on.
Please endeavor to be accurate as you comment.
Vietnam has amended its relations with China a few years ago. According to Vietnam Constitution Article 9, Vietnam MUST be ruled by Viet Communist. To its leaders, lose a few islands is much better than lose power and Vietnam becomes a western style democratic nation. Just reviewed yesterday that Vietnam simulated US operated color revolution and invasion in 2024:
Deletehttps://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/internal-document-shows-vietnamese-military-preparing-american-war-129800527
Talk to members of Viet Tein in California (there are many) and you will know more. Bottom line, Viet Comm is defending its Constitution Article 9 (LOL!)
That's a little simplistic reading. Yes, the pro-US faction in Vietnamese politics got purged, and the Viet Communists are in charge, but there isn't a Communist hivemind linking Vietnam and China. Even with the communists in charge, Vietnam has still pursued appraochment with the US, without baggage, because from their perspective, they won the vietnam war, and can now focus on the real threat: China.
Delete2nd generation, 3rd Generation South Vietnamese diaspora in California don't think the same way local Vietnamese do. Vietnam has always seen China as the real enemy. Vietnam's entire existence has been as a province that China keeps trying to bring under its control.
That's not the case either, Vietnam's relation with China is more or less mixed. They are not opposed to China all time, nor was Vietnam a "province" that China tries to bring under it's a control, it's a tributary relationship which is no different then the rest of China's relationship with South East Asia.
DeleteAnd as how democracies often support other democracies, single party states also support one another when their existence are at stake.
Case in point Europe during the French revolution when all the monarchies who usually fight one another all banded together to try and snuff out the French republic and later Bonaparte dynasty because they are both existential threats to the aristocratic social order of the time.
Bro, China literally sent governors to rule Vietnam, who then went native and joined the locals in shaking off their Chinese overlords.
DeleteAgain that's a very generalized reading of history, you are talking about the Guangzhou region which was indeed considered part of Vietnamese sphere of culture and influence.
DeleteBut the rest of what you state is more or less just wrong.
Heck the founder Nyugen dynasty, the last imperial dynasty of Vietnam, asked the Qing dynasty to confer to him the title of King of Nam Viet.
DeleteTo Viet Comm leaders, lose a few islands is much better than lose governing power. If a color revolution turns Vietnam into a western style democracy, people will certainly vote out its Constitution Article 9. Can you image a democratic Vietnam but as poor as Philippine?
DeleteThat's probably enough on Vietnam politics and history unless it pertains directly to military matters. The simple fact is that Vietnam and China are frequently in conflict over territorial waters, fishing, EEZ violations, etc. which goes to disproving the original claim that China doesn't have many enemies.
DeleteMore correct description should be - unlike US, China doesn't have urgent pushes to go to war thus able to design a new ship, build prototype, test, redesign, new prototype if necessary, until design mature, then mass produce.
Delete"unlike US, China doesn't have urgent pushes to go to war thus able to design a new ship"
DeleteThat's just nonsense. The US has no urgent push to go to war. That aside, the US has plenty of time to build and test ships. We're just too stupid, unfocused, and undisciplined to do so.
Best short term solution (IMO) is buying the plans from BAE for the Type 26, probably the Australian or Canadian version as they have more US kit on it. Assuming they are built off plan (NO USNisation) construction could start immediately. Build 10 which gives you some breathing space to design a new ASW ship and prototype.
ReplyDeleteThe T26 will be use by UK, Canada, Australia and Norway so other European navy’s (eg The Baltics, Finland?) may buy second-hand if they don’t meet all the USN requirements. But until a “home grown” ASW vessel is in the fleet you would have a credible sub hunter.
Just a whist full thought, as POTUS says he is the master of deals, do a deal with a 3rd party nation for said T26 but USN will use it for 10 years, “service it” and sell onto that nation for a pre agreed cost. Potus gets the glory, USN gets useful “hulls in the water”, US solidifies relationship with and Ally, small nation gets a good ship.
Clive F (UK)
Best short term solution (IMO) is buying the plans from BAE for the Type 26, ... Assuming they are built off plan (NO USNisation)"
DeleteWe tried that. We bought the FREMM and then promptly proceeded to alter it beyond recognition and blow up the cost and schedule. Yes, as you say, if the Navy would LEAVE IT ALONE then that approach could work but they can't help themselves. To be fair, foreign designs DON'T MEET USN SURVIVABILITY requirements so the MUST be modified. I don't have detailed knowledge about the Type 26 standards but I assume they wouldn't meet USN standards since no European ship appears to but who knows?
Setting that aside, the Type 26 is a decidedly expensive and mediocre platform. I've analyzed this in a previous post. See, Type 26
In fairness, it seems likely that our domestic designs don't meet USN survivability requirements either
DeleteAny reference for UK Navy ships being less 'survivable' than American built ships? All the information I could find suggested equivalence or even better (although little detail available).
DeleteThe Type 26 Program has moved along quite a ways since your analysis back in 2019.
The Australian Batch 2 'Hunter Class' frigates (contract shortly tba) is an evolved version of the 3 Batch 1s with an increase in the number of VLS cells from 32 to 96, (they canned the flexible mission bay, and some of the ASW equipment (so Batch 2s more a GP frigate than a dedicated ASW platform)).
Likely also to mount the ER or proposed MR Sea Ceptors with the MRs having an engagement range of over 100 miles.
Rolling Airframe Missiles to replace the Phalanx, and an Aegis CMS. Chinook size flight deck.
All looking pretty solid.
9,000 tons full load sounds more like a destroyer than a frigate, but everything a frigate these days.
Costs seem high, but when you're only building three of them it's kinda hard to compare like for like.
Great blog btw.
That's the crux of the issue, the USN demand requirements from foreign companies that cannot be realistically fulfill within the requested time period and budget, requirements which ironically the USN does not follow all the time either (see the LCS engine failure).
DeleteHow to fix it would be putting redunency and endurance features into the "wants" column rather than the "needs" column. In short the lack of redunency should not tank a ship that has the required armaments and sensors.
"Any reference for UK Navy ships being less 'survivable' than American built ships?"
DeleteThere is no direct evidence one way or the other. My suspicion is based on UK designs being heavily influenced by European designs which are demonstrably inferior in terms of survivability. That's circumstantial evidence but quite plausible.
"USN demand requirements from foreign companies that cannot be realistically fulfill within the requested time period and budget"
DeleteThis is false. The US has not requested build bids from any foreign country for a warship so the statement is patently false. In fact, in the few cases where the US has had naval support vessels built by a foreign country, the result has been on time and on budget, as best I recall (Korea recently built a support ship for the USN).
"requirements which ironically the USN does not follow all the time either"
The USN's problem is not following its own requirements (though they fail to do so far too often), it's the constant change orders that blow up budget and schedules. The US Navy has also created a situation where industry is compelled to offer impossibly low cost estimates/schedules which both they and the Navy know they cannot meet.
I suspect that you are being a bit American-centric in your assumption that Royal Navy designs are based on European warship survivability criteria. The current Type 31 frigate, although based on an existing Danish design, had to be totally re-engineered to bring the survivability specifications up to UK levels. At one time the UK considered joining the FREMM programme and a reason it was discarded was concern over the inadequate protection and internal sub-division - hence the Type 26. Continental European doctrine in the post-war era has tended to be based on the premise that in a major incident the ship will be abandoned to save lives (think of the unnecessary loss of the Norwegian frigate Helge Ingstad).
DeleteThe UK, based on both its World War II ad Falklands conflict experiences has always taken the view that everything should be done to save a serious damaged ship. You might wish to look at the detailed report on how the Type 42 destroyer HMS Nottingham was saved after grounding off Cape Howe Island, Australia in 2002. It is available via a Google search. I think this rather disproves your assumption that British ships are not designed to survive major damage. Damage control is taken very seriously in Royal Navy training. So why did the USN decide to choose FREMM as the basis for the Constellation class? Did they not properly assess its survivability at an early stage? And just how survivable is the new US frigate design?
"I suspect that you are being a bit American-centric in your assumption"
DeleteNo, my assumption is based on circumstantial, though plausible, evidence and I so stated that I did not have definitive knowledge pro or con.
"assumption that Royal Navy designs are based on European warship survivability criteria."
You call my assumption out and then proceed to exactly provide the reasons why I make the assumption I do! UK designs have always had roots in European designs. I don't know but I strongly suspect that they have not managed to thoroughly separate themselves from that influence.
"I think this rather disproves your assumption that British ships are not designed to survive major damage."
A single example proves or disproves nothing. That aside, the report is actually somewhat damning. While it does not answer questions such as armor, structural strength, hull thickness, etc., it does note the passage of seawater from flooded compartments to undamaged ones via glands and ventilation penetrations. The report also notes that the ship had inadequate numbers of pumps, one of the main high pressure pumps failed, and ejection ports were inadequate. There are other examples throughout the report. Honestly, it sounds like the ship was inadequate from a survivability standpoint though perhaps not horrendously so. Still, as with all modern ships, it appears to have been lacking when compared to WWII ships which were built to combat survivability standards.
"Damage control is taken very seriously in Royal Navy training."
Damage control has nothing to do with survivability design. That said, the report praises the DC efforts of the crew while also criticizing the training of the crew with deficiencies contributing to the grounding.
"why did the USN decide to choose FREMM as the basis for the Constellation class?"
No one knows. It was a baffling decision.
"Did they not properly assess its survivability at an early stage?"
Well, they immediately scrapped the FREMM design and redesigned the ship internally and externally so, yeah, they did recognize that it would not meet USN survivability standards and set about correcting that which led, instantly to runaway costs and blown schedules.
"just how survivable is the new US frigate design?"
No very but, depending on its role, that may or may not be appropriate. For example, no one expects a small ASW corvette to be very survivable. A frigate, however, should be fairly survivable. The USN has yet to decide what the new "frigate" is and what role it will fill.
You know China has export-oriented Type 052D destroyers available for sale, right?
ReplyDeleteSince China is a mercantile nation, and merchants always end up selling the rope that strangles them,
so... maybe it's worth considering?
By the time we finished "Americanizing" a Chinese ship, it would be cheaper to build our own. I don't have detailed knowledge about Chinese ships but I'm certain that we'd have to redo just about everything to be compatible with our power, utilities, computers, weapons, sensors, software, etc.
DeleteGiven that the latest U.S. Navy leadership has resorted to using Coast Guard vessels as direct escort ships, I suspect they won't dare make any more reckless modifications and will simply deploy them as-is.
Delete" I suspect they won't dare make any more reckless modifications and will simply deploy them as-is."
DeleteThe list of changes to the NSC is already extensive.
Its an interesting thought to get somewhat incomplete vessels and finish fitting them out in the US, or fit them out in China with US components and labor.
DeleteI don't expect that power, utilities, power plants are going to be much of an issue. I do feel that computers, weapons, sensors and software are going to have to be a US install into pre-installed Chinese wiring harnesses and utility infrastructure. This is not a big deal, it happens every day all around the world as supply chains require a lot of adjustment by the various countries doing the supply.
You wouldn't have to go all in on day one. Dip a toe in the water about what level of completion you were prepared to risk, then take it from there depending on the success of the project.
Just the idea of doing a project like this with Chinese and American design/build crews and project teams working closely together might be the best thing anyone has thought of since Korea. Once you get to know someone well, they often stop being regarded as a enemy. China has such huge capacity and capability in both military and commercial shipbuilding and design that the shortfalls in the US fleet could be picked up in likely no more than four to five years. And you still get deterrence which is the object of the exercise, but probably at a much lower cost.
Cycle American build crews throughout the build process and make technology and build process skill transfer a key part of the project.
The interaction between senior project staff rotating through is likely to forge friendships that will prove hugely valuable any time things get tense.
That’s hilarious!
Delete"or fit them out in China with US components"
DeleteSo, you're thinking we're going to send classified equipment to China to install? I can't see anything going wrong with that!
"I don't expect that power, utilities, power plants are going to be much of an issue."
I say this as gently as I can ... you have absolutely no idea about equipment compatibility issues. We're not compatible with European standards let alone Chinese! Heck, we're often not even compatible from one service to another within the US military and frequently not compatible from one aircraft or ship to another within the US Navy.
"Just the idea of doing a project like this with Chinese and American design/build crews and project teams working closely together might be the best thing anyone has thought of since Korea. Once you get to know someone well, they often stop being regarded as a enemy."
Stop! You're killing me! LOL :)
This is the funniest idea I've heard in a long time. I'll leave your comment up for the humor value.
"I say this as gently as I can ... you have absolutely no idea about equipment compatibility issues. We're not compatible with European standards let alone Chinese! "
DeleteWelp, this is one area where I know exactly what I'm talking about as the offshore oil industry does this all the time. You tell your vendor what you want. They deliver it or you don't pay them. Rigs built in Korea or China, outfitted with Western Electronics and crewed by who knows who. This is all about speccing out exactly what you need and holding the vendor accountable.
I'm not suggesting we let the Chinese loose on our latest offensive and defensive systems, but frankly having the opportunity to have a good look at their tech would be enlightening. And we might get a jump up on improving our own as it seems to be widely acknowledged that the Chinese are ahead of us in missile systems.
Do I really think this is going to work? No. No one in the defense establishment has the imagination and balls to drive even a pilot project through. So we get more Burkes while the Chinese are going nuts with cruisers (and yes a type 055 is a cruiser), destroyers and modern frigates and corvettes. Their carrier program is fascinating, and the sub program is catching up fast while being built quickly at a really large scale.
"offshore oil industry"
DeleteI have no idea about the offshore oil industry but there is nothing compatible between military organizations and hardly anything even within.
"holding the vendor accountable."
LOL!! Have you read about any Navy contract? We don't even require shipyards to finish ships before delivery let alone hold them accountable. LOL
Can you imagine all the spy devices the Chinese would load into a ship built for the US Navy? Every pump, automated valve, electronic device, navigation system, fire control, computer, communications, antenna, software, weapon, sensor, etc. would have remote monitoring feeds straight back to China!
Thank you. I've genuinely gotten a chuckle out of this!
We had to tear down much of a new embassy in Moscow being built for us because the Soviet Union construction workers filled it with listening devices. That was years ago, imagine the technology available today for devices.
DeleteHere's some more Navy genius at work via TWZ. The Navy's new jet trainer to replace the T-45 will not be able to land or do touch and goes on carriers. All carrier qualifications will be done with virtual training. Automated carrier landing system can now land the plane without the pilot's input (LSO does). Sounds good let's just wait till we have a multi-million dollar combat aircraft to practice landings with. What could go wrong. Looks like we might have a new lethality problem with ill trained pilots.
ReplyDelete"Shipbuilding rewards long term investment and punishes new entrants."
ReplyDeleteThe Legend class variant is a political boondoggle. It's especially obvious that this is true when you consider that in 2012 to 2014, HII themselves were pushing a version of this hull that had 16 Mk 41. Perhaps that remained a concept design, and is why it hasn't surfaced again for this requirement?
It's not just a boondoggle, it's a back-hander to HII, because they were the only shipyard considered for this contract. Gibbs and Cox are currently building two frigate designs for Taiwan that are equivalent to the Legend, with one specialised for ASW (no VLS, just a gun) and one specialised for local air defense (no gun, has a VLS). And the design is optimised for construction in smaller yards, such as those in Taiwan who also do commercial work, and which the US still has a few of!
If the Powers That Be had chosen both of those, to be built at different locations around the US, thus spreading the benefits to the industry as well as speeding up production, we'd already be in a better place than we are now. (We'd still be complaining, but at least the ASW mission would be covered, and there'd be some VLS involved!)
I refer to the above quote: "... and punishes new entrants."
The LCS exists. Hulls are wet and crewed and they are, for better and worse, a known quantity. Rather than buy these patrol boats, the money and effort should go into actually developing and installing those weapon systems we were promised. Forget modules! Hard wire them in. Designate some as ASW, some as local AAW and general purpose. Forget trying to hunt mines with them. Invest in what we have. That's the only way to boost numbers quickly. New frigates of any kind will take time and there's no way to get around that. But new weapons can be installed much faster, and existing ships reroled and redeployed long before the first new frigate hits the water.
LCS has one huge virtue over everything else: it exists!
"but at least the ASW mission would be covered"
DeleteWithout more information, I'm inclined to disagree. ASW vessels, perhaps more so than any other type, MUST be fully specialized from the first rivet onward. EVERY piece of machinery must be acoustically isolated, everything must be rafted, the hull must be shaped for minimal turbulence, the props and entire propulsion train must be specialized for low cavitation, Prairie/Masker or something equivalent must be installed, specialized sonar, active and passive, must be installed that is compatible with the hull shaping to minimize self-noise (which is why the LCS doesn't have sonar), and so on.
Successful ASW vessels CANNOT be converted from whatever vessel the manufacturer just happens to already make. The Navy found that out when they tried to make the generic LCS an ASW vessel by adding a module. It just doesn't work.
"Designate some as ASW"
And now you know why that can't work.
"LCS has one huge virtue over everything else: it exists!"
No. The problems inherent in the LCS make it unsuitable for almost any role. The ship is not sized for an appropriate sized crew. It lacks berthing, food storage, water storage, etc. The endurance is somewhere around two weeks and that's simply not useful for any kind of combat operations. The maintenance model is irredeemably flawed and cannot be successful in a combat situation. The vessels are overweight and have no weight or stability margins left. The propulsion train is noisy. Their aviation capacity is flight deck weight limited. And the list goes on.
This really opens the entire how to actually grow the fleet quickly. We see HII gets FFX at the start gate but there is a lot of talk about making Hanwa the second yard, not Fincantieri. It might be beneficial to have as many options as we can remain open for the present build up, not unlike keeping the fighter production lines open. Could Fincantieri build US spec MMSCs as soon as the Saudi ships clear, in parallel with the 2 remaining FFGs? I also think that the Freedom LCS should get a very different survivability upgrade from LCS-2 class. We could tear the weapon module deck off the top of the hangar and just install 2 Mk 38 mod IV and 8 NSMs along with the other survivability upgrades. Include 2 of those Leidos USVs armed with 2 NSMs replacing the 11 m RHIBs. Get Red Wolf/Green Wolf integrated on MH-60 like the Marines are doing on AH-1 (I'd prefer integrating NSM). Then, since everyone is on a build abroad kick, buy some US mod frigates from Taiwan leveraging our own design (After they build theirs). Trade our 2 FFGs for some ships unless we intend to resume building out a larger class of ships.
DeleteLet FFX perform out in the open ocean and keep the LCS/MMSC right at the choke points. Hopefully the Taiwan/G&C frigate could do real ASW if called upon.
FFX will
"The endurance is somewhere around two weeks and that's simply not useful for any kind of combat operations."
DeleteIs it really? I recall you've argued in the past that it's less necessary to have large banks of VLS cells because ships will execute their missions, fire off all their missiles, and then return, and we therefore don't need super long ranges or endurance times, because the ships won't be spending a prolonged amount of time in the warzone.
I don't think a ship needs to be spending more than 2 weeks in a combat zone!
"This really opens the entire how to actually grow the fleet quickly."
DeleteAnyone who is focused on growing the fleet quickly, as the sole goal, is badly missing the boat. The goal should be to grow the fleet combat-effectively according to a coherent and viable geopolitical and strategic plan. Simply adding numbers of hulls is most likely to result in a fleet of marginally useful (or completely useless) ships. Witness the LCS, AFSB, MLP, Zumwalt, etc.
"It might be beneficial to have as many options as we can remain open"
More shipyards are better than fewer, of course. The way to achieve that is by building more smaller, single function, focused ships rather than a very few large, multi-purpose ships.
"LCS"
Forget the LCS. It's inherent, irredeemable flaws render unsuited for any useful purpose no matter how modified the ship might be. We need to retire the entire lot and move on. We made a horrible mistake and we need to admit it, scrap them, and move on.
"therefore don't need super long ranges or endurance times,"
DeleteI was discussing the mistaken notion of long deployments during a war. A short mission is still likely to require 2-4 weeks. A hard limit of 2 weeks endurance is not combat-useful.
Remember, we won't have forward bases (Guam will be gone in the first couple of minutes). Thus, naval combat missions will have to originate from Pearl Harbor (if we can defend that successfully!), Australia, or the US west coast. The transit time to and from the operational/mission area alone will consume a two week endurance limit.
Also, recognize that when war starts, we'll add sailors to every ship as all navies do when war comes. Adding sailors to a ship which already has a hard two week endurance limit will further decrease that endurance limit. The LCS, for example, will likely drop to around one week endurance as extra crew come aboard (where will those extra crew be berthed, by the way??).
I know when they were bumping the berthing up to 98 they were also installing additional stores to maintain a 3 week endurance. I do not know if that has continued with the growth to 112-114. I think CRUDES stores for up to 30 days if needed?
Delete"bumping the berthing up to 98"
DeleteYes, additional berthing was installed on the LCS as manning increased. HOWEVER, there are many aspects of "berthing" that simply cannot be increased such as water storage tank capacity, refrigerated food storage capacity, fresh water generation capacity, number of heads, number of showers, laundry capacity, galley size and capacity, etc. Yes, you can squeeze a few extra bunks into nooks and crannies but the basic endurance is designed into the ship and cannot be increased significantly without gutting and rebuilding the ship. Also, a ship is a zero-sum game. Every space is filled with something the ship needs. If you add additional bunks and whatever, something has to be removed and since there is nothing that is not needed, whatever is removed to compensate for additions will be something vital and useful. We can remove magazines, weapons, sensors, and so forth to create personal space but then it's just a passenger ship not a warship.
As I recall, the LCS was originally designed with a 22 day endurance or thereabouts but that was steadily lowered as the crew size increased. We could install a crew of 200 but the endurance would be about an hour and a half.
Thanks for your rundown of the LCS flaws. I hadn't really digested how hard the pooch was screwed until I saw it put in one pithy paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI take your points about the requirements for a good ASW vessel, but the Arleigh Burke doesn't tick half those boxes. Every answer to the question "Can the AB do ASW?" comes back "See helicopter". What you've described sounds more like a British Duke class, and there are plenty of other frigates in NATO who are not so sophisticated, but deploy a TAS. Is this a case of the best verses good enough?
On a related tangent, do you think the Constellation can be rescued? As is, the design is maxed out and overweight, but what are the biggest contributors to that? Is it overweight because of the inclusion of too many distributed systems, or are there some big ticket items that were shoe-horned in, like extra VLS, twin hangar or the fixed panel AEGIS (adding more weight high up as well as adding heavier foundations below). I'm wondering if the design couldn't be "downgraded" into a cheaper, lighter, general purpose configuration with things like a smaller VLS, perhaps a rotating AESA and lighter weight mast structures, etc. Would this permit the FMM yard to keep building the same hull without requiring them to make too many changes to the production line?
I'm picturing that FFG(X) distribution diagram (the green hemisphere with three layers representing levels of capability) and how the outer layer should have been completely blank, but was partially shaded in. The downgraded hull would aim to remove all of that outermost layer (which was always Arleigh Burke territory, not frigate territory).
"good ASW vessel, but the Arleigh Burke doesn't tick half those boxes."
DeleteThe Burkes have moderately decent ASW design and equipment. Their main weakness is that they never train for ASW. In addition, what commander in their right mind will risk a $2.5B destroyer playing tag with a submarine when losing it means you lose your premier AAW ship, as well?
The USN has no effective ASW vessel so, yes, the answer is always the helo. Unfortunately, helos are notoriously unavailable so what do you do when a helo is not available but a submarine is? You'd better have an effective, EXPENDABLE ASW vessel around.
"what are the biggest contributors to that?"
The Constellation had to be essentially rebuilt internally to increase compartmentation and augment bulkhead strength. Weight was a serious concern but the even larger issue was cost. Costs were on a runaway spiral and schedule was non-existent. That's why the project was cancelled.
"Constellation can be rescued?"
LOL
"wondering if the design couldn't be "downgraded" into a cheaper, lighter, general purpose configuration"
That's what the FREMM was in the first place!!!!!! Unfortunately, it was ill-suited for actual combat in terms of survivability. So, yes, you could strip it back to the original parent design and have a one-hit sinking ship or you can beef it up, as we attempted, and have an expensive, bloated, monstrosity. Take your pick.
On the subject of lethality, could someone explain the value of the CPS missile as the primary weapon for the Zumwalts or theoretical BBG?
ReplyDeleteGiven the high cost and limited inventory of missiles, CPS is useful only as a rapid response "sniper" type weapon for single, high value targets. One can debate whether this niche function is worth the cost.
DeleteAs far as being fielded on ships, the Zumwalt has no other use so why not? It gives the Navy something to do with the otherwise useless ships.
Seems like it is large enough that, if they wanted, they could fit the big (20 ft) version of SPY-6 and the rest of the Aegis suite, more VLS, and turn it into superior replacements for the Ticos. Which seems desperately needed. Maybe there are technical reasons, but my guess is they just don't want.
DeleteThere was a previous post that touch on as above mentioned where:
DeleteIt’s clear that the AMDR needs a larger ship than the Burke Flt III to support the full capability of the sensor. It also seems clear that the reason the Navy is trying to shoehorn the AMDR onto the Burke is to avoid the scrutiny that would come with designing and building a new ship class. A new class would trigger Congressional oversight and various departmental reviews, none of which the Navy wants to be subjected to. So, just like the Navy claimed the Super Hornet was a simple upgrade to the legacy Hornet despite being virtually an entirely new aircraft, they’re claiming that the Burke Flt III is a simple upgrade to the Flt IIa. Unfortunately, by trying to manipulate the system, the Navy has backed themselves into yet another corner; the Flt III can’t support the needed AMDR but the needed AMDR can’t fit on the Flt III. Can you say “Catch-22”?
The Navy did briefly consider adapting the Zumwalt to the Flt III/AMDR role but quickly abandoned that path, if indeed, it ever was a legitimate possibility. I suspect the reason the Zumwalt can’t be the AMDR platform is because the Navy has publicly stated that the Zumwalt can’t perform area air defense and to put AMDR on the Zumwalt would be a total contradiction of their official position. Again, the Navy’s manipulations of the truth have lead them into yet another corner.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2013/06/amdr-successor-to-aegis.html
Now maybe the Navy is lying (or not) as suggested above and if so maybe we should restart the Zumwalt redesigned for the larger radar as well as make the navy "bite the bullet" and force them to admit they were wrong. Perhaps Bath Iron Works would be happy to build more Zumwalts seeing they spend so much preparing as shown below:
Before it even started to build the first of three Zumwalts, Bath Iron Works had to spend $40 million to make a special facility just to produce the ships.
https://www.themainewire.com/2025/12/bath-built-guided-missile-stealth-destroyers-under-government-scrutiny-eyed-for-upgrades/
"reshaping the regional maritime balance."
DeleteI deleted the associated comment as this is not a Chinese propaganda site. Now, if you wish to discuss how a single hypersonic test launch "reshapes" the regional maritime balance, that would be useful. If you wish to discuss how hypersonic ballistic missiles are even useful given the targeting issues, that would be useful. If you wish to discuss how sea-launched hypersonic missiles are an advantage over land-launched, that would be interesting.
Simply extolling Chinese weapon systems based on public relations films will not be allowed.
"turn [Zumwalt] into superior replacements for the Ticos. Which seems desperately needed. Maybe there are technical reasons, but my guess is they just don't want."
DeleteSetting aside the Zumwalt's significant seakeeping limitations due to the tumblehome hull, to do what you suggest would require an extensive redesign of the entire ship - essentially, gutting the interior and completely rebuilding it. The redesign would require new cooling capacity, electrical runs, computer support, illuminators(?), new fire control (different Aegis baseline that actually supports current missiles), additional crew, increased berthing, increased food and water storage, increased galley, extensive close in weapons (CIWS or SeaRAM), 5" gun, completely new magazines, etc. and I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface. In essence, it would be an entirely new ship and given that the cost to redo is twice the cost of new construction (more expensive to rip out and rebuild than to just build), the motivation for doing this clearly lacking.
The seakeeping issue has been debunked at this point. It was also designed with full large surface ship margins. For instance 10% weight growth. Now of course when designing a new ship we need it to then have such margins when it comes to the fleet. There really isn't a case for needing more crew or cooling. The ship is currently fitted with a 6' fixed face radar and was designed to have that and a 14' fixed face not installed. The ship is all about electrical capacity. It needs more, but we could get that on future flights. Keep what engineering we had on lower risk, incremental gains, not unlike FFX. I am thinking more of future new build flights than the ZEUS effort.
Delete"The seakeeping issue has been debunked "
DeleteNot so. Somewhere in my voluminous files, I have a copy of the Navy's directive for seakeeping limitations for the Zumwalt limiting it from sailing in certain sea states and directional seas. I've posted on this
I've also posted an early video by Chris Cavas which highlighted scale tests of the tumblehome hull, revealing that the ship sails smoothly and easily in calm waters but pitches, rolls, and is prone to "swamping" in even moderate seas. See, Zumwalt Tumblehome Hull Tests
The limitations document and testing are Navy findings, not my opinion. You need to do some research on the Zumwalt's tumblehome hull.
I noted the variety of changes that would be needed for the Zumwalt, which you ignored. You focused on electricity, the one thing the ship ?might? not need and which I so indicated.
Do your research and try for a better comment next time.
I'm pretty sure you are mixing LCS-2 class which for a time had a speed restriction due to the hull stress and/or EPF's inability to maintain much speed in higher sea states. No such announcement has been made for Zumwalt. Last I have seen is the early 2021 reporting on the 2 trials in late 2020 testing in up to SS6. The ship as it stands has 58 megawatts available when steaming at 20 knots. Over 9 megawatts is still available at full speed. 2000 tons cooling (Flt III Burke has 1500 ton). Again, yes many changes would occur, the potential to do so effectively is designed into the ship. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/2524617/carderock-engineers-support-rough-water-trials-on-west-coast/#:~:text=Last%20fall%2C%20a%20team%20of,structural%20and%20machinery%20performance%20information.
DeleteNo, CNO is not mixing anything up. I have read the Navy’s early restrictions on Zumwalt in quartering seas and certain sea states. As pointed out, the tank tests and scale model tests confirm this.
DeleteEarly are also current?
Delete"No such announcement has been made for Zumwalt."
DeleteI get that you have an uninformed opinion but you're flat out ignoring reality. Yes, the Navy did issue formal documentation limiting the Zumwalt's sailing. As I said, I have a copy somewhere in my archives.
"trials"
As you should know, trials mean nothing. Dozens upon dozens of waivers are issued, hundreds of star items are identified, and the ship is still accepted and reported publicly to have performed beyond expectations. Trials have become a joke. For example, recall the rave reviews the LCS received after shock trials until it was revealed that the blast charges were significantly reduced, equipment was removed to prevent damage, and final iteration was cancelled due to expectation of serious damage.
Go where the data leads you. Don't begin with pre-conceived notions and then manipulate the data to support your belief.
I think it's worth noting how our allies improved the lethality of the OHP frigates they received. Australia and Turkey upgraded theirs with new radars and electronics and an 8-cell Mk 41 for 32 ESSM missiles.
ReplyDeleteThis was thoroughly covered in a previous post. See, "Upgraded Littoral Perrys"
Delete