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.
ReplyDeleteNot 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).
For actual combat canoes, see the old movie "Cockleshell Heroes", about Operation Frankton.
ReplyDelete