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.
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.
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.