Do you remember the main selling point of the Constellation,
as originally stated? It was to use an
existing (parent) ship design with absolutely minimal modifications so that
commonality would be high, thereby keeping costs low and schedules short. Instead, the Navy heaped on so many changes
that commonality dropped from 85% to 15% at the time of cancellation. We saw what happened to cost and schedule, as
a result.
For the National Security Cutter (NSC) frigate, the Navy’s
main goal is to get AMERICAN hulls in the water as quickly as possible without
worrying about lethality or combat effectiveness. Setting aside the absurdity of the lack of
lethality and combat effectiveness, the only way hulls can hit the water
quickly and cheaply is to maintain maximum commonality with the parent NSC
design. Of course, the greater the
commonality, the less the firepower and lethality … but, I digress.
Unfortunately, we’ve already seen many changes to the parent
design. The forward superstructure is
being modified, stern platforms added, weapons changed, electronic warfare
added, sensors added, presumably a new combat software system, etc. and those
are only the changes we know about and only the external, visible changes. Each of the listed changes requires
modifications to the internal structure, ducting, cabling, bulkheads, layout,
runs, utilities, etc. Changes have a
cascading effect far beyond the main change.
Further, the NSC is not built to Navy standards so, presumably, like the
Constellation, the Navy will make significant internal structural changes for
increased survivability just as was done to Constellation. My slightly educated guess is that the
commonality is already down to around 50% and it’s only going to get worse as
the design progresses. The Navy will
continue to make changes. They can’t
help themselves. It’s who they are and what
they do.
Affordable and fast production? I think cheap has already left town and quick
is buying a bus ticket out as we speak.
Down selecting to one LCS would have been a better idea than these back to back debacle and that is saying a lot. It is obvious we need a clean sheet design. Reworking the NSC is just consuming resources we could be spending on that.
ReplyDelete"It is obvious we need a clean sheet design."
DeleteTo do what? This is where the Navy always fails. They build just to build, with no clear idea why. So, what is your mission focus for a clean sheet design? AAW, ASW, mine warfare, ASuW, recon, something else?
Once you have a mission focus then, and only then, can you begin the clean sheet design process. Without that mission focus, you're just building randomly and hoping whatever you build will be useful ... and it never is.
So, do one level better than the Navy and tell me your mission focus!
ASW. The ship will always be in a fleet. This is not a DE.. AAW should be done by Burke and DDG(X). Recon should be done with aviation and subs. MCM also deserves its own class.
DeleteDoctrine it should be part of a sub hunter group, which consists of a helo carrier, and an AAW ship, Maybe 3 to 5 of these, need wargame and play with it to determine ideal number.
With that in mind we don't need it to embark a helo. We don't need aegis. We need it to be quiet, have bow sonar, towed array, 16 VLS to carry torpedoes. 4 point defense weapons. If can fit 32 VLS great. But I wouldn't lengthen ship to do it. The urge to make it do everything must be fought.
Link 16 and ability to add ESSM cue off the Burke sounds nice, but just adds to the cost. This ship is going to play tag with submarines. It must be attritiable.
"ASW"
DeleteA clear purpose! That's what I like.
Just a thought or two for you. If VLS is for VL-ASROC, 16 cells is plenty. It is incredibly unlikely that any single ship would ever 16 torpedoes in the course of a single mission (reload after the mission) and, as you stated, it would be part of a group which would also have torpedoes. A group of four such vessels would have 64 torpedoes between them in addition to whatever the ASW carrier and helos would have so likely well beyond 100 torpedoes for the group. Given how rare sub encounters are, that's way more than enough. In fact, a very good argument could be made for just 8 cells per ship.
Regarding VL-ASROC, this is a woefully inadequate weapon. We need a crash program to develop a longer range VL-ASROC to really take advantage of the weapon and the ship.
With a mission focus and the sketch of a CONOPS, one could now begin an INTELLIGENT and USEFUL warship design.
Just what you've described would be so much more useful than the NSC-FFG.
Well done!
A very long range ASROC makes sense - provided the ship has the ability to generate and hold a good targeting solution at very long range.
DeleteThe vagaries of acoustic propagation make that challenging. Sound doesn't propagate in straight lines and even a small change in salinity or temperature can throw off range estimates.
Arguably, that's why we have ASW helos. Its role is to get a direct path sensor in contact with a possible submarine contact, confirm its class, and then be able to deliver an ASW weapon.
" that's why we have ASW helos."
DeleteYou've got it! The problem with ending the conversation with "we have helos" is that, at best, they can only carry two torpedoes and will often find themselves with one or none (returning and stumbling across a contact, for example). At that point, the ability to deliver a torpedo 20-50 miles would be vital.
Yes, while obtaining range on a distant contact can be challenging, it can sometimes be done (triangulation, for example, with other ships contributing) and, again, having the ability to deliver a torpedo at useful range is vital.
The Navy is also, foolishly, pushing for UAVs as part of the ASW solution, replacing some helos. No small ship (meaning, small UAV) UAV can carry the weight of a torpedo so, yet again, a VL-ASROC would be vital.
The lightweight torpedoes that the US Navy is so fond of are nowhere near guaranteed sub killers with one shot. In fact, the Navy once estimated that it would require multiple torpedo hits to sink or even seriously damage Soviet/Russian subs. Several torpedoes may well be required for a single engagement.
Partially agree. UAVs could have a role in an ASW system of systems, but probably not as shooters.
DeleteHowever, if properly equipped with lightweight sensors (think MAD, maybe sonobuoys) they could provide increased localization capability and free up manned helicopters to carry more ASW weapons.
"free up manned helicopters"
DeleteNo. Every unmanned UAV on a ship DISPLACES a full size helo. That's the problem. We're replacing fully capable helos with UAVs that have very limited capabilities (I'm not actually aware of any functioning ASW UAV).
"to carry more ASW weapons."
Again, no. A SH-60 type helo can carry two torpedoes, max, as far as I know. UAVs will not somehow increase the weapons load on a helo.
Would you replace a rifleman in a squad with an unarmed soldier? I doubt you would so why would you want to replace a fully functional helo with a non-shooting UAV?
Have you thought through the CONOPS for a notional ASW-UAV? No weapons, very limited sonobuoys, no onboard data analysis, no dipping sonar, no MAD. How does this work?
Minor point the SH-60 was retired in 2008. The MH-60R combined the functions of the SH-60B LAMPS and SH-60F dipper. And yes it can carry two torpedoes maximum. Typical carriage is one LWT due to max gross takeoff weight limits (fuel, dipping sonar, sonobuoys).
DeleteA UAV can quite easily carry a MAD. They are fairly lightweight sensors (20-30 lbs).That's already been demonstrated. Even a small Group 2 UAV could carry this sensor.
In terms of functioning ASW UAV, there is the UK Proteus and MQ-9 Sea Guardian. The latter is land-based but can carry up to 80 sonobuoys which is about the same as a P-3.
"MH-60R"
DeleteThe MH-60R is a type SH-60 helo which was the basis of all the subsequent family variants. They all have approximately the same performance.
"MQ-9 Sea Guardian"
As far as I know, this is a prototype concept and not in service. It is also not generally applicable to this discussion due to its enormous size which limits it to land operations rather than ship board operations.
"UK Proteus"
Similarly, as far as I know, Proteus is a developmental program with no aircraft in service.
As you know, developmental aircraft are miracles of manufacturer's claims. Most never make to service and when they do, they invariably do with far less capability than claimed.
It is also noteworthy that the US Air Force has abandoned large UAVs as non-survivable over the modern battlefield.
I have yet to see any CONOPS for an unmanned ASW-UAV that makes any sense.
No disagreement on survivability of large UAVs in a highly contested IADS environment. I am not sure that USAF have "given up" since apparently several MQ-9s been shot down over Iran. Presumably they are getting some utility commiserate with their loss rate?
DeleteGeneric statements on platform survivability on the "modern battlefield" are not particularly useful. It really comes down to the mission and projected operational environment.
Submarines tend to operate where the battle fleets aren't. That logically leads to a relatively limited threats against air ASW aircraft. A UAV could be useful in that scenario as a sensor node.
I kinda feel that an ASW ship should still carry some missiles to shoot at enemy ships. Look at our WW2 DEs - they were cheaper* slower ASW-focused convoy escorts, but they still carried the same guns and torpedoes as our workhorse DDs, just in smaller amounts - the Butler-class DE had two 5" guns and 3 torpedoes vs the Fletcher's five 5" guns and 10 torpedoes.
Delete*I've seen arguments in the past that the industrial cost savings in building the DEs didn't really amount to all that much, and given they still had roughly similar amounts of crew as the Fletcher DDs, it would have been better to just concentrate on building the more effective, more capable ships.
But then again, it really depends on what sort of ASW ship we're building. Are we making a Flower-class corvette? A Butler-class DE? or a Fletcher-class destroyer? (I don't mean exactly, but as a rough guide of the sort of size and capabilities we want.)
" I am not sure that USAF have "given up"
DeleteThey have publicly so stated and have halted production of large UAVs. Of course, they'll still use what they have in inventory until they're gone. Besides, Iran is not considered a highly contested aerial battlefield. UAVs are relatively safe there.
" comes down to the mission and projected operational environment."
Of course!
"relatively limited threats against air ASW aircraft"
It all depends where. Patrolling off the coast of the US would be fairly safe. Patrolling around Guam or the first island chain would be very risky.
"I kinda feel that an ASW ship should still carry some missiles"
DeleteYou answer your own question with this: "But then again, it really depends on what sort of ASW ship we're building."
Adding missiles to small ships comes down to the primary mission and cost. If you can add missiles without negatively impacting the primary mission OR INCREASING THE COST then, sure, add missiles/guns/whatever. The reality, however, is that everything you add, adds cost and increases the size the vessel (again increasing cost). The reality is that very few additions (none) will enhance the primary mission focus, not negatively impact the primary mission, and not increase the ship size and cost.
@Robtzu. I agree, I think we just need a cheap, plentiful ASW that could show the flag, do all the training with other nations,etc BUT what I'm afraid of is we will get the inevitable "it has to survive against every threat known to man" and after that, we get AEGIS, minimum 32 VLS, probably 48, all the fancy toys, 2 helos, little ASW and there goes your cheap ASW escort......I'm not sure the USN can help itself anymore and probably can't do "cheap".
ReplyDeleteIMO, USN only wants to do high end AAW and BDM. And we all know that's expensive......
"USN only wants to do high end AAW and BDM"
DeleteSetting all other problems aside, do you see the gaping flaw in that concept? It's purely DEFENSIVE! Navies don't exist to defend. They exist to offend. Their ultimate purpose is offensive. Defense is what you do to enable the offense.
The Navy has become far too defensive and terribly lacking in offense.
In the Navy's defense, there are these things called 'Congresscritters' that are often pushing some of this idiocy. Part of how Zumwalt got saddled with two giant guns is Congressional insistence that Naval Gunfire Support continue. Even if the USN maintains its own discipline, it will have to stay strongly on-message to keep Congress from pressing for these things to sprout massive numbers of superfluous weapons and capabilities.
DeleteThe President of Ingalls literally said that he was asked to take the existing bits of NSC #11 and slap them together into a frigate. Hull #1 isn't going to be the tear-up and rewrite you think it is. That is both good and bad. Whatever was bad about the NSC will remain, if only on that first ship. The good news is that you will get a ship in 2028. As a program manager I once worked for said, "the Army wanted vehicles fast, real bad. They got real bad vehicles fast..." I've also seen pictures of an NSC under construction. The stern, aft of the flight deck, is one module/superlift/whatever they call it at Pascagoula. So, no changes forward of that to close in the boat deck.
ReplyDeleteThe real question is how much discipline can be maintained in a putative 'Flight 2'. That's where the temptation to tinker will come in. How much power will they try to add? The existing 4 MW is just enough to add rotating single-face SPY-6. Go for EASR, and you're probably blowing the budget. The Legends already had the USN's EW system. Can they avoid adding the full-on SEWIP? Those are the questions that will sink this thing.
Are you aware of the extent of changes already called for and that will appear on the first ship? I've listed them in the post. As of this moment, to the best of my knowledge, the NSC-FFG will NOT be an NSC with minor changes. It will be a fairly substantial alteration. Of course, this is all still just paper specs, at the moment, so we'll have to wait and see what actually gets built but it's not looking good.
DeleteAs an engineer, who's worked a lot of programs, the things you're talking about actually ARE minor. Closing in the boat-deck, if you don't plan to add CAPTAS, is just basically filling in the hole where the interceptor boat used to go and slapping a metal plate over the top. Slapping that 'shelf' on the front of the boat is just a few days of CAD and some finite element analysis to make sure the bulkheads beneath are fine with the load. Considering the ship was designed with the intent to add VLS, I don't see that much difference to the underlying structure. As I said, the REAL trouble will come when they try to turn this into a real program. Right now, Hull 1 is just a demonstrator.
DeleteIf you haven't yet, take a look at the concept renderings of the NSC-FFG that are online. You'll see many of the changes just from the external appearance.
DeleteI have. See above. I was so deep into this thing that I actually tried to find structural pictures of the NSC itself. I've worked in defense a LONG time. This first ship isn't a tear-up. The real trouble will come with USN attempts to turn it into a useful ship. Right now, hull 1 is a demonstrator, useful for basically tooling around in the Caribbean.
DeleteAs your conversation with the other gentlemen in this thread suggested, the USN needs to figure out what this thing will be. How quiet does it need to be? If not too quiet, slap Prairie on. That's just an air-compressor and some perforated plates. If it needs to be hole-in-the-water quiet, this thing is already sunk. That's where the problems are going to lie. Ship 1 isn't anything special. You're overthinking it a little, I think.
Fun story about the Royal Navy. It may join the war against Iran and plans to send a carrier soon, but has no escorts for her.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/britain-aircraft-carrier-may-french-203208666.html
I'll try to repeat this idea the best I can, I'm interested in your opinion on it.
ReplyDeleteI encountered an idea (in a non-credible space) that we should build a battleship-sized warship purely for fleet ballistic missile defense. The logic is as follows: it needs to be large to mount a true BMD radar array, bigger than what a Burke mounts, and it needs to carry a missile interceptor the size of Conventional Prompt Strike. What do you think?
I'll take a guess at what you'll think, based on the archives, and maybe you can tell me how far off I am.
The enemy ballistic missile threat is overblown. Just because it has a range of x000 kilometers doesn't mean they can actually find targets at that range, so BMD isn't "OMG SO CRITICAL" to hang out near Hawaii. If you can kill their target designators, which current carriers and traditional AAW platforms are capable of, then you can largely protect yourself that way.
Two, it'll probably just become another excuse to never do anything or go near the enemy. BMD battleship can defend itself from ballistic missiles but might be vulnerable to short range missiles, so the Navy will go "mustn't take a risk" and we switch from "amphibious invasion from 150 miles" to "amphibious invasion from 1500 miles." Which is obviously absurd.
No one has tested anti-ship ballistic missiles under anything approaching real conditions so no one knows the severity of the threat.
DeleteNo one has tested ballistic missile defenses under anything approaching real conditions so no one knows the effectiveness of the defense.
With those two bits of reality, leaping into designing a dedicated BMD battleship is pointless.
On a related note, it has been proposed to mount the requisite BMD radars on a modified San Antonio which would address half the BMD battleship requirement at a fraction of the cost.
We already have 80 some ships with Standard missile variants that the Navy claims are effective BMD (again, no one knows) so there's the other half of the BMD battleship requirement.
Of interest, a new video by an insider reveals why the US Navy got stuck with a multi-billion dollar program to build Aegis missile defense ships, which don't work well.
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/ov9DqdYuXcw?t=982
Where is the John Boyd for the navy?
ReplyDeleteWhy not build more Oliver Hazzard Perry class frigates, with MODEST radar & battle management system upgrades? Other countries upgraded their OHPs and seemed satisfied. I know the Navy wanted more space for more upgrades, but that would defeat the desire to control costs anyway.
ReplyDeleteThere was a time when upgraded Perrys would have been useful and effective but that time has passed. Perry's would be non-survivable on today's battlefield.
DeleteWhat the US Navy really needs is a ship that can fight near the shore. It has nothing now since current unarmored ships can be hit and set afire by small drones and anti-tank missiles and shore guns. It should be a shock that President Trump wants the Navy to reopen the Strait of Hormuz yet US Navy ships are afraid to sail within 100 miles.
ReplyDeleteBattleships would be great but too large and expensive. Can we at least build some heavy cruisers? The last were the Des Moines cruisers that even with a 1950s design would be ideal to approach the Strait of Hormuz today and slug it out and take anti-ship missile hits and keep steaming since it won't be packed with missiles and aviation fuel inside the hull. They had two dozen AAA guns ideal for downing incoming drones and missiles. Our high tech ultra-expensive destroyers can follow a few miles behind to provide some cover fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_Moines-class_cruiser
There's certainly nothing wrong with a true battleship and much right about it, however, we don't necessarily need a BB for the work you describe. As an alternative, simply patrolling close to shore and dealing with a few odd threats can be done by a much, much smaller vessel. If we're not trying to invade Iwo Jima, we don't necessarily need 16" guns on a massive battleship. A destroyer purpose built for close combat with one or two 6" or 8" guns and some healthy armor would be sufficient. Set up the radar and guns for automated counterbattery fire and you've got an effective platform. Add several C-RAM type defensive weapons along with ESSM and we're good to go.
Delete