Wednesday, July 1, 2026

"Existing Design With Only Minor Modification" Trap

More and more, the Western naval ship acquisition world is reverting to ‘existing designs with only minor modifications’ instead of new ship designs.  This is due to fear rather than combat requirements: fear of runaway costs, fear of schedule delays, fear of bad publicity and criticism, fear of innovation, etc.  Fear.  The Western naval world is acquiring ships as a reaction to fear of their own ineptitude. 
 
Instead of honestly and objectively assessing the reasons for acquisition failures and fixing the problems, Western navies have opted for the perceived path of safety over that of combat effectiveness.
 
The latest victim is Germany which has cancelled its F126 frigate acquisition program. 
 
The German Ministry of Defense has decided to discontinue the construction of six F126-class frigates …[1]
 
According to the BMVg, Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding (DSNS), the company initially contracted as the prime contractor, was unable to meet the agreed-upon time and budget constraints.[1]

The program began around 2015, depending on what one considers the starting point, and the first production contract was issued in 2020.  Lead ship delivery had been delayed until 2032 and costs were ballooning.
 
Burned by the failure and afraid of a repeat, Germany has opted to proceed with an existing design, the MEKO A-200 frigate.
 
Instead of planning a new ship, the decision was made to use a readily available, off-the-shelf vessel with only minor modifications.[1]

On a side note, this is yet another bit of evidence that the widespread belief among American naval observers that other countries can produce quality ships, on time, on or under budget, and cheaper than US shipbuilders is false.  But, I digress …
 
So, what is the problem with using an existing design with only minor modifications?
 
There are multiple problems:
 
The “minor modifications” never happens.  The existing design gets heavily modified, commonality disappears, and the costs balloon while the schedule slips.  The US Constellation program was a prime example of this.
 
Far more serious, though, is the trap that existing designs present.  If one never builds new designs, how do ships ever get better?  At some point, you have to move to a new design in order to incorporate new technology.  There’s a reason we’re not still building sailing ships.  Yes, you can upgrade individual pieces of equipment (though limited by ship’s utilities capacity, internal volume, weight margins, etc.) but you can’t improve or change the basic ship.  No amount of equipment upgrades could turn a Burke into a Visby-level stealth ship.  If you want a Visby-level stealth warship – and you do! – it’s got to be a new design.
 
Given the several year (or decade+)  build time for a modern naval vessel, even if the parent design was adequate when the program began, it will be obsolete by the time it enters service.  Of course, existing designs are not adequate.  Consider the MEKO A-200 that Germany now intends to acquire.  The original MEKO 200 design dates back to 1987 and even the MEKO A-200 dates back to 2001, making it already a 25 year old design which will be 30+ years old by the time the ships enter service.  Is a 30+ yr old design really what you want for your most modern, front line surface warship?
 
Take a look at the MEKO A-200.  It’s not particularly stealthy which is the major survival requirement for the modern battlefield.  Its electrical capacity for the perpetually ‘just around the corner’ lasers and rail guns is inadequate.  And so on.
 
Consider the US National Security Cutter (NSC) which is to be the basis for the next iteration of the Navy’s attempt at procuring a frigate.  The design dates back to the late 1990’s and is not even built to combat standards.  Assuming the project isn’t cancelled, the Navy is going to accept frigates whose base design is going to be around 40 years old by the time they enter service!  The NSC meets none of the requirements for success on the modern naval battlefield and yet the Navy has turned to them out of desperation and fear – fear of yet another ship acquisition fiasco.  We’re not designing for combat;  we’re designing for programmatic and career safety and public relations.
 
We cannot successfully build new designs until we objectively and honestly figure out why we keep failing.  Just to save Western navies decades of study, I’ll tell you why we keep failing:
 
  • CONOPS, CONOPS, CONOPS
  • Change Orders
 
There you have it, Western navies.  I’ve done your job for you.  Now, go build a new ship that actually belongs on the modern battlefield.
 
 
_______________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Germany is cancelling the F126 frigate project and procuring eight MEKO frigates”, Staff, 24-Jun-2026,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/06/germany-is-cancelling-the-f126-frigate-project-and-procuring-eight-meko-frigates/

61 comments:

  1. The new frigate might actually be a good thing as the cancelled design was practically a large multipurpose vessel for low intensity conflicts (10,000 tons for endurance, so most of this goes into redundancies. The ships were supposed to operate 6 months+ without return to base) all major special functions would have been added through modules (see LCS). The German Navy needed a new ASW frigate and the ASW function would have been such a module. It also had only 16 VLS cells. So despite the 10,000 tons this was not a heavy combatant. The new A-200 would be a pure ASW ship with all its 4,000 tons dedicated to the ASW mission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From the manufacturer's website:

      "The MEKO® A-200 Frigate delivers full-spectrum 4-dimensional warfare capabilities—air, surface, subsurface, and electronic warfare. Engineered for endurance and versatility, the MEKO® A-200 excels across a variety of mission profiles: from patrol and interdiction to special forces support, search and rescue, and humanitarian operations. "

      What about that says pure ASW? Perhaps the German navy will ask for modifications to make it a pure ASW vessel but I haven't heard that yet.

      Does the A-200 have the total acoustic isolation technology that is required to be effective against modern subs? I don't know.

      Simply calling a vessel ASW doesn't make it so. It has to be built from the first rivet up as an ASW vessel.

      Delete
  2. Western air forces have their own issues but they do much better than navies in developing platforms. They invest heavily in various technologies (propulsion, avionic, weapons, etc.). If navies would do the same it would greatly reduce the risks of building new platforms. I not e that navies also do a poor job of using prototypes and test ships, along with serial production runs. Where are the USN test beds for podded propulsion?

    GAB

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you seen what's just been proposed for the Royal Navy? I'm guessing that may be the subject of a new post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What aspect would you want to discuss? We've covered the folly of going down the unmanned path. We've covered the moral cowardice of naval leadership. I'm open to a discussion but what would you like to discuss?

      Delete
    2. Yes. Canceliing Type 83 for common combat vessel relyingvon unmanned adjuncts is likely extreme folly.

      Delete
    3. "likely extreme folly."

      The frustrating part is that the Western militaries have jumped on board the unmanned fad with absolutely no realistic testing of the concepts that I'm aware of. That's insanity.

      Delete
    4. Right now there’s no effective counter for battlefield drones, but sooner or later there will - maybe kinetic, maybe directed energy, maybe ECM, maybe something else entirely.
      This is always the case with ‘game changing’ weapons, and drones won’t be any different.
      Tanks, helicopters, poison gas, HIMARS, ATACMs, whatever, the other side is going to work out a way of countering it.
      Unless it’s a 16” 2,700 lb Mk. 7 AP shell coming at you at 2,700 feet per second.

      Delete
    5. " there’s no effective counter for battlefield drones"

      There most certainly are! We just haven't widely deployed them, as yet. Counters include electronic measures such as control signal interference (highly effective!), aircraft with anti-air missiles, CIWS, small caliber guns such as the ZSU-23 (highly effective!), directed EMP (already fielded by the US in small numbers), anti-drone drones, lasers (already fielded on some US ships), etc.

      Delete
  4. Given the US Navy's recent problems with the drone, ballistic missile, and hypersonic missile threats, it really needs a radar ship, with just a huge radar, nothing else.

    It already has that technology and has an odd platform for it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_radar

    Just put that on a regular ship that can support a fleet by providing much earlier warning of threats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you not concerned that huge, active radar will offer the enemy a pinpoint location of our forces?

      Delete
    2. With the NSC FFX, we are spending 1.6 billion dollars per ship to get less capability than the LCS, which costs 500 million.

      Same radar, same gun, no towed array sonar. It's hard to see why FFX costs more than 3 LCS.

      Delete
    3. Using an AEW is a far more effective use of money than a giant ship-mounted radar.
      The AEW can operate away from the fleet while providing it with data from its radar.
      And, if lost in combat, it far cheaper and quicker to replace an AEW than a ship!

      Delete
    4. "Using an AEW"

      Active radar, whether air or ship mounted, tells the enemy where your force is. Do you not see this as a problem?

      Delete
    5. Are you suggesting Aegis ships not use their radar to avoid detection? If a carrier has aircraft flying in the region, the enemy will generally know where their carrier is operating. A big radar ship can operate a couple hundred miles behind a carrier group to provide intel on incoming and can move three times faster than an AEW platform.

      Delete
    6. "Are you suggesting Aegis ships not use their radar to avoid detection?"

      That's exactly right. In this day of thousand+ mile missiles, to be detected is to be sunk. Survivability comes from stealth and EMCON. Any active emission will give the enemy a free fix on your location. As I've often posted, we need to design for, and develop tactics for, total passive combat.

      "A big radar ship can operate a couple hundred miles behind a carrier group to provide intel on incoming"

      ?? The carrier group, and any threats, would be below the radar ship's radar horizon and both would be undetectable by the radar ship. I think I'm misunderstanding you.

      "can move three times faster than an AEW platform."

      ?? A ship obviously doesn't move faster than a plane. I know I'm misunderstanding that.

      Delete
    7. "to get less capability than the LCS"

      The less capability is debatable. The LCS not only has very little capability, the capability it does have is further limited by the ship's limitations in endurance, maintenance, time on station, crew size, etc.

      Delete
    8. I stated in early 2000s , maybe as early as 2001, that LCS was a huge mistake. _Some 25 years later were still having to discuss it. Same as mid 2000s when itvbecame clear that it would be Burkes forever. The new NDAA calls for another 15 Im told. Mind boggling.

      Delete
    9. “ 3) My punchline about “building Burke DDG until the crack of doom” seems to be policy now:

      Sec. 122—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers

      This section would provide multi-year procurement authority for up to fifteen Arleigh Burke class destroyers.

      (4) That is because, DDG(X) is being written out of law:

      Sec. 216—Modification to Test Program for Engineering Plant of Certain Vessels

      This section would apply previous requirements for DDG(X) land based testing and reserve power to subsequent classes of large surface combatants.

      No, I’m not exaggerating. From the text:

      (3) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘Senior Technical Authority for the DDG(X) destroyer class of vessels’’ and inserting ‘‘Senior Technical Authority for the class of vessels involved (as designated pursuant to section 8669b of title 10, United States Code)’’;”

      Delete
    10. And of course in 1989 I stated that the USN was being shortsighted when it said it would never build another frigate. Ergo LCS and now hatever thing is being built now. The USN doesnt and hasnt wanted a frigate since 1989. Just Burkes and more Burkes and a one or two a year it is likely to be Burkes “Forever” and until the “crack of doom” while still stsrting and aborting a Frigate. What a mess and I dont see axway out.

      Delete
    11. "I stated in early 2000s , maybe as early as 2001, that LCS was a huge mistake."

      You and everyone else outside the Navy! LOL

      Delete
    12. "The less capability is debatable. The LCS not only has very little capability, the capability it does have is further limited by the ship's limitations in endurance, maintenance, time on station, crew size, etc."

      On paper, FFX has less capability from lacking the towed array sonar; on the other hand it has more theoretical space to mount container ASCMs.

      I continue to be bitterly disappointed that LCS failed in its execution. There is space in our navy mix to have a lower tier, expendable combatant, an ASW corvette that can be used on secondline tasks that our major combatants are overkill on, which gives more opportunities for command at sea at a lower level. I do not want a Captain's first experience of command to be a billion dollar cruiser.

      Delete
    13. " I do not want a Captain's first experience of command to be a billion dollar cruiser."

      Worse, in the very near future (if not already) we're going to be producing admirals whose ONLY "command" experience is supervising an unmanned squadron.

      Delete
    14. Either that, or the surface fleet gets even more marginalised by aviation. Of the last 10 CINCPACs, 6 were aviators, one was a WSO, there was one submariner, and 2 SWOs.

      Delete
  5. From the article cited, “The Head of the German Navy has confirmed, after intensive review, that the MEKO A-200 DEU frigates are capable of fulfilling the German Navy’s core mission of anti-submarine warfare and thus also Germany’s NATO obligations, according to the statement.”

    Looking at Germany’s coastline suggests that they would get little value from an ASW frigate for home defence. If cooperating with Denmark and Sweden to get range, a modernised SOSUS, capable of moving itself to avoid sabotage, and missiles launched from land or torpedoes from a patrol boat could be more effective than a frigate. To me, it looks as if these frigates are being bought mainly to fulfil a NATO obligation. In tough times, why would any taxpayer be happy seeing a pfennig more than necessary spent on other nations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "why would any taxpayer be happy seeing a pfennig more than necessary spent on other nations."

      You mean like the billions the US spends on other nations defense?

      Delete
  6. In a sane world the Europeans would jointly agree a CONOPS for a new design of frigate or destroyer that could be built on a modular basis with the workload being shared between them according to the numbers purchased by each navy.
    That way they would probably be looking at an efficient production run of maybe 50 ships over a 20 year timeframe keeping all their shipyards busy and their skilled workforces employed and intact, and keeping future maintenance costs and timelines at an acceptable level.
    Instead each country builds four or five ships according to some boutique design which end up costing so much and taking so long to construct that they either get scaled back in capability and numbers (like the Brits’ Type 45s) or abandoned altogether.
    Same thing with military aircraft where the French and the Germans have just given up on their 6th Generation fighter project because they couldn’t agree on who was in charge, so now they’re not going to get anything at all.
    Europe really needs to get its act together and start taking defense issues seriously if they’re going to be anything more than a liability to us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Europe really needs to get its act together and start taking defense issues seriously if they’re going to be anything more than a liability to us."

      The way to achieve this is for the US to 100% pull out of NATO and other military commitments. This puts Europe in a "sink or swim" position since they can no longer depend on US support. You don't teach a child how to do something by doing it for them. You teach them by forcing them to do it themself.

      Delete
    2. NATO membership has become antithetical to our National Interests and risks inveigling us in a conflict in which we have little to gain and much to lose.
      What better time to remember Washington’s Farewell Address and his warning about the peril of Foreign Entanglements.
      Washington well understood the necessity of temporary alliances in times of dire emergency, but his general view of Foreign Policy is as astute and relevant today as it was two hundred and fifty years ago; ‘to extend our commercial relations with foreign nations, but to have as little political connection with them as possible’.
      Pity we forgot.

      Delete
    3. "risks inveigling us in a conflict in which we have little to gain and much to lose."

      Not sure how you've reached that conclusion. Our ONLY treaty obligation as regards military force is in the case of an attack on a member country and defeating such an attack IS of importance to our national security. There is no other way the US can be "inveigled" into a war. We just witnessed this in reverse when Trump tried to get NATO countries to join us against Iran and they all refused because they were not obligated to take action. Whether they should have, or not, is a separate, political question and we won't address that.

      Delete
    4. Slowly, and at great cost, but nevertheless relentlessly, the Russians are advancing and are winning the war of attrition in Central Europe, as Ukraine runs out of manpower, the US runs out of weapons and Europe runs out of money.
      As the strategic situation inevitably worsens for Ukraine, Europe will need to decide whether to walk away from the conflict and accept a Russian victory, or to attempt to prevent this by escalating the conflict through overt military intervention.
      The ground has already been prepared for this, with British and French special forces operating in direct support of the AFU.
      If the Europeans choose to escalate, they will likely do so under some pretext or other, such as claiming there is a credible threat by Russia to Poland or one of the Baltic states (which they are already doing), and call for American support under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The British and French have already called for a US ‘backstop’ to their proposed ‘peacekeeping’ mission.
      This is how through our NATO membership we risk being inveigled into a conflict in which any threat to our National Interests is remote and peripheral.
      I am not saying that this is inevitable, but in the absence of diplomacy, the choice for Europe lies between defeat and escalation, so the risk for us is a real one.

      Delete
    5. "call for American support under Article 5"

      You are factually wrong about the scope and applicability of Article 5. Article 5 obligates NATO members to provide assistance in the event of an armed attack on one of its members. It does NOT, as you erroneously suggest, obligate any members to take any action in response to threats, perceived threats, or anticipated threats. Article 5 can only be invoked if Russia actually attacks a NATO member. We have no NATO obligation unless Russia directly attacks a member nation and Russia is in no position to mount an attack against a Girl Scout troop let alone all of NATO.

      "This is how through our NATO membership we risk being inveigled into a conflict"

      I've just proven that you are incorrect. Read Article 5 before you comment again. I insist on statements being factually correct.

      "accept a Russian victory"

      You fail to see that if Russia "wins" it will be the very definition of a Pyrrhic victory, leaving Russia with half a million battlefield deaths and one and a half million casualties as well as a devastated economy, a decimated army, a badly damaged oil/energy industry, a badly damaged navy, a shattered reputation on the world stage, untold thousands of armored vehicles lost, significant losses of aircraft, and the list goes on. Regardless of how the Ukraine conflict resolves, Russia is finished as a world power for next hundred years. They have squandered their political and military power for miniscule gains, at best.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for your reply.
      Possibly I was in some way unclear as to the point I was making, so allow me to summarize and restate it.
      I am familiar with Article 5; the Washington Treaty formed part of my Master’s thesis, and I could still recite it verbatim:)
      Europe is determined to prevent a Russian victory in Ukraine.
      It is likely that one or more European NATO members will escalate the conflict by inserting its military forces directly into Ukraine.
      If this happens it may well be presented as a pre-emptive move to forestall a purported Russian threat to Poland or one of the Baltic states.
      There are other scenarios.
      An attempt to impose a no fly zone over Western Ukraine; a clash between Russian and European naval ships in the Baltic; a failed interdiction of a Russian tanker, or something else entirely.
      If any scenario results in armed conflict between Russian and European forces resulting in fatal casualties, you can be 100% certain that the European NATO members will invoke Article 5, regardless of the precise circumstances or legalities.
      At that point the ball will be in our court as to how we respond.
      This is why our NATO membership puts us at risk of becoming embroiled in a conflict in which our National Interests are not directly threatened.
      I don’t agree with your final paragraph, but won’t attempt to refute the points that you make.
      Thank you again.

      Delete
    7. "Possibly I was in some way unclear"

      You were clear ... just incorrect. Article 5 does not apply if a member country initiates an attack as was decisively demonstrated with the current Iran conflict. The US initiated the attack, was attacked in return, and Article 5 did not apply and Trump's request for NATO/European assistance was met with zero response. Thus, the US CANNOT be drawn into a NATO-related conflict unless a member nation is preemptively attacked and Russia will be in no shape to do that for many decades to come.

      Your fear is simply, totally unfounded. NATO membership puts us at zero risk.

      "I don’t agree with your final paragraph"

      That paragraph wasn't an opinion. It was a statement of fact. There's nothing to agree or disagree with. It's like disagreeing with the weather. There's nothing to disagree with. It is what it is.

      Delete
  7. The problem with the whole "sink or swim" theory is that it assumes that "swim" is always the outcome, it's not, and it is not in the national interests of the United States that Europe "sinks". The US does not support Europe out of the goodness of its heart but rather because it is better for the US to have a strong, free Europe. To stretch the analogy, this is not a swim meet of individuals, its a team sport, and when one member of the team is not pulling their weight you don't abandon them, because that would hurt the whole team, you work with them to get them back in the game. And to get back on topic, Anonymous, and ComNavOps, are absolutely right, Europeans need a joint CONOPS designed to work with the US Navy, and ships designed to purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nowhere have I ever suggested that the US could not aid Europe if some type of worst case scenario occurred. However, if Europe did not swim, I would be happy to see them suffer significantly damage and losses before we get involved in order to hammer home the lesson.

      "you work with them to get them back in the game"

      If we haven't gotten Europe back in the game since the end of WWII, we have to face the reality that it's not going to happen with the current system of US support. Continuing a system that isn't working and expecting it to somehow, magically work in the future, is the definition of insanity.

      Perhaps Europe needs a reminder of what freedom costs because they're certainly frittering it away with their immigration and defense policies.

      Delete
  8. ‘Pulling out of NATO etc.’
    There are valid arguments on both sides here.
    Perhaps NATO has outlived its purpose, keeping the peace thru the 40 years of the Cold War, and now serves only to address the problems caused by its own continued existence.
    Maybe we should have recognized that we had a window of opportunity to pull the former states of the Soviet Union into a new, friendly alliance with ourselves and the Europeans and grabbed it with both hands; too late now.
    On the other hand, NATO does exist and it’s not without value to us, as it’s a longstanding alliance between 32 countries that we could never today rebuild or recreate, should we wish to do so in the future, and in the meantime we would definitely want their help in any conflict with China.
    Unfortunately the Europeans are a bit like a bunch of fractious schoolchildren, each with their own friendships, and agendas. Many of them don’t much like each, and have widely differing security interests and threat assessments, and it’s only NATO holding them and their militaries together, plus America with its big stick.
    I don’t think the ‘sink or swim’ would work for us, because like schoolchildren, some of them would skip swimming class and learn Russian or Chinese, which is probably not in our interests.
    JF

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're arguing for maintaining the status quo for a failed system. You mentioned a few of the ways NATO has failed and yet you want to keep it. That's illogical.

      How do you see things ever improving if we're in a failed system? Continuing failure is not the road to improvement.

      Basically, you're afraid. You're afraid the Chinese might gain a foothold. You're ignoring the other aspect of a NATO pullout which is enhanced engagement in trade, cultural exchanges, finances, economy, etc. It would be stupid of us to pull out and sever all ties with Europe. A pull out should be balanced with corresponding enticements and benefits by continued trades, etc. between us and Europe.

      You correctly noted that we missed the opportunity to welcome the former Soviet states because we were too afraid to take bold action and, instead, opted for the status quo, and yet you now want to repeat that mistake.by opting for the status quo again. We have an opportunity to make Europe stronger without us by forcing them to take on the responsibility for their own defense (and maybe force them to cooperate more amongst themselves?) which, if they do, makes us stronger! It is in our best interest to pull out of NATO.

      Chanting: "Status quo? Hell, no! Status quo? Hell, no!"

      Delete
    2. I think you are massively underestimating the value of NATO both geopolitically and operationally. China and Russia would see an American pullout as evidence of a divided and hugely weakened western alliance. Thus emboldened they are far more likely to commit to unprovoked attacks. On an operational level a well planned NATO mission would for example have easily kept the straights of Hormuz open, which the US forces inexplicably failed to do.

      Delete
    3. “Status quo; hell no”
      (You have two anonymous commenters on the same thread btw.)
      No, I’m not ‘scared’ nor in favor of the status quo, and I’m inclined to think NATO’s continued existence is mostly down to bureaucratic inertia and careerism. And I think that NATO is to continue to be relevant to American security interests then it absolutely needs to change.
      But I do acknowledge that there are valid and legitimate arguments on both sides, and I’m not convinced that best course of action for the United States is as clear cut and obvious as you clearly believe it to be.

      Delete
    4. "Thus emboldened they are far more likely to commit to unprovoked attacks"

      That's absurd. Russia wasn't deterred at all from attacking Ukraine and has been stalemated by a country with the size and resources of some American states. Russia isn't going to suddenly attack Europe because the US pulls out of NATO.

      Europe is a non-factor in a war with China so China isn't going to be deterred or emboldened by the US being in or out of NATO.

      "a well planned NATO mission would for example have easily kept the straights of Hormuz open"

      Did you just wake up from a coma in the last couple days? Trump begged NATO to get involved in protecting the strait and NATO countries declined.

      Not only are you overestimating the value of NATO, you're ignoring actual events.

      Delete
    5. "I think that NATO is to continue to be relevant to American security interests then it absolutely needs to change."

      So you recognize the need for NATO to change but you're afraid to make any changes???? Uh, sure. Are you a politician, by any chance?

      So, status quo, then, unless you have some specific suggestion?

      Delete
    6. @anon: "China and Russia would see an American pullout as evidence of a divided and hugely weakened western alliance."

      There is no western alliance. Western European NATO members have systematically reduced their military commitments to the point that ~450 million people expect ~330 million Americans to defend them from 140 million Russians. The USA has complained about this since the collapse of the Soviet Union with no effect. Bonne Chance!

      GAB

      Delete
  9. This solves all problems. You can convert any ship to whatever you want as long as the ship is big enough:

    https://www.twz.com/news-features/chinas-truck-mounted-electromagnetic-aircraft-catapult-seen-in-action-for-the-first-time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be absurd. We've thoroughly debunked the modular system for combat. Modular systems are unoptimized and, in combat, unoptimized means dead.

      Delete
    2. The best that you can hope for from the containerised SAM, radar and CIWS attached to that Chinese merchatman that their foreign ministry was abuzz about is as a wartime emergency escort. It's a minimum level of area air defense that's being shit out so that merchantmen get some AAW escort.

      I could see a use for one or two of these Q-ships that are being paired with a Type 054 frigate, to serve as an additional missile magazine and to allow the Chinese to use as few of their warships as possible for convoy escort, keeping their warships concentrated to fight the USN.

      Delete
  10. Mekos were the first modular construction ship. Modular here means how to build a ship, not LCS type modular. Most shops today are built using modular construction.

    Mekos are an export vessele. They have been built many times for different customers (Australia. New Zealand. Egypt. Algeria. And South Africa).

    They are a ship that can handle Magor modification.

    Our ANZAC class has been totally changed from when we first got them. New Zealand's ANZACs are now completely different to Australia's.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Forgive the simple query, but can you provide a specific explanation of what you mean by CONOPs? You have often critiqued naval acquisition choices by remarking on the absence of a CONOP. But, having consulted your archive, I have been unable to find an entey that describes what a CONOP is, and how we should use it to inform our resource allocation choices. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concept of Operations (CONOPS) is the plan that is supposed to be developed BEFORE a ship is designed to describe what the ship is supposed to do (mission/role) and HOW it is to do it. This includes complete plans for how the ship fits into the fleet, how it will be used, what tactical use it would be put to, how to support it logistically, where it would be based, what its maintenance needs are, etc. Once you have that, the actual requirements and design become obvious and you know the ship will be useful and supported. In contrast, the Navy currently builds ships to seemingly random designs and then just hopes it can be useful. We've prematurely retired multiple ship classes because they turned out to have no practical use (LCS, MLP, AFSB, Zumwalt, etc.) while failing to build the ships we actually need (ASW corvette, for example).

      Delete
    2. Thank you for this excellent description. If I may be so bold, perhaps you should do a piece explaining these concepts and providing specific examples?
      Quick questions.
      First, how would you distinguish a CONOPS from a strategy? Also, shouldn’t the various theater war plans provide sufficient raw material for a CONOPS?
      Finally, what part of the Navy should be responsible for this? This is tricky because naval systems do not operate on their own but as joint forces, so you would need considerable knowledge of other services’ capabilities.
      Thank you.

      Delete
    3. Sorry — didn’t mean to post as “Anonymous”.

      Delete
  12. I would take a step back and look at the need for a 10,500 ton "frigate" armed with 16 VLS cells.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what a CONOPS and Analysis of Alternatives is for. The Navy, however, refuses to do either of these and instead randomly lurches from one failure to the next.

      Delete
    2. True. But, the Navy seems to jump, not lurch to the next to the next failure.

      But, I'd like to think the Germany Navy did just that in this instance. The F-128 class were to replace their F-123s, primarily ASW frigates which are about 30 years old. These Meko A-200DEUs should be a better fit in terms of size, displacement, and equipment and available sooner.

      Delete
    3. "Meko A-200DEUs should be a better fit"

      There is an opportunity to salvage something at least somewhat useful from this but whether Germany does, or not, remains to be seen. There's no getting around the fact that these are already obsolete designs and, as far as I know, there is no factory option to make a true MEKO ASW vessel. Yes, you can load ASW equipment on the ship but that doesn't make it a good ASW vessel. A good ASW vessel MUST be designed and built from the first rivet for ASW and these are not.

      By the way, I've not yet seen a statement that these MEKOs are intended to be ASW but, to be fair, I don't follow German navy matters that closely. It may be that a lot of people are just assuming they'll be ASW focused.

      Delete
    4. As Wiki notes, "... was intended to be used as a multi-role frigate with a focus on the anti-submarine warfare mission."

      That's not an ASW vessel. That's a multi-role vessel with some extra ASW equipment. I would assume the MEKO A-200 will, likewise, be a multi-role frigate with some ASW equipment.

      Delete
  13. Not that a general purpose vessel is useless or undesirable of course, they can be useful as supplementary escort forces in circumstances, like the old flower class corvettes and the other escort vessels to come out in world war 2. Like those same old precursors, they should also not cost Billions but instead be very cost efficient, also another characteristics is that they were usually stamped out fairly quickly in large numbers. Modern naval vessels mostly seem to be cruiser sized and priced incarnations of these same old types of ships, which is where the incredulity lie.

    - Loc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "like the old flower class corvettes"

      To be clear, the Flower class was the epitome of a single purpose platform. They were designed and built for coastal convoy escort and later proved adaptable to open ocean convoy escort.

      Note that many ships of the past were designed and optimized for a single purpose and yet proved adaptable to multiple tasks. That does not make them general purpose in design or intent. It just makes them adaptable to secondary tasks. Most WWII ships fell into that category. In contrast, most ships today are designed for multiple roles and optimized for none.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.