tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post9159365984555396102..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: FrigatesComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-60022674897903967902013-09-06T19:21:20.705-07:002013-09-06T19:21:20.705-07:00TR, yeah it's funny. Some topics that I think...TR, yeah it's funny. Some topics that I think will generate discussions, don't, while some that I think won't, do. Still, frigates and LCS topics seem to get people riled up! Thanks for stopping by!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27492497035859548222013-09-05T15:46:10.013-07:002013-09-05T15:46:10.013-07:00100 comments! A ComNavOps blog record. Grats. :D100 comments! A ComNavOps blog record. Grats. :DTheRequimenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15112265572973179728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42345020187116610372013-08-29T17:36:38.107-07:002013-08-29T17:36:38.107-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-74364149747545200502013-08-29T11:31:26.024-07:002013-08-29T11:31:26.024-07:00If there's work to be done Stateside it might ...If there's work to be done Stateside it might get through. It's a good little helicopter really. Gearbox (made in Italy) is a bit rubbish, because it doesn't allow the use of the full power of the three engines, but with ASW systems it's world class and the cabin room for troop transport is a leap ahead of any of the Hawk variants.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-87688610716020532132013-08-25T19:28:58.809-07:002013-08-25T19:28:58.809-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-20679883334148544972013-08-25T15:18:07.000-07:002013-08-25T15:18:07.000-07:00You guys buying our kit? Are you sure Congress wil...You guys buying our kit? Are you sure Congress will allow that? I mean, the AW101 (Merlin) is widely recognised as the worlds current leader in Anti-Submarine work, but there's no jobs in the districts to be had, which would likely block a buy.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86419478592751072292013-08-25T05:41:12.828-07:002013-08-25T05:41:12.828-07:00ats, that's a fascinating paper, however, I no...ats, that's a fascinating paper, however, I note a couple of points. First, the paper is written by the manufacturer so the likelihood of bias certainly exists. Second, the comments about noise were made without any reference to published data and no data was presented in the paper. Finally, the article's summary statement is a very tepid pronouncement that it is "plausible" that the jet offers improved underwater acoustic performance - hardly a definitive statement! The unsupported comments also suggest (my interpretation of their vague statments) that the jet is quieter only at high speeds and may be noiser at the lower speeds that ASW would usually be performed at.<br /><br />So, the article is fascinating but is a long ways from being a definitive statement about noise and, in fact, may actually suggest that the jet is noisier in the relevant ASW speed range.<br /><br />Best article I've seen, though, about jets in general. Many thanks for the link!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61710795687760764382013-08-25T02:09:27.905-07:002013-08-25T02:09:27.905-07:00best I've found is:
http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/m...best I've found is:<br /><br />http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1057684/BMTDSL-The-Advanced-Waterjet-Confpaper-INEC-May10.pdfatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-52188715433519224082013-08-23T10:04:00.587-07:002013-08-23T10:04:00.587-07:00ats, everything I've read suggests the opposit...ats, everything I've read suggests the opposite, that waterjets are exceedingly noisy by comparison but I've never found a direct comparison study. Do you have any documentation or sources that back up your statement? I'd love to find something definitive one way or the other.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32722483349440434882013-08-23T09:59:49.992-07:002013-08-23T09:59:49.992-07:00TP, that's a real down to earth (or the sea, a...TP, that's a real down to earth (or the sea, as the case may be!), common sense, realistic suggestion. It would be easy to accomplish, uses no new technology, and maximizes the usefulness of the class. One can't help but wonder why the Navy can't come up with that kind of thinking. Thanks for stopping by!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10412003467135584172013-08-23T06:27:32.088-07:002013-08-23T06:27:32.088-07:00A drone is no replacement for a Seahawk. That Seah...A drone is no replacement for a Seahawk. That Seahawk is one of the best "sub-systems" the Frigate would have. Trust me, if you send a frigate crew out on deployment with a MQ-8 and an AH-1, and they'll come back to you in six months time begging to trade both for a Seahawk.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72520200514906318052013-08-22T15:50:18.387-07:002013-08-22T15:50:18.387-07:00The estimated price for the Type 26 is around £350...The estimated price for the Type 26 is around £350M plus some equipment transfered from the Type 23s, just like B.Smitty said. It is very unlikely that the cost will be higher than this. If for no other reason than it would just be unaffordable by the RN. However there is no reason to think the cost will be more based on previous RN ships. <br /><br />The Type 45s cost around between £550m and £650m, however this an estimated £200m for the radars and Sea Viper missile system. <br /><br />While the last Type 23 that was commissioned just over 10 years ago, cost ~£130m.<br /><br />As for what can be called a frigate, in RN terms, a Frigate and a Destroyer are based on their role, not their size. For the Royal Navy a destroyer is a anti air warfare ship, while a frigate focuses on ASW (and general roles). <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-61787246944781109762013-08-21T08:25:43.159-07:002013-08-21T08:25:43.159-07:00"Can we get rid of the whole offensive capabi..."Can we get rid of the whole offensive capability canard. Most US warships don't have meaningful offensive capability."<br /><br />I hope not! warhips have to be able to fight!<br /><br />I don't know if what you say is entirely accurate. While the Flight IIA 'Burkes don't, and can't, carry Harpoons, I believe that the Flight I and II 'Burkes can. As well as the Tico's. They also have weapons to deal with subs like ASROC and 'normal' Torps. <br /><br />But still, you bring up a good point that could be a blog post in and of itself: The offensive capability of our Navy is aging. <br /><br />We didn't get the Harpoon Block III; are waiting on the LRASM and hope it works. Heck, some are even talking about bringing back the TASM. (Why we love subsonic missiles so much, I don't know. There must be a reason). <br /><br />To bring this back to the Frigate discussion, we have to ask ourselves what the role of the ship is: Will it possibly, realisticly, fight without a carrier present? <br /><br />For some ships, I think the question is yes. My buddy was on a Flight I 'Burke and it deployed alone alot. If something happened, it might have to fight alone. <br /><br />For these ships specifically, we are talking about building affordable ships to go into environments where we don't want to risk multi billion dollar assets. Having a 'Burke risk getting shot by a Shipwreck fired in the open ocean is something it was designed for. Having it get swarmed by 15 different old soviet missile boats, while it dodges old mines and might get plonked by a shore based AShM or '50's era torp fired by an AIP sub is quite another. <br /><br />So these ships are, IMHO, *very likely* to fight in a situation where they won't have easy help from their big brothers. As such, they'll have to have *something* to counter an enemy. <br /><br />And I think this is true for any ship that could fight alone. <br /><br />The US Navy doesn't need a gazillion dollar Brahmos or Sunburn copy. The LRASM would do nicely. Or maybe see if we can get a canister launched version of the HF-3 or put a warhead on a Coyote. But it needs something. <br /><br />Just my $0.02JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-13022190755416967422013-08-20T22:06:56.746-07:002013-08-20T22:06:56.746-07:00Can we get rid of the whole offensive capability c...Can we get rid of the whole offensive capability canard. Most US warships don't have meaningful offensive capability. The burkes currently only have their 5" gun. That's it. The entirety of the US Navy fleet outside of the big and small deck carriers has a distinct lack of offensive capability. There are numerous FAC with better offensive capability than any of the DDG/CGs currently in the US fleet.atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84848375865016323522013-08-20T22:02:27.290-07:002013-08-20T22:02:27.290-07:00MQ-8B has surface search radar capability and is b...MQ-8B has surface search radar capability and is being upgraded with an advanced SAR capabilities. It is scheduled to complete flight testing with the new radar early next year. Fighting a peer/near peer, we have to assume that the adversary has or is developing similar capabilities. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-5176599624724933732013-08-20T20:32:14.353-07:002013-08-20T20:32:14.353-07:00Having recently served on a FFG I have to say that...Having recently served on a FFG I have to say that the areas I wanted improvement in to perform the missions we did would be: swap the standard 7m RHIB with an OTH RHIB, move the gun mount from the O2 to the fo'c'sle where the SM 1 launcher was and update the sonar/combat suite. In place of the gun on the O2 add port and stbd Mk38 mod 2's and maybe some Harpoon canisters and you've got everything you need to accomplish the low end missions. My two cents anyways. -TP Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-81098586337253163182013-08-20T17:13:44.071-07:002013-08-20T17:13:44.071-07:00@ ComNavOps,
Cheers. I think your phrase "Shi...@ ComNavOps,<br />Cheers. I think your phrase "Ships don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in conjuction with other ships, aircraft, submarines, and even Air Force assets", is the critical one.<br /><br />@ ATS,<br />"I'm assuming that the FACs will be using medium to high altitude UAVs."<br />-- Why? How many nations actually own a usable capability like this? Nobody, not even the US, has managed to deploy a UAV with radar capable of surface search at sea. The only country that has the ability right now to pass the target tracks from such UAV to a warship is.... the US. And again, it ignores the fact that you shouldn't be sending a vessel like this on its own into that environment. Where is the air support for example?<br /><br />"... in the South China Sea. Being able to have a small detached Marine force with 2-3 small troop boats and a smalls helicopter carrier for force recon and surveillance."<br />-- Force Recon? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the term (British vs US) but you do not want to be running around loosing off rounds in the South China Sea. Such a small force like that would be basically useless for anything other than boarding operations. <br /><br />A Seahawk would give you far more flexibility. It's non-aggressive, it has the radar to do wide sweeps and actually be a factor in intelligence gathering, it can aid ASW work, search and rescue, carry small teams. An AH-1 would be an utter waste of time and hangar space.<br /><br /><br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-19722598618402355602013-08-20T12:57:02.204-07:002013-08-20T12:57:02.204-07:00ats, you're comparing the LCS (after if works ...ats, you're comparing the LCS (after if works out the bugs - if that ever happens) to the current stripped down OHP! In the interests of fairness, why don't you turn that around and compare the current LCS to the OHP after it got the bugs worked out and before the Navy stipped them. I won't bother citing how superior the OHP is in that case - you know it as well as I do. <br /><br />In what way is the LCS superior to the OHP as an aviation platform? Depending on the source, the LCS can operate a max of 1 or 2 SH-60 type helos. The OHP can operate a max of 2 SH-60 type helos. The LCS flight deck is larger but you can still only operate 1 or 2 helos. I'm missing how the LCS is superior.<br /><br />You say the general concept is reasonably sound. How so? The speed requirement is tactically useless. It has no offensive capability. The ASW module was abandoned and there is not even a plan for a replacement that is superior to existing technology. The ship is vastly oversized and overpriced for MCM even if the module worked which it doesn't. It can only operate in low threat environments which is a 180 degree reversal of the intended concept of operations. How is any of that a reasonably sound concept?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3171018170750334262013-08-20T12:47:20.806-07:002013-08-20T12:47:20.806-07:00Chris, I'm assuming that the FACs will be usin...Chris, I'm assuming that the FACs will be using medium to high altitude UAVs. Its becoming pretty standard on a lot of smaller navy vessels. <br /><br />As for the AH-1, the only area I thought it would be interesting to have would be in some of the high density small island areas in the South China Sea. Being able to have a small detached Marine force with 2-3 small troop boats and a smalls helicopter carrier for force recon and surveillance. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2190830281152962062013-08-20T12:11:49.570-07:002013-08-20T12:11:49.570-07:00Well, this is as I understand it but:
It was my u...Well, this is as I understand it but:<br /><br />It was my understanding that the LCS is basically all helo and rigid boat at this point. <br /><br />The OHP's when they started out at least had Standard and Harpoon, as well as lvl II survivability. In addition to that they had towed arrays, a bow sonar, torps, better range, and the helo. <br /><br />Put the LCS's in the actual littorals that they were supposed to operate in and they are very vulnerable to missile boats that many nations in those areas seem to have in abundance. That's not to mention shore based stuff. They don't have a native ability to fight subs, or much of anything. And their mission modules are *really* expensive and frankly not working out. <br /><br />And, given its small crew, low build level, and extensive use of aluminum, if it gets hit it is likely in big big trouble. <br /><br />Now we see that the ship is having big problems just remaining active while deployed. Sure. Some of this is teething problems. Some of it is the fact that it just isn't set up for long foreign deployments without a tender. <br /><br />From what I've read, for the minimal mission module stuff we are getting, its going to add anywhere from 200-300 million per ship. Which brings the LCS with poor mission modules and good helicopter facilities close to a billion dollars. <br /><br />Not a fan. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22449571132536083502013-08-20T11:39:37.407-07:002013-08-20T11:39:37.407-07:00Ok, problem with the current OHPs is that they can...Ok, problem with the current OHPs is that they cannot really do anything that LCS won't be able to do after the first of type issues are wrung out. OHPs are basically used as mobile Helo platforms. Almost all the important work is carried out by the towed array and the Helos. The LCS can do that just fine. In fact, its a much better aviation platform than the OHPs. <br /><br />Now if you want to go to something else, a reasonable starting point is probably the RSN Formidable-class. Right tonnage, not as good aviation facilities, but could get the job done. Likely going to cost more than the LCS. <br /><br />And that's the problem with a lot of the whole anti-LCS brigade. Yes, the LCS doesn't have a lot of weapons, it wasn't designed to need a lot and got a little fubar'd due to weapon system it was depending on being cancelled. But it wasn't spec'd nor designed to be a heavy fighter, at least not initially, though there are designs that would give it greater offensive power than anything but the big and small deck carriers out there. The LCS was designed as a flexable cheap aviation and UMV centric platform. <br /><br />Yeah its probably more expensive than it should be, but it invariably generally costs less than what most people propose to replace it with. Yeah its probably not got enough offensive or defensive capability, but its got as much if not more than what its replacing.<br /><br />The things to knock about the LCS are the things that flat out don't work because of reliability issue or program management issues. The general concept is actually reasonably sound. <br /><br />So to replace the LCS, you have to come up with a ship with close to the same manning that costs under $500m in current dollars and provides the same general level of aviation facilities and flexible mission capabilities. Good luck with that...atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-4281521850910279152013-08-20T11:08:53.991-07:002013-08-20T11:08:53.991-07:00Actually, there are several ships designed for ste...Actually, there are several ships designed for stealth that utilize waterjets. Waterjets can actually have lower acoustic signature levels than propellers and do it while providing higher overall efficiency. atshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11410880091736531848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-73661076890399379102013-08-20T10:51:47.823-07:002013-08-20T10:51:47.823-07:00"And yes, what I'm describing is radicall..."And yes, what I'm describing is radically different from most people's idea of a frigate but that's because they aren't viewing a frigate in the context of the overall capabilities of the Navy and, more broadly, the military. "<br /><br />Okay. I'm on the same page, and I agree. I've been an advocate of the 'Burke frigates' in the past just because I had assumed (wrongly) that we could leverage existing manufacturing capability to cheapen costs. Again, my experience is in the auto industry and companies there do it all the time. You've shown how shipbuilding is different. <br /><br />I like your idea. It does make sense to limit capability to limit cost. My knock against the LCS isn't that its not uber capable, its that its expensive and not capable at all. <br /><br />A modern day 'Flower Class' would be great. A towed aray, RAM and/or ESSM, and some Harpoons and a gun to defend itself would be fine. <br /><br />I think you could get away with a more COTS towed array and try to use decent software to do the ASW work. <br /><br />The base hull for such a vessel I worry about. I had mentioned the NSC. Its all steel, already has some EW gear, some weapons, and good range. If you could put a TAS and Harpoons on it, it would be great. It also has decent speed and great range. But the last copy was $750, without the Harpoons and TAS. So that would seem to be out of the picture. <br /><br /><br />"if we can't build a small, cheap ASW frigate we should get out of the Navy business or admit that our economic and social policies are failures"<br /><br />We may be at that state. I don't know that I honestly trust the Navy and military procurement to be able to build even a low level 'Neo-Flower' cheaply. I see another $1B ship coming out in 10 years after years of contractor over runs. <br /><br />Look at the LCS. Its big, does very little, and is horrificly priced. <br /><br />Why would it be impossible to try to save whats left of the OHP's? We still have some. It might provide a cheaper stop gap until we can come up with something. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59785656115312732872013-08-20T10:11:47.702-07:002013-08-20T10:11:47.702-07:00Jim, I cover many different topics in my posts and...Jim, I cover many different topics in my posts and comments. Yes, two decades or so ago when the Navy made the decision to commit to the LCS and let the OHPs die, I believe a better decision would have been to upgrade the OHPs. That would have been a great option during the last two decades but that's no longer an option. Hence, my focus in this topic is on small, shallow water ASW frigates. <br /><br />And yes, what I'm describing is radically different from most people's idea of a frigate but that's because they aren't viewing a frigate in the context of the overall capabilities of the Navy and, more broadly, the military. If we want to discuss real options, we need to consider budgets and tactical needs. Instead, most people want to design a theoretical "frigate" that is unaffordable and only marginally useful when compared to actual needs. The Navy has 90 or so Aegis ships with many thousands of VLS cells. Does it really make sense to build more? What we need to build are ships that fill needs - like anti-SSK ASW (and mine warfare!). <br /><br />Designing super-capable "what if" frigates is fun but not realistic.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42994410692357038692013-08-20T09:48:15.016-07:002013-08-20T09:48:15.016-07:00Chris, without explicitly stating it, you bring up...Chris, without explicitly stating it, you bring up a very good point. People tend to view ships in isolation when they should be viewing them in relation to not only the rest of the fleet but the rest of the military, as well. <br /><br />The goal is not to design the most powerful frigate one can. <br /><br />The goal is not even to design the most powerful frigate that one can afford. <br /><br />The goal is to design the frigate that actually fills a tactical need when the capabilities of the rest of the fleet and the rest of the military are considered. Ships don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in conjuction with other ships, aircraft, submarines, and even Air Force assets. What's the point in duplicating capabilities that not only already exist but may exist in excess?<br /><br />In the real world of severly limited budgets, the real goal should be to design ships that have the absolute minimum equipment/weapons/sensors to perform the desired mission. That's how you get an affordable ship. Rather than ask, can we add this weapon/sensor, we should be asking, why do absolutely have to add this weapon/sensor?<br /><br />Good comment!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com