As naval observers and analysts, we need a solid grounding in naval history. The Navy is currently in the process of designing and building an ?ASW? frigate, the Constellation class. Functionally, the WWII analog to the Constellation would be the Buckley class destroyer escort (DE), the iconic DE of WWII. Let’s refresh our memory about the Buckley class DE and see how it compares to the Constellation.
The Buckley was an ocean going, anti-submarine (ASW) vessel. As such, it was optimized for ASW and, more importantly, minimized for ASW. Huh? Minimized for ASW? Yes! This is another way of saying that it had a single, primary purpose as opposed to being a multi-function design. It was built for ASW and nothing else (hence, the minimized statement!).
Here’s a brief comparison of the Buckley and the Constellation FFG.
|
|
Buckley |
Constellation |
|
Length, ft |
306 |
496 |
|
Displacement, tons |
1740 |
7291 |
|
Speed, kts |
26 |
26 |
|
Range, nm |
5500 @ 15 kts |
6000 @ 16 kts |
 |
| USS Buckley |
Role - DE’s were intended to be ocean-going ASW vessels, providing escort for convoys and acting as dedicated submarine hunters (often as part of escort carrier hunter-killer groups). Notably, they were not normally carrier and battleship group escorts – that role being generally filled by destroyers.
Constellation is, presumably, intended to be the Navy’s main ASW surface ship although the limited numbers render that intent nearly irrelevant barring a massive wartime construction program. Unfortunately, the Constellation design also attempts to be an area anti-air warfare (AAW) ship with VLS, Standard SM-2 Blk IIIC missiles, and SPY-6 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) and an ASuW ship … in other words, it’s a do-everything, mini-Burke that is not specialized or optimized for anything.
Design Focus - As mentioned, the DE was a very focused, limited design. Nothing was added to the design that was not absolutely required for the role. One of the key aspects of the design was the recognition that the DE’s combat risk was limited due to the role’s reduced likelihood of combat. The reduced combat risk allowed for reduced armor, reduced armament, and reduced sensors. Contrast that with today’s attempts to include every capability, sensor, and weapon on every ship which, automatically, makes every ship over-spec’ed and over-priced.
Numbers – Because the DE was a focused, limited design, they were cheap and several hundred were built in WWII. Enemy submarines will go to great lengths to avoid detection (translate: mission kill) and the DE’s large numbers allowed them to be everywhere and hindered submarine operations by their mere presence as much or more than their actual combat actions. In contrast, there are only 20 Constellations planned and they’re likely to cost $1B+. History suggests that even this meager number of ships will be reduced. Twenty ships – if that – are not going to be much of a hindrance.
Range – It is noteworthy that the Buckley is half the size of the Constellation and has the same range. We’ve forgotten what we were once capable of designing in a ship!
Size – Buckley’s focused and minimized design allowed a much smaller size; compare the Buckley to the Constellation’s much greater size which equates to much greater relative cost for what ought to be the same mission as Buckley.
Armament – A direct comparison between the Buckley and Constellation is meaningless as the weapons are from different eras but it is interesting to note the weapon density of the Buckley:
- 3x 3"/50 guns
- 1x Bofors twin 40 mm gun
- 8x 20 mm Oerlikon AA guns
- 1x Hedgehog, 24 round, 144 rounds total
- 200x depth charges in stern racks and eight K-gun depth charge throwers
- 3x 21-inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes in a triple mount
While we can’t directly compare the weapons of the two classes, it is, as we said, worth noting the weapon density of the Buckley and that density is hammered home by examining photos of the ship which show weapons mounted in almost every available space. WWII ship designers understood that numbers of weapons mattered and Buckley had every weapon it needed and in sufficient numbers. In contrast, the Constellation lacks one of the main ASW weapons, the VL-ASROC, and has only a single close in weapon, the RAM, with only 21 rounds per use. The Buckley’s 3x 3”/50 guns (76 mm) put the Constellation’s single 57 mm gun armament to shame.
Conclusion
The Buckley class had the same speed, range, and role as the Constellation but was half the size, or less. What’s wrong with this picture?
What’s wrong is that the Constellation is unfocused and, therefore, large and expensive (only building 20!). Yeah, but it can fill multiple roles! No, not really. The area AAW role, for example, will be filled by the Burkes, not the Constellations so what’s the point of giving them an area AAW role? It just increases the size, complexity, and cost of the Constellation.
The Buckley was an example of a focused design that was optimized for its intended role of ASW and, as a result, was cheap enough to risk in battle and cheap enough to procure in large numbers. In short, the Buckley was an excellent example of intelligent naval force structure design. It was everything it needed to be and nothing it didn’t. We would do well to take that lesson to heart.
