...and yes, this is the INGRAHAM and her new 25MM Chain Gun. I actually like the fact they are doing something with the forward white-space where the frigate's balls .... errr ... SM-1 launcher used to be.
Too bad we were too busy being myopic and transformational to do what the Aussies did; but such are the wages of the lost decade.
Take what you can get.
Oh, and if you don't know what at Kludge is - click here.
45 comments:
Honestly, you would think that there would be enough room in the old missle magazine that they could put a 5"/54 there, or at least another MK76, as that could share the midship mount's FCS. I think one 76mm , a CIWS, and one 25mm is a bit light in the weapons department for something 2/3 the size of a CLEVELAND Class CL.
" This system allows the ship to be defended, even with reduced manpower " Oh, dear, oh dearie, dear.
It has M-14s onboard too! :)
Nope, Figs haven't carried them in years. Last one I saw was on Phil Sea back in 02.
FFGs also ship two Bushmasters at midships right outside the port and starboard quarterdeck on the main deck. When they come back to port and are on training/repair cycle, they take them off to put on another Fig.
I wouldn't really call Figs warships any more. There just isn't any oomph to them any longer. Sad, really. Kind of fun to drive too.
M-14s are gone - been replaced by M-16s or M-4s.
Those 25mm are certified POSs. Takes tons of effort to keep them working since they don't play well in the salt water, the aiming system is Mk1 Mod 0 eyeball and depends upon the experience of the GM operating it. Additionally, there isn't much training time done before the ship departs on deployment because of the rotating pool, and there's not a large allocation of ammo to train with.
Plus, why would I want to dork around with a 25mm if I could put a Standard Missile right up someone's @$$? Operation Praying Mantis!
Anon, this system is remotely operated, just like the ones on the CGs. Notice the sensor ball to starboard of the mount?
Frigates do what they've always done. They distract incoming missiles from hitting the Carrier, and you don't need a weapon system to do that. The ego of the CO is only worth so many tax payer dollars.
Wow! That gun looks scary! :-P
What's sad is that this ship would likely get ripped up by a WWII era ADMIRABLE class minesweeper with its:
1 3"/50 cal gun
4 Bofors 40mm guns
6 Oerlikon 20 cannon
CMP has some nice M-1s for sale. A handfull of those would double this ship's firepower.
The business end of an FF(ex-G) is on the back end, not the front end, where one finds the SH-60's and the tail. The (G) is for local defense. Yeah, yeah yeah - it was nice having it, and in truth it was for a bit more than just "local" defense - but don't kid yourselves...it is an ASW ship first and foremost.
Would imagine the gun being mounted on INGRAHAM is the full-up computerized version, stablized and all that. 3-5KYD effective range at the far side.
Probably a lot cheaper than another Phalanx, which is probably pretty heavy as well (FFG's are weight-limited).
Can't argue with you regarding the Aussie upgrades - don't really understand why the Service is giving the FFG's the short end of the stick in this "tight-money" time. It would seem cheaper to upgrade an FFG to "Aussie" status than build new DDG's, but INGRAHAM, for example, was commissioned in '89, 21 years ago.
And - have you forgotten the 80 rpm 76mm gun back amidships, GBS? That gun would put more rounds on target in a few seconds than any historic gun could in minutes.
IMO, the FF(ex-G) as currently configured is far from a perfect ship. The 25mm chain gun makes it slightly better. I'm gritting my teeth and calling it "experimental". Better than nothing!
Oh my...
Can I hear the battlecry?
SLEP the FF(not-so-G)s!
just place VLS in the place of old launcher, can you?
I would like to see a modernization program that would put a 100 MM gun where the MK 13 was and then VLS canisters midships, and there must be away to put a smaller version of the spy 1 on there, it looks like a coast guard cutter now. As a former FFG sailor I am just sad to see what they have done.
Tom Mowry
Operations Specialist First Class
USS Samuel B Roberts
Plank Owner (Yes I was on board on April 14th 1988)
One of the funniest HSL det patches I've seen said HSL-4X Det Y "We put the "G" in FFG"
They made the decision to remove the missile launchers from the FFGs just before I retired. At the time the TYCOM, a USNA classmate, told me that the intention was to replace it with RAM, an upgraded CIWS, or something similar. Not sure that this was what they had in mind.
More disturbing, although indicative of the Navy's ship building/modification process these days, is that it's taken nearly 8 years to have something other than a blanking plate up forward.
I heard the exact same thing from a planning yard friend of mine.
These are the flight threes with the stress joints and other mods to increase displacement, with the weight of the MK 13 and the associated missles removed they should be able to handle more than that, crap when we went to the gulf in 1988 we had a 25 mm bushmaster mounted on the starboard side near the torpedo tubes, plus all of the flight threes are capable of carrying a dual helo det and I have to imagine that none actually deploy with the weight of two SH 60's
Since I have access to all the prints for FFGs, just what is the "stress joints"? And yes, I've personally been on nearly half the FFGs.
I really think they should have tried harder to integrate a RAM launcher there. Or at least maybe relocate the 76mm cannon there. I cant believe 30 ships out of our 120 or so surface combatants have been made into gun boats.
And...the 4100 ton shipalt that added the stern extension (that came as-built on later ships) changed the displacement from 3900 tons to 4100 tons.
That's what I was thinking about. Also installing a chain gun aboard DDs and FFGs prior to deployment was pretty much standard from the first Gulf War on.
Since my classmate was directly involved in the decision I figured that his info was pretty solid. The rationale was that removing the missile launchers would result in significant cost savings from eliminating non-VLS launchers and their training/support pipelines as well as not having to upgrade the FFGs to accommodate the latest generation SMs. However, the process shows what happens when you remove something from a ship without having its replacement sitting on the pier for immediate installation.
OS1, I'll be helping to do a bit of work on Sammy B in the next couple of weeks ;)
My understanding was thet the flight 1 and flight 2 FFG's were experiencing some cracking in the superstructure due to the use of aluminum in the superstructure. The remedy in the flight 3 ffg's was to add stress joints where the cracks had been occuring in the earlier flights
During the design phase of the Oliver Hazard Perry class, head of the Royal Corps of Naval Constructors, R.J. Daniels, was invited by an old friend, US Chief of the Bureau of Ships, Adm Robert C Gooding, to advise upon the use of variable-pitch propellers in the class. During the course of this conversation, Daniels warned Gooding against the use of aluminium in the superstructure of the FFG-7 class as he believed it would lead to structural weaknesses. A number of ships subsequently developed structural cracks, including a 40ft fissure in USS Duncan, before the problems were remedied<sup></sup><span>[</span>2<span>]</span>.
the chain gun was standard beginning with any FFG's that were deploying in support of Operation Earnest Will, we also had rubber duck (a missle decoy not associated with SRBBOC), an automatic 40mm grenade launcher (which we couldn't use), and lots of 50 calibers.
what about the lives of the crew, what are they worth?
Take care of the old girl, she is a good ship. There is a lot of heart in her. Despite being built on a tight budget she was one tough bird back in the day. I went to her from a Kidd Class and I have to admit I was a little worried at first but she was tough enough and I would trust my life to one of those little FFG's any time.
They may have called them flex joints instead of stress joints but they were supposed to make us more sea worthy.
We deployed w/ 2 helos in W. Pac and when we headed into FIFTHFLT
The Oto Melera is known fondly as the bang-bang-bang-bang-jam auto cannon. They require an AWFUL lot of maintainence.
Too bad. The M-14, IMHO is a better weapon to shoot off the ship and the M4 to defend internally.
Sorry, never happened. I've been repairing aluminum superstructure on FFGs since the early 80s. The problem was undersized longitudinal frames (cross-sectional thickness=more strength and also more weight) and the fact that the Navy didn't want to pony up an additional 1 million per to add an expansion joint. We're going to do some superstructure repairs on an FFG next week. The 3/8" thick alum. plate came in yesterday.
Even with all that, I'd STILL rather have a 30 year old fig than a brand new little crappy ship!!!
LT B,
"<span>I wouldn't really call Figs warships any more."</span>
Tough statement. But they're positively Iowa-class BBs next to the LCS....
Also, love the M-14, too. A polymer stock and other weight savers, and she could be the service rifle of choice today.... The .308 is a man-stopper and not a varmint round.
Glad to see somebody in NAVSEA weapons engineering was using his head for something besides a suppository.
Unusual.
Most welcome.
Glad to see somebody in NAVSEA weapons engineering was using his head for something besides a suppository.
Unusual.
Most welcome.
Interesting I thought they had done them, they did a bunch of work around the O1 qne O2 level midships near the gun by midships quaterdeck before commisionning and then again during PSA I am glad I didn't know that at the time
Grandpa, you keep adding to the number of beers I owe you.
Guest said "<span>Frigates do what they've always done. They distract incoming missiles from hitting the Carrier, and you don't need a weapon system to do that. The ego of the CO is only worth so many tax payer dollars."</span>
<span></span>
<span>(sigh) The ego of the CO? (laughing sarcastically). Riiiight. </span>
<span></span>
<span>FFG's were built as ASW platforms; the SM-1 was pretty much self defense. Our CVBG FFGs were used on the far outer reaches of the BG, or on barriers, looking for hostile subs (now they're largely littoral players, from what I can tell). There are more capable platforms to use for defending the CVN, beginning with organic FA/-18's. </span>
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see this...
-Plankowner, FFG-37
Hornet's aren't missile sponges. They're busy doing things. The FF(G?)'s are supposed to do their duty and take the hit, whether that means getting in the way of a torpedo, or missile.
The lives of the crew are worth a lot less than a CVN. Sucks, but it's true.
Frigates never were meant to be CG escorts, they were to escort Atlantic convoys... but they were forced int the role by lack of other escorts in sufficient numbers.
you never went to sea did you
Have to agree about the business end being the backend, as a former ASTAC/ATACO I would have to say that a bay day hunting submarines with a LAMPS III and the 19 tail beats just about anything I have done since.
Post a Comment