They are involved with the next Canadian and Australian warships and others. Probably derived from their International Frigate concept from mid-decade. Leveraging some things from DDG-51 Class as well ... and ...
The nation’s leading independent naval architectural firm has been quietly seeing whether senior Navy officials are interested in a new class of frigate that would be smaller and lighter than the aging ships now being phased out of service.So - you have "issues" with my license built EuroFrigates concept? Fine. Build this.
The new 3,500-ton "light frigates" would be more heavily armed than previous models and be capable of carrying out a variety of missions over a wide area of the world’s oceans.
Gibbs & Cox of Arlington, Va., says it has produced concept drawings for a roughly 400-foot steel-hull, twin-propellor, diesel-powered light frigate that would be capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles as well as Standard III’s, missiles that can be used for ballistic missile defense. The ship also would feature sophisticated phased-radar.
Hey - and you don't have to ask your enemy you want a training timeout so you can change out modules.
Can I get an Amen baby?
ReplyDeleteGreat idea ! Perhaps they are redeeming themselves ?
ReplyDeleteGibbs and Cox helped design this:
www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=104853
of course Gibbs & Cox were just subordinate "team members" to the PRIME: LOCKHEED MARTIN.
Let's hope the Navy builds 55 of these eventually.
Great idea ! Perhaps they are redeeming themselves ?
ReplyDeleteGibbs and Cox helped design this:
www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=104853
of course Gibbs & Cox were just subordinate "team members" to the PRIME: LOCKHEED MARTIN.
Let's hope the Navy builds 55 of these eventually.
PLEASE tell me they found a way to put a 5"/62 aboard.
ReplyDelete<span>Although they didn't get the Optimal ManninG memo</span>
ReplyDelete(%^@#* spelling)
Unfortunately, this good adea will probably not go unpunished. :(
ReplyDelete"Eric Midboe, vice program of program management at Gibbs & Cox, said Wednesday that the light frigate would be a “conventional, shock-hardened ship” " Yeah, I'm thinking this is a step up.
ReplyDeleteSal,
ReplyDeleteYou are getting into that "hopey changey thing". There are too many careers invested in designing and building ships and systems that do not work and are not wanted by the end users. This in turn provides the opportunity to bill above and beyond for the necessary change orders needed to make the ships and their systems work as closely to designed as possible. They will give the DivBuls more money before they build a decent ship.
Get the plans for the Eurofrig anyway, just as a backup. Give the plans to Bath and tell them to be ready to build 50 of them if the "invented here" design slips a day, or costs go up a dollar.
ReplyDeleteBIW builds damn good ships. Let them build either one and a single mini-frig could take out the entire LCS fleet by itself.
Gibbs & Cox is one of our nation's oldest naval architecture and marine engineering firms. They supported some projects I worked on several times. They got credentials.
ReplyDeleteI do not belive BIW has the design shop for big ships.
Hey did you catch the part about first 12 LCS being homeported in SDGO? I thought they were going to be split up between coasts. If so NOT good for Mayport, since CVN may be a long time coming IF ever?
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the article, (and reading between the lines somewhat) certain aspects of the hull design will be quite similar to that of the Berthoff NSC, a ship with proven seakeeping ability. If they can incorporate the necessary and not clutter it up with the nice to have items they might just come up with a fine ship
ReplyDeletenote- diesel powered - no gas-guzzling turbines, no 40 knots speed! capable of firing tomahawks and SM-3! can you compare this with 57mm and some ligt SAMs? :P
ReplyDeleteSounds good, so let's do it.
ReplyDeleteOne point; is it just me, or is anyone else bothered by the idea of calling a 3,500-ton displacement ship a light frigate?
With time, ships tend to get bigger within a class... WW1 destroyer was about 1000 tons, WW2 about 2000, and then it rose up all the way to the DDG-51... WW1 light cruisers were about 3000 tons, 6000 tons bwtween wars and ended around 10000 tons with last US classes of WW2.
ReplyDeleteBattleships evolved from around 12k tons pre-dreadnoughts to 60k tons Yamato in just 40 years!
Note, when lowest class is too big for its boots, a new is invented to replace it functionally. So was with destroyers escorts and frigates in WW2 when destroyers were too big and costly to waste on convoy escorts.
Good news and love the idea but from reading the page it went to.............San Diego has alot of POS floating around in it doesnt it.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, G and C did the design for the FFGs
ReplyDeleteDon't hold your breath. Intitutional inertia is alive and well in the puzzle palace. I work in and around the little crappy ships world, and woe be unto he who dares to add a new viewgraph to a pitch that has been seen by flags, let alone come up with a new idea.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how to kill this thing, it's the classic case of "we've spent too uch to turn back now." Anybody have an idea? Know any staffers at the SASC that might listen to reason?
When do we go from don't worry, it'll be fine to <span> "we've spent too uch to turn back now." Is there a bump? Anything perceptible? Lots of scrambling? Doppler effect?
ReplyDelete</span>
How many retired Flags do they have on the payroll? We all know how the game is currently played inside the Cesspoll. And I don't see any of the magic BS Bingo words being used, either. "This new, hull-based, transformational weapons system will integrate an improved and highly diverse networked interface, rapidly enhancing cross-platform information-sharing integration and will further reduce inherent cost-cyle systems development outlays in off-year budgetary paradigms."
ReplyDeleteThere, that ought to do it!
BTW, nice design, dumb-@$$ airdale likes!
“Senator, there isn’t enough power in all of Christendom to make that airplane what we want” VADM Tom Connolly testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee (1968)
ReplyDeleteWe've been there before - and basically got it right the second time through (cf: F-14). We've also totally plumbered the works as well (cf: A-12). This might be the last chance to get it right...
w/r, SJS
Nah.
ReplyDeleteNever happen...
We'd rather stay "sub-optimal"....
I think your contract from the Pentagon is now in the mail!
ReplyDeleteAnd LCS-1...
ReplyDeleteThey should be ashamed
Well, the whole of the LCS fleet is only 2 and they are both, broke dick and welded to the pier.
ReplyDeleteHow does Mayport get screwed? The current LCS is alwyas broken and no money goes to the locals, well, maybe the strip clubs, but there are only, what, 40 Sailors onboard?
ReplyDeletei'll pass on any G&C design...
ReplyDeleteI'm still lobbying for my G&C based "Littoral Warfare Destroyer" Photoshop extravaganza. :)
ReplyDeletebut we don't have <span>VADM Tom Connolly anymore...</span>
ReplyDeleteHow many ADMs today are willing to cash in their stars to create a better Navy?
ReplyDeleteNo...architects and engineers only draw up and validate what the dumbass customer wants to see. If the dumbass customer wants a dumbass ship, then they'll get exactly that. Don't blame the architects.
ReplyDeleteBecause Mayport has FF(G)s going away every day. Ex-Doyle towed out this AM. NAVSTA needs ships in the basin to be relevant. LCS are the backfills regardless of their current problems. CVN homeporting is just a deam IMHO of the policticians. Money will be cut for that while we wait for one to show up in 2019~
ReplyDeleteIt a now vs. then thing
<span>to be accurate, LM hired G&C to adapt another company's fast ferry design to be LCS. Proving only that navarch designs are not necessarily "convertable"</span>
ReplyDeleteI would rather see BIW building new Burkes than LCS any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteI hope everyone realizes that the reason Duncan Hunter is raking LCS is because he wants the work for CALIF shipyards like NASSCO in his home district?
ReplyDeleteI witnessed him "negotiate" a $200 mil plus up for an additional LMSR.
Only proving my experience: Every naval ship construction and major converion has congressional influence in it for better or worse.
Two of them, please.
ReplyDeleteG&C put their brand on what is -by all accounts- a "sub-optimal" design...
ReplyDeleteThats the bottom line.
And it taints their name....
Oh.
ReplyDeleteAnd it wasn't a ferry the design evolved from...
But a -now rotting away on the hard- one off boutique racing yacht.
It's a Fig, I'll settle for one.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'll settle for a VERY austere platform. SPY-1F, and ESSM and no Tomahawk, single helo.
Anything added to the weapons suite drives the cost up very quickly.
Does a frigate really need ballistic missile defense, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and a *sophisticated* phased array radar? How much of the price tag is this?
ReplyDeleteCould it be that this is not so much the alternative for LCS but the next USN destroyer class?
Since everyone is dogging G and C for LCS, how about letting this old shipfitter, the one that's been doing this stuff for nearly 40 years now give you his opinion: First, the original FFG prints were all Gibbs and Cox...and they were good drawings to work off of. You could put every drawing for an FFG in about 10 cardboard boxes, soup to nuts. CGs got a little worse and DDGs are a pure nightmare. The CGs and DDGs? Done by BIW and every time I have to dig through one of their drawings I find new words to describe my feelings for those fine stupid bastards.
ReplyDeleteClear concise drawings. In all this time I've only seen twice where the informatio wasn't on the drawing.
Wondrin' that myself. We keep wanting every hull to do everything, we might as well build only CVNs and CGs.
ReplyDeleteWell...
ReplyDeleteAt least you and your compadres will have clear and concise drawings to reference when fixing all those cracks!!
What would ya'll consider weapons and systems wise for a bare bones frigate capable of being mass produced?
ReplyDeleteBasicly what weapons sensor systems.
Besides a 5in i think thats been nailed to the wall by most.
YGTBSM - that was the basis for LCS?
ReplyDeleteSurf
YGTBSM - that was the basis for LCS?
ReplyDeleteSurf
Sounds to me like they are all ready to cash in their stars. They may not want a better navy, but they do want cash for the stars.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like they are all ready to cash in their stars. They may not want a better navy, but they do want cash for the stars.
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like they are all ready to cash in their stars. They may not want a better navy, but they do want cash for the stars.
ReplyDeleteIt was far harder in olden days when a change order was a major PITA when people had to DRAW it. Right, damn near the first time because it was a major undertaking to redo everything. You had to go to the Head Architect In Charge to sign off on it. With the computer, changes got easier, Project Managers started having the guys make changes under the table, head and discpile architects didn't know jack on how to use the 'puter. Ever see a brillianm blueprint architect take yellow trace paper over a CAD monitor?
ReplyDeleteAs CAD programs developed got harder and a younger man's game, "kids" were hired (engineering school summer Co-Ops anyone?) becuause they cost a lot less than competent, skilled computer draftsmen. Then the "Customer" learned it was easier to ask for changes becuase the PM, trying to please the client, would absorb extra hours knowing the changes would go to the Interns. That is one reason why today in the wonderful world of Computer Aided Design, you have pipes penetrating in the wrong spots, or worse, in the wrong sifde of the room, doing all kinds of looping sheeit - ever see a pipe do an unexplainable immelman? - and hours over design budget.
I can't see how ship desing is any different than Process design.
As long as people need to do shee-it on computers and watch pR0n - I can pay my mortgage...
Surfcaster
Sorry - should never use IE for anything.
ReplyDeleteHow about a hull mounted (permanent) SONAR ?
ReplyDeleteOne that can be active and or passive 24 7.
Not towed if conditions are just right. And of course some over the side torpedoes to at least potentially scare or even kill an enemy sub.
So what is the long range RADAR ?
ReplyDeleteSPY 3 is not long range ! How to use Aegis fully without SPY 4 ?? Too bad it doesn't work yet and perhaps never ! Thanks LOCKHEED MARTIN...
a good gun - 5in is the best available
ReplyDeleteCIWS -or better 2- it can be also used in counter-fast boat situation
8 cell Harpoon launcher
helo pad and hangar
all this can be fitted on NSC AFAIK
for anything that is expected to operate within enemy TACAIR range, a 16-24 cell ESSM - a minimal area air defence, at least. this may require something bigger than NSC, though, in 3-4.000 tons range - somebody correct me if I estimate wrong
yep...
ReplyDeletePrior to the deal, Lockheed had contracted with Marinette to build its candidate prototype for the LCS program, which is based on the Destriero, a fast ship designed by Fincantieri. The new vessel, Freedom, was delivered to the U.S. Navy in November.
how about an 8" instead of a five.
ReplyDeleteC
Yes, I know the history. I just think it's silly. :-P
ReplyDeletePossibly a stupid question, but: what about torpedo tubes?
ReplyDelete<span>
ReplyDeleteNo long range radar to reduce costs and complexity. However I have no problem adding one if it's not a major expense.
I wanted this to be a low-end counterpart to the Burke focused on the core LCS mission set, but able to perform in a blue water role. Unlike the LCS, I wanted it to be able to defend itself and act as a escort.
So the intent was to give it a local area air defense capability. Essentially ESSM, with SM-2 as a growth option.
I thought about a few different configurations,
1) SPY-3 alone
2) SPY-3 + SPS-48E
3) SPY-1F
4) CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT
The active array X-band SPY-3 promises a major leap forward in a ships ability to deal with saturation attacks and pick out pop up threats in a complex littoral environment. It can also perform most of the other required radar roles (e.g. surface search, periscope detection, missile illumination & datalink) in a time-sharing arrangement with a single radar. The one thing it doesn't do well is volume search. However they are improving on this capability.
The LCS's are only getting TRS-3D or Sea Giraffe 3D, so I figure SPY-3 is a major improvement.
Also, since I tried to cherry pick DDG-1000 technologies like the combat management system, I figured I'd stick with what will already be integrated.
</span>
5" is not the best available. AGS is the best CURRENTLY available but we can still make 8" guns if we build ships that can support them.
ReplyDeleteCIWS for FAC/FIAC? Um.....CIWS for ASCM defense, but if you really want something good for FAC/FIAC you want CIGS. Yeah, yeah..57mm guns suck at life on most threats, but do well against FAC/FIAC. CIWS is good, but you only get 2-3 bursts. Not going to help you against the SWARM.
Why are we still d*****g the dog with HARPOON? We seriously need a new missile.
If you are going to put a helo on the ship, you need a sonar and some torps.
Leesea, I would take NASSCO making a frigate over any of the fly by night operations currently making LCS ANY DAY.
ReplyDeleteGator world has had great wins with NASSCO. They could do it a lot better than they do, but they do it better than almost anyone else in the US right now, exception possibly being BIW. POSSIBLY.
Smitty,
ReplyDeleteI am well versed in DDG 1000 Total Ship Computing Environment. Don't know if I would want that on any other ship until it is demonstrated underway in a CSSQT......
Dude. Leesea. Do you have any idea what the DOTMLPF for LCS is?! It is INSANE. Especially for facilities. You can't use any existing facilities for anything! So if I were the Navy in an austere fiscal environment, I'd do the same thing. Well, no I wouldn't. I would have cancelled the program. But if I were the current flags and suffered from chronic cerebral flatulence, yes, I would put all my LCS's in one big ball so that the cancer could be fairly contained.
ReplyDeletewhat do you classify as a big ship? They designed one of the competed ships for DDG 1000...that thing is as big as a battleship.
ReplyDeleteHow about we call it a DLG and put 2 of them on!
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I'm sure lots of bugs to work out. However, the best use for the DDG-1000s is to prove these advanced systems for use on future classes.
ReplyDeleteA new warship class will take years to put in the water anyway
You know, I still think we've got enough brainpower here to crowd-source an effective warship design... Start working up some sketches, and I can fire up the CAD workstation and see what we can come up with.
ReplyDeletepeople we are talking about 2-3k tons frigate, not a 10k tons cruiser... 8 inch has its place but not on an escort this size... of course we can make a fire support ship on this platform. it is called a monitor.
ReplyDeletere: torps - if you are in range of torp shot, sub is too... and I bet on sub shooting first!
I designate Byron for hull project, and AW1 Tim for ASW sensors/weapons! I'd put URR in charge of gun systems but we would end with Iowa class before long...
ReplyDeleteWith a genuine Sonar, unlike any LCS toy, this FFG warship might actually detect a sub. Most likely this would be a relatively short range, direct path sonar.
ReplyDeleteBut the sub skipper woould know, by listening to the active pings from our new FFG when the surface sonar has changed from searching pattern pings, into a different Tracking ping pattern. And then the sub skipper would perhaps break off his attack to save his boat. So that IF our new FFG class does carry a few over-the-side torpedo's, the Captain can at least conduct an attack on this close-range enemy submarine.
However, if your so-called warship is like LCS-2, LCS-1, then you carry no triple torpedo launcher at all. Close-in ASW engagements can be very tricky for both sub and FFG; however, at least our proposed new class of FFG's would have a chance since we will equip her with both a direct path sonar as well as some over the side torpedo launchers. BTW, our brand new direct path sonar, could have some mine detection modes as well. Something else that LCS-2 and LCS-1 lack: they cannot search for mines, or subs 24/7, in all sea states, swithcing from passive listening to active pinging transmissions, many modes/patterns. LCS will not scare away any sub skipper; on the contrary, even the oldest, least capable foreign SSK will be attracted to our 55 LCS targets, approaching them without fear, for extremely short range direct torpedo shots. They will Not do so against our future USN Salamander-Class Frigates.
the SALAMANDER class Frigates:
ReplyDeleteProposed Motto: "Dare to Excel"
PK, that sounds like my prom night! :)
ReplyDeleteI still like having the tail. Quite frankly, a decent sub can wipe out the oiler and carrier.
ReplyDeleteWe can let URR make the drawings for Frigate Salamander. The gun system will be awesome, but the drawings will be in crayon. :)
ReplyDeleteAutoCrayon. At least it will be a shift from PowerPoint.
ReplyDeleteDRAWINGS: as in real Engineering Drawings for USN Warships. Let's utilize something well known like 3-D and 2-D AUTOCAD. Instead of some unknown, bug filled drawing software like Northrop Grumman forced INGALLS into using. Now the problem: NG announced it will close AVONDALE shipyard, but that is where all the engineering ship drawings are done exclusively for the entire INGALLS yard ! What a dilemma: AVONDALE must continue to stay open (partly) because ALL the ship engineering drawings for all of INGALLS Navy (and Coast Guard ?) work is done in some non-common software located only at AVONDALE. Can that design shop be moved over to Mississippi INGALLS ? Not right away, since Northrop Grumman did not train the INGALLS shipyard on that unique software, which is only located at Avondale, New Orleans. Not THAT's job security for an old shipyard like Avondale !! Thankfully, Northrop Grumman is no longer "in charge" of my old INGALLS yard.
ReplyDeleteHow effective is VL-ASROC? How effective is VL-ASROC in the litoral? Torpedo launcher & VL-ASROC in the vertical launch box? If your whirly rotored remote sensor & torpedo delivery system is empty, how do you reach out and touch someone?
ReplyDeletehey i love the 8" gun. the guys machined the foundation for the installation on the hull right across the aisle from my desk. its not a question of weight of ship its tuning the recoil system so that it doesn't tear up the hull under it.
ReplyDeletewhen turner joy had the evening shoot out with shadows that started the viet nam thing they ran the guns at full speed. the shipfitters on the tender had to gusset 105 frames on the opposite side from where they were shooting when they got back to the states. after that i "heard" that the rate of fire on the then current version of the 5"54 was dialed back to alleviate the problem.
when hull came back in after testing off of san clemente there was no mention of hull/frame damage.
besides you can shoot such interesting things, things that lead to Sals "dark room" out of an 8".
C
Don't give Micro$oft any ideas please.
ReplyDeletebyron:
ReplyDeletehad a software salesman standing in front of my desk the other day peddling a program that if you want to make a change to an existing project it will automatically change the downstream drawings, bills of material, pump sizing requirements.......... he was schlepping it for buildings but it could be run for ships also.
looks pretty good but by murphys law has to have some problems.
C
if it can get up to 24k it'l wind up as plane guard......... sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteC
"<span>You know, I still think we've got enough brainpower here to crowd-source an effective warship design..." This could be Romper Room's err, the Porch's art project while teach is away.
ReplyDelete</span>
What a capital idea. I am envisioning p*ssing away a Friday morning doing this.
ReplyDeleteHeck, we could downgrade that motto "Dare to not suck!" and still come out ahead...
ReplyDeleteOf course the historian will say, "Just dust off the damn plans for a Gearing!" ;)
ReplyDeleteI'm with Ewok on this - part of our problem now is we want to design ships to do too many damn things, instead of sticking with simple designs. You can't have everything on a small hull. What do we want out of a frigate - ASW capability? ASuW? NGF? You can probably get two of those, but definitely not all three (as far as I can see, anyway).
ReplyDeleteStick with 35 knots and I imagine you can get 1-2 5" guns (I would love 1-2 double turrets, but there is zero chance of THAT happening) plus a twin 40mm or two (for FACs) for the ASuW aspect, toss in sonar and VL-ASROC for ASW...not sure about torps, though, as that is a lot of weight to add. You might also be able to cram in a Harpoon launcher, but I don't think space and weight will allow that on <5k tons with everything else.
You want to emphasize the NGF and ASuW aspect, go with 32 knots and mount 2 8" (or better yet, 2 doubles), and load up on missile space...
Both of those mean you have to trust the Burkes' and the CVNs for airborne threats (aside from probably being able to load some ESSMs)...
well, as I see it - the option A is no VLS, some harpoon canisters and torp launchers - such package can be done even on 500 ton swedish corvettes/FAC that were close to the original LCS concept
ReplyDeleteoption B is 32 cell VLS split between harpoons, ASROC and ESSM as mission needs but this requires bigger ship of course...
remember even WW2 destroyers had only 5 inch guns so no 8 inch madness here, please...
of course when we will be talking future cruisers, they are welcome!
one thing worth noting is that while helo and hangar dont eat up much weight, they eat up lots of space, so 2k tons light frig without air wing canm easily pack loads of VLS/guns
final thoughts:
FFG(X) v1 = fore 5in, fore 16 cell vls, aft hangar, helo pad
FFG(X) v2 - fore 5in, fore 16 cell vls, aft 5 in, aft 16 cell vls
any better ideas?
Okay, my engineering team and I have been at work all morning producing drawings of possible FF/LCS alternatives.
ReplyDeleteHere is the first one, that is in line with the CNO's sustainable energy plan. The downside is that it only has a top speed of 12 knots in a gale, or, without wind, 6 knots. And they will need to create a new rating called "galley slave".
The second design is built around the 40" naval gun. Hell, we demand undeveloped technology all the time in our designs, so why not another? It can throw a ten-ton projo 200km accurately. According to the power point.
ReplyDeleteThe Commandant of the Marine Corps is on board.
The drawback is that it can only carry two rounds of ammunition, and you have to roll the projo off a CVN onto the deck. But it is still faster than reloading VLS...
<span>Design Option 3 is built to reach 100 knots, as we know how crucial speed is in the littorals. NGSB is going to have to build a gigantic version of the Chevy big-block 396, with a great big carburator and hood scoop. NASCAR stickers are optional, though Byron would like them, I imagine.
ReplyDeleteNavy oilers will have to carry hi-test 93 octane, and a huge load of lead substitute.</span>
Design option 4 is really the favored one. A combination CVN/amphib/NGF/AEGIS/ASW platform that can also be used in HA/DR missions. It's got helos, F/W, embarked Marines, missiles, an 8" turret from USS Salem, you name it. The price tag is high, about $87 billion each, but Secretary Mabus favors it because the Navy can shrink to just five ships if we build these.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, they didn't cover what happens to the sonar dome when this thing beaches.
heck, in line with URRs wacky design shop, I present hereby:
ReplyDeleteHMS Li Wo class:
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/biographies/listliwocrew.html
it is optimally manned, with COTS hull design and proves anythig can be used as a weapon, on sea, too...
I guess it all becomes one big towed sonar array when they try to winch it out to sea again? (Just a landlubber's guess)
ReplyDeletehere's a replacement for so-called shallow water LCS toys:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=102693
Note: this is a self-supply-ing warship, never needing to go alongside a food ship.
<span>Design option 4 is really the favored one. A combination CVN/amphib/NGF/AEGIS/ASW platform that can also be used in HA/DR missions.</span>
ReplyDeleteHere is the one aircraft that will be aboard....
How about a combined program, the last 31 ships of the LCS program and the 25 ships of the Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter program for a total of 66 ships. Then we get true economies of scale.
ReplyDeletehttp://cgblog.org/2011/02/06/shipbuilding-my-grand-plan-navy-and-cg-work-together/
"galley slave" a wonderful lateral transfer for the diversity commisars.
ReplyDeleteC
"Row well and live...."
ReplyDeleteHow about building a basic frigate design. No aegis system leave that to the Cruisers and DDG's.
ReplyDeleteBut a basic hull with as others have pointed out no towed arrays please.
5in gun
Torp launchers
Basic point defense with phalanx or whatever and Harpoon launcher.
Landing pad
And
5in gun
16 (8x bow) (8x sternward) VLS option of fitting SM-2 or tomahawks.
???
Could more befitted without compromising cost and manning requirments?
The NSC is not built to warship standards either...
ReplyDeleteTheir bulkheads wiill crush and fail with even moderate shock....
Guys, I'm more than halfway serious about this.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to do something like this, shoot me an email - crowdsourcewarship@yahoo.com
but at least it is 1. seaworthy 2. long range 3. capable of upgunning easily
ReplyDelete<span>"8 inch has its place but not on an escort this size..."</span>
ReplyDeleteI think you are lookingbat this backwards. Getting within 8" gun range of a coast is not something one wants to do with a big air defence cruiser. The MK71 was able to be fitted on the USS Hull which 2800 tons and still had 2 x 5" guns (of comperable weight), so 3500 tons ought to buy 1 x 8", 8-16 VLS tubes, a sonar system comperable to the one on the FFGs, and two helicopters. The gun looks impressive but this is actually fairly austere. OTOH the 32-64 ESSMs the VLS represent are a decent self defence capability and very limited area defence system. I'd fit them with SPY1-K at the absolute maximum, more likely something like the fit on the Perrys. This vessel can go in and do NGfS without risking the big ABM/AAW ships, be cheaper to operate and if a VDS can be squeezed in would be a one for one replacement for the Perrys. Alternatively two 5" guns would provide redundancy, but the cost in length might be prohibitivew.
we used to send in a battleship within 5 nm of shore...
ReplyDeleteAnd capable of becoming a battle loser quickly too...
ReplyDeleteCdr Salamander: I'Ll Take That Lcs Plan B ... >>>>> Download Now
ReplyDelete>>>>> Download Full
Cdr Salamander: I'Ll Take That Lcs Plan B ... >>>>> Download LINK
>>>>> Download Now
Cdr Salamander: I'Ll Take That Lcs Plan B ... >>>>> Download Full
>>>>> Download LINK