Search this Topic:
Mar 27 17 2:21 PM
skipper101 wrote:The architecture of the USN is pretty well fixed, so the discussion is about how to fill certain gaps within that current fleet architecture, there are ships out there that have something like an AEGIS LITE, the Australian CEAFAR / SAAB 9LV / ESSM is something quite similar.
Absolutely and future USN Frigate should be a full-spectrum escort but AEGIS / SPY / SM2 are not required for a full spectrum escort only for Wide Area Air Defence Ship, a Frigate with something like CEAFAR / ESSM & VLRAM and what ever CMS you like will certainly fill the full spectrum escort requirement, as ships requiring AA escort are usually well within the ESSM range envelope, it is clearly all that is needed.
Mar 27 17 4:50 PM
Mar 27 17 5:35 PM
kell553 wrote:I'd dump the TLAMs in favor of more SM6. The 8 extra missiles wont add that much to a Strike salvo while the extra long range AAW punch is better suited for an escort vessel.
Also should look at hull size vs VLS hull depth. Having to incorporate a full strike length system vs a shorter tactical installation may require a larger hull which will cause greater overall costs.
Mar 27 17 8:07 PM
Mar 27 17 9:15 PM
Mar 27 17 10:15 PM
Mar 27 17 10:26 PM
OldNick wrote:So to be realistic budget for new frigate looking at ($562.8M + $69.7M) ~$630 million per ship and no, no way SM-6s affordable, SM-3 & 6's the raison d'etre for Aegis ABs and no way any Navy admiral will let any other ship encroach on its sacrosanct territory.
Primary mission escort ASW ships with MFTA, VDS & HMS with a SH-60F with its dipping sonar, plus MQ-8B UAV as cover for when helicopter down to deliver MK54 LWT's, air defense two SeaRAM fore and aft. Leave room for deck-launcher for LRASM or NSM plus fit the 5"/62 caliber Mk45 gun, nice to have would be the new automatic loader to use with the future HV projectile.
Hull a new generation OHP approx. 4,000 t, looking similar to the new USCG OPC. If very, very lucky and any budget left fit RIM 162 ESSM Block II but would be surprised.
Mar 27 17 10:27 PM
jua wrote:ESSM would give medium range cover and LOS anti-shipping. Even just using Mk58 launchers and carrying a couple dozen would give a good capability. Full length strike Mk41s aren't a necessity, though they would add flexibility. ESSM Block II would removed the need for terminal illumination and make the system basically fire and forget.
Mar 27 17 11:18 PM
Mar 27 17 11:35 PM
Mar 27 17 11:45 PM
Mar 28 17 12:50 AM
Mar 28 17 2:16 AM
sciquest wrote:Your figures are incorrect. Five billion would buy five FFGs such as advocated by CSBonline.org report. They figure 16-32 VLS along with ASW and ASUW. Their figures, not mine and the AAW would strictly be for defense of other ships not equipped for AA self defense or only having self defense weapons. AAW is strictly local using ESSM in quad paks for the medium air defense zone of 10-30nmi, again, CSBA's Bryan Clark, not me. As has been suggested above, some SM-6s might be carried as an add on option but the main purpose is to provide cheaper hulls in greater numbers that would be able to provide area ASW, an ASUW capability with NSM/LRASM, develop an ASROC replacement with a 50nmi range to suppress subs attempting ASCM launches or perhaps torpedo attacks. This would be a full spectrum escort, not compete with Flt III ABs but freeing them for more important missions.
CSBA says that ships are normally five miles apart and ESSM equipped FFGS would be adequate for the AAW Local Area and Not Wide Area AAW while providing ASW escort and meet the Distributed Lethality requirement for ASUW attack.
These are other people's ideas, I merely restate them.
Is an FFG a fantasy? Others may not agree with you and they have nautical know how and experience that I lack.
Mar 28 17 2:42 AM
Mar 28 17 7:47 AM
Mar 28 17 1:38 PM
Mar 28 17 1:48 PM
Mar 28 17 2:47 PM
OldNick wrote:Cost implications of replacing 'dinky' TRS-4D AESA fixed panel rotator radar with an EASR-FP rotator antenna to give improved high-refresh-rate, high-resolution, mid-course guidance for ESSM Blk 2 for a new ASW frigate.
BSmittyVA in an earlier post estimated the EASR-FP cost at $77.4 million, assuming approx. double the cost of a TRS-4D, but that's not the full story. The EASR-FP is a subset of the AMDR, a quarter of the size. The AMDR in AB FIII requires lots of power and cooling, three 4MW GTGs and four 300 t. AC plants. Another big assumption is the cost of cooling and powering the EASR-FP with DG's and AC plants will double as will the weight of that required for the TRS-4D as fitted to the Freedom class from #17. The new AESA radars are top heavy, the weight is concentrated in the TR/M's in the FP antenna, and being a single face rotating FP need to be on the very top of the mast for an unobstructed view and larger horizon, the heavier the radar, EASR-FP, the more it reduces the ships inherent stability.
The disadvantages of any radar is all that MW of electric power used is creating electromagnetic noise, a big flashlight in the middle of the sea saying here I am to any anti-ship missiles like the LRASM which incorporates ESM in the homing head. There are sophisticated ways to mitigate the radar electromagnetic noise and as always it’s a cat and mouse game.
So my thoughts are that though the EASR-FP brings a lot of advantages it will cost and if the CONOPS of the new frigate is primarily ASW frigate it's unlikely to be affordable if aiming to achieve the target budget. The CBO February 2017 report stated "the Navy estimates that each of the new future Small Surface Combatant will cost an average of $560 million, not clear whether that estimate includes a mission package", which mirrors my earlier post of current cost of LCS with mission package of $630 million.
Mar 28 17 11:29 PM
Mar 29 17 12:38 AM
Anyway, I'm going to print it out and read the whole thing and does anyone have links to the other Fleet Architecture Studies? Congress mandated one
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.