Search this Topic:
Apr 13 17 8:05 PM
Apr 13 17 9:40 PM
BBMW wrote:Just stop building them, and give the ones we've built to the Coast Guard.
Apr 14 17 4:58 AM
Apr 14 17 10:07 AM
Apr 14 17 11:49 AM
Apr 14 17 12:15 PM
Apr 14 17 6:04 PM
Apr 14 17 9:44 PM
Apr 15 17 7:53 AM
Apr 15 17 9:42 AM
Apr 15 17 12:37 PM
Apr 15 17 9:02 PM
Apr 15 17 9:16 PM
BBMW wrote:Sorry but no. If we can afford more Burkes, (which the Navy is already planning to build), we can afford something half the cost (which is my target.) And given the fact that the primary way that ships are attacked nowadays and in the foreseeable future is with anti-ship cruise misslies, every major naval surface combatant needs significant anti air (and specifically anti-missile) capability. In addition, part of the spec that the navy is looking for is escort air defense for auxiliaries. So, yes, it does need more than point defense capability.
In addition, the Navy is complaining about a lack of VLS capacity fleetwide, and talking about putting MK 41s on everything that floats (aka distributed lethality.) So it would be silly to build a major surface combatant that didn't have a large MK 41 or equivalent battery.
Finally, there are a lot of bits and pieces of up to date weapon, sensor, and engineering development that has been done for other classes (specifically the DDG-1000 for electrical propulsion and sonar, and the Burke Flight III for radar and fire control, that can be leveraged. It would be silly to go back to a previous generation designs, like the Nansen, considering that these ships can likely be in service for the next thirty years.
Apr 15 17 9:35 PM
Apr 15 17 9:42 PM
Apr 15 17 11:47 PM
Apr 16 17 12:03 AM
Define what you mean by Burke capability. If we're talking about the capability of a Flight IIA, specifically with air defense, I think you can. Here's why...
Start here. http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/
That is Raytheon's commercial for the AMRD / AN/SPY-6. What's intriguing about this is its modularity and scalability. I'm not going to regurgitate what's on their site, but there are a couple of interesting tidbits. The current SPY-1D is a 12' array, and the Burke has four of them. Raytheon is claiming the SPY-6 can match it's performance with a 6' array. In addition, Raytheon is talking about packaging them as a three faced system. Now I don't know how much performance is lost by going to 120 degree sector per face as opposed by 90, but given the advantages of the AESA design of PESA, (see http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/34799/SPY1-Dual-Beaming#.WPKSdfkrJhE, because I think multibeaming is a feature of the AESA design), I don't only think the newer radar wouldn't lose performance, even with one less array, it may have higher performance. And it can do that with a much smaller footprint.
Also time has marched on with regard to missiles. The SM-6 has a fully active homing seeker. And by the time a new frigate would be built and in testing the ESSM will have evolved to have a fully active seeker. This means they don't need illuminator radars. That less size and power needed. Also, with quad packing, each Mk 41 cell can have four ESSMs. So assuming a mix of ESSMs and SM-6s, with less cells than a Burke (I'm looking at 64, vs 96 for a Burke), you can still have a fully sufficient missile capacity.
All this adds up to the fact that you can do as much with a substantially smaller ship than you could previously.
Apr 16 17 3:34 AM
Phoenix04 wrote:No, it doesn't make sense to waste more money on the LCS debacle.
Scrap the programme and use the money to maintain the current fleet and get a proper frigate built ASAP.
Apr 16 17 3:44 AM
Apr 16 17 5:13 PM
skipper101 wrote:BBMW, Again with the mini burke type frigate, the US can't afford it and does not need that much more air warfare capability.
At this point in time there is insufficient time to design an new large Frigate, So a existing hull design needs to be used, that means a not new design. The thing with the Nansen is it is a decent frigate design that although it is a Euro Frigate but is entirely based on US hardware. IIRC the Nansen can have more VLS possibly up to 32 cells, A ASW / GP Frigate does not need SM 6 only ESSM and RAM which can now be vertically launched. Nansen also has a much smaller crew requirement (120) USN FUTURE FRIGATE needs to be affordable to build and run, and needs to be quick and easy to build.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.