This is a literal combat ship.
litorally shaking rn
as opposed to proverbial
If they had just named it the Configurable Multirole Corvette (and not wasted tens of billions of dollars trying to make Freedom useful), everyone would have loved it.
>>64632432Going with the dual track ship thing was definitely mindblowingly retarded. Yeah that one had its challenges too but no new big military system comes out of the gates all set, if all effort is focused on it though issues can get worked through with real world experience and prices brought down as more units get produced. Splitting the effort between that and a much bigger POS thus ensuring the failure of everything was so fucking stupid.
>>64632432How'd Freedom even get approved to begin with? Lobbying and promises of jobs?
>>64632432Ah, the old metaphorical combat ship
Multi purpose figurative
I think its a pretty ship and would have been better suited for the coast guard
>>64632645Yes, the Navy proposed buying it as well to get support from the senators with their states in locksneed's supply chain.>>64632757It unironically would have been better for the USCG than the Legend class. It's half the upfront cost, half the operating cost, does everything the USCG needs, and the Navy was footing the bill for ironing out the bugs anyway. But I think the Coast Guard wanted a boatier-looking boat, and they were flush with cash after 9/11, and since the Legend class was being built at Ingalls they could have them built in parallel and wouldn't have to wait their turn.
>>64632340https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-now-wants-a-new-frigate-and-fast>one plan is to covert Legend class cutter to US Navy standard and reconfiguring them with VLSwell, can they do it?
>>64632645Yep, all you really need to know is that it's the Locksneed ship to have an idea how many hands were greased. That said in fairness the entire 2000s under Bush and his fucktarded gay GWOT were an absolute shit show for conventional US military power and programs. So many experimental dumb concepts from dotcom or the like were pushed, so much (trillions!) budget diverted into worthless efforts in the middle east, so much LE END OF HISTORY FASTER CHEAPER by Rumsfield and his band of idiot schoolboys. I hate to say it but I unironically think history would have gone way better if Gore had won. So not like LCS wasn't badly managed all around I guess.
>>64632799https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation-class_frigate#ContendersIt was already entered as a competitor for the Constellation contract. I don't think it really has anything to recommend itself over any of the other options, but if the FREMM and the LCS based designs are out, I guess it was just a choice between Legend and F100, and I suppose the Legend has the advantage of already being in service with the US.
>>64632875yeah but i saw several commenters mentioned that the Legend class isn't up to Navy safety standard, therefore, again, require extensive modification
>>64632903It's all a reaction to whatever the Navy is getting shit on this time. First it was gunfire support for retiring the battleships, then it was Zumwalt being too expensive, then it was LCS being too fragile and comparatively unarmed, now it's Constellation for being too expensive and too extensive of a redesign. My guess is they just buy an off-the-shelf Legend class this time. They won't even have to translate the labels on the buttons like with the F100. And upgunning it is not actually that big of a deal since Legend was designed to be armed in case the USCG is transferred to the Navy in wartime again.
>>64632903yes because FOR THE NTH TIME, there is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthis is so fucking basic that "not understanding" it is practically wilful ignorancerepeat after methere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchgot it?
>>64632799>This is the Constellation design from *before* the USN started changing thingsHoly shit lmao
>>64632981I think they're settling for an unsuitable design this time just to have something in the water.
>>64632986if they're converting Legends and adding VLS, that is still "modifying an existing design"
>>64632990Pretty sure it's just the PF4921 design that's been floating around without any takers for two decades. In that sense it's an existing design.
>>64633016companies come up with theoretical shit like that but they're not ready-to-build plans. they just compute the major bits to make sure it floats, but the bulk of the design work of e.g. actually drawing up which pipe goes where hasn't been done yet. significant work still needs to be done in that area, and it is this work which takes up time and skilled effort. you don't have a bunch of warship marine architects just lying around.furthermore, in the 2 decades since there will have been major changes in electronics and power generation.
>>64632340If it's a combat ship, then why does it have a basketball court?Check and mate, atheists.
>>64632903>the Legend class isn't up to Navy safety standardThe Legend class was built to the Navy's level 1 survivability standard, which basically says that it needs to not instantly sink the moment that it gets hit with an antiship weapon, but it's not supposed to do anything but evacuate after taking a hit. The LCS was designed for level 1 survivability, later ostensibly retrofitted for a "level 1+" level that represents level 1 with shock hardening to prevent the loss of critical systems from near misses and possibly allow it to maintain some operating capacity after being hit. However, the Navy stopped the shock testing trials early out of concern that the ships might be damaged, take that how you will.The OHP class was built to a level 2 standard, which is what allowed the USS Stark to survive being hit with two Exocet antiship missiles and return to port under its own power. The outcome of the USS Cole bombing was similar despite the Burke class's level 3 standard, but that's about the best possible outcome you can expect from a 1000lb shaped charge at the waterline.
>>64633106Was constellation level 1 or 2
>>64633119Likely level 1+, but they wanted level 2, and it turned out quite a hassle to redo everything.
>>64633119I believe they were attempting to increase it from whatever standard Europeans build their frigates to (which is probably better than the LCS) up to a proper level 2.
>>64633106>the Navy stopped the shock testing trials early out of concern that the ships might be damagedpenny-pinching pussieseven the bongs did live shock testing on one of every warship class in the run-up to WW2
>>64633123>>64633128So... the navy just got done trying to unfuck a larger design with more room, more power generation, etc. and making it level 2 and capable of performing all the necessary roles and now they scrap that and decide to start over on a smaller design with known structural issues, have to redesign it to get it up to level 2 which must also fulfill all the necessary roles and which has less capability/ton? Can someone explain to me what the fuck the navy is doing here?
>>64633156repeat after methere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratch
>>64633159Yes, you already said that. My (and anon here: >>64633156) question is: why would you drop everything and start again, if the starting point is just as shit as the previous one?
>>64633159Yes we just spent a whole bunch of money and time unfucking a design so it would fit the requirements why are we starting over
>>64633144Yeah, as I recall the concern was that they shock hardened critical systems but left a lot of less important stuff unhardened and didn't see the point in continuing the testing when they knew all of the unhardened stuff would be damaged and they'd have to spend millions fixing it.>>64633156I'm pretty sure the plan with the Legend frigate is just to leave it at level 1. At this point everyone just wants them to adopt *something*, and attritability doesn't sound as quite bad when we're talking about China as a potential opponent and not dirt farmers in a practically landlocked country.
>>64633164>why>>64633165>whyalright, fair enoughLegends are built by Ingalls, an American company, it's possible that they can expedite hiring more Americans to work on the design if there are manpower bottlenecksFincantieri is a European company, they probably refused to hire more Americans to work on the Constellation redesign, yet at the same time Italy is unable / unwilling to hire more Italians to work on the designwe know that a big part of the Constellation bottleneck has been Fincantieri's inability to cope with the amount of work required. sure, the Americans are partly to blame for increasing the modifications required. but on Fincantieri's end, the Italians also can't take the requisite steps to expand capacitythis is just the theoretical pros and cons of the Legend proposal. I'm not saying whether it's a good idea or not.
>>64633174>>64633156And to add to this, yes, it's silly to buy the Legend when they already have the Independence in service and it's tried and tested, at least somewhat shock hardened, much cheaper, faster, requires fewer crew, already has functioning mission packages for everything the Navy might use them for (other than air defense, which they have more capable ships for), etc, etc, but the problem with Independence is that the LCS is a "failed" program so it wouldn't be politically feasible for the Navy to suggest that we go back to building them.
>>64633182>Fincantieri is a European company, they probably refused to hire more Americans to work on the Constellation redesignFincantieri owns Marinette Marine in Wisconsin, where the design work was done and the construction was planned to be done, and where the entire Freedom class has been built over the past 15 years.
>>64633186the LCS can barely defend itself. the Navy wants frigates that can escort supply ships or even amphibs.>>64633191>where the design work was doneyeah lol no
>>64633186The fundamental problem with the Independence is that it's shackled to a garbage propulsion concept, and replacing it with a regular propeller-based one would take as much R&D time as converting another ship class into a frigate.
>>64633193What the Navy wants is a small ship to do the roles that the LCS was built for. The frigate is just a response to being harassed about the LCS survivability for decades. Also a convenient way to get out of their agreement to build the broken and unfixable Freedom in equal numbers to Independence. But yes, tossing a dozen VLS cells on is probably a no-brainer these days.
>>64633206Okay, I'll bite. What makes waterjets completely unsuitable? Consider that it's not even close to the only naval vessel in the world to use them.
>>64633209>What the Navy wants is a small ship to do the roles that the LCS was built for. The frigate is just a response to being harassed about the LCS survivabilitylook, they set out clearly what they wanted FFGX to do and why. they want "local air defence capability" in order to both contribute to Burke-controlled air defence task forces, or constitute independent minor independent escort task forces. there is no way in hell the LCS can do that, and this is not a mere enhanced self-defence requirement. the reason why is obvious; all Burkes are needed at the coalface to defend against Chinese antiship missiles, and the Navy needs a warship of some kind to defend the backfieldanyway,>yes, tossing a dozen VLS cells on is probably a no-brainer these daysagreed, and the Independence has no room for even thatit's such a fucking retarded design
>>64632340>This is a literal combat ship.
>>64632340>This is a literal combat ship.>>64633231
>>64633225They were planning on heavily redesigning whatever design they chose, so why would they not include VLS, which gives area air defense practically by default? Anyhow, one of the competitors to the Legend-based patrol frigate was the Austal frigate with VLS and diesel driven props instead of the waterjets, which should make you happy. Even with the necessary changes, it will share a lot more in common with their existing logistical arrangements with the LCSes than the Legend will.
>>64632642seemed wise at the time.not going to a Unicorn project, so have one safe conservative design, and one "cutting edge".Seems like they might be good for everything except LC. Mostly as extra ASW platform with choppers for less overhead than a full blown DD, and fast ferry of personal and heavy supplies to remote locations.Fast and always local hospital ship? Clean Rooms are basically a kit you can put anywhere you got flat hard surface. OK, you really don't even need that, they got struts that carry floor panels.
>>64633222They are quite inefficient for ships over 1000 tons. Look at those new Indian corvettes which use them: 1200-1400 tons, 26 knots max speed and not even 2000 nm range at 14 knots. By comparison, the ~650 ton Visby class can do 35 knots max, and still have an endurance of 2500 nm at 15 kt. The Independence can do 40 knots max, with a max range of 4300 nm at 18 kt, but, apart from the two NSM ABLs they slapped on it, has fuckall combat (or self-defense) capabilities: one SeaRAM, one 57mm, and two 30 mm basic-bitch autocannons.
>>64633225I'm the world's biggest ESSM shill but Imma be honest I don't see how 12 VLS cells provide "local air defense capability" in any practical capacity unless they're filling them with SM-2MRs but then you've got no real mag depth. The 32 on Constellation were barely adequate
>>64633225>ALaMO Hasn't that thing been perpetually 3 years away for the past decade?
>>64633268>The Independence can do 40 knots max, with a max range of 4300 nm at 18 ktAre any of those numbers insufficient?>but, apart from the two NSM ABLs they slapped on it, has fuckall combat (or self-defense) capabilities: one SeaRAM, one 57mm, and two 30 mm basic-bitch autocannons.Because it's a patrol boat/subchaser/minesweeper and none of those roles requires extensive armament. But giving it a few VLS cells with a couple of SM6s and a few ESSMs and maybe a couple of VLASROCs would for sure go a long way towards increasing their capability.Also the 30mms are part of the SUW package, most don't have them.
>>64633288There's quite literally no room for regular VLS cells. The original intention for the payload bays was to design and build special cut-down VLS packs, but they got cancelled along with many other mission modules.
>>64633258>They were planning on heavily redesigning whatever design they choseYes, I was commenting on the existing LCS design, which really really doesn't lend itself well to simple extension>which gives area air defense practically by defaultarea air defence radars, and power and cooling for the radars, eats up lots more space and weight than the VLS farm>Even with the necessary changes, it will share a lot more in common with their existing logistical arrangementsmaybewe have no idea, the cost-benefit analysis and all that shit will be highly classified of course>>64633271yeah, they're not gonna>>64633281neither ALAMO nor MAD-FIRES appears to have received any further contracts for 57mm smart shell development. last I've heard of is Northrop's whatever the fuck they're developing
>>64633291The original intention was for vertical launch cells for a loitering munition similar to Switchblade 600 that was canceled early on. The surface-to-surface missile module for the SUW mission package is currently being fielded and includes miniature VLS cells for Hellfire missiles. There is, however, a proposal for a slightly larger "frigate" design that eliminates the gas turbines and waterjets and adds up to 32 strike-length (silly requirements at work again) VLS tubes.>>64633294>neither ALAMO nor MAD-FIRES appears to have received any further contracts for 57mm smart shell developmentL3 got a contract for manufacturing ALaMO last year.
>>64633302>>64633302>L3 got a contract for manufacturing ALaMO last year.ah okay thanksso that's chugging along alright then>strike-length (silly requirementsno that's alright; strike-length means room for booster add-ons if necessary
>>64633294>yeah, they're not gonnaso much for "won’t spend a dollar if it doesn’t strengthen readiness or our ability to win". The fuck are these things supposed to do, with 12 cells you can at most participate in like one or two AAW and then you're shit out of luck. I hope they have good torpedo capacity because if it can't even do ASW I don't see the point. Surely they can't fuck up the role of a taxi and sonar array for the heli right?
>>64633313 (me)>one or two AAW*engagements
>>64633302>There is, however, a proposal for a slightly larger "frigate" design that eliminates the gas turbines and waterjets A good starting point. >adds up to 32 strike-length (silly requirements at work again) VLS tubes. It's not really that silly. Strike-length doesn't necessarily mean it will launch cruise missiles. The purported VL-ASROC successor is a strike-length weapon.
>>64633313>Surely they can't fuck up the role of a taxi and sonar array for the heli right?*looks at the LCS*Anon, I...>The fuck are these things supposed to do, with 12 cells you can at most participate in like one or two AAW and then you're shit out of luckYeah, but it's one or two AAW engagements more than the LCS can doI hate to sound like I'm banging on the LCS too much, but so much of this discussion revolves around what the LCS can/not do at the moment, and how to address that gap
>>64632340Convert it into a drone mothership and you have something passable.
>>64632340>galvanic corrosion because who knew dissimilar metals in contact with seawater would cause problems >hull cracking in rough seas Why do people pretend to like the Independence class again?
>>64633326Who cares about LCS, this is supposed to be filling the role Constellation was effectively intended for. Unironically unless these things are half the cost of Constellation and can be shit out by the dozens the people involved should be tried for treason
>>64633318>The purported VL-ASROC successor is a strike-length weapon.I wasn't aware of that, and SM-6 is strike-length as well, but it occurs to me that a mix of self-defense and tactical lengths might require less extensive reengineering if space can be found for them. Older proposals showed launchers in existing locations rather than the huge deck extension on the FFGX proposal, which suggests that it can. That would include ESSM, SM-2, VL-JSM, and VL-ASROC as potential payloads
>>6463334132 cells was a requirement for the FFGX program, so if they're picking the HII FFGX proposal it will have 32 cells.
>>64633302>surface-to-surface missile moduleis barely sufficient to deal with Houthi drone boat swarms, to say nothing of the cruise missile threat>>64633288>giving it a few VLS cells with a couple of SM6s and a few ESSMs and maybe a couple of VLASROCs would for sure go a long way towards increasing their capabilitythere's no fucking room for even thatso as >>64633268 said: the LCS>has fuckall combat (or self-defense) capabilities>>64633341>Who cares about LCS, this is supposed to be filling the role Constellation was effectively intended forblame >>64633186, we've been enumerating the many reasons why LCS is in fact a failed program and we cannot >go back to building themfor the FFGX role for practical reasons that have nothing to do with optics.
>>64632340i want to be angry at you for this but i can't quite get there.
>>64632340I still don't understand what it is supposed to do, is it something between a corvette and a cutter, why not just build heavy cutters or light corvettes, why not build one of those landing docks with heavy armament and space for lots of helicopters
>>64633372It's supposed to go fast but it can't go fast because the hull will break in two. Other than that, it can shoot some Hellfire missiles. All for the low price of one gazillion US dollars per ship!
>>64633381Why not build well armoured and missile capable cutters, a little large but still fast, and why would you want to go fast in littoral waters?
>>64633231I remember building this in Spore
>>64632982I don't understand why they didn't just make a Burke lite instead of trying to turn fremm into the same. Keep all the known knowns with the hull, propulsion, etc. Just trade the aft vls block for a bigger hanger and boom, instant frigate!Seems simpler than trying to uparm and toughen up the Indy. If there's going to be a resurrected ship design it should probably be the Zums..
>>64633416>hurr durr multiple big barrel guns for.. shore bombardment!!! Just like back in the good old days! The Navy is so fucking retarded on every level.
>>64632432Just call it for what it is, an Anti-Submarine Warfare Ship. Literally nothing it can do is really littoral-related unless you consider a poor man's ESD littoral combat, but all the modules on it that actually work make it a dare I say, cost-effective (if you ignore all the failed module expenditures) boomer-shooter.
>>64633416yeah
>>64632757Tbh I think that's the better role too. CG, SAR and ASW. It'd still be neat to see the frigate version though, if they can be built significantly cheaper than a Burke lite, why not both?
>>64633416>just make a Burke literepeat after methere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratchthere is nothing suitable on the market, any existing design will have to be modified, and modifying said design will require less time, money and effort than building from scratch
>>64633431I'm gonna modify the design of ya mudda
>>64633416>Bruke LightSomething like... the Kidd-class?
>>64633421Yeah the Zum gun kinda baffles me too. If the ammo was the hangup, could it not have been adapted to arty 155mm shells?Or if you really want some shore bombardment, just put a few SPGs on the back deck of an Indy and do shoot and scoot naval edition
>>64633421You think you know better than the officers of the US Navy who've gone through years of training and academic rigor, stick to hunting and civilian cuckery and leave warships to the experts
>>64633423>Just call it for what it is, an Anti-Submarine Warfare Ship. Literally nothing it can do is really littoral-relatedwell, they rolled in the MCMV role and the retarded Streetfighter concept and the anti-swarm boat capabilityis that a form of littoral warfare? yesis that a USEFUL form of littoral warfare? no>>64633440perhaps more like VLS Spruance. the Kidds had the shitty Mk26s instead of the VLS farm which was only available in the mid-late 80s
>>64633431You talk like a fat woman and your shits all retarded. FOBTR
>>64633441>the Zum gun kinda baffles me toothis is what I learnt from a crayon-eater directly involved in that: they needed artillery support for amphib landings, and neither destroyer guns nor M109s nor heli-slung M777s cut it. the Zum gun was the best they could do.>If the ammo was the hangupthe hangup is that enemy antiship missiles became more accurate at longer range than LRLAP so LRLAP was shelved>just put a few SPGs on the back deck of an Indy and do shoot and scoot naval editionnot survivable
>>64633465>the Zum gun kinda baffles me too>this is what I learnt from a crayon-eater directly involved in that: they needed artillery support for amphib landings, and neither destroyer guns nor M109s nor heli-slung M777s cut it. the Zum gun was the best they could do.Sounds like some sort of gun barge / usv would do the trick? Similar concept as the stealthy semi submergible missile barges, but with a few automated SPG turrets instead.Shoot and submerge might be more survivable than shoot and scooting with an Indy
I always though the Zumwalt's stealth capabilities were directly in service of getting it closer to better gun things with its gun.
>>64633541in this day and age, we can pick out and Brimstone a car-sized target with ease. even if you put a howitzer turret on an XLUUV or on an amphib like the PLAN have, it will stick out like a sore thumb in the ocean and be a sitting duck for enemy missiles*we are in a totally new era of sensor fidelity. using tube artillery to kill shore batteries before shore batteries kills them is as outdated as charging down an infantry platoon with a cavalry squadron. new technologies have simply obsoleted this particular tactic. just gotta accept the fact*which is why the current US doctrine is to find and kill enemy missile launchers before committing manoeuvre units at all>>64633550oh yesit's just still not close enough
>>64633421>NavyDaily reminder naval gunfire support was a congressional requirement
>>64633572Daily reminder you're wrong
>>64633421That was Congress. Battleship retirement did not go over well with the boomers. Also why they spent so long working on the railgun.
>>64633572>congress literally wouldn't let the navy retire the fucking iowas>literal congressional mandate for that capability>nah it wasn't congress
>>64633593meant for >>64633574
>>64633593>hurrdurr congress durr iowasCongress doesn't know jack and in this particular case the Navy agreed on a naval gunfire support capability. It's just insanely cheap to deliver a thousand GPS-guided 6" shells per Zumwalt rather than Tomahawks or Hellfires.It's just unfortunate that by the time the LRLAP programme was essentially done, the enemy missile threat had obsoleted the system. Neither the fault of Congress nor Navy.>>64633594Learn to delete posts
>>64633355>is barely sufficient to deal with Houthi drone boat swarms, to say nothing of the cruise missile threatOf course, since hellfires aren't designed to engage air targets. They're for speedboats and surface drones.>there's no fucking room for even thatThere's potentially room for 6-12 VLS cells. Several official renders show them from when the Navy was talking about upgunning the LCS. For FFGX they decided they wanted 32 cells and obviously that requires a greatly lengthened hull.>>64633372It's a multi mission corvette with swappable packages for ASW, mine clearing, or engaging small boats.>>64633381It's mostly the Freedom that has problems going fast, their combining gear explodes randomly and they need to use it to go faster than 25 knots. The Independence hull cracking issue was fixed and only one vessel (USS Omaha) was given a speed limit because of it, and only in higher sea states. They're also $400m apiece, half the cost of an NSC.>>64633389What you're describing is a frigate, and well armored frigates haven't existed since the OHP was retired. Going fast is potentially an okay cope for not being well protected. Not being there is the best way to avoid getting killed. That said, the speed requirement was always silly and was based on the idea of running back to port to swap out mission modules in a couple of hours, which was also silly.>>64633421They just tacked the guns on so they could get rid of the battleships, they were never a serious weapon. It has 80 VLS cells and they're 35% larger (28x28x283 vs 25x25x264) than "normal" cells in order to for larger missiles that didn't end up getting developed because the Zumwalt was canceled.
>>64633607>HellfiresOpinion discarded.
>>64633607>It's just insanely cheap to deliver a thousand GPS-guided 6" shells per Zumwalt rather than Tomahawks or Hellfires.>It's just unfortunate that by the time the LRLAP programme was essentially done, the enemy missile threat had obsoleted the system. Neither the fault of Congress nor Navy.No. It was always fucking retarded.
>>64633612>There's potentially room for 6-12 VLS cellsat the expense of one helicopter and the close-in guns. if there's no room to add stuff without taking out vital stuff to compensate, I call that "no fucking room".> the speed requirement was always silly and was based on the idea of runningin and out of island shadows like a Visby or Pegasus, courtesy of Streetfighter retardation
>>64633633>at the expense of one helicopter and the close-in guns. if there's no room to add stuff without taking out vital stuff to compensate, I call that "no fucking room".I'm not talking about the stupid "shipping container full of SM-6s on the flight deck" bullshit, I'm talking about designs that stick VLS cells either in the nose area where the NSMs are now (and move the NSM box launchers onto the roof) or put the VLS cells beside the bridge on either side. Neither one would cost any of the current mission capability. By the way, the guns are part of a mission module for the SUW package and no Independences are so equipped. It's just the 57mm and the SeaRAM.
>>64633633Pic rel for 8 tubes on each side gives you 16 cells with fairly minimal ship changes. Pretty decent for the price, just build twice as many ships!
>>64632340looks figurative to me
>>64633658>>64633669hmwhat are those, Mk57s?might doalthough of course it still wouldn't have the radar for effective local air defence
>>64633669>just build twice as many ships!It's more reasonable than you might have intended it, since the Independence is half the cost of the NSC with 2/3rds of the crew complement.>>64633674They're mark 41s. Unfortunately mark 57s are never ever again.
>>64633669But why would anyone want to upgrade a ship that structurally rapidly corrodes and breaks apart over 15 knots?
>>64633684It's not Freedom.
>>64633612My logic for not speeding in littoral waters is that you're there to actually combat and neutralize the threat, not giving it the time and space to take advantage of the geography and slither back into safe havens, which littoral waters are aplenty, only because you don't have a well armoured *and* armed ship to actually engage
>>64633681>2/3rds of the crew complement.That's the rubManning costs are more important than platformMeaning, it's better to have more expensive ships but fewer crews, cost-wise>>64633681>mark 57s are never ever again.Why?
>>64633674Can the drone choppers be used as a mini AWACS? Or can they fire based off targetting info from other assets?>>64633681No I was serious. Low crew requirements and a surprisingly low price are good reasons to keep the program going in some way>>64633684Boomer FUD, anon detailed the fixes here >>64633612A big part of the appeal with the Indy is its a known known now, any new ship design will likely have a buggy first ship or two, or worse.. Like freedomThey should at least build enough new Indy's to fully retire those
>>64633741>as a mini AWACSnodrone missile cueing is in the most infant of stages at this timeno such sensor / targeting pod has been developed, so it will be around a decade before any such capability will be operationally fielded by a Navy heli drone>>64633699I don't quite understand what you're trying to say
>>64632903>the Legend class isn't up to Navy safety standard, we shall pick the FREMM >the FREMM class isn't up to Navy safety standard, we shall pick the Legend class>???>another 20 trillions to the burkes
>>64633106>The Legend class was built to the Navy's level 1 survivability standardCan I see a source on this? I'm not trying to be an ass, this is just literally the first I am hearing of this.>The LCS was designed for level 1 survivability, later ostensibly retrofitted for a "level 1+" levelThis is partially true and partially misguided. It actually was originally built with "1+" and then they went back and reinforced it even above that when everyone started bitching because they don't understand naval build strategy.>The OHP class was built to a level 2 standardOHP predates the SSSL that OPNAV came out with in '89(? Someone check me)>>64633119Coni was built after they dropped the SSSL. Given it is a frigate, it almost certainly was built to Level 2.>>64633123Complete fabrication or parrotting misinformation. Take your pick.>whatever standard Europeans build their frigates to (which is probably better than the LCS)Ahahahahahahaha>agreement to build...Freedom in equal numbers to IndependenceThis is false on its face. Go look at how many Indis vs how many Freedoms were actually built.
>>64632793>Yes, the Navy proposed buying it as well to get support from the senators with their states in locksneed's supply chainIf I can decypher your non-English meme speak you're an idiot. That is a GD boat.
>The National Security Cutter shall be designed to U.S. Navy Level I Survivability Standards, with the exception of shock hardening>with the exception of shock hardeningohnononononothis motherfucker is SIGNIFICANTLY less survivable than the LCSshttps://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/14/2003485925/-1/-1/0/2000_USCG_SYSTEMPERFORMANCESPECIFICATION.PDF
>>64634431Not him but I can break it down just to ensure his point gets across:The USN agreed to a plan (proposed by Congress) to buy both classes (initially it was just one of each to "reduce technical risk of experimental designs" or some such). He speculates that the Independence was the "real choice" but that they agreed to take on the Freedom so that Senators originating from the states which had a financial interest in Freedom's construction would sign on approval of the budget request that funded the ships. Presumedly the USN did this because they didn't want further delays or deliberations to occur.
>>64633128>>64633209I forgot to properly reply to you here. Apologies.>>64634428
