>>64633088
>16 VLS
holy lel mcfuck
the american century of humiliation is fully underway.

>>64633114
It's enough for 8 Standards and 32 ESSMs, which covers conventional aerial threats reasonably adequately.
The more pressing issue is lack of swarm protection, since it only has one Mk144 launcher with 21 missiles. There doesn't seem to be space left for fitting a laser, or a proxfuse AC (like the Rheinmetall SeaSnake).

>>64633152
>The more pressing issue is lack of swarm protection, since it only has one Mk144 launcher with 21 missiles. There doesn't seem to be space left for fitting a laser, or a proxfuse AC (like the Rheinmetall SeaSnake).
wouldn't the 57mm and the phalanx have that covered?

>>64633114
Its not like other frigates are much better. Otherwise they would be approaching both destroyer capability and costs. Less is more for a ship like this because they want many cheap ones, not a few big advanced ones.

>>64633161
There's no Phalanx. I did an oopsie and mistook the SeaRAM mount for a regular Mk144 (despite the big fucking radome on top).
The 57mm is acceptable for what it is, but it's a) slower slewing (light AC can reacquire quicker); b) slower firing (no 5-round burst in 0.3 seconds); c) 3P ammo isn't specifically tuned for light aerial target interdiction like AHEAD, it's a more general-purpose prefragmented shell.

>wastes tens of billions trying to turn a frigate into a battlecruiser
>throws the towel and buys CG corvettes instead
Lmao

>>64633088
The Navy should not be allowed to lead surface vessel procurement for the next 100 years. And instead just give a spreadsheet of what they're looking for and an independent council of some sort would take over over the day-to-day routine of warship procurement

>>64633279
Mein Neger, that's quite literally what happened in all non-sub, non-carrier procurement processes of the past one and a half decades. None of the Navy's concerns were addressed.

>>64633114
That's more missiles than its Chinese equivalent. The important part is that it can fight at standoff ranges which no other ship in its weight class within the USN inventory is capable.
Just do it faggots, in a worse case scenario where drones make them ineffective for patrolling in contested waters they're still something that can be given to the Coast Guard for extra oomph.

>>64633114
its a frigate, not a destroyer
stop trying to upclass everything
this shit is why USN never gets any ships

>>64633600
Sorry bud but even the minesweepers need to have the firepower of a Burke. Admiral Assbreather's orders.

>>64633615
Personally I want the us navy to build 200 burke. Just drown chang in burke is what i'm saying

>>64633622
just a conga-line of Burkes all the way from San Diego to the SCS

>try to turn a frigate into an erzats destroyer
>has to be canceled
>to replace it take a cutter and turn it into an erzats frigate
this is so getting canceled in a few years

>>64633088
>recently revealed
Lying faggot

>>64633152
Phelan said he's considering a modified Legend class so faggot OP just dug up the 20-year old Legend proposal and claimed that's the proposal
this is like saying a remark about a proposed modification of the F-16 today means they're absolutely going to build the F-16XL

>>64633568
>That's more missiles than its Chinese equivalent.
>Type 054B frigate
>1 × 32-cell VLS
>Type 054A frigate
>1 × 32-cell H/AKJ-16 VLS
???

So what's the explanation for all of these failures? Why does the USN keep fucking up?

>>64633161
>wouldn't the 57mm and the phalanx have that covered?

The 57 mm has a limited fire endurance of about 80 rounds max. This gun was originally water cooled in the mk1 version, but the water cooling was deleted in subsequent versions, reducing overall weight with a few hundred kilograms and increasing rate of fire by 10%, but cutting burst length by 50% and sustained fire by 80%. This is a tiny gun originally used on 150-200 ton light fast attack craft. Its primary task is being an ornament and threatening merchant vessels.

RAM is more useful than phalanx because RAM has a longer engagement range and can be ripple fired against multiple incoming threats. The phalanx is a 20 mm gatling but it fires .50 cal APDS bullets, its at the absolute bottom tier in terms of point defense. Unironically, a world war 2 quad 40 mm mount would be pretty brutal as a point defense if it was radar directed and firing 3p ammunition. The reason you see so little guns on modern combat vessels is because they are "envisioned" to engage and destroy threats long before they get into range of the point defense. In some cases it did work out like that, in other cases, it doesnt, and then you get panic moves like the carrier evasive action in the Red Sea that caused a F-18 to roll overboard.

>>64633926
I feel like shit has properly hit the fan once you turn to unmask your CWIS at an incoiming threat

File: file.png (743 KB, 1536x788)

743 KB PNG

>>64633926
>40 mm mount would be pretty brutal as a point defense if it was radar directed and firing 3p
Bofors 40mm Mk4
it's still only effective up to 2.5km against missile targets

>>64633088
Doesn't look too bad. But why hasn't the concept of a convertible hangar for ships been explored yet? Like, turn the landing area into a hangar, somewhat protecting the helicopter from the elements.

>>64633683
>So what's the explanation for all of these failures? Why does the USN keep fucking up?

People without engineering insights buy ships from people who are trained to lie. Its a classic case of clueless buyer meets scammer. Add kickbacks for more laffs. Private war industry simply does not work, the primary buyer is the government. And the system is impossible to reform, because reforming it would wipe out billions of shareholder value. And this is not the only sector of America which suffers from this disease. Teddy Roosevelt would recognize it as Big Trusts having captured Congress.

>>64633963
>my other ASuW corvette is a convertible
keks
but seriously it creates issues with mission readiness, think about it, if your helipad is also where you work on your helo, every time you want it to take off you need to clear out all your tools, parts, personnel, loose screws and all, put them somewhere, roll the roof back and THEN it can fly
as opposed to rolling the bird out onto the helipad and just letting it go

>>64633971
>every time you want it to take off you need to clear out all your tools, parts, personnel, loose screws and all, put them somewhere, roll the roof back and THEN it can fly
this
couldn't put it better myself

>>64633953
>Bofors 40mm Mk4
>it's still only effective up to 2.5km against missile targets

Its a single barrel mount. Originally meant for very small patrol boats and torpedo boats in the sub 100 ton range.

>>64633975
doesn't matter how many barrels it has, the limiting factors are not volume of fire but munition range and the shoot-look-shoot cycle
at 2.5km you have no time at all to re-engage even a subsonic antiship cruise missile at Mach 0.8 twice; you fire once and pray it hits first time

>>64633088
>demand survivability increases on already designed EU frigate
>design phase turns into complete mess
>cancel project
>replace EU frigate with CSG cutter that has less survivability than the LCS suicicde boats
The American is a truly special creature

>>64633936
You need to stop thinking of such systems as "CIWS". Think of them as generic light weaponry instead. Like the anti-torpedo-boat guns on old cruisers/pre-dreads. You wouldn't use the main or secondary battery to deal with light threats, you'd use all the small, light guns you had around the ship. Similarly, you wouldn't use ESSMs (or even RAM) on a drone swarm, it would be a much more advantageous trade to use 30 mm AHEAD rounds out of a SeaSnake-30 instead. I'm singling out the SeaSnake because it's specifically intended to be as light and compact as possible (to be mounted in slots initially intended for generic 30 mm AC), while still offering solid light-AA performance (compared to larger, heavier emplacements like the RapidFire Naval, or Bofors's 40/L70 Mk4 turret).
>>64633963
The Abu Dhabi class uses such a retractable hangar.

>>64634006
>Arab performative white elephant adopts impractical solution
as always

File: arthur-cartoon.gif (116 KB, 640x480)

116 KB GIF

>>64633088
I'm so fucking angry. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS.

CG+ standards is more than enough. This is the modern Perry class people want.

>>64634013
Why is it an impractical solution? Would you rather have a shorter flight deck (thus restricting what can land) or no cover at all? It's a corvette for patrolling the straits. It doesn't need a hanger for maintenance. Only to protect a helo from weather.

>>64633667
>Phelan said he's considering a modified Legend class so faggot OP just dug up the 20-year old Legend proposal and claimed that's the proposal
>this is like saying a remark about a proposed modification of the F-16 today means they're absolutely going to build the F-16XL
Another scammy disinfo shill OP then.
Thanks anon.

>>64633984
>doesn't matter how many barrels it has, the limiting factors are not volume of fire but munition range and the shoot-look-shoot cycle
>at 2.5km you have no time at all to re-engage even a subsonic antiship cruise missile at Mach 0.8 twice; you fire once and pray it hits first time

Thats poor thinking. You have about 8 seconds to shoot the missile down. Volume of fire is absolutely important.

>>64633114
>>16 VLS
Only one of the variants has a real MK41 VLS that can fit SM, the rest get a mini MK56 that can only fit 12 ESSM total for self protection.

I don't see how they want to guide the SM2 though, the radars they propose on that tiny mast are going to have marginal performance, and that tiny sonar bulb is also not going to be great for ASW, I guess they didn't want to re-engineer the bow for a proper one?

It is a comically under armed design considering the tonnage. Let's not forget the FREMM based Conny was getting a AEGIS radar suite and 32 MK41 cells (can quad pack ESSM) and a 21 cell RIM-116 launcher.

>>64633114
>why doesn't my town class cruisers have 15 inch battleship guns

>>64633568
>That's more missiles than its Chinese equivalent.

Bro that's comically wrong.

This Ingalls frigate is 6000 tons, just like the chinese type 054B frigate, and that one has a 32 cell VLS.
On their 7500 ton destroyers, china crams 64 VLS cells.
Now the real kicker, US VLS cells are 650mm in size, chinese ones are 850mm. They're also longer, 9 vs 7 meters.
This thing is COMICALLY under armed, no way about it.

Since you spent the last month doing all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify the epic failure of the constellation and how it absolutely needed all that superflous shit, it's amusing to watch you backpedal and suddenly embrace the idea of an anemic coast guard cutter in its place simply out of your jingoistic urge to shout AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

>>64633088
>It's basically a modified version of the Coast Guard's Legend class cutter
What?
USN themselves already rejected this proposal 10 years ago, are they REALLY this retarded?

>>64634214
Do I know (You) ?

>>64634119
And that's poor reading. I said RE-engage for good reason. THINK when your first salvo is going to hit the target. How many seconds do you now have to fire a second salvo?

>>64634025
>Why is it an impractical solution?
Because with virtually no hangar you have like 1 or 2 sorties and that's about it, you might as well have land-based aircraft for all the bloody use a chopper is going to be, cause you'll have shit op tempo basically negating any advantage of shipboard vs land-based

>>64633683
>Navy says "I want a new ship that can do x, y, and z" even though y is not usually done on the same ship as x and z is some nebulous new concept that the Navy thinks it might possibly need in the future but has never been tried before
>a few years pass, top brass cycles out of the Navy
>New leaders go "alright, actually, the ship doesn't need to do y anymore but it does need to do q instead, also the layout needs to be completely rearranged from what the last guys approved because we don't like them"
>this repeats several times, massively ballooning the cost
>ship is finally done
>Navy tests it and goes "woah this is a giant clusterfuck of a ship for how much it cost to produce; it doesn't do any one thing well and it turns out z isn't actually relevant to naval operations anyways, no reason to build any more of these"

I saw this interview with a SeaHawk pilot yesterday who talks about his deployment on small frigates and how fucking miserable life on board of those is and how much time they spend to keep a bird in the air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn4itl_EjT8

Seems absolutely miserable to me already, but at least they got a hangar.
I think if you take the hangar from these guys they'll loose the will to live.

>>64634188
If both china and europe put 2-3x as many weapons on the same size ship, you maybe have a freedom deficit.

>>64634308
You're guesstimating on not much there. A retractable hanger is fine for EEZ patrolling. Look at the parent design, it's the same setup, but with mods for a higher threat environment.

>>64634343
Accommodation standards for USN are miserable. You're getting commercial grade space and services on most warships now.

>>64634350
You're counting capability by cells or guns, you have to go back. You're not having equal tonnage because of lead weights. There's a reason for it.

File: file.png (340 KB, 661x482)

340 KB PNG

>>64634361
>A retractable hanger is fine for EEZ patrolling
for low-tempo EEZ patrolling where you sortie like once a day, sure

but if you expand the context to low-threat low-activity-rate environments, lots of things are permissible. you could even arrange to have constant land-based patrols and eschew helicopters entirely (they're expensive) and settle for a drone launch system and davits to send out your VBSS teams on fast boats, if the threat you're addressing is low enough. so what's the context? are we still talking about turdie EEZ patrol or FFGX fits?

>>64633683
Cost plus contracts

>>64634381
We don't know what tempo was required, so again, you're guesstimating. What we know is that the parent class was for 2nd rate operations -- and that could maintain a helo:
>The retractable hangar is fully equipped to accommodate and maintain an AB 212 or an NH 90 helicopter
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/commandante/
So it's more likely than not a Puma or Super Puma could stay onboard and the sortie rate itself is irrelevant if the conops doesn't require it. ie the helo is only prosecution for when raiding/SAR/drug interdiction.

You're proposing this like it should be all or nothing. Having a helicopter less frequently, is still better than not having or waiting on a helicopter. There's utility in it. I mean, do really think a drone provides greater utility for a EEZ patrol ship than a helo? That is silly.

lol at the idea of sending fast boats for what is primarily cargo and tankers when you could have a helo

>>64633683
The problem with Constellation was the demand from on high to use an extant design. Euro ships don't meet USN DC standards, and it's speculated that a large part of the costs of re-engineering the FREMM into the Constellation class was bringing it up to those standards. The Legend or Independence based FFG designs would have likely avoided that issue, but had their own shortcomings and redesign requirements to become fully capable frigates. It was set up as a losing game from the start, but no one who could see it had a high enough rank to stop it.

>>64634375
Chinese cells are almost twice the size of US cells, merely stating the higher cell count is very generous towards the US.

The only relevant lead is the one in your brain making you retarded.

>>64633926
Replace the gun with a 76mm OTO.
>>64633963
>been explored
It was used on the Knox class frigates in the 60s

File: 1732923193172068.gif (2.86 MB, 320x240)

2.86 MB GIF

>>64633088
>He said the service was focused on using a design approach that separates finalizing the ship’s design from the construction of the lead ship
LMAO. These fucking morons never fucking learn. This exact approach is what fucked the San Antonios, Fords, and the very Constellation frigate that they're trying to replace. This has to be some sort of sleeper cell to destroy the USN lol. There's no way they can actually be this stupid, right?

>>64634672
No, the problem with Constellation design is that the Navy never actually had a specification. The F-MM would give the Navy a design, and then the Navy would demand changes, F-MM would make the changes and give the Navy the design, and then the Navy would demand different changes, and on and on. It was years into the project and the Navy hadn't even made up their mind about a single fucking module and kept fiddling back and forth over shit that didn't need to be redesigned multiple times. If the Navy just told the yard what they wanted upfront, the yard would have designed to that. Instead, the Navy had no idea what they wanted so the design coalesce into something coherent.

I hate Marinette more than most people, but this lies completely with the Navy.

File: d19f90bffb390b462a6632338(...).jpg (37 KB, 427x640)

37 KB JPG

>>64634672
It might be not entirely that they didn't meet the standards, but the approach was different. Not really better or worse. Good example, in Euro ships generally there's soft furnishings in accommodation (wood panels, carpets or curtains).

But it wasn't just DC. They redid about 85% of the ship.

>>64634756
That is essentially what I said anon. The fault lies with the demand to use an existing design, while ignoring the fact that existing designs are built to different standards and used different equipment. None of the submitted designs would have avoided the issues the FREMM faced.

>>64634672
>Euro ships don't meet USN DC standards

Since this argument has been thrown around a ton recently without much elaboration on the details, i did some research.
The US has a fundamentally different damage control strategy than any other nation, not only europeans, but also the japanese and I do believe the chinese as well.
Russia hasn't really build any ships recently so they are irrelevant.

The US still does DC like it is world war 2, and even improved and widened DC measures after the USS Stark got hit by Exocet and the Samuel B. Roberts had it's keel fucked by a mine.
The US wants a ship, even a small ship like a frigate, to take a anti-ship missile hit and not sink.

As a result, US ship designs need to spend a lot more tonnage on reinforced steel structure, and they essentially put every internal deck on a shock mount. They also have redundancies because a missile hit will rip a huge hole and cut pipes and wires, so they run redundant wires and pipes on opposite sides of the ship.

A lot more systems are kept manual instead of automation which could fail, and more crew also means more DC teams since all crew is DC trained.
All this extra reinforcement is so heavy that weapons loadouts are reduced, and you need a ton more extra crew, and it drives per-ship cost up a lot.

The europeans and japanese studied incidents where ships got hit in modern times and deduced that a ship that takes a hit is mission kill and out of the fight, so their priority is to not get hit in the first place, and if they take a hit, they consider the ship out of action anyways.

The japanese mogami's have 90 crew vs the constellations 200, and they cost 400 million instead of the constellations 1.1 billion. Thanks to highly automated systems you can cut the crew this hard and the ship has significantly more weapons on top of that for half the price.

They also put more emphasis on stealth in the design to avoid being hit while the US (except Zumwalt)

>>64634874
That may all be true, but in the end it still comes down to 'the USN can't stop tinkering, and they completely failed to freeze the design at some point'.
Additionally, they were too stupid to just tell whoever was signing the blank cheques 'this is not going to work at this price point, we are throwing good money after bad'

The answer, of course, is: Retired Admirals want consultant jobs, other Admirals are already retired and ARE consultants now, so it's all buddy-buddy network all over again, while whatever congress does just boils down to 'how will this help my reelection?'

>>64634772
>redid 85% of the ship
Yes, most of that is for DC standards as >>64634874 points out, but seems to draw the wrong conclusion from. The USN is fundamentally an expeditionary fleet and expected to operate far from US shores. A mission kill there without proper DC can quickly become a sunk ship. The US designs ships to at a minimum be able to limp to a friendly port after being mission killed.

>>64633600
Ok, but realistically how fucking hard can it be to add some fucking VLCs?
They're not exactly huge.

>>64634935
I did not try to excuse the USN procurement fuckups. I merely explained what I found after researching the topic of different doctrines leading to different DC measures.
The gap is interestingly extremely wide, far bigger than I had thought, and stems from a different doctrine.
Everyone but the US wants more and cheaper ships with smaller crews and considers them a write-off after a hit, basically only bothering with DC for small stuff, and considers DC for things like mine/missile/torpedo hits to be too much effort to bother with.

>>64634938
>but seems to draw the wrong conclusion from

These are the conclusions other nation's navies drew, I did not give any personal opinion.

>The USN is fundamentally an expeditionary fleet and expected to operate far from US shores. A mission kill there without proper DC can quickly become a sunk ship. The US designs ships to at a minimum be able to limp to a friendly port after being mission killed.

The cost of this is extremely high. The procurement cost of the ship double, so instead of having 1 ship that has a good chance of limping home, you could have 2 ships for the same price and simply write off the ship which was hit.
Having less than HALF the crew requirement is also a really huge cost saver. Paying and training 110 sailors is a shitload of money. And it leads to very cramped crew accomodations.
And ofc the reduced weapon load to fit all the extra structure and crew leads to 6000 ton frigates with 16 VLS cells, while other nations fit 32, and they're cells of twice the size on top of that.

Still not giving any opinion of my own on the trade-off, merely pointing out that nothing is free, everything has a downside.

>>64635040
My opinion is that everyone else is likely right and the US is stuck in an outdated doctrinal mindset when it comes to DC, especially on small vessels.
This is still focussed on frigates, mind you, where a medium sized anti-ship missile will tear a gigantic hole, and a big anti-ship missile will create a hole so big it cuts the ship in two.
On a larger destroyer or cruiser that has more structural redundancy anyways and which faces mostly smaller missiles with smaller warheads, the calculation could change.

Weirdly I think the US approach is great for a peace time navy which occasionally gets into low intensity conflicts, runs on a mine, gets hit by a stray missile fired basically by terrorists rather than a real state actor, etc.

But for a big clash with a peer adversary (which never seems to happen) the european/japanese doctrine seems superior.
And weirdly this is what the US often was seen preparing for in the past, until they started playing in the sandbox at least.

Cost savings on 110 crew you do not need over the lifetime of the ship are in the ballpark of 400-600 million $ btw. The japanese will happily buy another mogami for that money.

>>64635040
That's pretty much the zhang design principle. They believe damage control has a net negative effect on combat capability, since it makes a ship larger, heavier, more crew intensive, and costlier to build and operate.
They prefer having 5 heavily-armed tin cans, instead of 3 US-style hardened ships.

>>64633088
This is what FFGX should have been from the start rather than trying to make a slightly smaller Burke.

>>64633088
That version still has a 76mm gun, if they go with the 57mm that the USN has been using HII should be able to fit in more VLS cells.

>>64635088
>That's pretty much the zhang design principle.

I have to agree, but it is not unique to china, the europeans and the japanese have the same doctrine.

>They believe damage control has a net negative effect on combat capability

If you consider a "first strike" like both sides just lob out all their missiles for a saturation attack, that is certainly not just a belief, but a fact. More missiles = more better.
The question is what happens after that, and is the ability to limp home with a hole in your ship and doing a repair for months worthwhile in the conflict you're in, or is it all decided in the first hours.

>They prefer having 5 heavily-armed tin cans, instead of 3 US-style hardened ships.

I think you can afford more like 6 heavily armed tin cans for 3 US-style hardened ships if you consider only procurement costs, and more like 9 if you consider total life cycle cost.

>>64633667
>>64634031
>Phelan said he's considering a modified Legend class

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/12/navy-wants-new-frigate-in-2028-says-services-acquisition-head/

>Phelan also recently told attendees at a private dinner that the new frigate would be a modified National Security Cutter, two sources who heard the comments told Breaking Defense.

"would be" is not "considering".

i'm retarded, why are there so many different classes of surface combatants
why do we need frigates when we have burkes

>>64634193
>Now the real kicker, US VLS cells are 650mm in size, chinese ones are 850mm. They're also longer, 9 vs 7 meters.

Note how you didn't mention the actual missiles going into those cells for some reason, almost like Chinese missiles are less capable.

>>64633088
>A concept from 10 years ago with none of the major redesign work having even been started.
>USN is most likely still gonna sperg about them meeting full naval damage control/redundancy standards instead of keeping them as is, necessitating a huge fucking redesign.
Lmao you guys are fucked.

>>64635066
It might be useful to differentiate surface fleet missions here.

Force protection versus power projection are two very different missions.

Surface vessels functioning as screen pickets in a carrier task force have a very different mission than a single man of war, or a small flotilla running a patrol.

USN has apparently completely shitcanned new acquisitions of cruisers and focused on smaller hulls for as far as the eye can see. (All the while continuing to ignore a woefully inadequate oiler fleet, but that's another story altogether).

What it looks like they're doing to going all-in on carrier task force ops and ditching other surface fleet mission profiles, since none of these newer tincan designs can protect themselves without air assets and probably an attack sub prowling around as well.

More+cheap is a shitty requirements goal and rarely serves anyone particularly well.

>>64635132
OP's image is not the design being considered, but you knew that and so here is your obligatory reply.

Not spam ffs, stupid system
>>64634874
>>64634938
@64635040
@64635088
@64635111
I'm sorry for the mass (You)ing, but some of you are smoking crack. Whilst there are vessels like the Mogami-class or Type 31 which place emphasis on automatic. This does not mean that all other international navies have adopted the perspective of a ship being "write-off after a hit". It's such an unbelievably broad statement and a complete absent of evidence to assert it. You have many, many navies and vessels, and fundamentally price points in that category.

Take the Constellation-class, it's derivative from France's and Italy's FREMM. Both expeditionary navies. Both have overseas commitments and take part in coalition operations. It's in their CONOPS. So this huff-farting about the USN being the "only" expeditionary navy isn't simply correct.

>>64635066
There's a balance to be stuck, and the USN can't find it.

>>64634350
>If both china and europe put 2-3x as many weapons on the same size ship

No my wumao friend the number of VLS cells is not what drives a ships tonnage, this is why that German frigate is like 7k tons and has no VLS.

>>64635128
>Note how you didn't mention the actual missiles going into those cells for some reason, almost like Chinese missiles are less capable.

Want me to mention water is wet also? Ofc these missiles are more capable, they are all of recent development, with modern dual pulse motors, AESA radars, and bigger missile always means more range, more space for a warhead, and a bigger seeker with a bigger radar.
The PLAN wants to have long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles on their ships, hence why they opted for a bigger VLS.
The US is following this trend somewhat, the Zumwalts are getting a bigger VLS. Although not quite as big as the chinese ones.
This results in less VLS cells, but since you can dual or quadpack smaller missiles into one cell, this is not really a downside.

>>64634606
>We don't know what tempo was required, so again, you're guesstimating
but we do know that whatever the tempo is, it's pretty low
>could maintain a helo
never said otherwise
>Having a helicopter less frequently, is still better than not having or waiting on a helicopter. There's utility in it
there is a point past which the juice becomes not worth the squeeze
>do really think a drone provides greater utility for a EEZ patrol ship than a helo? That is silly
you'd be surprised. UAVs such as ScanEagle are used by OPVs that don't want the expense of a full-fledged helicopter.
>lol at the idea
cost-effectiveness, my man

>>64635125
>why are there so many different classes of surface combatants
they fulfil different functions
>why do we need frigates when we have burkes
Burkes are too expensive to use solely; having a frigate provides a "high-low mix" so frigates can be used for less dangerous rear-area tasks

>>64635169
I did not mean to imply that EU/JP/CH navies will abandon ship the second an anti-ship missile hits it, but the USN put several 100 tons of extra steel into the FREMM and basically re-engineered the entire skeleton of the ship to put every deck on shock mounts, beefed up the keel, and had to lengthen the ship merely to keep it seaworthy with all that extra added weight. 15% parts commonality remaining means they swapped 85% of the fucking ship.
The EU/JP/CH navies simply accept that a missile hit means the ship has a lower chance of survival, because they do not value the survival of a damaged ship as high as the USN does. A surviving ship requires costly repairs and is out of action for months.

I think japan is probably on one extreme end of the spectrum with very minimal crew, a shit ton of weapons, and minimal DC capabilities, the US are on the other side of the spectrum, with very over build ships which are over-crewed and under-armed in relative comparison. The EU is clearly in the middle with their designs, but closer to JP than to the US, and I think the trend is moving towards the JP end of the spectrum.

These NSC based frigates are more heavily armed than the USN's previous frigate the OHP.

>>64635225
>so frigates can be used for less dangerous rear-area tasks
i'm still retarded so please humor me, but what tasks would these be?
like what wouldn't necessitate using a burke but would require a frigate over something even less well armed?

>>64635218
>Ofc these missiles are more capable, they are all of recent development, with modern dual pulse motors, AESA radars, and bigger missile always means more range, more space for a warhead, and a bigger seeker with a bigger radar.

Let me guess, you think American missiles are all cold war relics.

>The PLAN wants to have long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles on their ships, hence why they opted for a bigger VLS.
>The US is following this trend somewhat, the Zumwalts are getting a bigger VLS. Although not quite as big as the chinese ones.
>This results in less VLS cells, but since you can dual or quadpack smaller missiles into one cell, this is not really a downside.

None of the upcoming Chinese ships have the embiggened VLS that Zums have, which is quite irrelevant to VLS in frigates.

>>64633088
at this point they should complete the clusterfuck and let Damen build them

>>64633667
>>64634031
>so faggot OP just dug up the 20-year old Legend proposal and claimed that's the proposal
No need to be a total nigger about it, I simply linked the vid cause I thought it was relevant. The point stands that this is what the navy seems to be going with as of now.

>>64635424
>Let me guess, you think American missiles are all cold war relics.

Uhh, no, not exactly.

First, it's not "think" but "know" and it's not "me" but "everyone" since that shit has been public knowledge since forever and is literally quoted as source on fucking wikipedia.
The US has no fielded dual-pulse missile on a ship, no aesa seekers, and no hypersonics.
It's literally, as you say, cold war technology. With some software upgrades.

>None of the upcoming Chinese ships have the embiggened VLS that Zums have, which is quite irrelevant to VLS in frigates.

Uhh wrong chinks put that on 055 and 052D already

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GJB_5860-2006

It's 850x850mm and bigger than anything the US has.
MK41 on tico/burke is 653x653mm
MK57 on zumwalt is 710x718mm

>>64635625
>bigger than anything the US has
The APM tubes on the Zumwalt are 87" (2210mm) in diameter.

>>64635635
That's not a VLS.

>>64635644
It's not a vertical launching system? Do the missiles come out sideways?

>>64634874
>The europeans and japanese studied incidents where ships got hit in modern times and deduced that a ship that takes a hit is mission kill and out of the fight, so their priority is to not get hit in the first place, and if they take a hit, they consider the ship out of action anyways.

Helge Ingstad is the logical consequence of such ideas. Sunk from a simple collision because the crew had zero damage control training because its not part of their doctrine.

>>64635272
>The EU/JP/CH navies simply accept that a missile hit means the ship has a lower chance of survival, because they do not value the survival of a damaged ship as high as the USN does. A surviving ship requires costly repairs and is out of action for months.

The benefit of a surviving ship is that your crew isnt left drifting on liferafts 1000 km from the nearest shore until they die. There are no search and rescue services in a contested zone.

>>64633152
>The more pressing issue is lack of swarm protection
It's called SeaRAM, 4-pack Coyote launchers that can be put anywhere - like they're doing on Burkes right now, Anduril Roadrunner 2 packs, and most importantly, Electronic Attack and HPMs. And the 5 inch, if needed.

>>64635689
HI was pure retardation. Even with the reduced survivability of Euro designs, had they NOT LEFT EVERY FUCKING BULKHEAD DOOR OPEN, the ship would've stayed afloat. The report specifically pointed that out.

>>64635689
>Sunk from a simple collision because the crew had zero damage control training because its not part of their doctrine.
No, it is. Please stop making shit up and actually read the investigation report. The crew did not follow what they were supposed to do.

>>64635712
>Even with the reduced survivability of Euro designs
This isn't something specifically "Euro". It's a budget frigate.

File: mil-USS-Bonhomme-Richard-(...).jpg (1.34 MB, 1800x1200)

1.34 MB JPG

Ah yes, the legendary DC of american ships. Truly second to none, unless of course it's against one incel and a pile of dirty laundry on fire.

>>64633677
You mean all two of them?

>>64635625
>Uhh wrong chinks put that on 055 and 052D already
You mean all ten of them combined? Also, can I actually see those supposed advanced missile doing anything but lighting their boosters off? Of course I can't, because like all thing chinkanese they fucking suck, and at best are 50% what chinsects claim them to be. Which is the reason Xi has had to continuously gulag PLARF commanders and personnel due to corruption, sub-par performance and quality of missiles, and embezzlement.

>>64635720
>No, it is. Please stop making shit up and actually read the investigation report. The crew did not follow what they were supposed to do.

How is this not having zero damage control training? The cope is amazing.

>>64635383
Anything where getting shot at with missiles or airplanes isn't a concern. The US Navy constantly has hundreds of warships deployed all over the globe; very little of what any of them do is missile defense.

>>64635689
The crew ran blindly into an oil tanker it did not see with lights and AIS off, while ignoring the radio from the tanker. They then ran aground, and abandoned the ship with all doors open and let it sink over the course of several hours.

There is nothing wrong with the ship, you can't retard proof anything to this degree.

>>64635650
>It's not a vertical launching system?

No. It's a handful of individual tubes, more akin to soviet anti-ship missiles storage.

>Do the missiles come out sideways?

Yes. Well, at an angle. It's not vertical.

>>64635762
His point is that they were supposed to have damage control training to go with the limited damage control capability of the ship, and that not providing that training was negligence rather than doctrine. It seems to me that negligence *is* doctrine in most (all?) navies these days, though.

>>64635743
>>Uhh wrong chinks put that on 055 and 052D already
>You mean all ten of them combined?

They're currently building 10 in parallel, with 33 in service.

Type 055 - 112 VLS cells
8 in service
4 currently under construction

Type 052D - 64 VLS cells
25 in service
6 under construction

You're going to need stronger copium, I am afraid.

Guys the Helge Ingstad crew had 5 navigators, and 4 of those were women.
And you wonder why the fuck they rammed a tanker, then ran aground, and abandoned ship leaving the hatches open?
It's not the fucking ship, doctrine or training.
It's diversity hires.

>>64633088
>Changing an existing design
You've already done this and failed.

>>64635774
You have no idea what you're talking about. The APM is literally a Trident-sized VLS tube, into which upcoming hypersonic missiles can be triple-packed, or current TLAM or SM-6 missiles can be 7-packed, the same way that ESSMs can be quad-packed into a standard Mk.41 cell. Or they can be loaded with actual Trident missiles if the Navy suddenly turned retarded. The APM is an adaptation of the Virginia Payload Module, which was designed way back when the US was considering using the Trident missile as a launch vehicle for Prompt Global Strike.

This so fucking retarded, it's rerunning the Connie's issue.

>>64635854
Only if they actually redesign the thing and not just start building them.

>>64635841
It's an almost-vertical-but-slightly-canted-vertical-launch-tube not a vertical-launch-system. It's individual TUBES, not a SYSTEM of TUBES and it isn't quite vertical.

t. autist stickler for semantics

>>64635764
if combat at all isn't a concern, why even send a frigate when you can send a coast guard cutter or something even cheaper
like i'm a drooling idiot but if you're expecting combat wouldn't you send the most capable thing you have? frigate just seems like a compromise, like there isn't any combat situation where you'd want a frigate over a burke

File: MakeItStop.jpg (60 KB, 500x500)

60 KB JPG

>>64633088
The USN really needs an earthshattering wakeup call

>>64635884
Where is it written in the dictionary that VLS systems must be designed in straight rows of square cells? And what exactly is the source of your knowledge regarding the angle of the tubes in the APM? Additionally, how many degrees from vertical can a VLS cell be, and does this change depending on the orientation of the ship?

>>64635762
What cope? I'm repeating a factual point in the report. The crew fail to follow their training. The ship design was a negligible.

>>64635784
Some did, some didn't. Training and certification was not where it should have been as a crew to keep up operational tempo. It's pretty similar to the Burke collisions on navigation.

>>64635959
*failed
*negligible factor
im in the bath

>>64635728
underestimating your enemy is detrimental

>>64635858
They have to redesign them. They don't meet the safety standards and you are adding a VLS cells to the ship and Ageis.

>>64635810
>Guys the Helge Ingstad crew had 5 navigators, and 4 of those were women.
I still dont get why /pol/ keeps pushing story. At least you've toned it down from the original "all female crew occupied with lesbian arguments and doing their nails" from 2018

>>64635919
Yes, if you were expecting combat you would probably send a destroyer or even something larger. But sometimes you're not expecting combat, so you send in a poorly armed cutter (which isn't necessarily cheaper, the Legend class cutter is much more expensive to build and operate than either class of LCS), but then it finds itself in combat with either a similarly-sized corvette or patrol boat, or a slightly larger frigate. Now your cutter needs to attempt a fighting retreat while calling in support from a destroyer that was already busy doing destroyer things.

If you had sent a frigate instead, it would capable of handling the situation itself, and if had run into something it can't deal with, like a group of frigates or a destroyer, then the destroyer it called in for support would actually have something worthwhile to do instead of chasing patrol boats around.

>>64636047
It meets *a* survivability standard (level 1 with shock hardening exemption lmao) and they've got room for VLS cells if you let them stick up out of the deck (see the model in the OP). But yes, Aegis would probably take quite a bit of engineering to integrate, although technically speaking it's not strictly necessary in order to make use of the VLS.

>>64634672
Right, which is a bad reason. Damage control standards exist to save lives, and hulls.
But if damage control standards result in far fewer hulls in the water, then you defeat the original purpose. Fewer hulls means you're more likely to take hits and casualties in the first place.
So if you have to make a choice, then dropping standards to get more hulls will achieve your original aims better than maintaining them would have.

Ideally you do both but that clearly isn't happening.

>>64636080
If it's down to the point where they're considering just building cutters, just say fuck it and go with the arsenal ship design.
No real fire control, minimal if any crew, gut all the survivability features. Just floating magazines that provide firepower to burkes.

>>64636117
That's not even a little bit what the frigate is for and I'm not sure why you would bring it up.

>>64636080
maybe i'm a retard but i have a hard time envisioning a situation where a ship is deployed in an area that isn't expecting combat but ends up running into an enemy surface combatant
it just seems like a really narrow niche to dedicate an entire class of hulls for

>>64635919
If you're expecting combat, you wouldn't just be sending things alone. It would be part of mutually supporting force.

>>64636134
That would be because that envisioned scenario is no longer real in the sat recon, radar, post-WWII era. It's designing an entire hull for a bygone era.

>>64636134
It's the inverse. Running into an enemy surface combatant is the niche situation because it means there's been an operational and intelligence failure, see >>64636146

>>64636134
Because you're a zoomer and you can't comprehend a world without instantaneous secure communications and 100% availability of satellite tracking. Even with those things, there's a lot of confusion over the Russian shadow fleet and which ships are part of it, where they're heading to and from where, and with what cargo. With degraded communications and ISR, there will be a constant need for patrolling for enemy forces (which can be anything from a carrier strike group to a converted fishing boat laying mines), verifying the location and provenance of civilian shipping and protecting them from privateers, as well as stuff like clearing mines, screening for subs or USVs at extended distances around a CSG, and the like.

>>64635625
>The US has no fielded dual-pulse missile on a ship, no aesa seekers, and no hypersonics.

The wumao outs himself with lazy lies.

>>64635644
And is now coping after getting BTFO.

/raises hand

Since all the naval grognards are ITT, I want to ask them: why the obsession with VLS systems? I understand they're convenient; you can load them it anything, but they take up an incredible amount of space. What's wrong with dedicated box launchers? Hell, what's wrong with taking 4 VLS cells and putting THEM into a mission-configurable box launcher? Wouldn't that let you pack more firepower on a smaller hull?

>>64636104
To reach the required survivability stands for a frigate it fails. To insert a VLS within the ship it have to change a massive amount of the ship. The Aegis part would be the easiest of the three.

You'd have to totally redesign the ship.

>>64636226
>What's wrong with dedicated box launchers?
Slow launch speed, limited capacity, doesn't allow the same level of variance.

>>64636226
The VLS number is the first port of call for the casual because
>bigger number better
You use box launchers when you don't want / or can't have deck penetration. They're ideal for AShMs.

>>64636226
The obsession is because VLS takes up a lot less space than dedicated box launchers. Look at how many missiles the Iowa refits carried, 32 TLAMs and 16 Harpoons. Now compare that to the Constellation, 32 strike length VLS and a pair of 8-tube NSM launchers. A modern frigate can carry as many missiles as a battleship outfitted in the 80s.

>>64636240
It's the Navy doing the requiring, they can just lower their requirements. That's basically what the LCS was and somehow it's been their most successful ship since the 90s.

>>64636226
>Since all the naval grognards are ITT, I want to ask them: why the obsession with VLS systems? I understand they're convenient; you can load them it anything, but they take up an incredible amount of space. What's wrong with dedicated box launchers? Hell, what's wrong with taking 4 VLS cells and putting THEM into a mission-configurable box launcher? Wouldn't that let you pack more firepower on a smaller hull?

Actually VLS kinda save space. They're pretty efficient when it comes to missile packing. Before you had VLS, you had individual articulating arm launchers and similar nonsense with magazines.

The reason larger ships and especially AEGIS use VLS is due to saturation attacks being the anti-ship meta since the 60's-70's so you need a launch system that can shit out all it's missiles all at once.
The best way to do that is to do away with an arm launcher that can orient a missile, and just dump the missile straight into the air, and have the missile do a course correction right at the start.
This means all missiles are now engineered for vertical launch, most have some sort of booster to shove them to altitude at the start, so if you now introduce a different launcher on your smaller ships, you would need new specialised missile variants.

There is frankly not really a reason to not use VLS on smaller ships.

>>64636285
If the navy can lower it's requirements and that was the issue with the Connie's then use the Connie's. Going with the cutter would be a repeat of the Connie's, except you've got a worse base. What the navy needs is an entirely new ship.
>hat's basically what the LCS was and somehow it's been their most successful ship since the 90s.
God that's depressing.

>>64636276
The Iowas still had their 16" guns. They fitted the VLS cells instead of useless anti-air and small caliber secondary mounts.

>>64636256
>The VLS number is the first port of call for the casual because
>>bigger number better

Bro with 16 VLS cells, you're gonna quad-pack 8 with ESSM which is decent, which leaves 8 VLS cells for serious anti-air missiles like SM's. That means you can engage 4 incoming high performance anti-ship missiles with 2 SM's each, and then you're empty.
It means that a single flight of heavy fighters with anti-ship missiles can saturate your high performance SAMs.
Not good.

File: mk48vls_small.jpg (1.02 MB, 2250x1500)

1.02 MB JPG

>>64636226
>what's wrong with taking 4 VLS cells and putting THEM into a mission-configurable box launcher?
A few ships are built to carry these.

>>64636331
It's a frigate. Why is it operating alone, and why is the enemy dedicating that kind of firepower to a lone frigate? Just target the fighters with the SMs instead, any modern fighter costs 20% or more of what a frigate does.

>>64636323
>They fitted the VLS cells
No they didn't, that's my point. They covered the entire deck with box launchers that added up to a fraction of the tubes they could have gotten from pulling a single turret to make room for VLS.

>>64635383
escorting supply convoys and troopships is the most important.

>>64635774
>at an angle. It's not vertical.
it's vertical enough to count as VLS, dipshit

>>64636321
thatsbait.gif

>>64636226
>they take up an incredible amount of space. What's wrong with dedicated box launchers
now I wonder if THIS is bait
VLS IS a box launcher, except it's vertical
they're the exact same volume
it's just a question of whether you store that box diagonally, horizontally or vertically
anything diagonal (a la Harpoon) wastes space, you only do that when you have random bits of deckspace that won't fit anything else
horizontally (Tomahawk) requires erectors for launch, but more importantly occupies more deckspace, and would be placed higher up which is very bad for stability on a boat
vertical is literally the most space-efficient configuration

>>64636478
speed and cost
at the time, VLS hadn't been developed yet

>>64636495
Holy every take of yours is retarded.

File: 1765645648301424.jpg (463 KB, 2500x2500)

463 KB JPG

>>64636495
>VLS IS a box launcher, except it's vertical
That's bait right?

>>64636495
>speed and cost
>at the time, VLS hadn't been developed yet
I wasn't saying the Navy should have invented time travel to put VLS on the Iowas in the early 80s, I was pointing out that box launchers take up a lot more deck space.

>>64636240
Literally all 3 things you said are the exact opposite of what you say. Shut your mouth, sit down, and try actually reading something other than 4chan posts.

>>64636321
Survivability was not the issue with the LCS, Connie, or Legend NSC. It is an issue that the media and Senators with an axe to grind seized upon for their own ends.

>>64636514
Sorry but you're incredibly wrong and you know nothing about naval architecture.

>>64633088
It looks cool. And at least being a US design, there should be no questions about what the design can/can't do. Just accept that a 'cheaper' design is NOT a mainline warship.

The funny thing is that the constellation was based on an Italian frigate that comes stock with 32 VLS (and the USN wanted to make it 42).

>>64636525
>Survivability was not the issue with the LCS, Connie, or Legend NSC
Unsure about Connie, I've not seen a report on it. But Legend and LCS are only built to level one standards which don't meet what NAVSEA has put down for frigates.

>>64636321
>If the navy can lower it's requirements and that was the issue with the Connie's then use the Connie's.
You mean just use a stock FREMM? What if the Navy felt like the stock Legend was better than the stock FREMM, but the FREMM's configurability would make it the better starting point for making substantial changes?

>>64636535
What if instead of calling it a frigate, they call it the LCS-40 or PC-15?

>>64636526
What would it take to change your mind?

>>64636528
Its not cheaper though.

>>64636544
>What if instead of calling it a frigate
Then it's not a frigate replacement and you're ignoring requirements to make a design fit, not because they are outdated.

>>64636535
Your information is bad. Are you willing to learn?

>>64636551
The frigate itself is an LCS replacement, so...

>>64636546
You showing that it would be easier to upgrade a Legend to include those features.

>>64636563
Completely different roles intended for both classes.

>>64636557
Please show me the LCS and Legend both being up to level 2 standards.

>>64636565
What does that have to do with the 3 points you raised being incorrect?

>>64636573
I didn't say they were.

>>64636576
>What does that have to do with the 3 points you raised being incorrect?
Those were the three points, can you not read?

>>64636569
They're not that different. Around 2014 the Navy started talking about rebranding the last 20 or so LCSes as FFs, giving them some more weapons and getting rid of the speed requirement. Then they decided it made more sense to split that project off into its own program of record and FFGX was born. The Constellation was always a successor to the LCS program, designed with the wisdom of knowing that there's no reason for a patrol boat to be able to go 50 fucking miles per hour.

>>64636583
Yes, you did >>64636557 unless you are saying I'm correct despite my information being bad.

>>64636609
>They're not that different
They have no VLS and no advanced AAW sensors, they are not Aegis capable. Widely different mission roles. The only thing similar is the cost and the tonnage.

>>64636629
No he's right, NAVSEC has a plot to rebrand them. Having VLS, advanced AAW and Aegis was not the benchmark for qualifying.

>>64636495
>at the time, VLS hadn't been developed yet
Adding VLS to the Iowa class would have been very expensive for what it was worth

>>64636661
No, you're not, there's nothing in the budget to add VLS cells, alter the hulls to implement level 2 survivability, or extend the super structure to carry aegis sensors.
>Having VLS, advanced AAW and Aegis was not the benchmark for qualifying.
It is for being a frigate in the USN. AAW is required for a modern frigate. Point to me one modern frigate that can't do AAW.

>>64636315
Ah so desu.

>>64636563
technically yes, but not really
in the sense that yes the Navy is replacing this ship with that ship, but no in the sense that they are for completely different roles
it's like you're saying "Essexes are Iowa replacements"

>>64636609
>They're not that different
capability-wise they're fucking miles apart
>designed with the wisdom of knowing that there's no reason for a patrol boat to be able to go 50 fucking miles per hour
sigh
quite

>>64636661
>Having VLS, advanced AAW and Aegis was not the benchmark for qualifying
tell me you haven't looked at the FFGX requirement spec sheet

Do Coastie cutters live up to USN standards for damage control, or are we going to go through this whole fuckaround all over again?

>>64636682
You're missing the point. Where exactly is your idea that the Navy wanted Constellation for the express purpose of AAW coming from? What if that's a capability that's not absolutely necessary for the Constellation's mission (Burkes seem to have been handling it just fine in the Red Sea) and just something that seemed like a no-brainer to add as a requirement for a frigate program? As you said, it's a pretty typical thing for frigates to be capable of. However, the Navy has insisted for decades that they need 50-60 small surface combatants to perform their mission, and they seem fairly lax about exactly what classes those SSCs belong to.

>>64636715
repeat after me

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 scratch

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 scratch

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 scratch

>>64636715
No, they're lower than the LCS.

>>64636721
/groan

>>64636717
>Where exactly is your idea that the Navy wanted Constellation for the express purpose of AAW coming from?
NTA but some of us have read the Navy's requirements, spec sheet and mission CONOPS
You haven't

File: 1280px-Proposed_Governmen(...).png (483 KB, 1280x742)

483 KB PNG

>>64636717
>You're missing the point
No, you are, the point was that the Legend and the LCS would require major modifications, absolutely massive ones, like the Constellations needed to meet the navies desired ship. That which put this suggestion of using either the LCS or Legend in the same spot as the Connies apart from the fact that the Connies base ship is closer to the requirements.

>>64636721
Proofs?

>>64636717
You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>64636717
https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/2238209/us-navy-releases-rfp-for-guided-missile-frigate-contract/

>>64636738
None of those are what I'm talking about. Those are all things you write after you decide you want a frigate. I'm talking about why the Navy wants a frigate in the first place.

>>64636743
They would require major modifications to meet the FFGX program requirements. Clearly what's going on here is that the Navy is planning to buy something less capable than the Constellation because a worse ship is better than no ship.

>>64636746
>The National Security Cutter shall be designed to U.S. Navy Level I Survivability Standards, with the exception of shock hardening
https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jun/14/2003485925/-1/-1/0/2000_USCG_SYSTEMPERFORMANCESPECIFICATION.PDF
It's the same standard as the first 4 LCS hulls. It probably wouldn't be that hard to take a quick pass through it and shock harden the critical systems to bring it in line with the later LCSes, but trying to improve it to level 2 is going to end up the same way as Constellation.

>>64636774
>Clearly what's going on here is that the Navy is planning to buy something less capable than the Constellation because a worse ship is better than no ship.
Then make the base FREMM or F101, the Legend does not meet the specs at all.

>>64636789
Those don't either, so I'm not sure what your point is.

>>64636783
>It's the same standard as the first 4 LCS hulls.
Yes, that's the issue. They do not want it to be on par with the LCS, because the LCS isn't designed for combat unless it's shooting at sandniggers.

>>64636795
They are vastly closer to the requirements. They both have VLS, ASW capabilities, ASuW capabilities. F101 carries aegis. You are comparing a patrol boat to a true frigate.the biggest areas they lack is survivability when hit. The legend lacks everything.

>>64636795
Think about it this way the F100 class meets most of the requirements, the Legend doesn't meet any. And you'd have to do a Constellation class type job to get the Legend half way there, same with the LCS.

>>64636806
The proposed Legend-based "patrol frigate" has those things. Look, I'm not trying to defend their choice, I think it's the worst of all of the FFGX competitors and I don't even think the Coast Guard should have bought them. I'm just trying to explain what's going to happen here. Obviously they're not going to do the Constellation thing and try and blank sheet redesign the ship; they're talking about fielding them in 2-3 years. They're obviously talking about just taking one of the FFGX design proposals and saying "okay, build this thing exactly and we won't add anything else."

>>64636811
They will just change the requirements to fit the ship they want. It's not like it's something unheard of.

>>64636819
>I think it's the worst of all of the FFGX competitors
Second worst, I meant. There was a Freedom variant proposed as well.

>>64636819
>I'm just trying to explain what's going to happen here
They are talking about, thank fuck nothing has been signed, heavily altering a patrol boat into a frigate. This is a repeat of the Constellation but likely many, many times worse. And remember the design isn't finalized like the Constellation still isn't. This is worse then just continuing with the Connies, which I'm not suggesting.

>>64636774
>Those are all things you write after you decide you want a frigate
hell no it fucking isn't!

>Clearly what's going on here
you have no clue what the Navy wanted
you have no clue what the Navy wants
you have no clue how fleets are planned and procured
you have no clue

>>64635111
the soviet felt the same as well. Their ships and equipment were made for "the conflict" and not to last beyond it. Damage control philosophy allows lives and ships to be saved, and is an important element of the war at home. A ship that survives the enemy, despite being mangled, is a powerful example of survival, superiority, and being indomitable. Even if OPFOR plays down the survival of a US ship, their people and military still know its being restored, probably cheaper than a new build, and will be back.

If you have ships that have that level of damage control, the enemy has to scale their offensive capability to meet it. Its not just sunk investment, its escalation.

Future US ships will probably be more and more like the Manta UUV and Copperhead UUV. Then you will see fire and forget, semi disposable assets, but you probably wont see a hybrid step when it comes to manned equipment out of the USN.

>>64636825
>This is worse then just continuing with the Connies, which I'm not suggesting
so you're just bitching in ignorance for the sake of it
gotcha

>>64636833
No, I'm suggesting for the moment licence F100 and producing them in Marinette Marine while a new better design is being drawn up. And I'm not the one who's ignorant, you are the one who didn't know that AAW was vital to the requirements of the FFG(X).

>>64636825
The best boat is the one you have.

>>64636828
Are you implying that you would write out a list of requirements for a frigate if what you wanted was an amphibious landing dock? Or a paper about how you could use a frigate if you were buying a cruiser?

>>64636850
>The best boat is the one you have
And the completely redesign Legend isn't a ship the USN has or could have quickly.

>>64636856
Which is why I've been saying that they won't completely redesign it. They will just reduce the requirements and build it as designed.

>>64636845
>you are the one who didn't know that AAW was vital to the requirements of the FFG(X).
I'm literally the first anon to talk about the air defence requirement ITT

>I'm suggesting for the moment licence F100 and producing them in Marinette Marine
so that Americans have to train sailors on a set of Spanish hardware, buy Spanish parts, and have to spend the next 35 years operating a couple of Spanish destroyers?
why, cause maybe the Navy can send all the spics there, they'd feel more at home?

>>64636850
I'm saying they wrote out a list of requirements for a frigate which you didn't read

what's your point?

>>64636877
What makes you think I'm unaware of the FFGX program requirements? For this entire discussion I've been talking about the Navy's reasons for wanting a frigate, not about the capabilities they would expect from one.

>>64636819
>The proposed Legend-based "patrol frigate" has those things.

No, it really, really doesn't.

>>64636887
You can scroll to the top of this thread and see the VLS cells with your own two eyes.

>>64636885
because for this entire discussion your opinions of what you believe to be the Navy's reasons for wanting a frigate reveal that you haven't actually read their published reasons and you're just talking out of your ass

File: file.png (1.11 MB, 1080x1080)

1.11 MB PNG

>>64636885
>the Navy's reasons for wanting a frigate are not the same as the capabilities they would expect from one

>>64636889
on one out of 4 proposed variants, and a whopping 16 cells, half of what other frigates the same size carry, and without an AEGIS radar to actually self-guide most of the USN SM inventory?

>>64636895
>A FRIGATE IS A FRIGATE

This weak faggot is still out here refusing to stand by a single thing he says or honestly address a single thing anyone says to him.

>>64636891
And what do you think represents the Navy's published reasons for wanting a frigate? Documents that were necessarily written after that decision was already made?

>>64636894
I don't need cupholders in a car to drive myself to work, but I would certainly expect at least one. If I were to write out my requirements for a new car to drive to work, it would include a require a minimum of one cupholder. Then you'd read that list of requirements and inform me that I'm buying a car so I have a place to set my drink.

>>64636895
I believe the current proposal actually includes 32 cells, but yeah. I can't explain the decision apart from their only real choices considering the political climate were the Legend or the F100. I don't know why the Legend was selected, I certainly wouldn't have picked it.

>>64636913
Not him homie, merely pointing out: Its a fucking frigate.

>>64636924
>I don't know
anything at all, yes, we know

>>64636932
Surely you, knower of things, will inform us why the Legend was selected.

>>64636935
>the Legend was selected
source?

>>64636938
Try reading the OP.
>B-but it's not official yet!
Okay, that's nice. We'll argue about all of this again in two weeks once it is.

>>64636943
>Try reading
I did
The guy gave his opinion to his friends at dinner. You want to ask me
>why the Legend was selected
on that basis? Sure: the most suitable answer is "because Phelan likes the Legend".

As for why the Legend-class might be selected as a base design to modify for the frigate role, go look at the requirements the USN has published for the FFGX and their explanation of what they want the FFGX's missions to be. You still haven't done that.

>>64636924
No, it is 16, and only for ONE of the variants, because the ship is somehow too small to do 2 things at once and they propose 4 different variants for 4 different jobs, and only 1 is an "air defense" frigate with a whopping 16 cells. The rest has 0.

>>64636906
>>64636927

Frigates typically have 32 cells. DDs have 64+ these days. Cruisers 100+. Unless it's a Failwalt.

>>64636951
>As for why the Legend-class might be selected as a base design to modify for the frigate role,
They won't be meaningfully modifying it from the current proposal; they're saying that it will be in the water by 2028.
>go look at the requirements the USN has published for the FFGX and their explanation of what they want the FFGX's missions to be. You still haven't done that.
I have. I've been following the FFGX program from the start. But neither the program requirements nor the conops represent the fundamental reasons for wanting frigate.

>>64636952
Zumwalt is a destroyer with 80 Mk.57 VLS cells, plus the 4 APM tubes which are essentially 7 VLS cells each. It can carry more missiles than a Burke.

>>64636963
>I know everything
lol

This weak faggot is STILL out here refusing to stand by a single thing he says or honestly address a single thing anyone says to him.

>>64636977
>Still no response other than "you don't know anything!" when called out on mistaking "what" and "how" for "why"

>>64636981
>>Still no response other than "I know because I JUST DO OKAY!" when called out on absolutely everything

>>64636963
Failwalt is 16,000 tons, it's heavier than most cruisers.

>>64636952
>Frigates typically have 32 cells
USN doesnt follow the norm, it sets the norm.

>>64637005
And, yet, it is a destroyer. Because ship classifications are based on role, not tonnage.

>>64636980
And you're STILL screaming (impotently) into the abyss.

File: Shrug[1].jpg (47 KB, 377x500)

47 KB JPG

>>64637009
Its what he has reduced the discourse to.

>>64637014
No, its what you've reduced yourself to.

>>64634672
>Euro ships don't meet USN DC standards

What are the standards then? I suspect that they're more about bureaucracy and not genuine survivability.

>>64637007
The Failwalt does not fullfill a destroyer role.

>>64637000
You've only called me out on one very specific issue, and I happen to know about it because I've been following the LCS debate for a very long time. You want to know, too? Cool, you can start at the beginning: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1992/november/sea-preparing-naval-service-21st-century

>>64637022
What capability that might be required of a destroyer is it lacking? If you say air defense, I'm going to laugh at you.

File: IMG_7576.png (523 KB, 2200x1700)

523 KB PNG

>>64633088
Burgers should just buy the river-class. It’s a modular design and you can even expand the number of vls cells in certain configurations.

>>64637056
>destroyer
>24-cell VLS
qeq

>>64637063
You don’t have to go with the default configuration.

>However, based on the modular design of the Type 26 Global Combat Ship (upon which the River-class is based), and common discussions in naval analysis, the maximum realistic expansion for the Mk 41 VLS is often cited at 48 cells.

>One BAE Systems offer, reportedly for an export variant, explored a configuration that would delete the multi-mission bay and replace it with VLS, reaching the same capacity as a US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (96 cells). This is highly unlikely for the RCN's River-class, as the mission bay is a key feature

>>64637019
I gain nothing from adhering to a one-sided ruleset or code.

>>64637056
Against the law.
>>64637063
Reductio ad absurdum (VLS edition)

>>64637056
They'll be as expensive as Burkes by the time they're finally done.

>>64637056
>It’s a modular design
it's not that modular, and the downsides of a British design are that Canada and Australia have paid tens of billions to modify the design with American weapons and sensors

on the other hand, the upsides are that Canada and Australia have paid tens of billions to modify the design with American weapons and sensors already

so yeah, it really ought to be on the table

>>64637076
>This is highly unlikely for the RCN's River-class
which is stupid

File: 1550039096061.png (81 KB, 305x175)

81 KB PNG

>>64633615
>built a WARship
>don't put any weapons on it
I mean if you like spending tax dollars on targets yeah I guess

>>64633152
4 Standards and 4 VL-ASROC for the ASW mission.

>>64633279
You mean like, a Bureau of Ships?

File: US_Navy_050110-N-9851B-05(...).jpg (342 KB, 1312x2000)

342 KB JPG

>>64634940
not exactly small either. it's a significant through deck penetration.

>>64637286
nowhere near enough

8 cells for 32 ESSM is standard self-defence fit
8 cells for nu-VL-ASROC is standard ASW fit
that's the minimum for any ASW warship
to counter the antiship ballistic missile threat, a further 8 self-defence SM-3/6s is bare minimum near-future-proofing (actually present-proofing)

if you want to contribute meaningfully to task force air defence, that's at least 8 to 16 more cells for Standards

16 cells is minimum self-defence today
24 cells is minimum ABM self-defence
32-40 cells is for local air defence

>>64633683
US military procurement was gutted during the Peace Dividends. Lots of people with decades of experience and generations of institutional knowledge passed down to them were RiF'd all at once, leaving not enough people left who knew how to manage a procurement program.

This has never been properly corrected.

>>64637294
Yes, the bare minimum defensive VLS fit is 4x8 (32) cells. 8 for VL-ASW, 16 for long-range anti-air/anti-SRBM, and 8 (quad-packed, so 32 effectors) for medium-range SAM. To reduce MRSAM expenditure, a SHORAD system (missile+laser, or missile+gun) is also mandatory.

>>64637339
>To reduce MRSAM expenditure, a SHORAD system
>missile+gun)
RAM and Mk57 for last-ditch point defence
>laser
for the moment too power-intensive, but the next ASW ship after that, certainly

>>64637056
Type 26s are equivalent of ASW Burkes. That isn't a realistic suggestion.

>>64637258
>which is stupid
Nope. You do the accounting on how many more SM2 etc Canada would need to buy. You are never going to fill all those cells.

>>64637294
>to counter the antiship ballistic missile threat, a further 8 self-defence SM-3/6s is bare minimum near-future-proofing (actually present-proofing)
Stupid suggestion.
You are mission creeping. Leave it to a dedicated AAW/BMD ship.

>>64637417
>You do the accounting on how many more SM2 etc Canada would need to buy. You are never going to fill all those cells
That's a funding problem
You know they need an AWD
>You are mission creeping
Not at all. Ballistic antiship missiles are common enough that the fucking Iranians have them. You can't shepherd every warship going through the Middle East with a Burke. The idea that no frigate can go through without self-defence capability against antiship ballistics is retarded. This is exactly akin to sailing around in the 1970s without antimissile defence, assuming that most antiship attacks will be bombers dropping Mk82s.

>>64637428
Lol, what a wonderful world you live. Blowing out the budget is a trivial point?

Yes, you can shepard every warship with a Buke or allied AAW. It's a theater level capability that a task force can provide. It doesn't have to come from every individual platform. Both ASW and BMD are highly specialized skills that contradict both ship design and crew quals. If you want excellence, you cannot be doing both.

>>64637444
>waah waah my recruitment pool is so stupid and uneducated
sucks to suck

>>64637449
Nothing to do with the recruitment pool. There are only so few hours in a day, therefore only so few logbook, class room and practical hours. This is how you fuck up your surface warfare branch. This is how you get class A mishaps like the collisions mentioned in the thread. Overstuffing their bandwidth.

>>64637505
Cool, that's like, your opinion man.
Midwit opinion aside, that changes nothing to what is said above.

>>64637516
is that all you can do? insult me?
can you at least make an attempt to show where I'm wrong or simply off the mark?
I would have enjoyed a conversation

>>64636226
The Mk 41 is optimized for volume, given the requirements (like hot-launching) it has to accomplish. If you try to make it into a standalone box launcher, you'll take up more volume, not less. The only way to go smaller is with a stripped-down version like Mk 56. If you want to do some research, go look into the StanFlex Mk 48.

Now, if you're talking about taking up volume inside the hull, as opposed to having the volume above deck, I can kinda see where you're coming from, but there just isn't enough space above deck for the number of rounds that an in-deck VLS can carry. Don't forget that all the swing-arm launchers took up a lot of space under the deck for their magazines, and they had vastly lower effective rates of fire.
>>64636276
A better example would be the Spru-cans. They went from an 8-round ASROC launcher to a 61-round VLS battery.

>>64636609
That was more about the USN suddenly realizing that they'd allowed the frigate role to lapse while they were busy chasing dead end requirements with LCS. "Look, ma, I can turn this sow's ear into a silk purse now that I see that you need a silk purse".

>>64637294
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that 4-8 ASROC is the minimum needed.

>>64637417
>Type 26s are equivalent of ASW Burkes. That isn't a realistic suggestion.
Nah dude, that's the exactly why they might be a good idea, the USN and Congress have an insatiable appetite for mission creep, so you might as well get something fully crept from the beginning. You already have a lot of the major engineering done ahead of time by the Canadians and Australians to take american weapons and systems, the RN, RCN & RAN are probably also the second best in terms of damage control standards behind only the USN. The river class will already have aegis and spy7 radars, and the hunters have the american 5" gun and 32 MK41 cells.

>>64639175
I've always been kind of surprised that stanflex hasn't seen wider international adoption, it's a really slick system.

>>64639273
LCS's mission modules were partially inspired by StanFlex.

>>64637258
mission bay is more useful for Canada because the primary use of these will likely remain ASW and general purpose. Canada makes a lot of shipping container ASW systems and are leaning heavily into that for expanding the AOPS's role and putting ASW on the upcoming corvette. that being said, the next batch, the RCN wants 6 made in that batch, are supposed to increase the cell count to 32. better to get them out with 24 cells "on time", well 5 years late, than adding a couple years of more work and instead have the next batch fix that problem.. after that they're likely going to do some larger redesigns so it's hard to say what it'll be like.

>>64637294
BMD is a cruiser role, it's been pushed onto destroyers as destroyers have increasingly edged their way into becoming cruisers in size and capability, but there's no reason to outfit frigates for that purpose.

>>64637364
RAM is pointless if you have VLS available, ESSM fills the same role with vastly superior performance. There's a reason you only see RAM equipped on LHAs and shit and not on destroyers.

>>64639273
>the USN and Congress have an insatiable appetite for mission creep, so you might as well get something fully crept from the beginning.
Wouldn't the logical conclusion to this be to just buy more Burkes? Why would they even look at the Type 26 when the Burke exists?

>>64633114
Didn't they demand changing FREMM's 32 VLS cells to 48 for Constellation or something? Schizo procurement.

>>64639516
the USN went crazy changing the internal layout to match USN damage control requirements and essentially rebuilt the ship completely

>>64639567
Now now, they still had 18% parts commonality (and still like 40% of the design not finalized)

>>64639192
More like they were trying to fix the perceived problems with the LCS, namely a lack of armament compared to modern frigates and a lack of survivability compared to the old OHP frigates, but when they asked for proposals they discovered that nothing still exists with that level of survivability except for maybe the old Anzac/MEKO200, which is as overstuffed as the Burke and probably can't be upgraded much further.

>>64636315
>The reason larger ships and especially AEGIS use VLS is due to saturation attacks being the anti-ship meta since the 60's-70's so you need a launch system that can shit out all it's missiles all at once.
>The best way to do that is to do away with an arm launcher that can orient a missile, and just dump the missile straight into the air, and have the missile do a course correction right at the start.
>This means all missiles are now engineered for vertical launch, most have some sort of booster to shove them to altitude at the start, so if you now introduce a different launcher on your smaller ships, you would need new specialised missile variants.
No only this, all of your launch tubes are perpendicular to the ship's deck, which means they all have the ability to attack/defend in a full 360 degree bubble around the ship. If you have box launchers, or the Euro style deck mounted MK41 cells that have an angle of like 25 degrees relative to the deck, they're now dedicated to a relatively narrow 120 degree arch to use the full effectiveness of the missile, as most of the booster burn isn't eaten up by doing a 180-degree turn to point the missile in the threat direction. Port/starboard mounted launchers can only attack/defend from the sides of the ship.

>>64639465
>RAM is pointless if you have VLS available, ESSM fills the same role with vastly superior performance.

2 million dollars a shot for the ESSM...
You don't need a 40+ mile range missile when its <5 mile point defense time.

>>64639861
Just means you have to have a 10% bigger missile if it needs to do a 180 degree turn and have same range, not a big deal.

It's more a matter of going big is much easier for vertical launch, don't need as high a T/W, can be longer, etc

>>64639861
Over the shoulder launches are possible. Even a lot of box-launched missiles start off by lofting for increased range, after which they're aimed mostly vertical anyway.

>>64639865
$1.8m ESSM compared to $1m for RAM. The ESSM is also more accurate in addition to having longer range, being guided by a warship's fire control radar is much more reliable than a dinky IR sensor from a Stinger. The ESSM's fallback ARH mode is also more accurate, a higher pK means you don't have to launch as many missiles to achieve the desired effect.

>>64639898
>Just means you have to have a 10% bigger missile if it needs to do a 180 degree turn and have same range, not a big deal.
That could mean a complete redesign of the TVC mechanism used on the booster, as they're usually designed to just last long enough to pitch the missile over during the 15-second booster burn. Boosters are pretty much already maxed out in diameter for Mk41 cell size, so you're going to have to increase length to accommodate this bigger, more expensive booster, which further cuts into your deck space. Not only that, those boosters will be dedicated to deck mounted cells, so you're not going to be able to have a booster you can use on your VLS ships, which means the production numbers will be low, which means even more expensive due to designing a whole new booster from scratch, paying the company to install/convert a production line for them, hire and train personnel, and then pay even more money just to have that company keep the low order production line open and trained personnel on staff just so when you order it doesn't take 2 years to get your goofy fucking boosters. A company would much rather replace your stupid low order line with something that's going to make them money year round, and will charge you out the ass to keep it open, and rightfully so. You're taking up valuable production space from them, making them keep employees on staff for months to years at a time just so that institutional knowledge doesn't disappear, and you can get your order as fast as possible. Why make shit hard for yourself when this has already been looked into at every level and VLS with common, modular missiles have been found to be the best? Only a midwit tries to reinvent the wheel.

>>64639917
>Over the shoulder launches are possible.
Never said it wasn't. I literally explained that it isn't optimal, and eats into the range, velocity, and overall performance of your missile.
>Even a lot of box-launched missiles start off by lofting for increased range
What box launched missiles would those be? And don't fucking mention cruise missiles, as those are completely different from what we're talking about as those are solely offensive weapons made specifically for long range attacks, using small efficient gas turbine engines, and planar wings.

>>64639992
You got me, I was thinking of cruise missiles. But SM-6 does it out of a VLS, there's not really a reason you can't do it from a box launcher except that the tradeoff for that range is greatly increased time to target and that drawback would be amplified if it starts off going the wrong way.

File: 1520153640032.jpg (133 KB, 466x600)

133 KB JPG

>>64633088
>16 VLS
You're joking? This is a joke, even the fucking RN know to put at least 32 on any major hull. Could have bought the Type 31 and had more firepower.

File: 1760161938297710.jpg (16 KB, 266x190)

16 KB JPG

>>64640104
>Major hull
>Frigate

Also I don't get why we are worrying about vls on manned ships when everyone should go all in on them being sensor and AA platforms for semi sub vls barges that drive around with them

>>64640122
But you don’t understand, every ship the USN procures has to be able to do everything and tank multiple missiles while doing it. Never mind the cost and time, we can just cancel the program in a decade.