why not make ships bigger and more 'aired out'?instead of spending billions trying to stuff 20lbs of shit into a 5lb sack, why not make everything a bit more roomy and able to take future up-grades?Its like like 1943 where its a big deal to be small because that means near misses of bombs, shells or torpedoes is more likely.Here is an idea. Build one size of warship a little bigger than Burke and lower-end, lower-cost will just have less expensive and less systems beyond the hull. They say the mission profile for lower cost frigates is "endurance" over performance so instead of big blocks of VLS and fancy control room, it could have extra fuel and food. If the 1st rate destroyer has CODAG, the frigate could have just the diesel.
>>65335831>Its like like 1943not like
>>65335831Radar CSA, required drive power, useable shipyards, useable drydocks and I'm sure there are more I'm not thinking of.Naval engineers understand ship design.
>>653358481)AFAIK radar CSA hasn't been much since Nazi U-boats grossly under-estimated the degree to which even their snorkels were being picked up.2)I don't think cost of fuel is a big factor, and thats why I said the lower-tier ships might delete the expensive GT.3)They are gonna use same drydock to build a 4,000 vs 11,000 ton ship, 9x out of 10, just like an auto repair shop uses same bay to lift a VW Bug as a E-350 extended van.>Naval engineers understand ship design.Do they?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag14Ao_xO4cOne of the reasons the Fletcher class was so successful was its original design with very good stability that allowed lots of extra shit to be later added without problems.Build the lower end ships so that after a few years maybe the more advanced versions of systems could be added, so they might end up leap frogging the original 1st rate destroyers, at least in certain capabilities.Frigate version would be Helio-carrier heavy with its extra space, since helo-carrier is what it does 90% of the time. Make sure basic hull design is Osprey-capable.
>>65335906The Constellation class was supposed to be built at Marinette Marine, which isn't big enough to fit a Burke.
>>65335831Contrary to popular belief, warships' hull and structure are expensive, because of the damage control requirements.
>>65335917whateves, but still not a major factor.but it does seem that some more dry-docks would be the first thing. They really don't cost that much, since its old tech, just some earth moving, concrete and steel and they seem to last forever.
>>65335932>anon shouts, from atop Mt stupid
>>65335924AI Overview For modern US Navy destroyers (such as the Arleigh Burke class), combat systems (weapons, radar, and sonar) account for the vast majority of the cost—typically \(60\text{--}80\%\) of the total. The hull and propulsion (engines) make up the remaining.Plus, I figure extra space is a type of damage control all its own. Extra space would provide the same level of survival without as much expense."Quantity has a quality all its own", Chairman Mao.
>>65335940I'm not the guy with PhD's in navel architecture and warfare that just blew $100billion and wasted 30yrs on unless USN ship projects.Also, it would fit the mission profile of a frigate to have lots of extra space to handle 2nd tier odd-ball missions.Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics.
>>65335960PS-did I mention I've worked at a USN contractor's dry dock? :)Pay for the actual DD employees is shockingly low, less than McD's when you factor in shit, and lots of other draw-backs to that career choice.
>>65335831What they should do is build a yard on the west coast to make Burkes or something similar. I have never understood the obsession with a Constellation-style "frigate," which is really a pocket destroyer. Maybe those designs make sense for smaller navies that field few true destroyers, but when you have 80 DDGs with 90+ VLS like the USN, I don't really see the point. Which is why I am cautiously optimistic for the FF(x), the Navy seems to be treating it as a means to build an industrial supply chain for ships that can relieve Burkes in low intensity missions. They need to resist the urge to turn it into a baby Burke with a bunch of high-end shit stuffed in it.
>Whataboutamerica threadDid Ukraine hit another something big?
>>65335983Nah, just some random US base in ME getting hit by balistic missile.
>>65335971"mullet", business in the front, party in the back config.heavy on helio, with also two large about 35ft auxiliary boats with some combat radar/sonar/lite-SAM to cover more ocean, and open deck space for mission flex.enough deck to handle 2 Osprey.go ahead and make the deck able to handle F-35 VTOL ops, instead of deciding later.
>>65335983Anon the US can fuck up procurement just as well as any other country, you don't need to be a jingoistic retard about it.
>>65335831How about milk jugs as warships? Both floats and one is a lot cheaper than the other.
>>65336028might as wellif the project is going to fail at least do it cheaper.as Bill Gates said, "If we are going to fail, we need to fail quickly".
Germany has seen success with warships that allow for a choice of armament in export contracts, but are there any downsides to modular weaponry?
>>65335960>navel technologiesSounds hot
>>65335951>AI OverviewNgmi
>>65335960>navel architectureHawt>>65335967>I've worked at a USN contractor's dry dock?Ranjeet the dockyard toilet cleaner wants to grace us all with his views on shipbuilding, gentlemen
>>65336093this POS seems like a valid concept big, slow, weakly armed but with long range/endurance and big boats.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg-class_frigate
>>65335831We already have the answer, anon. It's the Independence class LCS. Yes, with perfect foresight the LCS program requirements would have looked very different, without the ridiculous speed requirement and the hot swappable modules requirement and with requirements for maintainability instead, but what we have with the LCS is a ship that's both cheaper and more capable than the FF(x), with a variety of mission packages already ready to go.The reason the Constellation program even existed was as a reaction to insistence from laypeople (and therefore Congress, because their opinions are whatever they read in the newspaper) that the LCS was not survivable enough and not heavily armed enough. The Constellation was always going to be a shitshow because just adopting the FREMM was never an option; it also isn't survivable or heavily armed enough, and a large part of the redesign was to accommodate systems the USN uses, and to move to secure American supply chains rather than buying everything from China like the yuropoors do.What we should be doing right now is buying the Austal Frigate, a variant of the Independence class with 16 VLS cells and a permanent VDS. It has 90+% parts commonality with ships we already operate, supports existing LCS mission packages unlike the Legend class, and it has a more reasonable level of survivability and armament than the Constellation.
>>65335940It's just Quora except people don't sign their posts
>>65336653>Austal Frigatecrazy talkbut they should extend the rear helo-deck back and get rid of the sun-deck lounge, and reposition those 4 barrel thingys, to allow Osprey and even F-35 opts.IDGAF if the Helo-deck covers some VLS. Just put some big doors that open when it time to fire and don't have any aircraft on deck, and make those VLS your anti-ship and land attack, not your SAMs that you might need in a hurry. Also, pre-sorted plan to 86 any aircraft to Davy Jones without fucking up a bunch of other shit.But what about building one size-shape of ship hull and varying how its finished out?I'd rather go with enlarged 26knot mono-hull for long range cheap small frigate. Stretch a Freedom Class.Some tech mogul should buy a decommissioned Indy class for conversion to super-villain yacht.
>>65337326This is the later and worse iteration of the design from after the Navy changed the program from "LCS with improved self-defense capability and and without the expectation of 24 hour mission package swaps" to "miniature destroyer."There is no need for a frigate to have 32 VLS cells; anything that requires that kind of firepower would warrant the presence of a destroyer or cruiser. There's also no need to have it be able to accommodate Ospreys or F-35s; we have 20 carriers for that already, and not enough F-35s to fill them up. We also have half a dozen ESBs that you can land those Ospreys on and do whatever you think they would do on a frigate.>I'd rather go with enlarged 26knot mono-hull for long range cheap small frigate. Stretch a Freedom Class.Yeah, sure. The Freedom class was a massive piece of shit at the start, but billions of dollars later it's finally mostly good enough. It's a much better choice for a US Navy frigate than the Legend class. The Independence is a better design built by a better shipyard with more capacity and better prospects for expansion, but Freedom is a solid second choice.Also, endurance is not a genuine concern for the Navy. They have a globe-spanning logistical network and their ships don't need to operate for months at a time without resupply. The reason it's being brought up now is because they needed to toss out a reason as to why the Legend class is being selected for FF(x) without a competition, and endurance is kind of the only thing it has going for it. Just like with the Burke restarts, the Navy is at the point where they literally do not care how unsuitable the designs are, they just need hulls in the water.
>>65337728>the Navy is at the point where they literally do not care how unsuitable the designs are, they just need hulls in the water.sounds like they might as well hedge bets and build both Legend and Indy, since they got different qualities.But how about building large destroyer sized hulls but skimping out on high end engines sensors and weapons, with lots of room from mission flex and later upgrades, just to "put hulls in the water"? At least they'd have big ship survivability and sea keeping. Actually better than full blown DD survivability, because they wouldn't have some much explosives packed so tight.Sure USN has carriers, but they are afraid to put them in harm's way.
>>65336028>>65336031As a low cost material that can both float and be used as armor HDPE could be a viable option for warship construction, especially if it was sandwiched between thin steel with a decent fire suppression system. In effect the entire ship structure would be made out of a spall liner.
A friendly reminder that any anon who argues there is a direct correlation between tonnage and armament can be simply ignored.
>>65336653>We should purchase a ship that is only a concept and is built around a bad shipHow is this not the constellation but even worse?
