A modern frigate?

[uk 75]

Encouraged by the quality of the discussion on a modern cruiser I thought I would start one on what seems to be the most difficult class of ship to introduce into service, the escort or frigate.
Existing threads on real designs for the USN and RN have been the focus of these ideas so far but again I thought a blank piece of paper.
It ought to be easy:
gun at the front, helo at the back, some Anti ship or Anti sub missiles and a point defence gun or missile.

 

[SSgtC]

So I think a ship around 450' LOA, gas turbine propulsion, top speed between 27 and 32 knots depending on if it needs to escort carriers, single 57mm gun forward, 40 cell Mk41 VLS for SAMs and VL-ASROC, 2xMk32 SVTTs, fitted for but not with 2xMk141 Harpoon launchers, best available bow sonar and towed array, flight deck large enough for the CMV-22 and hangar space for up to 3xSH-60 helicopters

 

[isayyo2]

While I think the Constitution Class is an excellent new chapter for the Navy, I really wish they would have went with something lower-end like the Ingalls Patrol Frigate.

An FF/G should be distinct from the Arleigh Burke's, not just a shrunk version for 1-2 hundred million cheaper.
16 - 32 VLS cells, a 5"/62 gun with HVP shells, RAM and HELIOS laser, 11M RHIBs, Hanger for SH-60 + 1-2 MQ-8s, Ice-strengthed hull
Costs should be under 700 Million and modular construction would allow multiple shipyards to partake in bidding, like FFG-7s. FFGs should displace the Destroyers from areas like Somalia and South China Sea, freeing up DDGs for Carrier escort and BMD missions.
Alternatively, I would have jumped on the Type-26s in a heartbeat; such a no-brainer.

 

[zen]

I'm starting to come around to C-Dome an Iron Dome shipboard installation. The ability to deal with rockets and mortars when close to shore has to be of utility and the interceptors are cheaper than most SAMs. Making them more affordable for anti-UAV work too.

While something like Sea Ceptor and FLAADS is a decent lower tier SAM system, it really needs static face AESAs to get the most out if the system. But additional staring EO/IR sensors ought to provide a passive alternative as well.

Endurance is a critical issue IMO. Which is why the improvements in diesel and electric drive is so attractive. GTs are best for sprints and surges of power generation.

The size of the helicopter deck delivers increasing flexibility even if the hanger is limited. The bigger the helicopter, the more can be done with it and above a certain deck area, smaller UAVs and light helicopters can be operated in numbers.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I may be a little out of line here but why are some ships built with isolation for their powerplants and others not? I believe all military vessels should have this feature as any peer or near peer nation would want to take out escort ships to clear the way for follow on attacks.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Penny pinching and associated corner cutting, to put it simply.

 

[SSgtC]

I may be a little out of line here but why are some ships built with isolation for their powerplants and others not? I believe all military vessels should have this feature as any peer or near peer nation would want to take out escort ships to clear the way for follow on attacks.

Cost. Properly sound isolating equipment is very expensive up front and extraordinarily labor intensive to maintain once its installed.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I understand cost issues but the ships and crews are a substantial investment and their loss costs more to replace than the initial investment considering inflation. Also, any modern conflict will be limited in nature and replacement will be outside that timeframe so resources will become scarce and quick once the shooting starts. I believe the cost upfront will be dwarfed by the cost of replacements and the possible loss of further protected assets.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Logic and what passes for beancounter logic are usually strange bedfellows at best, unfortunately. As for a major modern conflict being limited in nature though, I wouldn't be so sure. For example, many people thought the two World Wars to date would be short in duration.

 

[uk 75]

The Royal Navy gun Leanders seem to me to embody the reality of a frigate's life. Apart from the unique circumstances of the Falklands War they spent their liives in peacetime roles ranging from "showing the flag" (for which their elegant looks and large helicopter deck and hangar for receptions were perfect) to patroling the Caribbean or Gulf or protecting trawlers (not their finest hour).
Had it been necessary in a NATO/Soviet war they would have hunted Soviet subs with their Wasp helo and Limbo. Many would have been sunk by Soviet subs or missiles from aircraft and ships in the short bloody war for the Atlantic.
Their successors, the very 1980s looking T23s were not so pretty but still have done sterling work showing the flag etc. Apart from the short Iraq conflicts they have been so far spared any military action.
This balance between likely actual work and a war we hope will never come is there again in the Type 26. These are niw named after destroyers/cruisers. Maybe the Type 31s will have Leander class names?

 

[Pioneer]

So I think a ship around 450' LOA, gas turbine propulsion, top speed between 27 and 32 knots depending on if it needs to escort carriers, single 57mm gun forward, 40 cell Mk41 VLS for SAMs and VL-ASROC, 2xMk32 SVTTs, fitted for but not with 2xMk141 Harpoon launchers, best available bow sonar and towed array, flight deck large enough for the CMV-22 and hangar space for up to 3xSH-360 helicopters

Hmm, when you say "SH-360" are you referring to the Boeing Vertol 360? or do you mean Sikorsky SH-60??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[SSgtC]

So I think a ship around 450' LOA, gas turbine propulsion, top speed between 27 and 32 knots depending on if it needs to escort carriers, single 57mm gun forward, 40 cell Mk41 VLS for SAMs and VL-ASROC, 2xMk32 SVTTs, fitted for but not with 2xMk141 Harpoon launchers, best available bow sonar and towed array, flight deck large enough for the CMV-22 and hangar space for up to 3xSH-360 helicopters

Hmm, when you say "SH-360" are you referring to the Boeing Vertol 360? or do you mean Sikorsky SH-60??

Regards
Pioneer

Yeah, typo. I had been writing notes for my own TL and my phone autocorrected to SH-3 and I didn't delete it far enough back before adding the "60" in. That should read SH-60

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'd actually look at two separate frigate types. While both are for ASW work (IMO the definition of what a modern frigate is), one needs to be able to do 30+ knots to keep up with carriers and the other only needs to be able to do about 20 knots to keep up with Merchant ships.

The carrier escort frigate pretty much requires gas turbines. However, the gas turbine kinda sucks at part throttle cruise fuel economy, unless designed for best economy at part throttle and then full throttle fuel economy is terrible. And thanks to the kludge of the LCS-1 class, the USN is now terrified of combined diesel and gas turbine mechanical gearbox setups. The only alternative to this is IEP with whatever prime movers are used to spin generators only, with no mechanical connection to the screws.

 

[Cordy]

There is a possible alternative other than IEP to combined diesel and gas turbine with mechanical gearbox as with the Damen designed German 10,000t F126 frigate with its hybrid electric powered by MTU diesel generators (as Constellation) for lower speeds and its silenced MAN main propulsion diesels for max speed, no GTs.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It might be helpful if the creator of the thread provided some level of structure for this discussion.
Escort frigate could mean anything to anyone.

A large 8k ton ship could be an escort frigate since some navies no longer use the destroyer classification.

Or an escort frigate could be 3k tons since some navies have cruisers (or larger than normal destroyers) and destroyers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is a possible alternative other than IEP to combined diesel and gas turbine with mechanical gearbox as with the Damen designed German 10,000t F126 frigate with its hybrid electric powered by MTU diesel generators (as Constellation) for lower speeds and its silenced MAN main propulsion diesels for max speed, no GTs.

I'm not sure those can keep up with a carrier group (wiki only says ">26kts"), but if they can that's definitely an option as well. I know LCS had to go GT for high speed because they were required to exceed 40 knots(!)

I do know that GTs have some advantages in terms of "scramble response", where they can go from cold and not running to full power fairly quickly, and they don't take any longer to get started than a large diesel.

 

[paralay]

It might be helpful if the creator of the thread provided some level of structure for this discussion.
Escort frigate could mean anything to anyone.

Full displacement:
Corvette = X
Frigate = 2X
Destroyer = 4X
Cruiser = 8X
Battleship = 16X

 

[Scott Kenny]

It might be helpful if the creator of the thread provided some level of structure for this discussion.
Escort frigate could mean anything to anyone.

Full displacement:
Corvette = X
Frigate = 2X
Destroyer = 4X
Cruiser = 8X
Battleship = 16X

I have a different scaling for DD/CA/BB sizes, at least from WW2 standards, and it did track as all the various "next generation" US classes got bigger.

5x Destroyer = Cruiser
3x Cruiser = Battleship

And while it's from a later generation, the FFG-7 was about 15% bigger than a WW2 destroyer (4200 tons versus 3500tons). The early-1960s vintage Bronstein class, FF-1037, were about the same size as the Fletcher-class DDs of WW2, ~2500 tons. The Buckley-class Destroyer Escort was 1740 tons, right about half the displacement of a Sumner/Gearing class.

So by my numbers, it looks more like
Frigate = X
Destroyer = 2X
Cruiser = 10X
Battleship = 30X

 

[paralay]

It works for the Russian navy:
- Coastal corvette (Brig), 1100 t
- Corvette 20380, displacement 2220 tons,
- Frigate 22350, displacement 5400 t,
- Destroyer (Clipper), displacement 9000 tons,
- Cruiser, displacement 13500 t,
- Battleship, displacement 25,860 tons,
- Aircraft carrier, displacement 51720 tons.

There is another scheme, but it needs improvement Air defense complex:
corvette - self-defense air defense (50 km)
frigate - medium-range (100 km)
destroyer - long-range (200 km)
cruiser - long-range (400 km) and anti-satellite

 

[Scott Kenny]

It works for the Russian navy:
- Coastal corvette (Brig), 1100 t
- Corvette ave. 20380, displacement 2220 tons,
- Frigate. 22350, displacement 5400 t,
- Destroyer (Clipper), displacement 9000 tons,
- Cruiser, displacement 13500 t,
- Battleship, displacement 25,860 tons,
- Aircraft carrier, displacement 51720 tons.

There is another scheme, but it needs improvement Air defense complex:
corvette - self-defense air defense
frigate - medium-range (100 km)
destroyer - long-range (200 km)
cruiser - long-range (400 km) and anti-satellite

Ah, yeah, that's got some big frigates and destroyers. That's 1960s ish, not WW2?

 

[Cordy]

There is a possible alternative other than IEP to combined diesel and gas turbine with mechanical gearbox as with the Damen designed German 10,000t F126 frigate with its hybrid electric powered by MTU diesel generators (as Constellation) for lower speeds and its silenced MAN main propulsion diesels for max speed, no GTs.

I'm not sure those can keep up with a carrier group (wiki only says ">26kts"), but if they can that's definitely an option as well. I know LCS had to go GT for high speed because they were required to exceed 40 knots(!)

I do know that GTs have some advantages in terms of "scramble response", where they can go from cold and not running to full power fairly quickly, and they don't take any longer to get started than a large diesel.

The GTs have some advantages but some major disadvantages, to operate efficiently they must operate at 90 to 100% rpm, otherwise they are gas guzzlers. The USN DDG(X) graphic highlighted this by saying it will have 50% greater range, 120% greater time on station all with 25% reduction in fuel, I'm sure the figures based on comparison with the all GT Burke. Though sure the future DDG(X) will use GTs but need the very expensive IPS system of Zumwalt to allow the individual GTs to operate at optimum rpm as and when power required, The USN has never revealed the cost of Zumwalt GT IPS propulsion system which sure they would have if it had been reasonable. So can understand why Damen choice was diesels and not GTs for the F126, two MAN 32/44 medium speed diesels for its main propulsion engines with high displacement soft-resilient mounting system to mitigate diesel shock and noise, no doubt at a fraction of the cost of the GT IPS propulsion system planned for the DDG(X).

 

[Scott Kenny]

There is a possible alternative other than IEP to combined diesel and gas turbine with mechanical gearbox as with the Damen designed German 10,000t F126 frigate with its hybrid electric powered by MTU diesel generators (as Constellation) for lower speeds and its silenced MAN main propulsion diesels for max speed, no GTs.

I'm not sure those can keep up with a carrier group (wiki only says ">26kts"), but if they can that's definitely an option as well. I know LCS had to go GT for high speed because they were required to exceed 40 knots(!)

I do know that GTs have some advantages in terms of "scramble response", where they can go from cold and not running to full power fairly quickly, and they don't take any longer to get started than a large diesel.

The GTs have some advantages but some major disadvantages, to operate efficiently they must operate at 90 to 100% rpm, otherwise they are gas guzzlers.

That's largely a result of them being designed as electrical power generators. Turbine power generators are usually for peak loads, over and above whatever your coal, nuclear, or hydro power plants can generate, so they're always going to be running hard, and can fairly easily be scaled in multimegawatt chunks by starting up another turbine if needed. So they're always optimized for high power settings.

It's possible to design a turbine to be most effective at some other rpm, like how military turbofans and turbojets are designed to be most efficient at some lower power and get rather inefficient at MIL thrust due to overspeeding the compressor blades to over Mach 1.3(!) Civilian turbofans don't overspeed their compressors anywhere near as much, I don't believe they deliberately exceed mach 1 tip speeds and usually keep to about Mach 0.9, but even they are usually set to have best economy at "flight idle" and are much thirstier at takeoff power.

While I do love the rumble of a big Fairbanks-Morse 38D diesel, they're about the worst engine possible for a ship, especially a submarine.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It works for the Russian navy:
- Coastal corvette (Brig), 1100 t
- Corvette 20380, displacement 2220 tons,
- Frigate 22350, displacement 5400 t,
- Destroyer (Clipper), displacement 9000 tons,
- Cruiser, displacement 13500 t,
- Battleship, displacement 25,860 tons,
- Aircraft carrier, displacement 51720 tons.

The 1960s USN version had:
Ocean Escorts: ~4000tons, but 20knot Merchant Escorts, hence their "Destroyer Escort" numbering.
Patrol Frigate: 4100tons
Destroyers: ~4500tons for Charles F. Adams class
Destroyer Leaders (Spoken "Frigates"): ~8000tons
Cruisers: 15,000 tons or so.
Battleships: ~60,000tons for Iowa, the preceding South Dakota class was 45,000tons
Carriers: 93,000tons for USS Enterprise CVN-65, 82,000tons for Kitty Hawk class CV.

The reason for the relatively similar weights of the DEs, PFs, and DDGs is their range requirements. all were expected to go across the Atlantic, the difference is what their primary role was. DEs escorted merchant ships, while PFs and DDGs escorted carriers and amphib groups.

There is another scheme, but it needs improvement Air defense complex:

corvette - self-defense air defense (50 km)
frigate - medium-range (100 km)
destroyer - long-range (200 km)
cruiser - long-range (400 km) and anti-satellite

Not a bad measurement, but obviously makes no mention of size. Plus the US Mk41 VLS makes it very hard to apply today.

=====
As to what I think a "Frigate" means, I'm assuming a roughly 4500-7200ton ship (the new US Constellation class is HUGE but has to be since it's getting Aegis), primarily focused on antisubmarine warfare with only enough SAMs to protect itself and maybe a small convoy of merchant ships. Even the Constellation-class only has 32cell Mk41 and 16x AShM in a separate launcher, not significantly more than the 4200ton FFG-7 class. Needs a helicopter and hangar, and if possible enough space for 2x SH-60 or equivalent. Aegis is not required, but is a "very nice to have" for a convoy escort. Problem is limited magazine capacity for SAMs, but I'd assume that there would be at least one CG or DDG with flag facilities per convoy, and no Tomahawks/equivalent in convoy escort VLS.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It works for the Russian navy:
- Coastal corvette (Brig), 1100 t
- Corvette 20380, displacement 2220 tons,
- Frigate 22350, displacement 5400 t,
- Destroyer (Clipper), displacement 9000 tons,
- Cruiser, displacement 13500 t,
- Battleship, displacement 25,860 tons,
- Aircraft carrier, displacement 51720 tons.

There is another scheme, but it needs improvement Air defense complex:
corvette - self-defense air defense (50 km)
frigate - medium-range (100 km)
destroyer - long-range (200 km)
cruiser - long-range (400 km) and anti-satellite

Gepard class is <2000tons
Batch 2 river class OPV displace more and batch 1 basically the same.
The admiral Grigovich class <4000tons

Tonnage is a horrible way to classify ships nowadays

 

[Scott Kenny]

Tonnage is a horrible way to classify ships nowadays

Yeah, the Constellation class is 7200 tons, and has all the weapons of a 4200ton FFG-7...

 

[johnpjones1775]

Tonnage is a horrible way to classify ships nowadays

Yeah, the Constellation class is 7200 tons, and has all the weapons of a 4200ton FFG-7...

What 4200 ton ship has the same level of armament as the constellations?

All modernized OHPs have fewer VLS, no ASMs, and a main gun with a lower throw weight.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The Connies are way too big imho, but one of the problems the aussies found with their OHPs was there was almost no room for upgrades.
A sentiment the USN must have shared considering our ‘modernization’ program turned them into glorified gun boats.

 

[johnpjones1775]

To me an escort frigate would be essentially a mono-role ship ideally split into 2 subclasses ASW and AAW.

I’d like to see them around 4k tons 16 VLS a 57-76mm gun and a missile based CIWS.

This way there’s enough tubes to effectively prosecute 1 specific mission set, but there’s still space for future proofing or even adding capabilities like ASMs during wartime no problem.

Generally I think the Saudi MMSC will be a good example of an escort frigate.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The Connies are way too big imho, but one of the problems the aussies found with their OHPs was there was almost no room for upgrades.

Given the primary expense is sensors and weapons, there's no reason not to build a ship as large as you want.

Not to mention that the best means of reducing radar signature is too ensure as many potential radar reflectors are inside the hull, which increase the amount of volume required, and therefore size of the ship, meaning any modern stealthy warship is likely to be larger than any non-stealthy predecessor.

 

[johnpjones1775]

The Connies are way too big imho, but one of the problems the aussies found with their OHPs was there was almost no room for upgrades.

Given the primary expense is sensors and weapons, there's no reason not to build a ship as large as you want.

Not to mention that the best means of reducing radar signature is too ensure as many potential radar reflectors are inside the hull, which increase the amount of volume required, and therefore size of the ship, meaning any modern stealthy warship is likely to be larger than any non-stealthy predecessor.

You can build a ship big enough to run spy radar, or you can build a ship with sea giraffe radar.

You need a fairly large ship to mount SPY arrays, and being fixed face arrays you then have to build a ship large enough to mount multiple arrays.

Compare that to sea giraffe, a capable radar that has variants small enough to be mounted on small assault boats…

 

[johnpjones1775]

There is a possible alternative other than IEP to combined diesel and gas turbine with mechanical gearbox as with the Damen designed German 10,000t F126 frigate with its hybrid electric powered by MTU diesel generators (as Constellation) for lower speeds and its silenced MAN main propulsion diesels for max speed, no GTs.

I'm not sure those can keep up with a carrier group (wiki only says ">26kts"), but if they can that's definitely an option as well. I know LCS had to go GT for high speed because they were required to exceed 40 knots(!)

I do know that GTs have some advantages in terms of "scramble response", where they can go from cold and not running to full power fairly quickly, and they don't take any longer to get started than a large diesel.

‘Keeping up with a carrier’ is a stupid standard.

No conventional ship can ‘keep up with a carrier’ in an emergency.
In a full power run a burke will burn through fuel very quickly, and have to slow down shortly after running.

You don’t need an escort to keep up with a carrier in the 21st century. How long will it take a 35kt CVN to out run the AAW protection of a 26kt ship with ESSMs and the shortest range SM?

 

[johnpjones1775]

It works for the Russian navy:
- Coastal corvette (Brig), 1100 t
- Corvette 20380, displacement 2220 tons,
- Frigate 22350, displacement 5400 t,
- Destroyer (Clipper), displacement 9000 tons,
- Cruiser, displacement 13500 t,
- Battleship, displacement 25,860 tons,
- Aircraft carrier, displacement 51720 tons.

The 1960s USN version had:
Ocean Escorts: ~4000tons, but 20knot Merchant Escorts, hence their "Destroyer Escort" numbering.
Patrol Frigate: 4100tons
Destroyers: ~4500tons for Charles F. Adams class
Destroyer Leaders (Spoken "Frigates"): ~8000tons
Cruisers: 15,000 tons or so.
Battleships: ~60,000tons for Iowa, the preceding South Dakota class was 45,000tons
Carriers: 93,000tons for USS Enterprise CVN-65, 82,000tons for Kitty Hawk class CV.

The reason for the relatively similar weights of the DEs, PFs, and DDGs is their range requirements. all were expected to go across the Atlantic, the difference is what their primary role was. DEs escorted merchant ships, while PFs and DDGs escorted carriers and amphib groups.

There is another scheme, but it needs improvement Air defense complex:

corvette - self-defense air defense (50 km)
frigate - medium-range (100 km)
destroyer - long-range (200 km)
cruiser - long-range (400 km) and anti-satellite

Not a bad measurement, but obviously makes no mention of size. Plus the US Mk41 VLS makes it very hard to apply today.

=====
As to what I think a "Frigate" means, I'm assuming a roughly 4500-7200ton ship (the new US Constellation class is HUGE but has to be since it's getting Aegis), primarily focused on antisubmarine warfare with only enough SAMs to protect itself and maybe a small convoy of merchant ships. Even the Constellation-class only has 32cell Mk41 and 16x AShM in a separate launcher, not significantly more than the 4200ton FFG-7 class. Needs a helicopter and hangar, and if possible enough space for 2x SH-60 or equivalent. Aegis is not required, but is a "very nice to have" for a convoy escort. Problem is limited magazine capacity for SAMs, but I'd assume that there would be at least one CG or DDG with flag facilities per convoy, and no Tomahawks/equivalent in convoy escort VLS.

Might have similar total number of missiles as an OHP, but that doesn’t mean much, since the launchers on an OHP are much less capable.
A single arm launcher can’t launch missiles nearly as many missiles in a short period time of time.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

You can build a ship big enough to run spy radar, or you can build a ship with sea giraffe radar.

You need a fairly large ship to mount SPY arrays, and being fixed face arrays you then have to build a ship large enough to mount multiple arrays.

Compare that to sea giraffe, a capable radar that has variants small enough to be mounted on small assault boats…

The Constellations will want SPY-6 though, given they're intended for high-intensity warfare against a peer power.

Small assault boats are bad, they can't carry a wide range of modern sensors, they have slow seakeeping speeds, and die quickly against helicopters with stand-off missiles, they're maintenance intensive, more akin to that of aircraft then ships, they can't self-deploy because of limited endurance, very much not replacements for frigates.

 

[johnpjones1775]

You can build a ship big enough to run spy radar, or you can build a ship with sea giraffe radar.

You need a fairly large ship to mount SPY arrays, and being fixed face arrays you then have to build a ship large enough to mount multiple arrays.

Compare that to sea giraffe, a capable radar that has variants small enough to be mounted on small assault boats…

The Constellations will want SPY-6 though, given they're intended for high-intensity warfare against a peer power.

Small assault boats are bad, they can't carry a wide range of modern sensors, they have slow seakeeping speeds, and die quickly against helicopters with stand-off missiles, they're maintenance intensive, more akin to that of aircraft then ships, they can't self-deploy because of limited endurance, very much not replacements for frigates.

Wow you totally missed the point.
Sea giraffe is much smaller than the SPY arrays, and can track up to 500 targets.

My point being the sensors dictate the general size of the ship necessary, and in this case the ship is way too big because they chose an unnecessarily large radar suite.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Wow you totally missed the point.
Sea giraffe is much smaller than the SPY arrays, and can track up to 500 targets.

My point being the sensors dictate the general size of the ship necessary, and in this case the ship is way too big because they chose an unnecessarily large radar suite.

I disagree with your point that the Constellation's radar fit is too small, especially given the environment they're expected to fight in.

Notnsure how a ship can be described as "way to big", there aren't really any disadvantages to the increased size (if anything I'd argue the Constellations aren't big enough, although my view is that the US Navy shouldn't have built anything smaller than DD-21, with the exception of the LCS being used a mothership/minesweepers capable of self-deployment and very limited self-defence).

The multiple arrays of SPY-6 staring in different directions simultaneously is also an advantage, especially when the threat environment could vary from Class I UAS (although in the Pacific this is more likely to be Class III UAS at minimum unless operating very close to hostile shores) to Hypersonic Glide Vehicles.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Let’s look at what the Connie’s are and break it down from there.

Wow you totally missed the point.
Sea giraffe is much smaller than the SPY arrays, and can track up to 500 targets.

My point being the sensors dictate the general size of the ship necessary, and in this case the ship is way too big because they chose an unnecessarily large radar suite.

I disagree with your point that the Constellation's radar fit is too small, especially given the environment they're expected to fight in.

Notnsure how a ship can be described as "way to big", there aren't really any disadvantages to the increased size (if anything I'd argue the Constellations aren't big enough, although my view is that the US Navy shouldn't have built anything smaller than DD-21, with the exception of the LCS being used a mothership/minesweepers capable of self-deployment and very limited self-defence).

The multiple arrays of SPY-6 staring in different directions simultaneously is also an advantage, especially when the threat environment could vary from Class I UAS (although in the Pacific this is more likely to be Class III UAS at minimum unless operating very close to hostile shores) to Hypersonic Glide Vehicles.

For the ship itself is there any disadvantages? Not really.

For the fleet as a whole there are major disadvantages to the class.

As a fleet we need a lot of ships. We can’t do that if every ship we build costs no less than $1b

The Connies are meant to be ASW ships.
They do not need a massive top of the line AAW suite as a result. That means there’s absolutely no reason for them to have SPY.

Sea giraffe is more than adequate for what the constellation class is supposed to do.

Instead of building a cheap ASW escort ship mission creep happened (again) and we got a slightly smaller less well armed multi role destroyer.

For the mission a Connie is supposed to do sea giraffe and 24 VLS would have worked just fine. 6 for larger SAMs 6 for ESSM and 12 for ASROC.

The SPY arrays cost $300m per unit according to wiki vs sea giraffe which costs a lot less at $25m per unit.

This means 1/4 the cost of Connie is just the SPY radar. By switching from SPY to sea giraffe alone you drop the cost to under $1b

Removing 8 VLS from the design reduces the cost further.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Let’s look at what the Connie’s are and break it down from there.

For the ship itself is there any disadvantages? Not really.

For the fleet as a whole there are major disadvantages to the class.

As a fleet we need a lot of ships. We can’t do that if every ship we build costs no less than $1b

The Connies are meant to be ASW ships.
They do not need a massive top of the line AAW suite as a result. That means there’s absolutely no reason for them to have SPY.

Sea giraffe is more than adequate for what the constellation class is supposed to do.

Instead of building a cheap ASW escort ship mission creep happened (again) and we got a slightly smaller less well armed multi role destroyer.

For the mission a Connie is supposed to do sea giraffe and 24 VLS would have worked just fine. 6 for larger SAMs 6 for ESSM and 12 for ASROC.

The SPY arrays cost $300m per unit according to wiki vs sea giraffe which costs a lot less at $25m per unit.

Constellations are referred to a "Small Surface Combatants" by the US Navy, which doesn't denote a specialised anti-submarine role, so a much as a lower-end general-purpose role compared to DDG's higher-end general-purpose role.

If they're intended solely to do ASW, given where they're intended to do ASW, likely in striking range of a host of aerial threats, and given that modern ASW involves facing off against modern submarines with their own anti-ship missiles, I think any modern ASW escort requires significant AAW capability.

If the US wanted a specialised ASW escort, pared down to the minimum to limit costs, they would have procured a towed-array rug with a flight-deck for an ASW helicopter, not a general-purpose Frigate. Of course this is not the first time a navy has come to such a conclusion, there is a reason why the Type 23s look the way they do, and why no modern navy has built anything like a specialised towed-array tug with a helicopter pad.

 

[johnpjones1775]

Let’s look at what the Connie’s are and break it down from there.

For the ship itself is there any disadvantages? Not really.

For the fleet as a whole there are major disadvantages to the class.

As a fleet we need a lot of ships. We can’t do that if every ship we build costs no less than $1b

The Connies are meant to be ASW ships.
They do not need a massive top of the line AAW suite as a result. That means there’s absolutely no reason for them to have SPY.

Sea giraffe is more than adequate for what the constellation class is supposed to do.

Instead of building a cheap ASW escort ship mission creep happened (again) and we got a slightly smaller less well armed multi role destroyer.

For the mission a Connie is supposed to do sea giraffe and 24 VLS would have worked just fine. 6 for larger SAMs 6 for ESSM and 12 for ASROC.

The SPY arrays cost $300m per unit according to wiki vs sea giraffe which costs a lot less at $25m per unit.

Constellations are referred to a "Small Surface Combatants" by the US Navy, which doesn't denote a specialised anti-submarine role, so a much as a lower-end general-purpose role compared to DDG's higher-end general-purpose role.

If they're intended solely to do ASW, given where they're intended to do ASW, likely in striking range of a host of aerial threats, and given that modern ASW involves facing off against modern submarines with their own anti-ship missiles, I think any modern ASW escort requires significant AAW capability.

If the US wanted a specialised ASW escort, pared down to the minimum to limit costs, they would have procured a towed-array rug with a flight-deck for an ASW helicopter, not a general-purpose Frigate. Of course this is not the first time a navy has come to such a conclusion, there is a reason why the Type 23s look the way they do, and why no modern navy has built anything like a specialised towed-array tug with a helicopter pad.

They were literally designed to fill ASW gaps in the fleet….
Sea giraffe provides significant AAW detection and targeting capability, 40+ long, medium, and short range SAMs provides more than sufficient magazine depth to provide area and self defense capability.

If we cut their cost from $1.2b to $800m we essentially get a buy 2 get 1 free deal.

 

[Jimmo952]

I don't think the Constellations were envisioned as low cost ASW ships but lower cost (by US standards) multi-purpose warships.

The SPY-6 and Aeigis will allow the ships to be part of the Cooperative Engagement Capability net that the US is developing.

It will be a fully functional node in the CEC network. At least in theory, sensor data and weapons can be shared amongst all assets in the net.

I do think there's room for a lower end (and lower cost) ship in the US Navy, but the Constellation is not it.

 

[johnpjones1775]

It’s not feasible to equip every soldier and marine like a tier 1 operator, people understand that, I don’t know why people don’t understand that same concept when it comes to ships