A modern frigate?

Jimmo952 said:
They are being conservative with most of their technology choices. Mk41 VLS, CMS same as the Burkes, 57mm gun, ... mostly systems that are well proven.

There shouldn't be too many surprises with this design.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t mean congress can’t still screw things up lol.
 
CV12Hornet said:
At the same time, those corvettes couldn't do what Moskva did, which is throw up an area SAM bubble around the frigates conducting land-attack missile strikes.

You're overfocusing on spherical cow missile duels, which yes a bunch of cheap corvettes are better for, but that's not the sum total of modern naval combat.
Click to expand...
Apparently the Moskva couldn’t do what you just said either since it was sunk by an air threat
 
Can a purpose-built corvette do ASuW better than Burke? Yes. Can it do it while operating 5,000nm away from its home base? No. Can it do the other 10 tasks the Burke is designed to do? No. China can afford to build single-purpose corvettes because they have a single mission for them and nearby bases, the US can not. Different, missions, different needs, different strategic situations.
 
Desertfox said:
Can a purpose-built corvette do ASuW better than Burke? Yes. Can it do it while operating 5,000nm away from its home base? No. Can it do the other 10 tasks the Burke is designed to do? No. China can afford to build single-purpose corvettes because they have a single mission for them and nearby bases, the US can not. Different, missions, different needs, different strategic situations.
Click to expand...
The US has bases all over, as well as allied bases they can access all over the world, and we’re ever expanding those bases, so operating far from US bases isn’t an issue.

We already have 60+ Burkes. We don’t need more Burkes to do the burke job.

We need more ships to do other jobs.

We need more ships that can do things other than escort big decks.

A burke might be preferable to use in all those other jobs in a perfect world where budgets are unlimited but that’s not the world we live in now is it?

China focused on smaller combatants for a long time because their naval budget was fairly small. Their naval budget has sky rocketed, and they have a large fleet of fairy modern missile boats and corvettes so now they’re focusing on modern FFGs, DDGs, and big deck ships.
 
Last edited:
johnpjones1775 said:
The US has bases all over, as well as allied bases they can access all over the world, and we’re ever expanding those bases, so operating far from US bases isn’t an issue.

We already have 60+ Burkes. We don’t need more Burkes to do the burke job.

We need more ships to do other jobs.

We need more ships that can do things other than escort big decks.
Click to expand...
The US is a maritime nation, it depends on the free transit of cargo ships from where the supplies are to the US.

In a time of war, it needs ships able to escort merchant convoys (that being the established ideal for protecting ships). So I honestly expect the Connies to end up with a very large production run, just for their ASW capabilities. First flight get stuck with the smaller 32cell VLS, follow ons get a larger VLS, probably 48cell.

At 2x FFG per carrier group, that requires 24 hulls (and I'd rather have 4x per carrier group, but that's impractical). Now the ARGs need escorts, there are 12 of those. Then convoys need escorts, so now we're looking at another 20+. I'm honestly expecting a 60 ship run of Connies.
 
zen said:
Be fair the RN hanged admirals if they didn't prosecute action with due vigour. They viewed personnel losses as inevitable and thus holding back for the safety of the crew was insufficient excuse.
Click to expand...
Given the ships of the time, personnel losses were inevitable.

FFS, even surface ships today rarely come home with all the sailors they left with!
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US is a maritime nation, it depends on the free transit of cargo ships from where the supplies are to the US.

In a time of war, it needs ships able to escort merchant convoys (that being the established ideal for protecting ships). So I honestly expect the Connies to end up with a very large production run, just for their ASW capabilities. First flight get stuck with the smaller 32cell VLS, follow ons get a larger VLS, probably 48cell.

At 2x FFG per carrier group, that requires 24 hulls (and I'd rather have 4x per carrier group, but that's impractical). Now the ARGs need escorts, there are 12 of those. Then convoys need escorts, so now we're looking at another 20+. I'm honestly expecting a 60 ship run of Connies.
Click to expand...
Don’t need Connies to escort the big decks. That’s for Burkes and ticos/DDG(X)
We already have enough to meet those escort requirements.

Might be nice, and they could certainly fill in for those ships in the event of losses.

We’d probably need around 30 for convoy escorts and another 10-12 for independent steaming and other miscellaneous operations.

Personally I still think the MMSC would also be a good bridge between the LCSes and the Connies.
 
I think the thing that's getting consistently overlooked here, is build times. There's a reason the US only buys front line combatants during peacetime. Because it takes literal fucking years to build a modern, front line warship. For fuck's sake, it takes a solid decade to build a carrier.

Assuming we end up in a conventional war against a peer opponent, it is highly unlikely that we will have the time to build additional front line warships during that war. So we better have as many of them beforehand as we can. On the flip side of this, it is entirely possible to build a 2-3,000 ton "corvette" for convoy escort with a primary mission of ASW in a much shorter time period.

For example, build something with diesel engines, a bow sonar, towed array sonar, basic air search (like the previously mentioned Sea Giraffe), RIM-116 launcher for self defense, Mk32 SVTT, an ASROC box launcher (I think the USN still has some of those laying around) and a hanger for a single SH-60. Build it to commercial standards (maybe with more internal subdivision, but not going crazy) and you can pump those things out like crazy. That fills any perceived "gap" in the low end of the fleet.

But what you can't do, is pump out Burkes and Connies to fill a gap at the high end.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Don’t need Connies to escort the big decks. That’s for Burkes and ticos/DDG(X)
We already have enough to meet those escort requirements.

Might be nice, and they could certainly fill in for those ships in the event of losses.

We’d probably need around 30 for convoy escorts and another 10-12 for independent steaming and other miscellaneous operations.

Personally I still think the MMSC would also be a good bridge between the LCSes and the Connies.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the Burkes and Ticos have the ASW capabilities.

In the 1970s, the USN ran both DDs and DDGs, with the DDs as the ASW escorts with some AAW and DDGs being primarily AAW with some ASW. And then the FFGs were pure ASW with only enough AA for self defense.

The FFGs still ended up being in carrier escort groups because they had enough AA to be safe and could work their ASW farther away from the carrier and DDGs/CGs. That's why I'm slotting Connies into carrier groups, and why I really want 4 FFGs per carrier group, to put the FFGs well away from the DDGs and let the FFGs do their ASW at range.

And as I said, the Amphib Groups also need escorts. Last example of an ARG I saw was the usual LHA/D, LPD, and LST combo; with Tico, Burke, FFG-7, P-3s, and a sub as escorts.

And then however many are needed for convoy escorts and the usual showing the flag work.

I happen to really like the Independence class LCS due to the huge helicopter deck and hangar, those are honestly ideal for showing the flag if they weren't dedicated mine hunters now.

SSgtC said:
I think the thing that's getting consistently overlooked here, is build times. There's a reason the US only buys front line combatants during peacetime. Because it takes literal fucking years to build a modern, front line warship. For fuck's sake, it takes a solid decade to build a carrier.

Assuming we end up in a conventional war against a peer opponent, it is highly unlikely that we will have the time to build additional front line warships during that war. So we better have as many of them beforehand as we can. On the flip side of this, it is entirely possible to build a 2-3,000 ton "corvette" for convoy escort with a primary mission of ASW in a much shorter time period.

For example, build something with diesel engines, a bow sonar, towed array sonar, basic air search (like the previously mentioned Sea Giraffe), RIM-116 launcher for self defense, Mk32 SVTT, an ASROC box launcher (I think the USN still has some of those laying around) and a hanger for a single SH-60. Build it to commercial standards (maybe with more internal subdivision, but not going crazy) and you can pump those things out like crazy. That fills any perceived "gap" in the low end of the fleet.

But what you can't do, is pump out Burkes and Connies to fill a gap at the high end.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, the old DEs, built with railroad locomotive engines and diesel-electric drive. It'd need a bit more speed than the old design, probably 25 knots instead of the old 20, since modern cargo ships are faster.

We should probably get that design out and building slowly, to work the bugs out of the design so that we can send it to every shipyard able to build a ~5000ton ship when the next fight starts.
 
Okay, but what's the use case of such a ship? It's going to die if a missile even looks at it funny and it has no offensive punch of its own, so as far as the Navy is concerned it's completely useless in a fight against China, and I don't think they're wrong. Comparable ships like the Type 056s and Kamortas are very clearly short-range coastal combatants that operate under shore cover, and that's not something useful for the Navy.

Again, the Falklands. Economy ships are a false economy as long as they can't actually do their jobs under fire.

And even then, it's going to take too long to build these things. Even the old Knox-class frigates, built in a day where we still had reasonable build times and a good comparison point, took three years to go from lay-down to commissioning. In a war that's likely to be measured in months that's still too slow. We don't have lay-down dates for the Type 056s, but they're probably taking 2 years. And this is the Chinese!
 
CV12Hornet said:
Okay, but what's the use case of such a ship? It's going to die if a missile even looks at it funny and it has no offensive punch of its own, so as far as the Navy is concerned it's completely useless in a fight against China, and I don't think they're wrong. Comparable ships like the Type 056s and Kamortas are very clearly short-range coastal combatants that operate under shore cover, and that's not something useful for the Navy.

Again, the Falklands. Economy ships are a false economy as long as they can't actually do their jobs under fire.

And even then, it's going to take too long to build these things. Even the old Knox-class frigates, built in a day where we still had reasonable build times and a good comparison point, took three years to go from lay-down to commissioning. In a war that's likely to be measured in months that's still too slow. We don't have lay-down dates for the Type 056s, but they're probably taking 2 years. And this is the Chinese!
Click to expand...
I wasn't thinking of having these cheap ships operate by themselves. I was thinking of them more as a force multiplier, particularly in the ASW role. Where instead of having to dedicate 4-8 Constellations to every convoy, maybe now you only need to put 2-4 with each convoy to provide the AAW punch (particularly if they decide to enlarge the design to 48 VLS cells). I wouldn't built these cheaper corvettes unless and until we actually need more ASW ships in a shooting war. And I wouldn't plan on keeping them in the fleet for more than a few years. Maybe add a quad launcher for NSM or Harpoon to give them an ASuW capability, but that's about it.
 
SSgtC said:
I wasn't thinking of having these cheap ships operate by themselves. I was thinking of them more as a force multiplier, particularly in the ASW role. Where instead of having to dedicate 4-8 Constellations to every convoy, maybe now you only need to put 2-4 with each convoy to provide the AAW punch (particularly if they decide to enlarge the design to 48 VLS cells). I wouldn't built these cheaper corvettes unless and until we actually need more ASW ships in a shooting war. And I wouldn't plan on keeping them in the fleet for more than a few years. Maybe add a quad launcher for NSM or Harpoon to give them an ASuW capability, but that's about it.
Click to expand...
What yards would you build these ships in?
Military yards are planned out for builds and repairs well in advance…smaller commercial shipyards maybe, if they’re not full already…
Where does the skill base come from to build these ships? Building commercial ships is a good start for knowledge and skill base but it’s not the same, and you can’t just up and build a knowledge base for something over night.

These are all reasons why the USN can’t just surge build, and why smaller cheaper ships need to be designed and built before a war as well.
 
CV12Hornet said:
Okay, but what's the use case of such a ship? It's going to die if a missile even looks at it funny and it has no offensive punch of its own, so as far as the Navy is concerned it's completely useless in a fight against China, and I don't think they're wrong. Comparable ships like the Type 056s and Kamortas are very clearly short-range coastal combatants that operate under shore cover, and that's not something useful for the Navy.

Again, the Falklands. Economy ships are a false economy as long as they can't actually do their jobs under fire.

And even then, it's going to take too long to build these things. Even the old Knox-class frigates, built in a day where we still had reasonable build times and a good comparison point, took three years to go from lay-down to commissioning. In a war that's likely to be measured in months that's still too slow. We don't have lay-down dates for the Type 056s, but they're probably taking 2 years. And this is the Chinese!
Click to expand...
Read my comment. It's a DE, made to escort merchant ship convoys with a DDG or CG as the convoy flagship and AA. These do ASW and only ASW. Maybe give them a small Mk41 if there aren't any of the old Matchbox ASROC launchers left, and stick a few ESSM and SM2s in there.

See also the SURTASS ships, just intended to work closer to the convoys.

And yes, we need to design the "Emergency Convoy escort" and get a few built to work any kinks out of the design now.
 
I firmly disagree, because I'm constitutionally opposed to economy ships in general and I don't see any coming wars requiring convoys and massed ASW escorts.
 
CV12Hornet said:
I firmly disagree, because I'm constitutionally opposed to economy ships in general and I don't see any coming wars requiring convoys and massed ASW escorts.
Click to expand...
I get where you're coming from with this, but a year ago, none of us thought we'd ever see another major conventional war between peer nations either. Yet Ukraine proved us all wrong on that. I'm not willing to consign that particular Naval strategy to the dustbin of history just yet.
 
CV12Hornet said:
I firmly disagree, because I'm constitutionally opposed to economy ships in general and I don't see any coming wars requiring convoys and massed ASW escorts.
Click to expand...
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be a 3 day stomp, like what the US did to Iraq in 1991.

It's currently on its 477th day and shows no sign of stopping soon.
 
SSgtC said:
I get where you're coming from with this, but a year ago, none of us thought we'd ever see another major conventional war between peer nations either. Yet Ukraine proved us all wrong on that. I'm not willing to consign that particular Naval strategy to the dustbin of history just yet.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was supposed to be a 3 day stomp, like what the US did to Iraq in 1991.

It's currently on its 477th day and shows no sign of stopping soon.
Click to expand...
And if I'm proven wrong I'm proven wrong. Until then, I think I'll hang onto my priors, thank you.
 
CV12Hornet said:
And if I'm proven wrong I'm proven wrong. Until then, I think I'll hang onto my priors, thank you.
Click to expand...
Well, the way I see it, if China-Taiwan kicks off, the US will need ASW escorts for eastern pacific work. I'm expecting convoys to Hawaii or maybe Midway or Guam as staging bases, or Adak up in the Aleutian Islands, and those could be dealt with by less capable DEs than anything working closer to China's A2AD zone. And anything in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean could also use those.

But anything in the SCS and within 1000km of the mainland coastline is going to need better protection.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Read my comment. It's a DE, made to escort merchant ship convoys with a DDG or CG as the convoy flagship and AA. These do ASW and only ASW. Maybe give them a small Mk41 if there aren't any of the old Matchbox ASROC launchers left, and stick a few ESSM and SM2s in there.

See also the SURTASS ships, just intended to work closer to the convoys.

And yes, we need to design the "Emergency Convoy escort" and get a few built to work any kinks out of the design now.
Click to expand...
It’s much more than finishing a design and working out some kinks.
Again we need to have the yard space and the work force for an emergency build up. Something we don’t have.

This is a lesson we’re learning in regards to ukraine. We’re struggling to supply Ukraine with shells, without depleting our own stockpiles.
 
CV12Hornet said:
I firmly disagree, because I'm constitutionally opposed to economy ships in general and I don't see any coming wars requiring convoys and massed ASW escorts.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m sure 600 days ago you didn’t see any wars with massed artillery, trench warfare, and air strikes between peer combatants either…
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Eventually sure but 100 corvettes can project power in more places at one time than 1 burke can.

If a fleet has more smaller ships they can assert localized sea control forcing the fleet with fewer large ships to try and play a game of whack-a-mole to try maintain freedom of movement.

Where as the smaller fleet can swarm the the larger ship where it is if it’s in a place where sea control is absolutely critical.
Click to expand...
How on earth (or Mars perhaps?) did you get from 16 corvettes to 100?

Looks like your numerics are playing up or you are adapting the numbers to suit your POV.

Very much like a wargamer admiral. Computer games are always more convenient than the real world.
 
Foo Fighter said:
How on earth (or Mars perhaps?) did you get from 16 corvettes to 100?

Looks like your numerics are playing up or you are adapting the numbers to suit your POV.

Very much like a wargamer admiral. Computer games are always more convenient than the real world.
Click to expand...
Bro said 100 corvettes
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Bro said 100 corvettes
Click to expand...
That was my bad.
Arjen said:
You'd just need to line up a largish number of corvettes. Which aren't free. I won't pin you down on SSgtC's 100 corvettes, but at some point, a largish number of corvettes will cost rather more, AND will take longer to build, than a Burke.
Click to expand...
To which the reply came ...
SSgtC said:
That's not actually what I was saying. What I was saying is, if you ran a war game 100 times (1xBurke vs 1xLCS), I wouldn't be shocked to learn that the Burke won 100 times. But if you told me that on the 101st time the war game was run, the LCS got lucky and won, I wouldn't be shocked at that either. But that doesn't mean I suddenly seize on that single example and decide to make my entire fleet low end ships because "an LCS beat a Burke in a war game."
Click to expand...
... which I think has merit.
The '100 corvettes' was my clumsy rephrasing of part of SSgtC's reply. I suspect people agree on the importance of a balanced fleet. What that fleet will look like though - how much are you willing to pay for?
 
One of the many limitations of modern navies is not necessarily money, but personnel. It is a good idea to ensure that the limited pool of personnel you have available in peacetime are provided with the best tools possible, mass-production ships with limited capabilities will just get them needlessly killed.
 
Arjen said:
Quite so. Navies have to compete for a limited number of qualified people with other employers. Even if they gained their qualifications with those navies.
Click to expand...

And so we are seeing a lot of experimentation with USVs and UAVs.

The US Navy is working toward 2000ton, heavily armed LUSVs which will be roughly the size of some of the concepts being talked about here.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
One of the many limitations of modern navies is not necessarily money, but personnel. It is a good idea to ensure that the limited pool of personnel you have available in peacetime are provided with the best tools possible, mass-production ships with limited capabilities will just get them needlessly killed.
Click to expand...
Having all the best stuff on a ship that costs a gazillion dollars won’t stop sailors from dying needlessly

However money is also a big part of how the navy can compete with other employers.
Better pay, bonuses, better living conditions on ships, and ashore, etc.
 
johnpjones1775 said:
Having all the best stuff on a ship that costs a gazillion dollars won’t stop sailors from dying needlessly

However money is also a big part of how the navy can compete with other employers.
Better pay, bonuses, better living conditions on ships, and ashore, etc.
Click to expand...
Something which drives up the size of the ship significantly.

Sailors will die needlessly if they are placed aboard death traps that have limited survivability due to their size and inability to defend themselves.

Large, capable surface combatants may not be invulnerable, but they will at least minimise the number of dead, and are less likely to be sunk in the first place.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Something which drives up the size of the ship significantly.

Sailors will die needlessly if they are placed aboard death traps that have limited survivability due to their size and inability to defend themselves.

Large, capable surface combatants may not be invulnerable, but they will at least minimise the number of dead, and are less likely to be sunk in the first place.
Click to expand...
How did the cole minimize the number of sailors who died?
 
johnpjones1775 said:
None of that minimized the deaths and all of it would be on any cheap FFG or corvette the navy built.
Click to expand...
Only 15 of the crew were killed, I'd say the casualties were minimised.

A cheap FFG or Corvette could have sunk, and having worse protection would have likely lost more of their crew.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Only 15 of the crew were killed, I'd say the casualties were minimised.

A cheap FFG or Corvette could have sunk, and having worse protection would have likely lost more of their crew.
Click to expand...
Based on what?
15 crew were killed, I’d say the casualties were maximized.
What about the 37 wounded?

Point being when there’s a war on casualties are inevitable. They still occurred before we were even at war.
So attempting to prevent any casualties by throwing money at ships so we can’t afford the to reach the fleet size the navy says we need to reach?
That makes perfect sense.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom