Just need to get rid of SPY for a cheaper rotating radar.
Probably the same one being used to upgrade LCS radars and the price drops significantly.

I just don’t have any clue how the Connie had her keel laid like 2 years ago and they still haven’t finalized the design…like what are they still bickering over? How many urinals vs stalls to put in the heads?

Don't change a GD thing. Finish the design and build it.

The last thing that project needs is changes.

If the people in charge can't or won't do it, fire them and give the job to someone else.

If there is a need to re-scope up or down, do it in a Flight 2.

Acceptance of delays, cost overruns and failure cannot allowed to become acceptable and I fear that is the case at NAVSEA.
 
As someone who is probably well below the median age here, I truly wonder what changed so drastically since the times of the Ticonderogas and Burkes, what led to this incredible deterioration? It's truly a topic to be studied.
The Cold War ended and shipbuilding became less of a priority.

Shipyards were consolidated or went out of business for lack of work.

The people who knew how to design and build ships retired or were laid off.

The processes used to procure, design and build ships became scelortic.

There was no real accountability for failure.

You get the idea...
 
Perhaps they are arguing over adding potholes, anti-tank weapons, and a 120mm smoothbore.

I can only speculate, but it seems reasonable to point out that Fincantieri Marinette Marine did not pitch a clean sheet design to the Navy, and the Navy also told Congress that it would not be clean sheet.

FMM would not have stood up a design team capable of doing a clean sheet design in a short amount of time.

So when the Navy requested so many tweaks to get the ship to where they actually wanted it, that work would fall on an undersized design team in a country that barely even has naval architects anymore.

Even small and unambitious design changes would then take a very long time to complete, especially given that most of the ship has evidently had these tweaks.

We know that the bridge and the propulsion modules have not had many changes. That leaves everything else.

The project did not allow for clean sheet designs.

Only designs for ships that already had hulls in the water were allowed to be bid.

There are needs and wants. Tough choices have to be made between needs, wants and their effect on costs and timelines.

I thought they were going to run the program with a cost cap in place to constrain gold-plating the design. That didn't last long.

There is a crisis of leadership in the Navy. There is no accountability for failure.
 
Don't change a GD thing. Finish the design and build it.

The last thing that project needs is changes.

If the people in charge can't or won't do it, fire them and give the job to someone else.

If there is a need to re-scope up or down, do it in a Flight 2.

Acceptance of delays, cost overruns and failure cannot allowed to become acceptable and I fear that is the case at NAVSEA.
The project needs to be scrapped, because it doesn’t provide what the fleet actually needs.

Delays, cost overruns, and failure have been acceptable for about 20 years now.
 
The design itself seems sound, if somewhat incomplete. That should go forward. The process that created the design and delayed production by years needs to go.
Exactly.



At this point US naval procurement has become some sort of Ouroboros where the Navy, the Shipyards and the Politicians all fuck up/sabotage each other which just creates a never ending loop of issues upon issues.

As someone who is probably well below the median age here, I truly wonder what changed so drastically since the times of the Ticonderogas and Burkes, what led to this incredible deterioration? It's truly a topic to be studied.
It's not a matter of deterioration.

USN procurement has been like this since the 1970s. Some dipshit at NAVSEA gets a wild hair up his ass and makes changes to the design, which requires ripping out parts that are already completed to make the changes, then putting that all back in... Then a different dipshit at NAVSEA gets a wild hair up his ass and makes changes to the design, which requires ripping out parts that are already completed possibly including the previous changes... Repeat ad absurdum.

None of the shipyards on the Great Lakes, that built hundreds of ships in WW2, will do business with the USN anymore. And haven't since the 1970s. Because the USN keeps fiddling with the designs and forcing shipyards to cut out work already completed to make the latest design change.




Does the navy need to remove SPY-6, Aegis, Mk 41? I guess you could make that argument, but then you just have another LCS that is incapable of independent action. SPY-6, Aegis, and 32 VLS seems like the bare minimum now.
I'd argue that the Red Sea Turkey Shoot suggests that the minimum VLS load is more like 48-64. Not because someone can throw that many missiles at you at one time, but because a ship escorting through there is under attack for days at a time, maybe a full week, before you get a chance to reload.

32x VLS looks something like 12x ESSM in 3 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 23x Standards (assuming no Tomahawks). And in the Red Sea specifically, I'd probably swap 3x Standards for another 12x ESSMs. But is 24x ESSM and 20x Standards going to last you a week, if Houthi and the Blowfish are throwing 10 missiles at you every day? No. You need about 70 missiles onboard, and cannot just pack the VLS with ESSM quadpacks due to lack of range.

48x VLS would look something like 36x ESSM in 9 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 31x Standards. That's 67 missiles. Better.

64x VLS would look something like 48x ESSM in 12 cells, 6x VL-ASROC, and 46x Standards. That's 93 missiles. Now we're talking.

Yes, I am deliberately loading heavy on the ESSMs in this case, but it's specific to that mission.


So when the Navy requested so many tweaks to get the ship to where they actually wanted it, that work would fall on an undersized design team in a country that barely even has naval architects anymore.

Even small and unambitious design changes would then take a very long time to complete, especially given that most of the ship has evidently had these tweaks.

We know that the bridge and the propulsion modules have not had many changes. That leaves everything else.
As I mentioned, the Navy is terrible about constantly changing a design, forcing shipyards to rip out work already completed to make changes.



The project needs to be scrapped, because it doesn’t provide what the fleet actually needs.
What, so we can suffer another 20 years without a Frigate in the fleet?

What the fleet actually needs is a Frigate in the water. Not something where the designers keep f*ing changing things and the lead ship is 5 years late.
 
if Houthi and the Blowfish are throwing 10 missiles at you every day? No. You need about 70 missiles onboard, and cannot just pack the VLS with ESSM quadpacks due to lack of range.
Do you produce 10...20 interceptors a day? :) With every one of them costing north of 2 million USD.

Adding boxes is absolutely pointless here. Ironically, it'll only worsen the situation. Last thing USN lacks is box count.

Existing ships can't do this mission through existing missiles anyway. And doing area defense of sea for year(s) isn't frigate job anyway. It's Burke's (or, frankly, USMCs).

Frigate is here to provide local defense to convoy behind, against leakers.
 
Do you produce 10...20 interceptors a day? :) With every one of them costing north of 2 million USD.

As a near-term solution for Houthi and the Blowfish, I'd love to see the USN adopt a VSTOL UAV with high endurance that can carry pods of APKWS II interceptors.
 
As a near-term solution for Houthi and the Blowfish, I'd love to see the USN adopt a VSTOL UAV with high endurance that can carry pods of APKWS II interceptors.
This doesn't sound near term.

But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.
 
But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.
I'd argue that Iran is delivering ~10 OtH weapons per day.
 
I'd argue that Iran is delivering ~10 OtH weapons per day.
But that's in Iran, not in Yemen.

And for this particular threat, mk.220 with affordable guided shells is better weapon of choice.

Overall, though, Iran has long since evolved far too strong to be solved by frigates(I.e. as a tertiary threat).
 
I think getting boats in the water is the greatest concern and arguments for more VLS or less expensive AD are pretty pointless. The various arguments for perfection over “good enough “ are exactly what delayed the program.
 
This doesn't sound near term.

But tbf, this particular case isn't a problem solvable through maritime defense.

The question is how Yemen produces 10 OtH weapons per day (which btw it most clearly does not), and what can be done with it.

If nothing - just don't fight.

Agreed. That particular mission isn't really suited for frigates, at least not the Constellation. It's also, as a whole an issue that cannot be resolved with military means, I wonder when Americans will grasp the idea that you can't just solve every issue with missiles and bombs lol.

But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?
 
Agreed. That particular mission isn't really suited for frigates, at least not the Constellation. It's also, as a whole an issue that cannot be resolved with military means, I wonder when Americans will grasp the idea that you can't just solve every issue with missiles and bombs lol.

But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?

The world has changed since the LCS was conceived.

At that time, the US Navy thought they would be fighting against boghammers in the Persian Gulf.

We are now in an era were even non-state actors like the Houthis can field anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, UAVs and USVs.

The Ukranians have demonstrated just how effective these unmanned systems can be.

These systems are only going to get smarter and more dangerous.
 
The world has changed since the LCS was conceived.

At that time, the US Navy thought they would be fighting against boghammers in the Persian Gulf.

We are now in an era were even non-state actors like the Houthis can field anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, UAVs and USVs.

The Ukranians have demonstrated just how effective these unmanned systems can be.

These systems are only going to get smarter and more dangerous.

I understand that, however except the AShMs and AShBMs I don't really see the need for more missiles. UAVs are better and more efficiently dealt with through DEWs/Lasers and against USVs I don't see a solution aside from jamming, ship mounted guns to shred said USVs or alternative giving this role to Helicopters/the own UAV. These two threats aren't really dealt with through missiles, at least not in an economic or particularly efficient manner.
 
But coming back to the naval domain, wasn't this sort of thing what the LCS were designed for? Whereas the Constellations are more so developed with an Indo-Pacific outlook in mind?
LCS were designed as "floating servers" for various off-board and modular payloads, darting around in brown waters just over the horizon, too elusive to be hit by suppressed non-peer enemy with missiles.

That's why they're so fast - both to catch to all the FACs, and to avoid fickle OtH targeting loops of blind enemies, trying to guess their shots. In a way, they were a way to contain 2000s Iran or even China to their coastlines (as DDX were a way to bombard them the hell away from shore). None of this worked, of course, and their targets evolved so fast, that idea is long dead.

As frigates they are worthless, though they were adapted to alternative use in modern circumstances.
Constellations are for the whole world, not just for IPAC. With their 2" guns they're quite relevant in the gulf area, too.
 
I understand that, however except the AShMs and AShBMs I don't really see the need for more missiles. UAVs are better and more efficiently dealt with through DEWs/Lasers and against USVs I don't see a solution aside from jamming, ship mounted guns to shred said USVs or alternative giving this role to Helicopters/the own UAV. These two threats aren't really dealt with through missiles, at least not in an economic or particularly efficient manner.

So long as the enemy only attacks with certain weapons, all will be fine ;)

So long as the enemy only attacks with one or two weapons at a time, all will be fine. ;)

I'm pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.

When there is an operational laser weapon knocking down UAVs in the Red or Black Seas, let me know.

Guns are good but nobody wants to let these things get that close to them before they open fire.
 
This is what DOGE should be looking into. Hegseth probably won't have to teeth to complain.

I blame the government's outsourcing of expertise, which has badly impacted every shipbuilding project after the Burkes. If nothing else, the Navy needs good project managers with the appropriate level of authority and insulation from politics, both from civilians and the services, which the current administration is demonstrating will never happen.
 
But that's in Iran, not in Yemen.
No, I mean delivering 10+ OTH weapons per day to Yemen.


And for this particular threat, mk.220 with affordable guided shells is better weapon of choice.
Disagree. If only because of the limited range.



Overall, though, Iran has long since evolved far too strong to be solved by frigates(I.e. as a tertiary threat).
Yes, Iran has evolved too big a threat for frigates.

But their pawns are a threat that is likely to be typical of what frigates would face in the Red Sea, SCS, I forget the name of the strait out of the SCS to the south that's notorious for pirates...
 
Disagree. If only because of the limited range.
They might have too short of a range to cover freighters and ships other than your own, but gun-based systems are definitely going to be very important to countering drones and other "low-end" threats that basically amount to a poor-man's anti-ship missile. Wasting SM2s and SM6s on those when they need to be reserved for higher-end threats will deplete a ship's munitions quickly and leave them vulnerable.

The ideal caliber of gun for this role is its own question of course.
 
They might have too short of a range to cover freighters and ships other than your own, but gun-based systems are definitely going to be very important to countering drones and other "low-end" threats that basically amount to a poor-man's anti-ship missile. Wasting SM2s and SM6s on those when they need to be reserved for higher-end threats will deplete a ship's munitions quickly and leave them vulnerable.

The ideal caliber of gun for this role is its own question of course.
Agreed here, guns are an excellent option for own-ship point defense.

Personally, I'm really liking the OTO 76mm Supraponte. ~80 rounds of 76mm in a total package that is as light as a Phalanx CIWS. Non deck penetrating, too! Make about half the rounds on the mount DART guided rounds and you may be able to skip using ESSMs for point defense.
 
Agreed here, guns are an excellent option for own-ship point defense.

Personally, I'm really liking the OTO 76mm Supraponte. ~80 rounds of 76mm in a total package that is as light as a Phalanx CIWS. Non deck penetrating, too! Make about half the rounds on the mount DART guided rounds and you may be able to skip using ESSMs for point defense.
Mk110, 220 RPM, 11% more explosive throw weight than a Oto 76mm at 120RPM


 
Last edited:
The ideal defensive mix is probably a combo of:
- Guns (76 or 57mm, plus 30mm all with proximity fused ammo)
- Hunter-killer mini-drones
- Electronic jamming/spoofing

There are cheap drones and jammers that can extend beyond the horizon which extends the protective bubble to other ships.
 
The ideal defensive mix is probably a combo of:
- Guns (76 or 57mm, plus 30mm all with proximity fused ammo)
- Hunter-killer mini-drones
- Electronic jamming/spoofing

There are cheap drones and jammers that can extend beyond the horizon which extends the protective bubble to other ships.

The US Navy is now deploying Coyote and Roadrunner anti-drone drones in the Red Sea.

The best techniques and technologies to deal with drones is still a work in progress.

View: https://youtu.be/GZvWJT9LMlk?si=LW1RRLo7likGI_LA
 
what are they still bickering over? How many urinals vs stalls to put in the heads?
I’d bet my entire college savings that the issues with the Constellation are related to redesigning to use domestically-sourced components. There’s been several other foreign designs that went through this lengthy redesign process, see the VH-71.
 
Last edited:
I’d bet my entire college savings that the issues with the Constellation are related to redesigning to use domestically-sourced components. There’s been several other foreign designs that went through this lengthy redesign process, see the VH-71.
That and likely different Damcon standards as well.

None of my navy friends are impress with any of tge Euro navy damcon efforts for their ships.

And to change that you need to remake the entire hull.


And vefore someone says they should have kept it...

Little Crappy Ship

Does that ring any bells? That entire PR snafu what happened the last time the navy try to lower the damcon standards. I can see them wanting to avoid that in addition to the fact that unlike the LCS these are ment to be lone actors as well.
 
That and likely different Damcon standards as well.

None of my navy friends are impress with any of tge Euro navy damcon efforts for their ships.

And to change that you need to remake the entire hull.


And vefore someone says they should have kept it...

Little Crappy Ship

Does that ring any bells? That entire PR snafu what happened the last time the navy try to lower the damcon standards. I can see them wanting to avoid that in addition to the fact that unlike the LCS these are ment to be lone actors as well.
This just raises the question... Why bother with a competition at all? Just do a clean sheet design. Because by the time they're done, it pretty much will be anyway.
 
No, I mean delivering 10+ OTH weapons per day to Yemen.
I don't believe it's possible.
Hodeidah is blockaded, with only minor fishing Dhows doing blockade running. Overland route through tribal deserts in Saudi Arabia is, mildily speaking, perilous. So is the route through Oman and through gov controlled lands. There is no carrier-sized worms, but otherwise this is part of the planet Dune was drawn from. And there are carrier-sized carriers, too.

Seeing how their interdiction barrage worked over the last year, i personally think their entire (not yearly) magazine is in low thousands between all relevant types, with majority being witheld as deterrent (pretty much like Hezbollah did - if you are in a situation to use something, deterrent value is already nil).

They get annoying maximum of it, sure. I.e. combining some, very few ASBM (more like SRBMs) "killers" with mostly unguided MLRS projectiles (effectively decoys), abusing the fact it's almost impossible to tell them apart before seeker engages.
Those count, because it's apparently quite difficult to produce actual ballistic missile in Yemen, even with seeker imported; most certainly not 10 per day, unlikely even 10 per month. They're launching 3-4 per month to Israel - unlikely they have much higher production.

Simple cruise missiles and drones are clearly produced locally, but their effectiveness against warships has proven to be nil.

Near future threats (currently being kindly proven in Black Sea) will likely include satellite-controlled, drone-launching USVs, with effector(small drone) being detactable no futher than 2-3 nmi out.

Disagree. If only because of the limited range.
Their effective range is comparable to effective AA range of WW2 5“ fire, with orders of magnitude higher pK. Against relatively slow and simple targets, it's capable of providing collective defense in close formation.
5" awaits its guided projectile to join up(until it is available i'd rate it lower, though by no means incapable).
Also, while their max range is small(downside), their Dmin is 0, which is important for current developments (see above).

Most importantly, they are available right now; i.e. they're not Anduril PDFs.
There's probably low hanging capability by getting APKWS on ships, but it's nothing over that Mk.220 does, just easier to add.

But their pawns are a threat that is likely to be typical of what frigates would face in the Red Sea, SCS, I forget the name of the strait out of the SCS to the south that's notorious for pirates...
Most prominant piracy hotspot there is Malacca itself. ;)

For main threat in SCS, current Constellation is optimally capable. It can solve single reasonable high-volume scenarios for rear areas, it can do its share in fleet (not being a Burke, being of help, not being a burden). Try load more on it - and you'll get a Burke. Or, worse, less than Burke for a price of Burke.

The problem is not capability; the problem is numbers, and here i'd side with @johnpjones1775 .
Same is true for the Indian Ocean.
Constellation is excellent "town"/"county", i.e. trade protection "cruiser".
But you can't get them everywhere. Even if the original plan would work flawlessly - 50 isn't that high a number for the entire globe, really.
 
Mk110, 220 RPM, 11% more explosive throw weight than a Oto 76mm at 120RPM


Does throw weight matter when you're using DART guided rounds? 3 of those get a Pk into the 99.99 and change area.



Their effective range is comparable to effective AA range of WW2 5“ fire, with orders of magnitude higher pK. Against relatively slow and simple targets, it's capable of providing collective defense in close formation.
5" awaits its guided projectile to join up(until it is available i'd rate it lower, though by no means incapable).
Also, while their max range is small(downside), their Dmin is 0, which is important for current developments (see above).

Most importantly, they are available right now; i.e. they're not Anduril PDFs.
There's probably low hanging capability by getting APKWS on ships, but it's nothing over that Mk.220 does, just easier to add.
OTO has a VULCANO land attack guided 5", but not a DART AA/Antimissile guided 5". And USN hasn't done much more than talk about 5" HVP.


Most prominant piracy hotspot there is Malacca itself. ;)
*facepalm*

Man, I need more caffeine when I'm posting here. Maybe I should go back to the full caf coffee instead of decaf breakfast blend with a central/south american fruity variety? Anyone got favorites?


For main threat in SCS, current Constellation is optimally capable. It can solve single reasonable high-volume scenarios for rear areas, it can do its share in fleet (not being a Burke, being of help, not being a burden). Try load more on it - and you'll get a Burke. Or, worse, less than Burke for a price of Burke.

The problem is not capability; the problem is numbers, and here i'd side with @johnpjones1775 .
Same is true for the Indian Ocean.
Constellation is excellent "town"/"county", i.e. trade protection "cruiser".
But you can't get them everywhere. Even if the original plan would work flawlessly - 50 isn't that high a number for the entire globe, really.
The number needed for Trade Protection is probably closer to 100.
 
That and likely different Damcon standards as well.

None of my navy friends are impress with any of tge Euro navy damcon efforts for their ships.

And to change that you need to remake the entire hull.


And vefore someone says they should have kept it...

Little Crappy Ship

Does that ring any bells? That entire PR snafu what happened the last time the navy try to lower the damcon standards. I can see them wanting to avoid that in addition to the fact that unlike the LCS these are ment to be lone actors as well.
What little crappy ship? The OHP retrofit? Had nothing to do with damage control

As for LCSes there’s no indication there’s any issues with their damage control. Just the personal opinions of others. Mostly on the internet if not all on the internet from what I’ve seen.
 
Does throw weight matter when you're using DART guided rounds? 3 of those get a Pk into the 99.99 and change area.




OTO has a VULCANO land attack guided 5", but not a DART AA/Antimissile guided 5". And USN hasn't done much more than talk about 5" HVP.



*facepalm*

Man, I need more caffeine when I'm posting here. Maybe I should go back to the full caf coffee instead of decaf breakfast blend with a central/south american fruity variety? Anyone got favorites?



The number needed for Trade Protection is probably closer to 100.
I’d say it does.
Throw weight will always matter, especially since mk110 is getting guided rounds as well, and since a 57mm round is more than big/powerful enough to take down any air threat that can be feasibly targeted by any gun system with a single round, the throw weight per minute is still important/valid metric of comparison
 
I’d say it does.
Throw weight will always matter, especially since mk110 is getting guided rounds as well, and since a 57mm round is more than big/powerful enough to take down any air threat that can be feasibly targeted by any gun system with a single round, the throw weight per minute is still important/valid metric of comparison
Fair point if we're comparing guided rounds in both guns.
 
I don't believe it's possible.
Hodeidah is blockaded, with only minor fishing Dhows doing blockade running. Overland route through tribal deserts in Saudi Arabia is, mildily speaking, perilous. So is the route through Oman and through gov controlled lands. There is no carrier-sized worms, but otherwise this is part of the planet Dune was drawn from. And there are carrier-sized carriers, too.

Seeing how their interdiction barrage worked over the last year, i personally think their entire (not yearly) magazine is in low thousands between all relevant types, with majority being witheld as deterrent (pretty much like Hezbollah did - if you are in a situation to use something, deterrent value is already nil).

They get annoying maximum of it, sure. I.e. combining some, very few ASBM (more like SRBMs) "killers" with mostly unguided MLRS projectiles (effectively decoys), abusing the fact it's almost impossible to tell them apart before seeker engages.
Those count, because it's apparently quite difficult to produce actual ballistic missile in Yemen, even with seeker imported; most certainly not 10 per day, unlikely even 10 per month. They're launching 3-4 per month to Israel - unlikely they have much higher production.

Simple cruise missiles and drones are clearly produced locally, but their effectiveness against warships has proven to be nil.

Near future threats (currently being kindly proven in Black Sea) will likely include satellite-controlled, drone-launching USVs, with effector(small drone) being detactable no futher than 2-3 nmi out.


Their effective range is comparable to effective AA range of WW2 5“ fire, with orders of magnitude higher pK. Against relatively slow and simple targets, it's capable of providing collective defense in close formation.
5" awaits its guided projectile to join up(until it is available i'd rate it lower, though by no means incapable).
Also, while their max range is small(downside), their Dmin is 0, which is important for current developments (see above).

Most importantly, they are available right now; i.e. they're not Anduril PDFs.
There's probably low hanging capability by getting APKWS on ships, but it's nothing over that Mk.220 does, just easier to add.


Most prominant piracy hotspot there is Malacca itself. ;)

For main threat in SCS, current Constellation is optimally capable. It can solve single reasonable high-volume scenarios for rear areas, it can do its share in fleet (not being a Burke, being of help, not being a burden). Try load more on it - and you'll get a Burke. Or, worse, less than Burke for a price of Burke.

The problem is not capability; the problem is numbers, and here i'd side with @johnpjones1775 .
Same is true for the Indian Ocean.
Constellation is excellent "town"/"county", i.e. trade protection "cruiser".
But you can't get them everywhere. Even if the original plan would work flawlessly - 50 isn't that high a number for the entire globe, really.
Bring back the 3" 70.
 
What's needed is a self-contained APKWS-based mini-RAM, that you can slap on any ship and fits on the NSSM launcher footprint. Sending a Connie into the Red Sea? Swap the NSSM for mini-RAM. Sending the Connie into the Taiwan straight? Put the NSSM back on.

Not a bad idea but the negative is you would have to let the "bad guys" get pretty close to your before you engage. Something doesn't go quite right and you will get hit because there won't time to do anything else.
 
Mk110, 220 RPM, 11% more explosive throw weight than a Oto 76mm at 120RPM
The trade-off being that that 76mm would have more range and likely a higher probability per kill per individual projectile. But the same general rule probably applies if you go to an even bigger gun like 127mm. But of course the larger the gun system the more weight and volume required.

And I guess there is the question if a gun-based CIWS in a smaller caliber is still desirable as a last line of defense.

Bring back the 3" 70.
Ballistically that was a high performer and had a lot of the basic right. But it was seen as something of a dead-end in the missile age and it was a maintenance nightmare, so they just gave up on it rather than trying to fix it. OTO Melera stuck with 76mm starting with the 1950s variants all the way up to today's models and I imagine they are pretty much as good as a modern version of the 3"/70 would be.

I do think it would be worthwhile to dust off the work done on the 60mm ETC type gun the US Navy toyed with back in the 1990s for a bit. It might not be suitable for adding to existing classes of warships but the future DDG(X) and whatever else could be made with provisions for it.

As for the FFG-62, the whole thing just makes me shake my head. I don't know who is trying to shift blame to who at the moment, but I can't help but feel the Navy is far more responsible for the ridiculously long schedule and likely cost increases than FMM is.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom